Debates of 7 Nov 2019

MR FIRST DEPUTY SPEAKER
PRAYERS 10:59 a.m.
VOTES AND PROCEEDINGS AND THE OFFICIAL REPORT 10:59 a.m.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 10:59 a.m.
Hon Members, Correction of the Votes and Proceedings of Thursday, 6th November, 2019.
Page 1… 9 --
rose
Mr Ablakwa 10:59 a.m.
I am most grateful, Mr Speaker.
Page 9, item numbered 9, second paragraph, on your directive, I heard you clearly say that the Committee set up should report to the House in two weeks.
The paragraph, however, ends:
“ … Hon M embers, directed Leadership and a backbencher each from the Majority and Minority Caucuses to hold discussions with the Hon Minister responsible for the Interior to address the issues raised and report to the House.”
Could “in two weeks “be added to it?
Mr First Deputy Speaker 10:59 a.m.
Very well.
Table Office, take note and make the appropriate correction.
Page 10… 26.
Hon Members, the Votes and Proceedings of Wednesday, 6th November, 2019 is hereby adopted as the true record of proceedings.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 10:59 a.m.
Yes, Hon Member for North Tongu?
Mr Ablakwa 10:59 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I am sorry. I tried to catch your eye just before the final adoption of the Votes and Proceedings.
The outcome of the meeting of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, in
page 23, is a very important one. I am glad that the Hon Chairman is here. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Regional Integration has also issued a statement to correct this, but our records continue to show otherwise. The Visa Waiver Agreement we considered was for only diplomatic and service passports. So “ordinary passports” should be deleted. Ordinary passport holders are not part of the visa waiver. This is creating some problems out there; so if our records could reflect exactly what we discussed.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 10:59 a.m.
That is very important information.
Thank you.
Hon Members, the Votes and Proceedings of Wednesday, 6th November, 2019 as corrected is hereby adopted as the true record of proceedings.
Hon Members, we have two Official Reports; Friday, 26th July, 2019 and Thursday, 24th October,
2019.
Any corrections?
rose
Mr Speaker 10:59 a.m.
Yes Hon Member for North Tongu?
Mr Ablakwa 10:59 a.m.
Mr Speaker, in the Official Report of 26th July, 2019, column 4935, first paragraph, it is not clear what we are trying to communicate. Is it the Speaker of the House of Representatives of the United States of America or the United States Congress? What we have here is “United States of Congress”. So, the Hansard Department would have to be clear on what they want to communicate. Is it the United States of America or the United States Congress?
Mr First Deputy Speaker 10:59 a.m.
Any more correction?
In the Absence of any further correction, the Official Report of Friday, 26th July, 2019 is hereby adopted as the true record of proceedings.
Mr Speaker 10:59 a.m.
Item numbered 3 -- Questions. Question numbered 632, which stands in the name of the Hon Member for Mion
ORAL ANSWERS TO 10:59 a.m.
QUESTIONS 10:59 a.m.
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY- 10:59 a.m.
GENERAL AND MINISTRY OF 10:59 a.m.
JUSTICE 10:59 a.m.
Mr Abdul-Aziz 10:59 a.m.
Mr Speaker, even before my first follow-up question, the Hon Minister, in her Answer, indicated that Mr Ahmed Suale, the principal witness, was murdered on 16th May, 2019. That appears factually inaccurate. Mr Ahmed Suale was murdered on 16th January, 2019. I do not know if that reflects the true records at the Office.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 10:59 a.m.
Hon Minister, would the correction affect your Answer?
Ms Akuffo 10:59 a.m.
Mr Speaker, that is what I received from the records, but I do not think that it substantially changes the position of my Answer.
Mr Abdul-Aziz 10:59 a.m.
Mr Speaker, that may not affect the substance of the Answer; but for the purpose of the records, she has to check from her Office again. Mr Ahmed Suale was
murdered in January, 2019 and not in May, 2019.
Mr Speaker, the Hon Minister said that her office received the docket from the CID on 2nd November, 2018. Today is 7th November, 2019 - a year and some few days. What is the commitment of the Hon Minister's Office to prosecute that matter in court since she has had the docket with her for a year now?
Ms Akuffo 10:59 a.m.
Mr Speaker, perhaps, there is a misconception about how this case has been handled. Unlike most cases which may come in documents, we had to review many recordings against transcripts.
So my Answer shows an initial review. We have had to spend not hours nor days, but weeks to view the original recordings that were submitted to the Office and the edited version that was shown to the public, against the transcripts that we had to look at.
So yes, it has been one year; but there has been no tardiness about it. It is no reflection of the lack of my Office to handle the matter in a committed manner. I have indicated to the House previously that the presentation of the case to court is imminent, and I emphasise “imminent”.
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Mr Abdul-Aziz 10:59 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the Hon Minister, in her Answer, stated in paragraph six and I read:
“Unfortunately, Mr Mohammed Suale, a member of Tiger Eye and principal witness with whom the prosecutors directly engaged in the preparation of the case was tragically killed on 16th May, 2019. The death of the journalist unavoidably stalled the preparation of the case.”
Mr Speaker, from the investigation to the review of the reports, has there been any established links between the case and the murder of Mr Ahmed Suale?
Ms Akuffo 10:59 a.m.
Mr Speaker, my Answer indicates that Mr Suale was a principal witness. Definitely, it should affect the prosecution of the matter.
Dr Abdul-Rashid H. Pelpuo 10:59 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I would like to know from the Hon Minister whether the police report indicates the former President of the Ghana Football Association for tangentially accusing the Presidency of corruption or for what other reason.
Ms Akuffo 10:59 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I was summoned to answer a specific Question in the House. The Question directly asked of the status of
investigation. I need to state that my office is not responsible for investigation as such; but because we were closely with the investigators, I found it necessary to provide the information to the House.
I do not think that I should be compelled at this stage to disclose the decisions of my Office as to whom should be prosecuted or not. I ask that I be allowed not to respond to the question.
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Mr Magnus Amoatey 11:19 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the last paragraph of the Answer indicates that presentation of the case in court is imminent.
May I find out from the Hon Minister how soon the case would be in court?
Ms Akuffo 11:19 a.m.
Mr Speaker, we are dotting our i's and crossing our t's. Give and take, a week or a fortnight, the matter may be presented. I need say however, that the filing is in our control but the fixing and actual presentation is in the control of the court.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:19 a.m.
Yes, Hon Member for North Tongu?
Mr Samuel Okudzeto Ablakwa 11:19 a.m.
I am most grateful, Mr Speaker.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:19 a.m.
Hon Member, that question is not related to the Question that was asked.
Mr Ablakwa 11:19 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I would then ask another question.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:19 a.m.
Very well.
Mr Ablakwa 11:19 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the Question filed by Hon Mohammed Abdul-Aziz was to ask the Hon Attorney-General and Minister for Justice, the status of the investigation of the complaint made by H. E. the President against Mr Kwesi Nyantakyi, the former President of the
GFA.
Is the Hon Minister able to tell this House the nature of the complaint of H. E. the President?
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:19 a.m.
Hon Attorney-General and Minister for Justice, you are not obliged to answer
this question because it is not related to the Question before the House.
Yes, Hon Member for Ellembele?
Mr Emmanuel Armah-Kofi Buah 11:19 a.m.
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
In the Hon Minister's Answer, she stated, and with your permission, I beg to quote:
“Unfortunately, Mr Mohammed Suale, a member of Tiger Eye and a principal witness with whom the prosecutors directly engaged in the preparation of the case was tragically killed on. The death of the journalist unavoid- ably stalled the preparation of the case.”
Mr Speaker, in the view of the Hon Attorney-General and Minister for Justice, would the death of Mr Suale in any way weaken the State's case?
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:19 a.m.
Hon Attorney-General and Minister for Justice, you have answered this question. I think the Hon Member came in late.
Yes, Hon Member for Tamale North?
Mr Suhuyini Alhassan Sayibu 11:19 a.m.
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:19 a.m.
Hon Member, you may file your own Question.
Hon Minister, we thank you for attending upon the House to answer the Question. You are discharged.
Hon Members, Question num- bered 645, addressed to the Hon Minister for Education. The Question is in the name of the Hon Member for Kwabre East, Ms Francisca Oteng Mensah.
Hon Leader, is the Hon Minister for Education here?
Mr Osei Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:19 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the Hon Member who filed the Question, is unfortunately, not in the Chamber. I do not know whether she has given the power of attorney to anybody to stand in her stead to ask the Question.
Be it as it may, we have a communication from the Hon Minister for Education which indicates to us that the Question the Hon Member asked has been asked before, and he has responded substantially to that Question.
Mr Speaker, you have the authority as the singular person to allot Questions, and I think that the Hon Minister ought to be in the House to speak to that answer. The information transmitted suggest that the Hon Minister deems it inappropriate to come back to the House to respond to that Question.
I believe that it would be better if you gave an indication to the Hon Minister to come and talk to the response that he has given to the House. I believe that is a better option than to communicate to the House that he has determined that he has answered to a similar Question that has similar import.
Mr Speaker, I think we may cause the Table Office to communicate again to the Hon Minister that not- withstanding, he still has to come to the House to talk to the answer.
Thank you.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:19 a.m.
Yes, Hon Deputy Minority Leader?
Mr James Klutse Avedzi 11:19 a.m.
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
I refer to Order 66(1), which is about the admissibility of Questions. It is your good Hon Self who has the power to admit Questions. For that reason, the Hon Minister cannot determine whether the Question has been answered earlier.
In any case, there is a time difference between the Answers he provided to the earlier Question and now. From that point to now, there may have been additional works done on the E-Blocks. So the Hon Minister should come and answer the Question that the Hon Member has posed.
He should not make any reference to the previous Answers that he gave. From 2017 to November, 2019, definitely, the number would not be same for the blocks that would be completed. So the Hon Minister should come to the House and respond to the Question.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:19 a.m.
Yes, Hon Majority Leader?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:19 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I have already alluded to the issue that my Hon Colleague related to where the Rt Hon Speaker being the sole person charged with authority to admit Questions.
The other matter that the Hon Minister inferenced has to do with Order 67(1)(h), that the Answer to a similar Question has been provided. Even that, I suggest that - he inferred that the Question was answered in the Second Meeting, just in the past July, 2019. There is another Question in the same Session of Parliament, which has come out. So he has made reference to that.
Mr Speaker, I said that even though the response is in sync with our Orders -- I agree that even between August, 2019 and November, 2019, some additional matters would have cropped up. It is still the responsibility of the Rt Hon Speaker to admit Questions. After the Rt Hon Speaker has admitted it, it would not lie with the Hon Minister to suggest to this House that because he has answered a similar Question that carries the same import, he does not think it is appropriate for him to come.
So the Rt Hon Speaker would redirect the Hon Minister to come and respond to the Question, even if the matter has been answered. When he comes, he will speak to the response that he has given. I believe it would be most appropriate.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:19 a.m.
Can I look at the letter? I have not seen the letter. If it was intended for the Rt Hon Speaker, I would like to see it.
rose
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:19 a.m.
Yes, Hon Ntow, what is the matter?
Mr Ntow 11:29 a.m.
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
I think we have partially answered part of the Question. The Hon Majority Leader is the Chairman of the Business Committee ,and I believe the Question was discussed at the Business Committee meeting.

