Debates of 28 Nov 2019

MR SPEAKER
PRAYERS 10:31 a.m.
VOTES AND PROCEEDINGS AND THE OFFICIAL REPORT 10:31 a.m.
Mr Speaker 10:31 a.m.
Hon Members, Correction of Votes and Proceedings of Wednesday, 27th November,
2019.
Pages 1…9 --
rose
Mr Speaker 10:31 a.m.
Yes, Hon Okudzeto Ablakwa?
Mr Ablakwa 10:31 a.m.
Mr Speaker, in paragraph 7 on page 9, the word “unsustainable”, should begin with a capital letter.
Mr Speaker, again, the last line after that paragraph, which reads 10:31 a.m.
“implementation and monitoring of

(SDGs) to avoid overlapping in the Ministerial responsibility'', could be properly edited to read, “…to avoid overlaps…”. This is because the Committee is a Parliamentary Committee and not a Ministerial Committee.
rose
Mr Speaker 10:31 a.m.
Yes, Hon Yieleh Chireh?
Mr Chireh 10:31 a.m.
Mr Speaker, it has been captured the way it is because the Hon Minister for Planning, said that there is Ministerial Committee and that is why the responsibility is linked to them. That is the sense I got from what was done yesterday.
Mr Speaker 10:31 a.m.
Hon Ablakwa, can you please read the rendition you have difficulties with?
Mr Ablakwa 10:31 a.m.
Mr Speaker, with your permission, I beg to quote the paragraph, which reads:
“The Rt Hon Speaker having regard to the Statement and comments thereon, directed Leadership to establish a Seven- Member Ad-Hoc Committee to develop a thematic approach in the implementation and monitoring of the Sustainable Development Goals to avoid
overlapping in the Ministerial responsibility''.
Mr Speaker, it is not clear.
Mr Speaker 10:31 a.m.
Yes, it is most unclear.
Mr Ablakwa 10:31 a.m.
Yes, Mr Speaker, it is really not clear, so could it be clarified because we are talking about a Parliamentary Committee.
Mr Speaker 10:31 a.m.
The essence of the Hon Minister for Planning's involvement, was to consult him and work in co-operation with him, so that there are no gaps. However, as for the overlapping responsibility, I agree with Hon Ablakwa that it is rather very ambiguous.
Mr Chireh 10:31 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the Committee that the Hon Minister for Planning talked about is a Ministerial Committee, which was also to monitor the implementation and follow-up, but ours is an oversight through monitoring. So, that is why it was captured like that, so that there would not be an overlap but a collaboration.
Unless, the Hon Member is clear on what the Hon Minister for Planning
said -- my understanding was that these two are different. One is implementation, because there is a Committee that is supposed to ensure that -- Even in the preparation of the Budget Statement, every Hon Minister tried to have the SDGs reflect in what they do.
If Parliament would set up a Seven- Member Ad-Hoc Committee to also do this, then I believe that is the reason it was captured that way. The details of the discussion would be in the Official Report anyway.
Mr Speaker 10:31 a.m.
The rendition is simply that our Seven-Member Ad- Hoc Committee should work in co- operation with the Hon Minister for Planning and not anybody else, so that we make progress in that regard. If they can give us the rendition we mentioned yesterday, it would save us. I think this was a pressing that was overdone.
rose
Mr Speaker 10:31 a.m.
Hon Ayariga?
Mr Ayariga 10:54 a.m.
Mr Speaker, to make life simple, we could just end at your directive, that an Ad-Hoc Committee be established. This is because the Ministerial Committee monitors implementations across
-- 10:54 a.m.
Mr Speaker 10:54 a.m.
The problem here is that we should work and get the Hon Minister to also answer Questions and so on with other Committees. We just do not want to have parallel lines. That was the idea. They should work in tandem with that Hon Minister whenever they want to.
Mr Ras Mubarak 10:54 a.m.
Mr Speaker, thank you. On the second paragraph of page 9 -- [Interruption] -- This is on a different correction.
Mr Speaker 10:54 a.m.
Then let us finish with this one.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 10:54 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I believe that the directive appears a bit more elaborate. Maybe, if we end it at the fifth line on “Goals”, it will express the same intent.
So that it will read:
“The Rt Hon Speaker having regard to the Statement and
comments thereon, directed Leadership to establish a Seven- Member Ad-Hoc Committee to develop a thematic approach in the implementation and monitoring of the Sustainable Development Goals.”
I believe that will capture the sense.
Mr Speaker 10:54 a.m.
Yes, but the co- operation with the Hon Minister was also part of the statement that was said and we want it to be captured.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 10:54 a.m.
Mr Speaker, any Committee in Parliament --
Mr Speaker 10:54 a.m.
Hon Majority Leader, I said so and it must reflect. That is all. These are minutes. That is what I said, and if it has not been well put, it must be well put. However, you cannot withdraw that matter from it by way of any logic because it was part of the statement I made here, that they should work in co-operation with him; whenever they want him, they call him. They must not work on parallel lines, so that before we realise, we are singing frrom one notebook and a Committee established in the same vein is also singing from another hymn sheet. That is all.
Alhaji (Dr) Abdul-Rashid H. Pelpuo 10:54 a.m.
Mr Speaker, thank you. I do agree with you. In this matter, we do
not implement policy. We can only co- operate with the Hon Minister to implement policy and so, co- operation is key in this directive.
I think that Mr Speaker's directive of working in collaboration with the Hon Minister is fundamental; we cannot change it as Mr Speaker said. This is because if we are implementing -- what are we working to implement? It is not our responsibility.
Mrs (Dr) Bernice A. Heloo 10:54 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I just realised that I was marked absent when I was really --
Mr Speaker 10:54 a.m.
Please, let us finish.
Mr Benjamin K. Kpodo 10:54 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I believe that what we are doing -- [Interruption] --
Mr Speaker 10:54 a.m.
Please, I recognised the Hon Member, can he finish?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 10:54 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I thought we would leave it where we are. This is because this is the Votes and Proceedings which captures exactly what transpired and so, we can leave it as it is. If there is a way of improving it, we can come back to it later on.
Mr Speaker 10:54 a.m.
No, I made that statement and I will improve it to what I really meant; so it must stay.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 10:54 a.m.
Mr Speaker, that is exactly what I said. This is because I even thought --
Mr Speaker 10:54 a.m.
Can I hear the Hon Member? I called him.
Mr Kpodo 10:54 a.m.
Mr Speaker, thank you very much. What we are doing here is to validate what transpired yesterday.
I remember fully well that in concluding the debate on the Statement, you gave directives and this has been captured electronically. So, if we are having any difficulty in getting what you said yesterday, we can ask the Hansard Department to playback and then put in exactly what you said.
Mr Speaker, this is because what we are doing now is that we are degenerating into another debate, which I believe is not part of what we are doing now.
Mr Speaker 10:54 a.m.
If there is any difficulty, the Table Office may advise themselves accordingly in line with what I said earlier.
Yes, any further corrections?
Mr Ras Mubarak 10:54 a.m.
Mr Speaker, this a on a different matter, second paragraph, line 5 of page 9.
The way oversight has been couched, it should be substituted for “oversee”. It says: “… the sustainable development goals to oversight and monitor”.
Mr Speaker, it should read 10:54 a.m.
“to oversee and monitor”, for elegance of language.
Mr Speaker 10:54 a.m.
In fact, it is not just for elegance, it is really a matter of substituting a noun for a verb.
Mr Chireh 10:54 a.m.
Mr Speaker, because of the way things have changed in the English language, the word “oversight” can also be used as a verb.
Mr Speaker 10:54 a.m.
Some people may, but it is not the most elegant.
Yes, any further corrections?
Hon (Dr) Heloo, I thought you were making a correction at the time we were talking about something else. Now, you have the opportunity please.
Mrs (Dr) Heloo 10:54 a.m.
Mr Speaker, thank you. I was just drawing attention to the fact that I was here yesterday, but I was marked absent on page 8.
Mr Speaker 10:54 a.m.
Thank you very much. It will be noted accordingly.