He was aware that this Question had been asked before.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:29 a.m.
Hon Ntow, what is your interest in this, and what is the basis for your contribution? [Interruption.]
Hon Majority Leader, I have asked to see the letter, so what more do you want to say?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:29 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I just wanted to react to the issue raised by my Hon Colleague, Hon Ntow. The inference is that the Business Committee knew or ought to have known that the Question that was admitted, in essence, had earlier been answered.
Mr Speaker, I would urge my Hon Colleague to read Standing Order 160 to determine for himself, the remit of the Business Committee. When he comes to a determination on that, he should come with a substantive Question, and I would respond to him.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:29 a.m.
Hon Members, something is curious, and I am really holding back.
First of all, the letter is addressed to the Hon Majority Leader. I am not sure whether the Question was transmitted by the Hon Majority Leader. That is not appropriate. It is for the attention of the Clerk to Parliament, but it is addressed to the Hon Majority Leader.
Secondly, it is signed by the Director of General Administration in a response to a direction from Parliament. The response says:
“We write with reference to your letter… we wish to state that a similar Question has been responded to in the second quarter of 2019, hence, the responses being required have already been provided.”
Who is saying this? The Question that was responded to, Question numbered 504, asked by the Hon Member for Garu and it says:
“To ask the Minister for Education the measures the Ministry is taking to ensure a timely completion of the community senior high schools that are yet to be completed.”
Now, this is the Question that was admitted by the Rt Hon Speaker to be asked by the Hon Member for Kwabre East. It says:
“To ask the Minister for Education how many of the ‘E- Block schools' have been completed from 2017 to date.”
Hon Members, are they the same? I take a very strong exception to a director of the Ministry writing and making suggestions on matters that she probably has little information on.
The Clerk to Parliament should therefore write and respond to her in that manner. He should ask the Hon Minister to come and answer the Question. I would defer the Question to Tuesday for the Hon Minister to come and answer it.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:29 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I would want to believe that you mean the Question is deferred to Tuesday, 12th November, 2019?
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:29 a.m.
Yes, Hon Leader I mean Tuesday, 12th November, 2019.

I have admitted one Statement to be read today. The Statement is by the Hon Member for Builsa South, and it is on the dangers and effects of some energy drinks.

Yes, Hon Member, you may make your Statement.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:29 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the Hon Attorney-General and Minister for Justice is with us. She had to vacate the transaction of some business in her office to come to the House, and she needs to go back to continue it.
We however, have a Motion in her name; the Second Reading of the Corporate Insolvency Bill, 2019. With respect, we could vary the order of Business, and allow the Hon Attorney-General and Minister for Justice to move that Motion. When we finish, we could then come back to Statements, which Statement we believe is a very important one.
Mr Speaker, you could, therefore, first go to the Commencement of
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:29 a.m.
Hon Majority Leader, it is Motion numbered what?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:29 a.m.
Mr Speaker, it is Motion numbered14 on page 9 of the Order Paper.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:29 a.m.
Very well.
Yes, Hon Minority Leader, what is your comment on that request?
Mr Avedzi 11:29 a.m.
Mr Speaker, that is alright with us.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:29 a.m.
Very well.
Hon Member for Builsa South, kindly tarry a while.
I hereby order a variation of the Order Paper. We would now move on to the Commencement of Public Business, item numbered 14 -- Motion by the Hon Attorney-General and Minister for Justice.
Hon Minister, you may move the Motion now.
BILLS -- SECOND READING 11:29 a.m.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:39 a.m.
Hon Members, the Motion has been moved, the Hon Chairman of the Committee may now present the Report.
Question proposed.
Chairman of the Committee (Mr Ben Abdallah Banda) 11:39 a.m.
Mr Speaker, thank you for giving me the opportunity. I rise to support the Motion ably moved by the Hon Attorney-General and Minister for Justice and in so doing, I present your Committee's Report:
1.0 Introduction
1.1The Corporate Insolvency Bill, 2019 was laid in Parliament on 20th
February, 2019 by the Hon Attorney- General and Minister for Justice, Miss
Gloria Akuffo in accordance with Article 106 of the Constitution.
1.2Pursuant to Order 179 of the Standing Orders, the Rt. Hon Speaker referred the Bill to the Committee on Constitutional, Legal and Parlia- mentary Affairs for consideration and report.
2.0 Deliberations
2.1 The Committee met with the Hon Deputy Minister for Justice and Deputy Attorney-General, Mr Joseph Dindiok Kpemka and Officials of the Office of the Attorney-General and Ministry of Justice to consider the Bill.
2.2 In attendance were Repre- sentatives of the Ghana Association of Restructuring and Insolvency Advisors (GARIA) led by its President, Mr Felix Addo.
2.3 The Committee expresses its profound gratitude to the Hon Deputy Minister, the Committee of Experts, GARIA and the Officials for assisting in the Committee's deliberations.
3.0 Reference Documents
The Committee referred to the following documents during its deliberations:
i. The Constitution, 1992;
ii.The Standing Orders of Parliament;
iii. The Companies Act, 2019 (Act 992);
iv. The Insolvency Act, 2006 (Act 708);
v. The Insurance Act, 2006 (Act
724);
vi. The Bodies Corporate (Official Liquidation) Act, 1963 (Act 180);
vii.The Banks and Specialised Deposit-Taking Institutions Act, 2016 (Act 930); and
viii. The UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency (1997).
4.0 Background Information
4.1 The principal legislations which govern corporate insolvency are contained in the Companies Act, 2019 (Act 992) and the Bodies Corporate (Official Liquidations) Act, 1963 (Act 180), which govern private and official liquidation respectively.
4.2 Act 180 has been in existence for the past twenty-five years. At the time of its passage, the law was considered as one of the progressive pieces of legislation within the English Commonwealth. However, the regime for corporate insolvency has significantly exposed certain weaknesses in the law. Some of the weaknesses relate to the absence of restructuring and cross-border insolvency rules.
4.3 Some of the recent attempts at addressing some of the gaps in the law can be seen in the passage of the Insolvency Act, 2006 (Act 708), the Insurance Act, 2006 (Act 724), and the Banks and Specialised Deposit- Taking Institutions Act, 2016 (Act
930).
4.4 In view of the fact that the above laws do not holistically address the issue, the Office of the Attorney- General and Ministry of Justice commissioned the Ghana Association of Restructuring and Insolvency Advisers (GARIA) to prepare a Report that would form the basis for the drafting of a new insolvency bill.
4.5 GARIA produced a draft report in 2009 under the guidance of the erstwhile Committee of Experts that drafted the Companies Bill. The report was subsequently submitted to a workshop, and the feedback from
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:49 a.m.
Hon Members, pursuant to Standing Order 127, a full debate shall arise on the principles of the Bill, on the basis of the Explanatory Memoran- dum and the Report of the Committee. Hon Members may now make their contributions.
Yes, Hon Ranking Member?
Alhaji Inusah Abdulai B. Fuseini (NDC -- Tamale Central) 11:49 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I rise to associate myself with the Motion that has been ably moved by the Hon Attorney-General Minister for Justice and supported by the Hon Chairman of the
Committee on Constitutional, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs.
The process to review the Corporate Insolvency Act and laws of Ghana has taken a long time and its culmination is what we are considering today. The Act is a necessary corollary to the Companies Act. We all know that when companies are formed pursuant to the law, they assume a corporate personality, so they are persons. Like persons, they can die and when they die naturally, it would be a winding up issue in the company.
The owners, the promoters of the company, the shareholders et cetera, can pass a resolution to wind up the company. They can die by accident or go bankrupt and when they go bankrupt, we must see how we could ensure that the shareholders and government revenue are protected and how those who were put in charge of the management of the company would be held to account.
Mr Speaker, recent events in Ghana clearly exposed the deficiency in the insolvency regime in this country and that is why this law and its passage would timeously complete and fill the gap that exist in our insolvency regime. A notable innovation in this Insolvency Bill would
be the attempt to maintain a register of practitioners to indicate that we now know that a group of people with the requisite experience and knowledge in insolvency matters would be identified and registered. They would be the body of people from whom we can see to undertake insolvency activities in this country.
The second important innovation in this law is cross-border insolvency. Until now, where a company strode across the boundaries of this country and was involved in liquidation, it was difficult for this country to take part in the process and ensure that the interests of Ghanaians are protected abroad. On the basis of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL), a model law has been attached to the Bill.
I believe that this will introduce some certainty and transparency in cross-border insolvency activities and this can engender more confidence in the economy of Ghana to promote investments. This is because companies and persons who are coming into this country know that where there are going to be insolvency actions, those actions would be consistent with international law.
Mr Speaker, that certainty can give them the confidence to invest in our regime. That is why as the Hon
Mr Ebenezer Kojo Kum (NPP --Ahanta West) 11:59 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I wish to associate myself with the Motion ably moved by the Hon Attorney-General and Minister for Justice that this House takes steps to expedite action for the passage of the Corporate Insolvency Bill, 2019.
Mr Speaker, the importance of this Bill, could not be overemphasised because it is the twin brother of Companies Act (Act 992), which was passed in this House during the Second Meeting.
Mr Speaker, it is important to note that in the past, winding up activities were done by some professionals, but this Bill would widen the net of the professionals who could participate in restructuring and winding up activities in this country.
Mr Speaker, it is also important to recognise that this Bill would not only seek to engage in winding up of companies but also to restructure the companies which are otherwise viable.
With the way and manner the Companies Act has been passed, strenuous responsibilities have been
placed on shareholders and directors of companies. It is therefore very important for this Bill to be passed to compliment the Companies Act, so that once the certainty about how directors and shareholders should conduct themselves when they deal with companies -- then we would be certain in our minds that the way and manner we wind up companies in this country would realise a significant change after the passage of this Bill.
Mr Speaker, it is also important for us to recognise that with the regulation of the insolvency practice in this country, the professionals who would be engaged would also be regulated. There is an Association of Marketers, Association of Human Resource Practitioners and Association of Bankers. So once this Bill is passed, the insolvency practitioners would also be regulated so that there would be certainty as to what cause of actions and the things they can do and cannot do.
Mr Speaker, with these few words, I wish to urge this House to expeditiously work on the passage of this Bill.
Mr Joseph Yieleh Chireh (NDC -- Wa West) 11:59 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I support the Motion and I am also convinced that the earlier positions
that were taken and your Committee's work requires us to pass this Bill as quickly as possible so as to complement the passage of the Companies Act of 2019 (Act 992).
Significantly, in the second paragraph of paragraph 7.1 in the Report, it says:
“The Bill excludes companies subject to special legislations such as banks and insurance companies''.
Mr Speaker, that is where the difficulties may arise. Recently, the country faced problems in the banking sector, so there is the need for us also to look at the laws that we pass specifically for these -- whether for insurance companies or banks and special deposit taking institutions because once this law is passed, it would make sure that it is adhered to. The Hon Ranking Member of the Committee mentioned the fact that the Exchange Commission needs to update its law in respect of this.
Mr Speaker, the other important thing about this Bill is that the aim is not just to liquidate a company because it is insolvent -- No! The aim is to restructure, save it -- there are methods that could be used so that so many companies do not collapse for people to be redundant and go
Mr Bernard Ahiafor (NDC -- Akatsi South) 11:59 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I thank you for giving me the opportunity to contribute to the Motion.
Mr Speaker, I have read the entire Bill and I have realised that adequate provisions are made in it with regards to the appointment of administrator, right to secure creditors or companies under administration, restructuring agreements, appointments of liquidator and their duties, distribution of assets, cross-border insolvency,
qualification of insolvency practi- tioners, powers of the court in administration issues among others and I strongly believe that if the Bill is passed, it would go a long way to help the corporate sector in the country.
Mr Speaker, however, I would want to emphasise the point made by Hon Yieleh Chireh with regards to restructuring of distressed but viable companies. If a company is in distress but viable, provisions are made in the Bill for that company to be restruc- tured.
Mr Speaker, recently, the financial institutions, particularly, the banks and the insurance companies are liquidated and merged. If these provisions were to be available, instead of the banks that are viable being liquidated, they could be restructured. However, the law excludes them because they come under specific and specialised legislation. Now, the specific and specialised institutions do not have the novelty introduced by this particular Bill.
So I would urge the Hon Attorney- General and Minister for Justice as well as the Executive, that the novelties introduced in this Bill be extended to those specialised and specific legislations that deal with the bank and insurance companies, so that they would also have the benefit
to enjoy the novelty introduced under the restructuring of distressed but viable companies.
Mr Speaker, with these few words, I support the Motion and urge the House to expeditiously pass this particular Bill into law.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:59 a.m.
Does the leadership intend to contribute to this debate?
Mr James Klutse Avedzi (NDC -- Ketu South) 12:09 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I just want to lay emphasis on the observation and opinion of the Committee on the second paragraph of paragraph 7.1 in page 4 of the Report which says:
“The Bill excludes companies subject to special legislations such as banks and insurance companies. Having regard to the fact that some of the special legislations do not currently contain restructuring provisions, the Committee has proposed an amendment that would allow for the application of the res- tructuring provisions where the specialised legislations lack restructuring provisions''.