Page 10 …13 --
Mr Matthew Nyindam 10:54 a.m.
Mr Speaker, sorry for taking you back a little.
Mr Speaker 10:54 a.m.
Please speak.
Mr Nyindam 10:54 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the Hon Isaac Asiamah and Hon Yaw Afful were also in this Chamber yesterday but they have been marked absent. So the Table Office should take note.
Mr Ablakwa 10:54 a.m.
Mr Speaker, please, on page 14, I am sure if my Hon Colleague and good Friend, Matthias Kwame Ntow were here, he would have corrected this.
Item numbered 2(iv); his name has been wrongly spelt. “Ntwo” should be corrected accordingly.
Page 14, 15, 16.
Mr Speaker 10:54 a.m.
Hon Members, the Votes and Proceedings of Wednesday, 27th November, 2019 as corrected is hereby admitted as the true record of proceedings.
Hon Members, at the Commencement of Public Business.
Hon Majority Leader, is any of the items numbered 4(a) and (b) ready?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:04 a.m.
Mr Speaker, yes, we can take the items 4(a) and (b).
Mr Speaker 11:04 a.m.
Hon Members, item 4 -- Presentation of Papers.
PAPERS 11:04 a.m.
Mr Speaker 11:04 a.m.
Hon Members, item numbered 4 (b) - Hon Chairman of the Committee.
Mr Matthew Nyindam 11:04 a.m.
Mr Speaker, with your indulgence, the Hon Chairman has requested that I lay the Papers on his behalf, since I am a member of the Committee.
Matthew Nyindam (on behalf of the Chairman of the Committee) --
(i) Report of the Finance Committee on the Request for waiver of Import Duties, Import NHIL/GETFund Levy, Import VAT, EXIM Levy and Special Import Levy amounting to the Ghana cedi equivalent of sixty-two million, six hundred and eighty-one thousand, sixty- nine euros (€62,681,069.00) on materials and equipment to be imported in respect of phase II of the redevelopment and modernisation of the Kumasi Central Market and its Associated Infrastructure.
(ii)Report of the Finance Committee on the Request for waiver of Import Duties, Import NHIL/GETFund Levy, Import VAT and EXIM Levy amounting to the Ghana cedi equivalent of thirteen million, four hundred and seventy-two thousand, three hundred and seventy-three
Mr Speaker 11:04 a.m.
Hon Members, item numbered 5 -- Tree Crops Development Authority Bill, 2019 at the Consideration Stage.
BILLS -- CONSIDERATION 11:04 a.m.
STAGE 11:04 a.m.
Mr Speaker 11:04 a.m.
There is an amendment standing in the name of Hon Bernard Ahiafor.
Mr Bernard Ahiafor 11:04 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 24, subclause (1), paragraph (d), delete.
Mr Speaker, yesterday, the issue relating to the deletion of clause 24(1)(d) was under reference. Mr Speaker, my reasons are not farfetched because clause 24 seeks to create offences. It states that:
“A person who
(d) fails to register or be licensed commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine of not more than five hundred penalty units or to a term of imprisonment of not more than two years or both.”
Mr Speaker, clause 26 defines the tree crops value chain, which are all activities identified along the value chain from production to end market. This means that farmers are also included. Therefore the question is that, as a farmer of the tree crops listed, including mango, if a person does not register or is not given a licence and the person engages in the activity, then the person has committed a crime for which he would suffer the penalty.
Mr Speaker, in this country. we want to promote farming and agriculture. Clearly, we cannot make a law to say that the farmers who engage in the production of tree crops -- Mr Speaker, what is more serious is that the definition of tree crop is very elaborate as it says, “including”. This means that coconut and orange are also tree crops, and so if a person engages in the cultivation of these crops and the person is not registered or licensed then the person commits a criminal offence within the meaning
of this provision. Mr Speaker, therefore I beg to propose that we delete clause 24(1)(d).
Mr Kennedy N. Osei 11:04 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I rise to oppose the amendment that has been proposed by my Hon Colleague. Mr Speaker, the reason that underpins the policy is that the actors within the tree crops sector should be registered. Mr Speaker, we are referring to the traders, exporters and transporters who must be properly registered so that we can have a good account of them. This is because as it is now, there is no record of such actors within the value chain. So we are of the view that we need to maintain clause 24(1)(d), so that those actors within the value chain could be penalised if they fail to abide by the provision.
Mr Speaker 11:04 a.m.
Hon Deputy Minister, are you perceiving a holistic approach to cover everyone in every aspect? A Person who grows --
Mr K. N. Osei 11:14 a.m.
No, Mr Speaker. The Bill is to regulate five of the tree crops that have been currently listed in the Bill.
Mr Speaker 11:14 a.m.
Five tree crops only?
Mr K. N. Osei 11:14 a.m.
Yes, for now.
Mr Speaker 11:14 a.m.
Please, mention them.
Mr K. N. Osei 11:14 a.m.
Mr Speaker, we are talking about cashew, coconut, oil palm, rubber and orange. [Interruption.] Yes, it is there. That is what is in the Bill.
Mr Speaker 11:14 a.m.
Cashew, coconut, oil palm, rubber and orange?
Mr K. N. Osei 11:14 a.m.
Sorry, Mr Speaker, the last one is mango.
Mr Speaker 11:14 a.m.
Mango and not orange?
Mr K. N. Osei 11:14 a.m.
Yes, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker 11:14 a.m.
What is the difference between mango and orange?
Mr K. N. Osei 11:14 a.m.
Mr Speaker, pardon me; please come again.
Mr Speaker 11:14 a.m.
You would want to regulate mango, but the regulation would not affect orange. What is the justification?
Mr K. N. Osei 11:14 a.m.
Mr Speaker, for now, there are some of the tree crops that we believe are matured to be regulated now. This is because their
Mr Speaker 11:14 a.m.
At what stage of a person's cultivation of mangoes would you demand the application of this Regulation? Is it at any micro level so that one cannot grow it in his house or in his small backyard or what?
Mr K. N. Osei 11:14 a.m.
Mr Speaker, it is for those growing for commercial purposes. We are looking at the production and the market aspect.
Mr Speaker 11:14 a.m.
How do you distinguish between production for the market and production as a hobby? We must be very careful when we are criminalising certain things. It is very important. We must advise ourselves on this omnibus criminalisation of crop cultivation, and also the classification which I do not see what it is about; the difference between mango and orange and so on. I just want Hon Members to advert their minds to it.
Hon Yieleh Chireh?
Mr Joseph Y. Chireh 11:14 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I think the objection to this as part of offences is legitimate. Now,
if what he is saying is to register all value chain actors involved in tree crop production, then it should be if the person fails to register or be licensed, he would not be entitled to any associated benefits. So it should not be an offence which requires punishment.
Mr Speaker, we should go to the provision where one is required to be licensed or registered and say that anybody who fails to register or be licensed under this Act would not be entitled to the benefits.
Mr Speaker, this is a group of tree crop producers whom we would want to register. This is a regulatory body which is to identify, register and encourage them to do certain things along the value chain. If we add this aspect, it is wrongly done. It should be the aspect which says that if one fails to register, one cannot get the associated benefits. This is because Government would look at sources of money to support them, but the provision does not certainly belong here where a farmer would be punished if he is not registered.
This is because there are people who already have plantations of these trees. So if they decide they do not need the services of the Authority, why should they be compelled to register? However, the failure to register should only deprive a person of the benefits
of registration and should not be an offence.
Mr Speaker 11:14 a.m.
May I respectfully bring to the attention of this honourable House that it is not only that a person would not get certain benefits. It further reads: “commits an offence, and is liable on summary conviction to a fine of more than 500 penalty unites” and so on.
This is a clear criminalisation of that act. It goes beyond just putting people together to assist them. I think we must watch it carefully.
Hon Ayariga?
Mr Mahama Ayariga 11:14 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the issues raised here are very serious. If we look at clause 3 (g) of the Bill, it sets out the functions of the Authority that is being established. One of the functions of the Authority is to register or license actors engaged in the tree crop value chain. Registration and licensing of actors is one of the functions of the Authority.