Mr Speaker, I think this is a very good recommendation, that if these special companies under legislation do not have this provision, the provisions we have in this law should apply so that if they apply, those companies will also have the benefits of restructuring instead of going into liquidation.

I believe that at the Consideration Stage, we should consider this by looking at the amendments being proposed by the Committee to be able to make good laws that will apply to all sectors of our economy.

Mr Speaker, thank you.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:09 p.m.
Majority Leadership?
Very well.
Hon Attorney-General and Minister for Justice, do you wish to say anything more before I put the Question?
Ms Akuffo 12:09 p.m.
Mr Speaker, thank you for the opportunity.
I have listened carefully to contributions of Hon Members to the passage of the Bill. My Office and I have taken notes, in particular, the
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:09 p.m.
Hon Majority Leader, I wish to return to item numbered 4 unless there is any reason not to.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:09 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I believe we can now go to the Statement by Hon (Dr) Apaak.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:09 p.m.
Very well.
Yes, Hon Member for Builsa South, you may now read your Statement.
STATEMENTS 12:09 p.m.
Dr Clement A. Apaak (NDC -- Builsa South) 12:09 p.m.
Mr Speaker, thank you for giving me the opportunity to make a Statement on the dangers and effects of some energy drinks.
Mr Speaker, the Ghanaian market has been flooded with all sorts of energy drinks. The origins of some of these drinks are difficult to ascertain as well as their manufacturing and expiry dates. Yet the claim is that these drinks possess the ability to reduce fatigue and boost vigour.
Mr Speaker, energy drinks are sugary beverages which are loaded with caffeine as well as other additives such as vitamins, minerals, taurine and herbal supplements such as guarana (a plant extract with a high concentration of caffeine).
Personally, I am not in a position to say whether or not energy drinks
are beneficial to the wellbeing of consumers. However, on the basis of scientific research and from a medical perspective, I can say without a shred of doubt that they have absolutely no nutritional value. What they have is high calories due to their sugary content.
An Hon Member — rose —
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:09 p.m.
Hon Member, hold on. Yes, Hon Member? He is now reading the Statement. Is it the source of the quotation? [Interruption] -- Let him finish the Statement, probably, he will provide the answer.
Dr Apaak 12:09 p.m.
Mr Speaker, what is worrying is that as Ghanaians, we love anything drinks, Unfortunately, many of us do not pay attention to the authenticity and chemical composition of these drinks. By and large, we swallow hook line and sinker, what the advertisers tell us on radio and television.
Mr Speaker, a 2014 study in the United States of America by the American Heart Association found that caffeine has powerful effects on many parts of our vital organs , particularly, the cardiac and nervous systems. After drinking an energy drink, heart rate increases, blood vessels stiffen and blood may become thicker, all changes that can precipitate
a heart attack or a stroke in those who are at risk.
Other ingredients found in most energy drinks may significantly increase heart rate and blood pressure, as well as risk for heart rhythm problems independent of caffeine content. These drinks can also cause periods of anxiety, changes in sleep patterns and mood swings - particularly in children and adolescents.
The World Health Organisation (WHO) has stated that energy drinks may pose a danger to public health. In fact, a growing body of scientific evidence suggests that these drinks have no positive benefits and may put consumers at risk of heart related side effects.
Another study by the American Association for Poison Control from the year 2010 to 2013 showed that nearly 40 per cent of the calls to poison control centres concerning children under the age Of 6 were related to energy drinks.
Mr Speaker, currently, energy drinks have also been associated with serious complications including seizures, stroke and sudden cardiac death.
Mr Speaker, notwithstanding these dangers, the consumption of energy
Mr Speaker, in the light of the foregoing, I wish to suggest that 12:09 p.m.
1) We urge the Food and Drugs Authority to play its oversight role diligently and vigilantly as far as energy drinks are concerned;
2) We develop a policy to guide the importation and/or manufacture and promotion/ advertisements of energy drinks; and
3) We encourage healthcare practitioners to factor the effects of energy drinks in the delivery of healthcare services.
I am grateful, Mr Speaker.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:19 p.m.
Hon Members, I am really interested in hearing the contributions of Hon Members who are medical doctors or scientists on the charge that energy drinks have nothing other than sugar.
Dr Sebastian N. Sandaare (NDC -- Daffiama/Bussie/Issa) 12:19 p.m.
Mr Speaker, thank you very much for the opportunity. I rise to contribute to the Statement ably made by Hon Apaak on the dangers and effects of energy drinks.
Mr Speaker, he has done a very good research on the topic, and he has articulated very well on the subject. Mr Speaker, as he stated, emerging evidence from work done, mainly cross-sectional studies on energy drinks in the US, Europe and other places, concluded that the benefits of consuming energy drinks are less than the risks or dangers associated with these energy drinks.
Mr Speaker, consuming energy drinks that mainly contain high caffeine and sugar more than the recommen- ded 400 mg per day is dangerous to our bodies, and it is associated with risk-seeking behaviours and cardio- vascular conditions like irregular heartbeats, increase in hypertension and other metabolic conditions like diabetes.
Mr Speaker, I would want to stress on the risk-seeking behaviours that are associated with the consumption of energy drinks. The manufacturers of these drinks target adolescents, and this is dangerous as compared to adults who consume these drinks.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:19 p.m.
Hon Member, does the caffeine energise them?
Dr Sandaare 12:19 p.m.
Mr Speaker, as the name “energy drinks” suggests, it means that consuming these drinks tends to give one some excess energy for performance. [Laughter.] However, Mr Speaker, the association is not only with sexual performance, and I would not want to focus mainly on that, but the point I would want to make is that these manufacturers target the adolescents because that is where they get --
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:19 p.m.
I rather got practically addicted to energy drinks when I used to drive furiously. I used to drive around a lot,
and when I felt tired or sleepy, I would just drink one and I would complete my journey. I was not an adolescent then, rather, it was when I grew older that I needed that to support my long- distance driving.
Dr Sandaare 12:19 p.m.
Mr Speaker, you have spoken from experience, and you may probably not have given us all the details of your experience, but the point I would want to make is that --
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:19 p.m.
In fact, that is all I experienced. [Laughter.]
Dr Sandaare 12:19 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the conclusion from the study conducted is that it is more dangerous to consume energy drinks as compared to not consuming them. The best energy drink is potable water and not the energy drinks. If a person is exhausted or fatigued whether driving --
rose
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:19 p.m.
Hon Member?
Mr Quartey 12:19 p.m.
Mr Speaker, my Hon Colleague just said that the best energy drink is potable water. Mr Speaker, I am confused because I do not know how water is an energy drink. I would want him to explain further. Is it energy nutrients or energy drink?
Dr Sandaare 12:29 p.m.
Mr Speaker, there is no need for confusion. With whatever work a person does, if he feels tired, then the best drink is to refresh with water. The person could rest a while and continue.
The energy drink, at the end of the day, rather exposes one's body. One exhausts his body; goes the extra mile to work on his body which is not good for a person. This is because, at the end of the day, the body would account for the negative sides in terms of health. When one needs to sleep, he would be awake.
Mr Speaker, some people go to medical facilities with symptoms like fast heartbeats, agitation, irritation, increased blood pressure and inability to sleep, because they have taken energy drinks.
Mr Speaker, the advice I would give is that people should take more clean water when they feel they are tired rather than concentrating on taking more energy drinks because at a point, some people get addicted to energy drinks to the extent that they cannot do any work on their own. Even when it comes to performance, they cannot perform because they rely on energy drinks, which is not good.
I share in the recommendations given by the Hon Member who made the Statement, that we need more regulations regarding the content of what is in these energy drinks and the types of energy drinks that circulate in the country.
Mr Speaker, thank you very much for the opportunity.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:29 p.m.
Hon Member for Sefwi-Wiawso?
Dr Kwaku Afriyie (NPP -- Sefwi-Wiawso) 12:29 p.m.
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity.
Mr Speaker, energy drinks have stirred controversies since their emergence over the last few years. Even in the medical profession, there is no consensus on the efficacy and the use of energy drinks. Suffice it to say that most of the claims and attributions that have been made to energy drinks are at best, very dubious indeed. The main ingredients in energy drinks, as said by the Hon Member who made the Statement is caffeine, taurine, vitamins and various herbal concoctions.
Mr Speaker, when you take energy drinks, most of the areas that come into focus are related to heart issues. Some people get palpitations, increase in blood pressure, cardiac
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:29 p.m.
That brings us to the end of Statements time. There is a lot of Business for the day.
I would now return to Public Business. Item numbered 5 -- Presentation of Papers, by the Hon Minister for Finance.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:29 p.m.
Mr Speaker, if you may allow the Hon Deputy Minister for Finance to stand in for her Hon Minister to do the presentation of Papers in respect of item numbered 5? The Hon Minister is at a crucial meeting.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:29 p.m.
Very well, Hon Deputy Minister?
PAPERS 12:29 p.m.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:39 p.m.
Item numbered 5(b), by the Minister for National Security.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:39 p.m.
Mr Speaker, if you may allow the Hon Minister for Monitoring and Evaluation to stand in for the Minister for National Security and lay the document.
Mr A. Ibrahim 12:39 p.m.
Mr Speaker, we have no objection.
By the Minister for Monitoring and Evaluation(Dr Anthony Akoto Osei) (on behalf of the Minister for National Security) —
Contract Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Ghana (represented by the Ministry of National Security) and Huawei Technologies
Dr Assibey-Yeboah 12:39 p.m.
Mr Speaker, you mentioned item numbered 5(b) (i). Mr Speaker, it should have been item numbered 5(b).
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:39 p.m.
Which Order Paper are you referring to?
Dr Assibey-Yeboah 12:39 p.m.
Mr Speaker, today's Order Paper.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:39 p.m.
On page 3?
Dr Assibey-Yeboah 12:39 p.m.
Yes, Mr Speaker, item numbered 5(b) (i).
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:39 p.m.
Yes, there is (i) there.
Dr Assibey-Yeboah 12:39 p.m.
Mr Speaker, there is no (ii) so I do not know how
-- 12:39 p.m.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:39 p.m.
Which of the Koforidua schools did you attend?
Dr Assibey-Yeboah 12:39 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think it should be item numbered 5(b), and not item numbered 5(b) (i). This is an error.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:39 p.m.
You are out of order. [Laughter.]
Item numbered 6 — Motion by the Chairman of the Committee.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:39 p.m.
Mr Speaker, respectfully, can we take item numbered 8?
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:39 p.m.
Minority Leadership, what is your comment on the request that we skip items numbered 6 and 7 and deal with
8?
Mr A. Ibrahim 12:39 p.m.
Mr Speaker, yesterday we dealt with one of those things, so we can do as the Hon Majority Leader has asked so that we deal with the financial ones.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:39 p.m.
Very well. Item numbered 8 — Motion by the Chairman of the Finance Committee.
MOTIONS 12:39 p.m.
Chairman of the Committee (Dr Mark Assibey-Yeboah) 12:39 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, that this Honourable House adopts the Report of the Finance Committee on the Loan Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Ghana and the International Development Association of the World Bank Group (acting as implementing entity of the Forest Investment Programme under the Strategic Climate Fund) for an amount of seven million United States dollars (US$7,000,000.00) being additional financing for Enhancing Natural Forest and Agroforest Landscapes Project (FIP-ENFAL).
Mr Speaker, in so doing, I present your Committee's Report.
1.0 Introduction
The loan agreement between the Government of the Republic of Ghana and the International Development Association (IDA) of the World Bank Group (acting as implementing entity of the Forest Investment Programme under the Strategic Climate Fund) for
Mr Alex Adomako-Mensah (NDC -- Sekyere Afram Plains) 12:49 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to second the Motion ably moved by the Hon Chairman of the Finance Committee. In doing so, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a few remarks.
Mr Speaker, the objective of the facility is to improve the forest and tree management practised by cocoa farmers and CREMA.
Mr Speaker, under the additional financing, the project is divided into four components like the first and original financing that we did four years ago.
Mr Speaker, the terms of the facility have been stated over here. Additional financing of US$19.3 million was approved by the World Bank, and it is based on two tranches of grants and loans. This is to build the private sector engagement in plantation activities in the Bono, Ahafo, Ashanti, Eastern, Western and Western-North Regions of the country.
Mr Speaker, we observed that the intention of the Ministry was to channel the funds into financial institution through competitive process, but section 67 of the Public Financial Management Act, 2016 (Act 921) mandated to consider direct on-lending to beneficiaries.

Mr Speaker, the Committee with their knowledge found means of directing it to the Forest Plantation Development Board (FPDB), so that from there, it could be directed to beneficiaries.

Mr Speaker, another question we need to ask is, how the interest would be raised on the on-lending and how

the disbursement would be? We concluded that it would be better if the loan is given to them at zero per cent rate, so that it would be free for the plantation companies.

Under the original project, women have significantly engaged and benefited from the activities of the project, particularly enrichment planting and plant nurseries. Mr Speaker, the plantation establishment would help create jobs for the community members and contribute to knowledge sharing and uptake increase and awareness of sustainable forest management practice. We learned that tree planting would create about 2,000 jobs for the beneficiaries. Mostly, half of them would be women. So it would be more beneficial to our communities.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:49 p.m.
I do not take that to be intimidation.
Yes Hon Member for Oforikrom?
Dr Emmanuel Marfo (NPP -- Oforikrom) 12:49 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I speak in
favour of the Motion for this House to adopt the Finance Committee's Report.
Mr Speaker, any effort to support plantation development in this country should be one that needs our support. As a country, we still struggle to plant trees to reach our policy target of 25,000 hectares every year. Even though this Government has been doing very well, we are still around 16,000 and so, it is important that we leverage resources to promote plantation development.
Mr Speaker, I am very happy about the observation in paragraph 7.4 of the Report, specifically the last sentence suggests that the FPDF be given equal opportunity to bid to administer the funds. I believe it is a very welcoming recommendation because we have a law in this country, Forest Plantation Development Fund Act, 2002 (Act 623).
One of the objectives of the law is to provide financial assistance for the development of forest plantation on land suitable for timber production. Section 4 of the Act, specifically recommends grants and loans as one of the sources that we should use to encourage investments in plantation development.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:49 p.m.
Yes, Hon Member for Yapei/Kusawgu?
Mr John Abdulai Jinapor (NDC -- Yapei/Kusawgu) 12:49 p.m.
Mr Speaker, under normal circumstance, this should be something that all of us would support. It is now clear that borrowing is a good thing -- [Interruption].
Mr Speaker, today, we are approving a loan of just US$7 million, yet the whole nation, Ghana, with its sovereign power has to borrow it. Today, it is quite obvious that Government needs to borrow, and borrowing constitutes a financial arrangement as far as this country is concerned.
This facility seeks to improve the forest cover and also ultimately improve cocoa production in the
country. Mr Speaker, just yesterday, we approved a loan amount of US$600 million. That is another money being borrowed.
Mr Patrick Y. Boamah -- rose
-- 12:49 p.m.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:49 p.m.
Yes, Hon Member?
Mr Y. Boamah -- On a point of order.

Mr Speaker, secondly, on this Floor, we have approved a loan of US$300, 000.00 before. So if we are borrowing US$7 million, what is the Hon Member talking about?
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:49 p.m.
Alright, so what is your complaint?
Mr Boamah 12:49 p.m.
Mr Speaker, my complain is that he said we are borrowing just US$7 million and I am telling them that they brought a facility of US$300,000.00 here for approval and that is the work of Parliament.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:49 p.m.
Alright, I understand. That was then
Mr Jinapor 12:59 p.m.
Mr Speaker that is not it. The point I am trying to underscore is that when they were in opposition, they told us that borrowing was not necessary, and that there was money in this country. They said when they come to power -- [Interruption] -- When they were in opposition they told us that borrowing was a lazy man's option. They told us that Ghana was sitting on money. They told us that there was no need to borrow. Today, they are borrowing left, right and centre; up, down and in-between.
Mr Speaker, I would move on with my point, and I thank you for indulging me. Yesterday, we approved a loan of US$600 million for the cocoa sector. I wish that we continue to collaborate and coordinate within the sector, so that we do not engage in duplicity of work. So I want to advise the various agencies, especially when the Hon Minister for Monitoring and Evaluation is here, to ensure that the level of coordination is enhanced so that we do not see repetition. More often than not, we see capacity building here and there, and sometimes when the checks are done, they might be building the same capacity. I have
confidence in the Hon Minister and I believe that he would take that charge.

Mr Speaker, if you look at page 6 of the Report, it talks about the Public Financial Management Act (PFMA), and it refers to Section 67. It talks about how Government could on-lend money to other institutions or corporations, and the guidelines are stated clearly.

Mr Speaker, my observation is that the next time we are to approve such facilities, we demand from the Hon Minister the criteria and the modalities that they would use in selecting some of these companies or entities. This is because it clearly gives us the way --

Mr Speaker, what I am talking about is section 67. As captured in this Report, it refers to the Public Financial Management Act (Act 921). I am making a referral to that Act of to support my point. If anybody cares to read, he would get to know what I am talking about.

Mr Speaker, the other issue has to do with the fact that the nation would have to cover the exchange rate risk. Just this year, all of us witnessed how the Ghana cedi galloped downwards against the dollar, and how the dollar
Dr A. A. Osei 12:59 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I thought that we were talking about tree plantation. The Hon Member said that there would be US$7 million for cocoa production. The one we borrowed yesterday was purely for cocoa, but this one has nothing to do with cocoa. [Laughter.]
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:59 p.m.
Hon Members, there is no controversy around this one, so I would allow the Hon Minister to conclude. The Leadership may also contribute to it, if they so wish.
Minister for Lands and Natural Resources (Mr Kwaku Asomah- Cheremeh) 12:59 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the US$7 million would be used to support small-scale plantation developers who would be selected through a competitive process by a joint team made up of representatives from the Ministry of Lands and Natural Resources, Ministry of Finance and a financial institution that would be selected through the procurement process.
Mr Speaker, the amount of US$7 million is not a mere amount. It is a trigger for the grant of US$12.385 million to facilitate the programme, and also to support the rehabilitation of mined out areas in selected forest reserves in the Western-North Region and the Eastern Region.
Mr Speaker, my prayer is that this Motion be given the needed support by Hon Members for approval.
Mr Ahmed Ibrahim (NDC -- Banda) 12:59 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to support the Motion. As you rightly said, this is a non-controversial issue; and the Report clearly suggests that.
Mr Speaker, going through the Report, on page 3 of 9, which has to do with the background of the
Facility, it says that “there is an alarming rate of deforestation in the country”. The Report says again that “Ghana's cocoa forest landscape has one of the highest deforestation rates in Africa at three point two per cent
(3.2%).”
Mr Speaker, therefore, if it is true that our rate of deforestation is one of the highest in Africa and there is a facility to address that, then I think everybody must support it.
Mr Speaker, going down, the Report also identifies that this problem was identified earlier by the previous Administration. It says that “to help address the identified drivers of deforestation, the Ministry of Lands and Natural Resources has implemented the Ghana Forest Investment Programme (FIP) since May, 2015.”

Mr Speaker, the programme, which is based on Ghana's investment plan was approved by the FIP sub- committee in November, 2012. Therefore, because the Report confirms that the project was initiated by the earlier Administration, I have

no objection. The Minority Side, with all their weight, supports the Motion.
Majority Leader (Mr Osei- K y e i - M e n s a h - B o n s u ) 12:59 p.m.
M r Speaker, I really do not have much to add by way of contributing to the Motion, except to observe that, in reality, the amount that is being talked about, the US$7 million, if we are a serious nation, would certainly not suffice. The reason is that we intend to use this money for the restoration of our forest cover, which we all acknowledge is heavily depleted.
Mr Speaker, I have read on page 3 of the Report that the agro forest region of the country, which covers about 5.9 million hectares of Ghana's High Forest Zones (HFZ), is depleted at a rate of 3.2 per cent per annum.
Mr Speaker, I would even want to suggest that the percentage stated here is a serious understatement. This is because if anybody should enter our forest reserves, the person would realise that deep into the forest reserve, there is a lot of deforestation. On the fringes of the forest reserve, we make it appear as if it is still intact. Anybody who enters any forest
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:59 p.m.
Shall we take the Resolution, the item numbered 9?
RESOLUTIONS 12:59 p.m.
THIS HONOURABLE HOUSE 12:59 p.m.
HEREBY RESOLVES AS 12:59 p.m.
Dr Assibey-Yeboah 12:59 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I second the Motion.
Question put and Motion agreed to.
Resolved accordingly.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:59 p.m.
Mr Speaker, item numbered 10.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:59 p.m.
Item numbered 10, Motion?
MOTIONS 12:59 p.m.
Dr Assibey-Yeboah 12:59 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, that this Honourable House adopts the Report of the Finance Committee on the Request for waiver of Import Duties, Import VAT, Import NHIL/GETFund Levy, AU Levy, ECOWAS Levy, EXIM Levy, Special Import Levy amounting to the Ghana cedi equivalent of five
million, nine hundred and eighty-three thousand, five hundred and forty dollars and ninety-seven cents (US$5,983,540.97) on the purchase of equipment and materials for the completion of the University of Ghana Medical Hospital -- Phase 2 under a Turnkey Project involving expansion works at the University of Ghana Medical Centre.
In so doing, I present your Committee's Report.
1.0 Introduction
The request for the waiver of Import Duties, Import VAT, Import NHIL/ GETFUND Levy, AU Levy, ECOWAS Levy, EXIM Levy and Special Import Levy amounting to the Ghana cedi equivalent of US$5,983,540.97 on the purchase of equipment and materials for the completion of the University of Ghana Medical Hospital - Phase 2 under a Turnkey Project involving expansion works at the University of Ghana Medical Centre was presented to the House on Thursday, 24th October, 2019 by the Majority Leader and Minister responsible for Parliamentary Affairs, Hon Osei Kyei-Mensah- Bonsu on behalf of the Minster for Finance.
Rt Hon Speaker referred the request to the Finance Committee for consideration and report.
The Committee met with the Deputy Minister for Finance, Hon Kwaku Kwarteng, the Deputy Minister for Health, Hon Alexander Kodwo Kom Abban and officials from the Ministry of the Finance, the Ministry of Health, the Ghana Revenue Authority and the University of Ghana Medical Center (UGMC) and considered the request.
2.0 Documents Referred To
The Committee referred to the following documents during its deliberations:
The 1992 Constitution of Ghana;
The Public Financial Manage- ment Act, 2016 (Act 921);
The Standing Orders of the Parliament of Ghana; and
The Commercial Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Ghana (Ministry of Health) and Engineering Development Consultant (EDC) Ltd for an amount of €40,500,000.00 to finance the completion of the University of Ghana Medical Centre (Phase II)
3.0 Background
Cabinet approved the construction of the University of Ghana Medical School (UGMC) project in 2012. The project was for the construction and equipping of a six hundred and seventeen (617) bed capacity teaching and quaternary level hospital located within the University of Ghana, Legon. A commercial contract was signed between the Government of Ghana, represented by the Ministry of Health and Messrs. Engineering Development Consultant (EDC) Limited of Israel.
The object of the project was to establish a state-of-the-art training facility for medical education that would facilitate the relocation and accommodation of all institutions of the College of Health Sciences to the University of Ghana, Legon Campus and to serve as a nerve centre of the proposed medical village.
The Centre would be a first-class referral hospital and would operate at a specialised level to attract clientele beyond the borders of Ghana and to take advantage of the specialties offered in the country.
A further objective is for the Medical Centre, when fully completed, to serve as a Centre for super tertiary care and specialties and
Dr Assibey-Yeboah 12:59 p.m.


SPACE FOR APPENDIX 12-- PAGE 22, 1.09 PM SPACE FOR APPENDIX 13-- PAGE 23, 1.09 PM
Dr Assibey-Yeboah 12:59 p.m.
SPACE FOR APPENDIX 22-- PAGE 32, 1.09 PM SPACE FOR APPENDIX 23-- PAGE 33, 1.09 PM

SPACE FOR APPENDIX 24-- PAGE 34, 1.09 PM

SPACE FOR APPENDIX 25-- PAGE 35, 1.09 PM
Dr Assibey-Yeboah 12:59 p.m.


SPACE FOR APPENDIX 26-- PAGE 36, 1.09 PM
Dr Kwabena Twum-Nuamah (NPP -- Berekum East) 12:59 p.m.
Mr Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to support the Motion on the Floor.
Mr Speaker, in addition to the tax waiver enabling the phase 2 to make the UGMC operational, the phase 2 would also provide strategic income generating services, so that the UGMC would generate its own revenue to support its operations so that it would not need to depend on the Government for its operational expenses.
Mr Speaker, in times of dwindling resources, I think it is very important that we make such centres of
Mr Joseph Yieleh Chireh (NDC -- Wa West) 1:19 a.m.
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity. If we look at the Report, it says that we approved the Loan Agreement in July, 2018. What took us so long to bring the request for waivers for the approval of the House? What does it take to bring this earlier? This is because in the same Report, we talked about the delay occasioned by the late start of anything there for warranties to expire, then, we approved something more than one
year earlier and we are now bringing the exemptions that would enable the companies bring in these equipment.
I think this is not the best. Whoever is responsible -- whether it is Ghana Revenue Authority, the Ministry of Finance, or whatever it is, we have to speed-up in all these things. This is because if we inaugurate the hospital, we operationalise it; but aspects are still outstanding, and we have to speed-up.

I support this Motion and think that next time round, we should look at the timelines because the delay is absolutely unnecessary.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:19 a.m.
Leadership?
Mr Ahmed Ibrahim (NDC -- Banda) 1:19 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I rise to support the Motion and in doing so, just comment on one or two things and sit down.
On page 2, that is the background to the Motion, I beg to quote:
“Cabinet approved the con- struction of the University of Ghana Medical School (UGMC) project in 2012. The project was for the construction and
equipping of a Six Hundred and Seventeen (617) bed capacity teaching and quaternary level hospital…”
Mr Speaker, once there are documents, I think the truth will always stand. Before 2016, we heard that the Government had no hand in the University of Ghana Hospital, and that the University of Ghana was constructing its own hospital.
Today, the truth has emerged, and I am happy it is coming from this House and the records will capture it. He who dreamt the other time that the Government of Ghana had no hand in building the Hospital and it was the University of Ghana that was constructing its own hospital should today reconsider his decision.
Mr Speaker, with these few words, I support the Motion.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:19 a.m.
Mr Speaker, this is a House of record, and not a House of conjectures and rumour mongering. If one wants to make a categorical statement, one should state who in this House said what and at what time. To cast insinuations is a kind of market-street politics, and I believe this House is not ready for such.
I think that the important thing is, there has always been some schism
between the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Education in terms of the ownership of the facility, and we must hope that it is resolved so that we are able to operationalise the health facility.
It is supposed to be a teaching hospital, and who owns our teaching hospitals? Is it the Ministry of Education or the Ministry of Health? That has been at its heart and caused these delays. Since 2013, it has always been at the heart of the discourse. Let us resolve this matter once and for all in order to ensure the effective utilisation of the facility. Ghanaians need that, all of us need that.
Mr Speaker, thank you very much.
Question put and Motion agreed to.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:19 a.m.
Item numbered 11, by the Hon Deputy Minister for Finance.
RESOLUTIONS 1:19 a.m.
Chairman of the Committee (Dr Mark Assibey-Yeboah) 1:19 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to second the Motion.
Question put and Motion agreed to.
Resolved accordingly.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:19 a.m.
Mr Speaker, item numbered 12.
MOTIONS 1:19 a.m.
Chairman of the Committee (Dr Mark Assibey-Yeboah) 1:19 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, that this Honourable House adopts the Report of the Finance Committee on the Request for waiver of Import Duties, Import VAT, Import NHIL/GETFund Levy, AU Levy, ECOWAS Levy, EXIM Levy and Special Import Levy amounting to the Ghana cedi equivalent of seven million, five hundred and sixty-three thousand, nine hundred and thirty-two euros (€7,563,932.00) on project materials and equipment to be procured under the Modernisation and Equipping of the Tetteh Quarshie Memorial Hospital, Kibi District Hospital, Aburi Hospital and the Atibie Hospital Project.
Mr Speaker, in so doing, I would present the Committee's Report.
1.0 Introduction
The request for Waiver of Import Duties, Import VAT, Import NHIL/ GETFund Levy, AU Levy, ECOWAS Levy, EXIM Levy and
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:19 a.m.
The Second Deputy Speaker to take the Chair. Please continue.
[Pause] --
MR SECOND DEPUTY SPEAKER
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:19 a.m.
Hon Chairman, continue.
Dr Assibey-Yeboah 1:19 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I always tell Hon Members that I cannot speak when the Chair is empty, so you would observe that I paused for a while.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:19 a.m.
Hon Chairman, you like swimming in unknown waters. Once the House is Sitting, the Chair can never be empty. So do not draw attention to something that does not exist. [Laughter.]
Dr Assibey-Yeboah 1:19 a.m.
Mr Speaker,
6.0 Conclusion
Considering the benefits to be derived from the project, the Committee is of the view that the request is in the right direction.
The Committee therefore, re- commends to the House to adopt its report and to approve the request for Waiver of Import Duties, Import VAT, Import NHIL/ GETFUND Levy, AU Levy, ECOWAS Levy, EXIM Levy and Special Import Levy amounting to the Ghana cedi equivalent of seven million, five hundred and sixty-three thousand, nine hundred and thirty-two euros (€7,563,932.00) on project materials and equipment to be procured under the Modernisation and Equipping of the Tetteh Quarshie Memorial Hospital, Kibi District Hospital, Aburi Hospital and the Atibie Hospital Project in accordance with Article 174(2) of the Constitution, the Public Financial Management Act of 2016 (Act 921) and the Standing Orders of Parliament.
Respectfully submitted.
SPACE FOR APPENDIX -- PAGE 14, 1.19 PM
Mr Alex Adomako-Mensah (NDC -- Sekyere Afram Plains) 1:19 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to second the Motion and in so doing, make a few remarks.
The vision of the health sector is to have a healthy co-operation for national development. In order to fulfil this vision, the Government needs to address the challenges in the health sector. Where we have only 109 district hospitals out of 216 districts, the Government needs to increase them, so that other districts would also benefit from same.
Mr Speaker, it is good that the Government is undertaking infrastructural development to modernise these four important district hospitals in the Eastern Region. The Tetteh Quarshie Memorial Hospital was built in honour of the man who brought cocoa to Ghana; but when we look at the hospital, it looks abandoned.
We all know that the Hon Minister for Finance consistently complains about the revenue targets not being met, yet we give tax waivers.
Mr Speaker, we need to take a look at the tax exemption. If we continue at that rate, half of the
revenue would be given out if we are not careful.
Mr Speaker, because the Government controls the purse, we wish that it would control the waiver, so that it would bring the policy to the House for it to be debated upon and we would know where to go so that it would not be like Parliament would give the waiver anyhow.
Mr Speaker, with these few words, I second the Motion.
Question proposed.
Mr Richard Acheampong (NDC -- Bia East) 1:19 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I rise to support the Motion.
Mr Speaker, the modernisation and equipping of the Tetteh Quarshie Memorial Hospital is long overdue because yesterday COCOBOD took a loan of US$600 million. With its utilisation, about US$7.5 million would be used for the promotion of consumption of chocolate. The man who brought cocoa to this country and we reap the benefit from it -- we forgot yesterday to appropriate at least US$5 million to support this project. We want to take a loan out of which we would waive the tax to support this project.
People have made arguments that the descendants of those who struggled for the country to attain independence should benefit from the country. What has happened to the descendants of the late Tetteh Quarshie in this country? We should even give a modern facility as an edifice for the younger generation to know the contribution of Tetteh Quarshie in the development of this nation. This is not something we should argue about. We should even do something better to eulogise his name so that people would know what he did for this country.
Mr Speaker, the duration is only 24 months. So, I would want to call on the contractors to expedite action, so that by the end of the period, there would be value for money and the people of the Eastern Region would enjoy the benefit of the Presidency under Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo- Addo.
Mr Speaker, I thank you very much for this opportunity.
Dr Nana Ayew Afriye (NPP -- Effiduase/Asokore) 1:19 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I rise to second the Motion that we grant the waiver for the construction of the hospitals as such.
Mr Speaker, as an indigene of Mampong Akuapem, I am particularly happy that a listening President has seen the need to resuscitate the Tetteh Quarshie Memorial Hospital. It is actually one facility that has a very modern edifice, which is a memorable one. Indeed, over time, it has decayed in infrastructure and in terms of equipment. So this decision has come at the right time.
Waivers are good, and such a waiver in this regard would give help to the people and also tackle the issue of inequalities in healthcare. A lot of people in the Eastern Region strategically use all these hospitals -- from Kibi, Atibie, Tetteh Quarshie and Aburi. So choosing these hospitals are right and very Ghanaian, regardless of where the President comes from.
I am happy to have spoken on the issue and to have associated myself by seconding the Motion. I am happy that Mampong Akuapem, my father land, would once again, see a treasured hospital revived.
Mr Joseph Yieleh Chireh (NDC -- Wa West) 1:19 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the Hon Member who just contributed continually said that he wants to ‘'second the Motion'', when you had announced that the Motion had been seconded and it was for the consideration of the House.
Mr Joseph Yieleh Chireh (NDC -- Wa West) 1:19 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I would raise the issues I raised about the earlier Motion again. These approvals were made last year, but they have now been granted. One question I would need an answer to is that -- with this waiver, they said a loan was taken and the terms of conditions of the loan were that we could not use part of the loan as taxes to pay duties. I would want to know if this one too is a loan. This is our own money that would be used. So why do they say there should be an exemption?

Mr Speaker, the Hon Majority Leader should not signal me. I do not know what he is saying because I do not understand sign language. [Laughter.] The issues must be clear. Whoever is delaying these exemptions, and thereby delaying the projects from being executed, is not doing Ghana any good. We have to expedite action on these -- let the projects take off and not run into. If people do not know who is to do

what, either it is the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Finance or the Ghana Revenue Authority (GRA), we have to speed up on this. Otherwise, if people hear about the approval of a loan, and after a year no work has started, it would not be fair and Parliament cannot be blamed for this. Somebody has to bring the issue for us to deliberate on it to enable the project to be carried out.

Mr Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity.
Mr Ahmed Ibrahim(NDC -- Banda) 1:39 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I rise to support the Motion.
Mr Speaker, with your permission, I beg to quote the first paragraph on page 3 of the Report which says:
“Over the years, there has been a continuous increase in Out Patient Department (OPD) visits in all the regions of Ghana, without a corresponding increase in infrastructure. Currently, out of the Sixteen (16) administrative regions or out of the Two Hundred and Sixteen (216) administrative districts…''
Mr Speaker, this needs to be corrected because there are 264 administered districts and not 216.
The 216 was by the time we exited office but they have been increased by over 43 districts. [Interruption.] This is the House of records.
Mr Speaker, my worry is that even though there are 260 districts, there are only 109 district hospitals; but there are over 80 nursing training institutions, and about 31 midwifery schools and 155 districts without district hospitals. There are a lot of nursing trainees who have completed school and need to work.

Mr Speaker, I think that proper attention must be given to the other 155 administrative districts that are without district hospital, one of which is the Banda District Assembly.

Beyond this, if you check the proximity of the 109 district hospitals to some of the other administrative districts, it is very far and I also think that the District Assemblies, must work together with the central government towards converting most of the health centres into district hospitals temporarily.

Mr Speaker, if that is not done, then we will always have people picketing and clamouring for jobs, meanwhile we have increasing

number of patients without district hospitals. There is job to be done.

Mr Speaker, thank you. I have seen my friends signalling to me, so Mr Speaker, with these few words, I support the Motion.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:39 p.m.
Hon Majority Leader, do you intend to contribute?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:39 p.m.
Mr Speaker, no.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:39 p.m.
Thank you very much. Hon Member, this issue of us honouring our heroes must be taken seriously by all of us. It is important that we really put Tetteh Quarshie at his rightful place and we are talking about his memorial hospital at the time that we are dealing with district hospitals. It should be elevated to a level of a teaching hospital.
As a nation, we should work towards that. It is important that we do not only honour politicians but the other very important stakeholders in our country. Tetteh Quarshie is the backbone of our economy and not cocoa. He took a serious risk; he was bold and courageous to bring the beans to Ghana at the time and so, we should honour him properly just like we have to honour Mensah Sarbah who led the Aborigines' Rights
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:39 p.m.
Mr Speaker, that is so.
RESOLUTIONS 1:39 p.m.
THIS HONOURABLE HOUSE 1:39 p.m.
IS RESPECTFULLY RE- 1:39 p.m.
QUESTED TO ADOPT THE 1:39 p.m.
Dr Assibye-Yeboah 1:39 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to second the Motion.
Question put and Motion agreed to
Resolved accordingly.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:39 p.m.
Do I take it that we are moving on to item numbered 14 or we would have to take another item before that, Hon Majority Leader?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:39 p.m.
Mr Speaker, we will take item numbered
16.
BILLS -- CONSIDERATION 1:39 p.m.
STAGE 1:39 p.m.
  • [Continuation of debate from 06.11.19]
    • Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:39 p.m.
    Hon Members, yesterday, we got to clause 2 and we adopted 2(a)(i) and (ii). So, we now go to the amendment on the Order Paper numbered (i).
    Mr Seth Acheampong 1:39 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move clause 2, paragraph (c), line 3, delete “farmers who cultivate narcotic plants” and insert the following: “identified farmers who are engaged in the cultivation of illicit narcotic plants prior to the commencement of this Act; and”
    Mr Speaker, the amendment will read;
    ‘develop in consultation with other public agencies and civil society organisations, alternative means of livelihood for identified farmers who cultivate illicit narcotic plants prior to the commencement of this Act'.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:39 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, what happens to the farmers who are identified after the commencement of this Act?
    Mr S. Acheampong 1:39 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, if we go to clause 10(2) of the Bill, it clearly demonstrates the four pillars on the war on drugs; supply, demand and harm reduction and clause 10(c) is “alternative development; and”
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:49 p.m.
    Hon Members, I raised an issue and he is trying to explain.
    Mr Chireh — rose —
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:49 p.m.
    Hon Member, are you on a point of order?
    Mr Chireh 1:49 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we are not following the Hon Chairman because on the Order Paper there is clause 2, but now he is saying paragraph (c). Mr Speaker, he is proposing the deletion of the whole paragraph (c) and the insertion of --
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:49 p.m.
    Hon Member, the deletion is not for the whole of paragraph (c), but rather ‘farmers who cultivate narcotic plants'. That is the last line of paragraph (c).
    Mr Chireh 1:49 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, paragraph (c) states that “develop in consultation with other public agencies and civil society organisations alternative means of livelihood for farmers who cultivate narcotic drugs”.
    Mr Speaker, if he is proposing that we delete (c) and substitute it then it means all these would be deleted and replaced with a new one. Unless that is not what he wants to do.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:49 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, no. He is not asking us to delete the whole of paragraph (c), but rather we should delete the last line of paragraph (c) which deals with “farmers who cultivate narcotic plants” and insert the proposed amendment. And because it is talking about ‘prior to the commencement of this Act', I raised the question of what happens to those farmers who are identified after the commencement of this Act. This is what he was trying to explain.
    Yes, Hon Minister for the Interior?
    Mr A. Dery 1:49 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I believe that this amendment is meant to eliminate the possibility of the alternative means of livelihood being a motivation for people to subsequently cultivate it. Mr Speaker, but the cut-off date is before the commencement of the law, but it could be discovered later, provided it was before the commencement of the law.
    Mr Speaker, but if we leave it like this and it looks like after the law has commenced, guided by the possibility or the motivation that something would be given, a person cultivates it, then I suspect that is the situation that the law does not want to encourage. Especially, when people are now being anxious about this health approach and think that this law wants to treat offenders with kid gloves. Mr Speaker, I want to believe that is the reason, if not, then I would leave it to you.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:49 p.m.
    Challenge in the enforceability of the law is the issue I am raising.
    Alhaji I.A.B.Fuseini 1:49 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think you are right because the explanation by the Hon Minister for the Interior would even raise problems. Mr Speaker, this is because if we go by his explanation
    Alhaji I.A.B.Fuseini 1:49 p.m.


    That is why Mr Speaker is saying that leave the original provision and not put the caveat “prior to the commencement of this Act”, because implementation could pose a problem.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:49 p.m.
    Hon Minority Leader?
    Mr Iddrisu 1:49 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am minded to persuade the Hon Chairman to abandon his amendment and maintain the original provision which reads:
    “(c) develop in consultation with other public agencies and civil society organisations alternative means of livelihood for farmers who cultivate illicit narcotic plants”.
    We want to be able to discourage them from engaging in it, so it would be a voluntary act. Therefore if we qualify it with “identify farmers who are engaged in the cultivation of illicit
    narcotic plants prior to the commencement of this Act” then what happens when the Act has been passed and assented to and a person starts cultivating it and wants to abandon it because of this law? How would we take care of those category of people? Mr Speaker, as much as possible, what we want to achieve is to discourage persons from engaging in the cultivation of these illicit narcotic drugs.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:49 p.m.
    Hon Majority Leader?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:49 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, much as I appreciate the principle behind this new amendment, I am looking at the construct which is that the object of the Commission are, as (c) says, to develop in consultation with other public agencies and civil society organisations alternative means of livelihood for farmers who cultivate illicit narcotic plants.
    Mr Speaker, the Hon Chairman is proposing that the last line should be deleted and replaced with “livelihood for identified farmers who are engaged in the cultivation of illicit narcotic plants prior to the commencement of this Act.”
    Mr Speaker, what this would mean is that, as of now, we have identified all farmers who are engaged in the cultivation of illicit narcotic plants. I
    am not sure that is the case and so why this formulation? It would cause a problem and so I think the original rendition would serve a better purpose than what is contained here otherwise we would impose obligations that we cannot fulfil.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:49 p.m.
    Hon Member for Wa West?
    Mr Chireh 1:49 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I support the call for the Hon Chairman to abandon his amendment because this is provided generally such that in future we could have a legislation which could go into details of how this would be done; how the farmers would be identified and which body would even do that. Mr Speaker, it must be a continuing issue and we cannot identify all farmers beforehand, but if we have the law --
    The concern of the Hon Minister is that people would see it lucrative to cultivate narcotic plants and when they later want to be compensated or resettled -- Mr Speaker, we should not have this mind at all. The mechanism must be in the details of a subsidiary legislation and how it should be implemented and identified. Once that is done, then we can leave it as how it has already been captured, otherwise it would be misunderstood
    completely. So, we should abandon this amendment.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:49 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, what do you say? These days the focus on even convicts is rehabilitation.
    Mr S. Acheampong 1:49 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I have attentively listened to my Hon Colleagues and so with your permission I beg to withdraw the proposed amendment and leave the original construction as it stands in 2(c).
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:49 p.m.
    Leave has been granted.
    Mr S. Acheampong 1:59 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 2, add the following new paragraph:
    “(#) generally facilitate the confiscation of the proceeds from narcotics-related crime.”
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:59 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Minority Leader?
    Mr Iddrisu 1:59 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I did not have the opportunity when I tried
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:59 p.m.
    Hon Minority Leader, let me just invoke the provision of Standing Order 40(3) to extend Sitting beyond the normal Sitting time.
    Mr Iddrisu 1:59 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I was saying that the Narcotics Control Commission should have a mandate. When we come to it, I would speak to the words “generally facilitate”. We should just give them the power to confiscate. We are not to use the words “generally facilitate”. They are to confiscate. That must be the law.
    They confiscate all proceeds related to the illicit drug trade. However, I would want to persuade the Hon Chairman that he should make it a function and not an object.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:59 p.m.
    Hon Minority Leader, are you speaking to the proposed amend- ment? You said it should not be
    “generally facilitate the confiscation of the proceeds from the narcotics- related crime…”
    Mr Iddrisu 1:59 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we should just say “responsible for the confiscation of proceeds from narcotics-related crime” but it should be moved to Functions and not Objects.
    However, we should give them the power to be able to confiscate. When we say “generally facilitate” we are dancing around language. What are they to generally facilitate? They are to confiscate. That is the practice, and that should be the rule. When one is caught, everything related to it; the property you have acquired, all of it must get back to the State.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:59 p.m.
    Hon Chairman of the Committee on Constitutional, Legal and Parlia- mentary Affairs?
    Mr Banda 1:59 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I support the opposition being made by the Hon Minority Leader to further amend this proposed amendment to rather be emphatic; that they should be given the power, instead of generally facilitate but rather to confiscate proceeds from narcotics- related crimes.
    Mr Speaker, if I have your permission, I would want to say that
    the expression “narcotics-related crime” ought not to have the word “narcotics-related” but “narcotic- related”. That is the little I would like to add. Otherwise, I support the proposed amendment.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:59 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Minister for Works and Housing?
    Mr Samuel A. Akyea 1:59 p.m.
    Thank you, Mr Speaker.

    Very well. I am grateful. I was trying to get some understanding of it.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:59 p.m.
    Hon Minister, you are right. It is important for that to be clarified in the legislation. If not, when you leave it as it is worded, it means, they just proceed to confiscate without any other judicial process.
    Yes, Hon Ranking Member for the Committee on Constitutional, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs?
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 1:59 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, where a statutory body is given the power to confiscate, that power can only be exercised in accordance with the due process of law.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:59 p.m.
    Please, could you educate the House on that?
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 1:59 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, first of all, you must look at that discretion and read it together with article 296. The second issue is, this is a statutory body given the power to act; the power to act which would deprive somebody of property, which is within chapter 5 of the Constitution. It would necessarily involve the court, unless we would want to make it abundantly clear here. The power to confiscate after an offence has been created must be pursuant to the orders of a court.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:59 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Majority Leader?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:59 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think what begun this discourse was whether or not this is an object or a function. So let us first deal with that. As for what my Hon Colleague, the Hon Minister for Works and Housing asked, is for the
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:59 p.m.
    Hon Majority Leader, that was raised and attempts have been made to refine the proposed amendment. So I was to take that along with what is happening. But the Hon Ranking Member referred to this, and the provision he actually referred to is dealing with discretionary power. So would that be a discretionary power when you give an authority power to do something by law? Is it discretionary again? No. It is out of discretionary power. And so you were quoting the wrong provision. Article 296 deals with discretionary power.
    Yes, let me listen to the Hon Ranking Member for the Committee on Defence and Interior.
    Mr James Agalga 1:59 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I agree with the suggestion that the insertion be moved from Objects to Functions. I entirely agree with that proposition, but the reason I have risen is that the Hon Chairman for the Committee on Constitutional, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs proposed a further amendment in respect of the word “narcotics”. His proposed amendment was that we replace the word “narcotic” with “narcotics”.
    Mr Speaker, with the greatest respect, it seems to me that the word “narcotics” is the appropriate word to use within this context, and not “narcotic”.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:59 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Chairman of the Committee on Constitutional, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs? I was going to crosscheck on that proposal you made, but my attention was drawn to other issues raised on the Floor, and so I did not do that. But I had some doubt about it. Is it the case that it is “narcotic-related” and not “narcotics- related”?
    Mr Banda 2:09 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, if we were to end it at “narcotic”, it must be plural, “narcotics”. So “narcotic- related crimes” but not “narcotics- related crimes”.
    Mr Chireh 2:09 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, it should be “narcotics-related”. This is because we are dealing with narcotics and different types of narcotics. So it is not as if one word -- this is not a Grammar class. The context in which this is used, it should be “narcotics- related”. Plural and related at the same time. So he might want to mark grammar but this is not grammar. We are talking about narcotics as in this law and if we look at it, we do not have a singular narcotic here. It is always “narcotics”.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:09 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, in the context, if we are using “narcotic”, it would relate to a drug or a plant -- narcotic drug or medicine or narcotic plant. But if we are talking about the generality of it, it is “narcotics”. So it is “narcotics- related” because we are not stranding them out. That is what it means.
    Mr Speaker, it is “narcotics- related” and not “narcotic-related” in this context.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:09 p.m.
    Hon Members, we take it that it is “narcotics-related” and we would also go to the second point of agreeing that this should not fall under the objects. It should rather go to the functions of the Commission.
    Mr Chireh 2:09 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the way the Bill is structured, what we are doing is an additional thing. It is not even necessary to propose an amendment here. This is because if we look at clause 46, it tells us what should be done and that is in relation to search, arrest and seizure. All these things are defined there. So the objects as earlier made would be adequate. Let us not add anything there.
    This is because if we also look at the functions that have been listed under clause 3, somehow, it has been captured there too in one form or the other. So when the draftpersons do this, they look at the general object but when we want to detail out more things, we end up having these confusions. The Hon Minister for Works and Housing raised this issue -- in the Bill itself, how it would have been done is spelt out under a particular clause.
    So we do not even need to worry about it being captured again, either in clause 3 or 2. This is because the details of how it would be done is in clause 46, which is in the substantive provisions.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:09 p.m.
    Well, we will come to the same conclusion. Let us go to the functions and see whether some of the wordings that they have proposed could be
    Mr S. Acheampong 2:09 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, by your counsel, I take a cue and withdraw the amendment.
    Mr S. Acheampong 2:09 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, before you gavel on clause 2, I just want you to advert your mind to subclause (b) of clause 2, which reads:
    “develop measures for the treatment and rehabilitation of persons suffering from substance use disorders”.
    Mr Speaker, looking at the construction of (b) and (c), we realise that in (c), we are asking for other public agencies. With your leave, I would want to introduce an insertion after “develop”. This is because the construction of (b) is looking at health and so I would want to insert, “develop in consultation with other public health agencies, measure for the treatment and rehabilitation of persons suffering from substance use disorder”.
    Mr Speaker, if you may, I would repeat my construction.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:09 p.m.
    I got it. It is for the House to discuss again. We are going back to clause 2(a) and (b). We are overstretching the Consideration Stage. This is because we have a decision on that. But it does not matter. We can still do that. I am finding it difficult to allow it at this stage. This is because it is a sudden proposal which may not have been properly thought through.
    So Hon Chairman, let us go according to what is in the Bill now. You are not being compelled, bullied or pressurised. You are chairing so please put across the position of the Committee. If that is the position of the Committee, let us hear you.
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 2:09 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, it is not the decision of the Committee. But I think he has a point, except that it is not advertised. So we can always come back to it. I believe that if he could put it on the Order Paper for consideration next time-- This is because what he is saying makes sense.
    The Narcotics Control Commission cannot develop measures for the treatment and rehabilitation. This is because there are already institutions set up for developing measures for treatment and rehabilitation of persons
    suffering from substance use disorders. There are already psychiatric hospitals and other places. So, if the Narcotic Control Board is to develop those measures, it is only proper that they do it in consultation with other public bodies. That is the essence.
    Mr Agalga 2:09 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, inasmuch as I agree with my Hon Chairman that in developing measures for treatment and rehabilitation, we need to consult other relevant stakeholders in the health sector, I think if we look at the Bill as a whole and specifically clause 4, we would find that the health sector is represented on the governing body of the Commission. So if we look at clause 4(1)(h), it reads as follows:
    “the Minister for Health represented by a health professional specialised in Addiction Medicine nominated by the Minister for Health”,
    So how can we develop measures for treatment and rehabilitation without the prior approval of the governing board, of which the Minister for Health is duly represented? So, seriously speaking, it elaborates but it is not going to really add much. So for now, my Hon Chairman should seriously take a cue from Mr Speaker and drop it.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:19 p.m.
    If we are to accept it in paragraph (b), then it would not have to come in paragraph (c). There would have to be a reconstruct of that whole area. That is why it is advisable to drop it, but you could come during the Second Consideration Stage, if you feel that it is so important.
    Hon Members, I will put the Question on clause 2. We have spent too much time on this clause.
    Hon Members, I do not get the spirit in you at all. Are you tired?
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 2 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 3 -- Functions of the Commission
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:19 p.m.
    We have a proposed amendment which stands in the name of the Hon Minority Leader.
    Mr Bernard Ahiafor 2:19 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, before you go to the advertised amendment, permit me to make an amendment on clause 3. It is the use of the possessive pronoun.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:19 p.m.
    Hon Member, I know but I was trying to see the Standing Order under which you came. We have not stated the proposed amendments. You should have waited for one proposed amendment to be moved, and since your amendment is covered, then you could come in. We have not done that and you have not given notice of yours. All of a sudden, you want us to take your premium over those that have been advertised and given notice, particularly, when it comes from the Committee. So bid your time, hold on, and let us consider that first and then you can come in at the end of the day. That would be proper procedure.
    Mr Ahiafor 2:19 p.m.
    Very well, Mr Speaker.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:19 p.m.
    Hon Member, I thought you stood up as somebody you had the authority or permission of the Hon Minority Leader to move his proposed amendment. Now that you have not done that, and I cannot see anybody who wants to do that, I would take it that it is --
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 2:19 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I discussed with the Hon Minority Leader that his amendment is captured in the Bill already. In the Bill, “narcotic drug” is defined to include psychotropic substances. He said he looked at the UN practice which is always narcotic and psychotropic substances. I told him that for this Bill, we have defined “narcotic drugs'' to include psychotropic substances -- so, his concern in the second part of clause 3 has been addressed, especially, in the definition of column.
    Mr S. Acheampong 2:19 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I agree with the Hon Minority Leader on the first leg of his amendment, where he proposes that we delete “provide leadership” and insert “regulate”. This sits with similar and recent laws we have passed in this House. For instance, in the Economic and Organised Crime Office Act, we have it as ‘regulate' and I would agree to that.
    I would go with my Hon Colleague for Tamale Central who went ahead to give the definition for “narcotic drug” at the interpretation section of the Bill to include psychotropic substances. So it would be a repetition.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:19 p.m.
    I think the Clerks-at-the-Table did not look at the proposed amendment
    properly. It is not well-worded; that proposal is not properly captured.
    Mr Chireh 2:19 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I believe even if the Hon Minority Leader wants it to be removed, to make the amendment, as you rightly pointed out, the whole thing must be deleted and captured to reflect what he wants to say. He cannot delete “provide leadership” and in the middle, define “narcotic”. We cannot do that. It is a whole paragraph or sentence. So, if he does not want it as a sentence, he would just say, delete paragraph (a) and then recast it fully to now include everything.
    As it is now, if we read his amendment, it says, delete “provide leadership” and insert “regulate” and in line 3, after “narcotic drugs” add…” Once that is done, nobody would follow. If he says delete paragraph (a) and reconstruct a new one, incorporating what he thinks about, we can then read it as one sentence and see whether it makes sense.
    So they should be guided by the draftspersons to recast it for us to see the meaning. Otherwise, if it is done disjointed like that, by the time we finish, editing would be very difficult.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:19 p.m.
    Hon Members, you delete and insert.
    If you think something has not been captured by the clause and you want to do it as a new thing, that one comes differently. It is not a proposed amendment to a subclause; it comes on its own. It says, add the following. I believe the Clerks-at-the-Table did not look at it properly, I think their attention was not drawn.
    So once the Hon Chairman has supported an aspect of it, we will leave it and move on, so that the rendition is properly recasted and then we could take it later.
    Let us take the proposed amendment in the name of the Hon Chairman of the Committee; item numbered (iv).
    Mr S. Acheampong 2:19 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 3, paragraph (b), sub-paragraph (iv), before “for” add “on the orders of the Court”.
    Mr Speaker, the new rendition would be,
    “take measures
    on the orders of the Court for the early destruction or disposal of narcotic drugs that have been seized or confiscated.”
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:29 a.m.
    Hon Chairman, I think that has been captured because they said “seized” or “confiscated”. So that process would have taken place, then there would be an order to seize or confiscate them, which would definitely come from a court. Therefore measures would have to be taken for the early destruction or disposal of those things. I see that as being implicit.
    Hon Minister for the Interior, you may speak.
    Mr Ambrose Dery 2:29 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I thought that all those would be done in consonance with the court orders. Therefore it would be superfluous to get involved with the introduction of court orders there again.
    Mr Banda 2:29 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, it is worthy to note that the Commission has some power to seize without necessarily going to court. If we leave it as it is, what it would then mean is that, after the seizure or forfeiture, which the Commission could suo mo to do, they have the power to destroy without the orders of the court. However, that ought not to be the case.
    So I am of the view that once destruction is involved, it would
    therefore mean that the thing would be lost to an owner. The insertion of the phrase, “on the orders of the court”, would bring a lot more certainty to the provision. So it is not superfluous, but a necessary inclusion or addition to clause 3(b)(iv).
    We would have to insert it, otherwise, it would make it as though the Commission has the power to destroy without the orders of the court. When we read somewhere in the Bill, the Commission has the power to seize and forfeit without any order from the court. So I humbly submit that we add the phrase: “on the orders of the court.”
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:29 a.m.
    Hon Member, before you end your submission, you should read clause 3(a).
    Mr Banda 2:29 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, clause 3(a), to the best of my understanding, deals with prosecution.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:29 a.m.
    We are talking about a situation where the investigation would not proceed to court, but could be seized by the Commission itself, and proceed to destroy. It is captured as “…related to arrest, investigation and preparation for the prosecution of offences”. This is captured in clause 3(a). They would want to do that for and on behalf of the Attorney-General,
    so that it is captured as: “on the authority of the Attorney-General prosecute offences under this Act.” They would therefore have lawyers or attorneys in the Commission who would do that on behalf of the Attorney-General. That is my understanding.
    Mr Ambrose Dery 2:29 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, before I go to what you said, seizure is a step in the process. When one seizes, he gives notice. It would either go to court and be confiscated, or would be forfeited within the law.
    This one says, “take measures”, so, if we read clause 3 together, the provision for the court orders is provided for. There is no need to add the phrase: “court orders”. This is because the court does not order seizure. Seizure is an investigative step. We know for instance that when one is arrested, he is served with a notice of seizure before being told what to do.
    Mr Speaker, if we joke, we would destabilise the law. I believe these things have been well put together, so reading them together, we would get the right impact. This is because it does not say “do”, but it says “take measures”.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:29 a.m.
    I thought that the Hon Minister was at the Committee meeting. That is the challenge because the Hon Minister would have to be the sponsor of the Bill, even though sometimes they say it is the Attorney-General. We would have avoided these challenges, if the Hon Minister was at the Committee meeting. I take it that the Hon Chairman would take a cue from that and withdraw the proposed amendment. I am not happy that we are moving at a slower pace.
    Mr K.S. Acheampong 2:29 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would take a cue and withdraw same.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:29 a.m.
    Hon Members, the proposed amendment is accordingly withdrawn.
    Mr Chireh 2:29 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, we are slow because we have to get the sense of the Bill completely. I do not think we should withdraw. This is because it involves a final decision about confiscation and destruction.
    As we know, normally, it is on the order of the court. People run away and collect the items, so we would still need the orders of the court to go ahead and do it. For this insertion, I do not see any problem with it.
    Mr Chireh 2:29 a.m.


    Some Hon Members referred to the phrase early on “on the orders of the Attorney-General”. Of course, almost all the agencies that have been set up all ask for special permission from the Attorney-General because under article 88, the Attorney-General is responsible for this. However, as provided for in Act 30, the Attorney- General would delegate it and give special powers for officers.

    Recently, as in the case of the National Health Insurance, they have been authorised to prosecute cases. That is a different matter completely. In this particular case, we are to destroy, so we would need the phrase: “by the orders of the court” to be inserted. I therefore believe that it should not be withdrawn.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:29 a.m.
    I think what the Hon Minister said is the right procedure. On what would the measures be based? The measures that we are being called to take must definitely be based on an order, and that would come from clause 3(a). It is the reason I said clause 3(a) caters for these things.
    Mr Chireh 2:29 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am wrong, so we should move on.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:29 a.m.
    Hon Members, we have flagged the amendment proposed by the Hon Minority Leader. We have seen the withdrawal of the one proposed by Hon Chairman, so we would proceed to the next proposed amendment, which is captured as item 16(v).
    Mr K. S. Acheampong 2:29 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 3, paragraph (f), line 1, before “narcotic” insert “and harm caused by the use of” and in lines 2 and 3, delete “drug addicts” and insert “persons with substance use disorders”.
    Mr Speaker, paragraph (f) would eventually now read 2:29 a.m.
    “adopt measures to reduce the demand and harm caused by the use of narcotic drugs through education, treatment and the rehabilitation of persons with substance use disorder''.
    2. 39 p. m.
    Mr Speaker, this is necessary at this stage because of the stigmatisation of drug addicts. Looking at the public health and human rights aspects that we would want to advance in this Bill, this is backed by the spirit of the new law that we are doing.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:29 a.m.
    Hon Member, are you saying that drug addicts are equated to persons with substance use disorders? Is it the case? A drug addict might not be a person with substance use disorder.
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 2:29 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, we are trying to move away from criminalisation of substance abuse to a health issue; we are now considering it more as a health issue. It is a re- orientation of the minds, and we want it found in the law so we do not want to call them addicts. In fact, what they are going through is substance use disorders so we want to properly identify them as such so that we could treat it as a health issue. So I support the Hon Chairman's amendment.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:29 a.m.
    It may be an abuse, if we want to change the word, ‘addict'. However, just to do away with it, I do not think that all of them are disorders.
    Mr Chireh 2:29 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I tend to agree with your line of thinking. The Hon Chairman used the word “stigmatisation”. If we say somebody is a drug addict, have we stigmatised the person? If we say the person suffers from a drug use disorder, one could use a drug once and get a disorder. One could also be
    perpetually hooked onto a drug as an addict.
    However, if now, by the argument of their literature and by convention, they say that we should no longer use the word, ‘addict' but we should use, “drug use disorders” to hide the concept of addiction, that is a different matter. As for drug use disorder, once one uses drugs -- an addict is somebody who cannot do without the drug at all. -- [Interruption] -- Is it a disorder? All right, let us grant the Hon Chairman that one.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:29 a.m.
    Well, I am not easily convinced that it is a disorder but —
    Yes, Hon Minister for the Interior?
    Mr A. Dery 2:29 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I believe that the Hon Member of Parliament for Wa West started it very well. One does not have to be an addict to get a disorder. It depends on one's capacity; one could use the drug once and already, one starts suffering the consequences.
    Honestly speaking, our approach is to concentrate on the disorders, and not the level — and that is precisely the point because I could touch it once and have a disorder, but I am not an addict. But if we use the word “addict”, we would be stigmatising me
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:29 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I believe the object of the Commission sets out the appropriate language to use. Indeed, if we look at clause 2(b), it talks about developing measures for the treatment and rehabilitation of persons suffering from substance use disorders. That is where the platform is established. So, let us be consistent.
    Dr Zanetor Agyeman-Rawlings 2:29 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, may I suggest that perhaps, we go back to find out if addiction is a disorder, and if we accept that the use of the phrase, “drug addict” is unacceptable, could we perhaps refer back so that the proper nomenclature that is
    acceptable internationally could be recommended so that we do not argue --
    With respect, just as the Hon Minister for the Interior suggested that we have moved from “disabled persons” to “persons who are differently abled”, if we could get the correct nomenclature from the acceptable standard, then, we would not guess what the wording is, and have a discussion on it, but we actually have the correct nomenclature to replace what we say is unacceptable, as opposed to debating on what it should or should not be.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:29 a.m.
    Hon Chairman, you got her point; is that the acceptable nomenclature in international conventions?
    Mr K. S. Acheampong 2:29 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, yes, that is the present language used by all those involved in harm reduction, which is another major pillar that looks at all these treatments and rehabilitations. The language used now is “substance use disorders”.
    One of the major challenges on their hands, as they go about helping to rehabilitate people is about stigmatisation. So they believe that when they use “substance use disorders” it helps. This is because there are several narcotics that we find in society today, not necessarily only psychotropic substances.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:29 a.m.
    Actually, the emphasis now is on the assault on the dignity of a person; it is not just the stigmatisation. Whether one is a convict or whatever, at least, that is why the campaign on the removal of the death penalty focuses on these issues.
    Mr Quaittoo 2:29 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, my question is, why would we want to replace the word, “drug” with “substance”? Would it mean the same?
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:29 a.m.
    Why do we want to use what?
    Mr Quaittoo 2:29 a.m.
    Why we would want to replace the word “drug”? We are talking about drug abuse. Why do we want to change the word “drug” to “substance” in the amendment that we are doing?
    As espoused by the Hon Majority Leader, if we go to clause 2(b), of course, it says “substance use disorders”. Would it not be more appropriate to say “drug use disorder” because we are talking about drugs? Would ‘‘substance mean the same as “drugs”?
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:49 a.m.
    Hon Chairman, you would need to
    respond to the whole House, and not just to him.
    Mr K. S. Acheampong 2:49 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, if we go to the interpretation section, it tells us what “drug” is. “Drug” in the Bill means “narcotic drug”. When we go further down, “narcotic drug” is defined as including “a psychotropic substance and a chemical precursor which is specified in the First to Fifth Schedules and which are used illicitly”.
    Mr Speaker, we must read the constructions clearly else, if we use our ordinary interpretation of the words as found in the Bill, we may not appreciate the construction as made.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:49 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Bill does not only deal with drug addicts, but it also deals with substance abuse, which substance includes plants. So, if you look at clause 2(a)(i), the emphasis is on narcotic drugs.
    When we go to clause 2(c), it talks about illicit narcotic plants. So we are talking about plants, drugs and other substances, and that is why we have not limited ourselves to drug addiction, but substance use disorders.
    Mr Speaker, may I plead with you that we move faster than we are going
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:49 a.m.
    The Speaker is very cautious about being classified as dictatorial, — [Laughter] — so I would want to grant them their right to speak on the Floor. Hon Members should take the cue and try and move -- I complained about the slow pace myself, so let us see how we can go faster than we are doing.
    We agreed to adjourn at 3.00 p.m., so at the end of clause 3, we would have to adjourn.
    Mr Ahiafor 2:49 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am looking at page 54 of the Bill and “drug addict” has been copiously defined. Now, if we substitute “drug addict” with “persons with substance use disorders”, why is it copiously defined in the Bill? If you look at the definition of “drug addict” as it is in the Bill, it entails more than what we are talking about.
    Mr Speaker, with your permission I read 2:49 a.m.
    “drug addict” means a person who habitually uses a narcotic drug so as to endanger public morals, health, safety or welfare
    of that person or who has become a habitual user that the person has lost the power of self-control with reference to the person's usage of narcotic drugs and the cessation of the administration of the narcotic drug is likely to result in the person experiencing symptoms of mental or physical distress;”
    That is the definition provided, and in the circumstance, will the substitution be in order?
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:49 a.m.
    Well, it is coming from the Committee, so I thought there would be a proposed amendment to delete that. I referred to it myself, when this debate was on the use of the phrase “drug addict”. I went to the interpretation clause and read it, but I do not know the intention of the Committee.
    Mr Chireh 2:49 a.m.
    Concerning “sub- stance abuse” as used here, I want us to be guided by the fact that this Bill is predicated on the model law for West Africa and we are to adopt the model law which is the basis for this one. This model law was worked on by the venerable Kofi Annan, President Obasanjo and others, and further deliberated upon by some committees who took into account terms used in the conventions that they
    reduced to guide us all in West Africa in doing this.
    So we have to be reminded that the use of “substance abuse”, broadens the definition, rather than limits it to “drugs”. That the Committee is right in substituting “drug addict” with “persons with substance use disorders”. It is also not that it is replacing it but it is an alternative expression which is politically correct. We are making a law, and must sound politically correct, so we must look at the model law as well.
    Mr Speaker, we cannot just say that because “drug addict” has been defined, we cannot substitute it. It could be a mistake in the drafting in the first place, and the fact is that we are not addressing the issue in terms of addicts as usual. It is substance abuse because we are talking about three different types of substances: the narcotic drugs we know, the precursors and the psychotropic medicines. So long as we use this, “substance use” would be a better and broader term to cover all.
    Mr K. S. Acheampong 2:49 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, for the avoidance of doubt, when we met in Committee and made all these proposals, we further asked the draftpersons to define “substance use disorders” and include them in the
    interpretations. So it is a new proposal we have, and we would put it before the House. With your indulgence, may I read what they have for us?
    “Substance use disorders” mean a range of problems associated with substance use including the use of illicit drugs, misuse of prescribed medications, substance abuse, substance dependence and addiction”.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:49 a.m.
    Well, this clarifies the situation, but we need to do more because when you look at page 54 of the Bill, “drug” is defined to mean “narcotic drug”. Then you go to the definition of “narcotic drug”:
    “narcotic drug” includes psy- chotropic substance and chemical precursor specified in the First to Fifth Schedule which are used illicitly.”
    With the definition that you just read on “substance use disorders”, I do not know whether it took care of that, so we need to work on all that.
    Mr K. S. Acheampong 2:49 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, “precursors” could be captured under misuse of prescribed medications. We would find many in the Schedules as we go forward.
    Mr K. S. Acheampong 2:59 p.m.
    Hon Members, we would take the proposed amendment now.

    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Ahiafor 2:59 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move that in clause 3, the preposition “it'' should be deleted and the article ‘‘the'' be inserted.
    Mr Speaker, the new rendition would be 2:59 p.m.
    “To achieve the objects, the Commission shall…''
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:59 p.m.
    Hon Members, this is a very important rendition, and I think the Hon Member is right.
    Hon Chairman of the Committee, do you accept the amendment?
    Mr K. S. Acheampong 2:59 p.m.
    Rightly so, Mr Speaker.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Chireh 2:59 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, in clause 3 (b) (i), it says:
    “to eliminate the import and export by land, sea or air…''.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move that we insert ‘‘river'' after ‘‘sea'' because in the Bill, ‘‘river'' has variously been included. Also, narcotics could be imported and exported via the Black Volta from Burkina Faso to Ghana.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:59 p.m.
    Is it not better to define “sea'' to include that than to insert “river''? This is because if we insert ‘‘river'', we may also insert ‘‘stream'' [Laughter.]
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:59 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, there should be a better way to capture that because ‘‘river'' would not include ‘‘lake'' but normally, when we provide ‘‘for water bodies'', then it includes all of them.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:59 p.m.
    So, do “water bodies'' not include ‘‘sea''? The Mediterranean Sea, is a water body.
    Mr Chireh 2:59 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I cannot immediately identify the clauses but “river'' has been inserted and in the modern law too, “river'' has been inserted. That is why I suggested that ‘‘river'' should be inserted.
    In the definition clause, if we use the elements -- “air'', “land'', “water'', that would solve the problem but we do not use and say “ocean'', because they cannot be used to smuggle these things.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move that in clause 3 (b) (i), line 1, after ‘‘export by'', we should insert, ‘‘land'', ‘‘water'', or ‘‘air''.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:59 p.m.
    I know I have the liberty now to put the Question on the whole of clause
    3.
    [Pause] --
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:59 p.m.
    Hon Members, my attention has been drawn that we deferred the proposed amendment by the Hon Majority Leader. So until that is handled, I
    cannot put the Question on the whole of clause 3.
    It was deferred because the Hon Chairman of the Committee argued in support of the first aspect of it. So we did not agree on that proposed amendment because of the ‘‘others'' that were added, and also because it was not properly couched. So I have to leave that until tomorrow when we take it, then we can put the Question.
    We have come to the end of the Consideration Stage of the Narcotics Control Commission Bill, 2019 for today. We would continue tomorrow.
    Hon Members, in accordance with the Standing Orders, the House stands adjourned till tomorrow.
    ADJOURNMENT 2:59 p.m.
  • The House was adjourned at 3.08 p.m. till Friday, 8th November, 2019 at 10.00 a.m.