Then, clause 15 makes provision for the establishment of a Fund. One of the sources of revenue for the Fund is spelt out in clause 17(e). It says that, one of the sources of revenue for the Fund is subscription by various
stakeholders in the tree crop industry. So we need information on the stakeholders, and my understanding is that they would be compelled to pay subscription fees to fund the activities of the Fund. Following it is the provision that if they do not register, we would imprison them.
Mr Speaker, whereas I agree with the principle of registering them and establishing a Fund from which tree crops could be supported, I have very strong reservations that farmers should be imprisoned simply because they have not registered. I have a strong objection to that. I accept registration; maybe, some form of licensing would be useful. However, to say that farmers should be imprisoned because they have not registered is so farfetched that this Parliament cannot be seen to be doing that. Sons and daughters of tree crop farmers should not legislate that their fathers should be imprisoned simply because they have not registered their farms.
Mr Speaker, as some of my Hon Colleagues have mentioned, if the Authority has good systems and incentives for registration in the form of support from the State -we sell cocoa, rubber and the rest and there is foreign exchange earnings, which is what they use to pay most of our salaries and for our education. So if
Mr Speaker 11:24 a.m.
Yes, Hon Chairman of the Committee?
Hon Minority Chief Whip?
Alhaji Mohammed-Mubarak Muntaka 11:24 a.m.
Mr Speaker, thank you.
I agree that we would need to find a way to collect data. It is very
important that we have data on those in the value chain of transporting or processing the produce.
Mr Speaker, I disagree that we should make it an offence. A typical example of a tree crop in this country is cocoa. It is not a crime for cocoa farmers not to register with Ghana Cocoa Board (COCOBOD). If we look at the Act that establishes COCOBOD, farmers cannot sell their cocoa beans to any other person apart from those licensed by COCOBOD. They have devised a method where they enter into books, those who sell their produce to any of the Licensed Buying Companies (LBC). It keeps track of how much cocoa beans a farmer has sold to those LBCs.
Mr Speaker, in my case, I have about five of them, and as and when an LBC has money, I sell to them. I have not registered with COCOBOD. Why do we want to now criminalise other tree crop farmers for non- registration?
Mr Speaker, I agree to subclause (b). When a farmer gives false information, that should be criminalised because it would distort the data. I agree that the farmer should be penalised. A lot of people do it in the cocoa sector. When a farmer has just 10 hectares of cocoa, because
he has heard that fertilizer and other inputs would be distributed, he gives false information that his farm is about 30 acres. When they go to measure the size of the farm, he then tries to bribe the people.
Mr Speaker, with the greatest respect, lawyers like yourself -- if you choose not to register with the Ghana Bar Association, it is only that you may not be able to practise in Ghana. It does not become a crime. If a person is trained teacher who completed college, but wants to teach in the private sector, he does not need to register, and that does not become a crime. It is so with most professions.
So on what grounds would failure to register by tree crop farmers and those who participate in the activities along the chain become a crime? Mr Speaker, it does not sit well because we have an example of COCOBOD. If we want to develop this, we should look at how COCOBOD treats its farmers and those in the value chain. We should not try to criminalise the activity. We would need to watch it.
Mr Speaker, to make it easier for us to make progress, I would suggest that we stand it down and make progress, so that we could come back to it.
Mr Speaker 11:24 a.m.
Hon Chairman, are you convinced?
Yes, Hon Member?
Mr William Quaittoo 11:24 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I believe we need to uphold the amendment being proposed. The whole idea is to regulate and provide some kind of services and benefits to farmers and value addition to actors in the industry. If a farmer fails to register, he only fails to reap the benefits and services that the organisation or the Authority provides. We cannot criminalise somebody if the person does not register.
Mr Speaker, we picked this idea from Kenya, Uganda and some other places. In these places, every farmer is registered. If they want to market their produce or operate with the industry to reap some value, the farmer must register. If a farmer does not want to do so, he is on his own; he could do his own business, except that he cannot go and market certain substandard produce or products on the market.
I think that to put a paragraph to criminalise the whole system there is not a good thing. So we should amend it.
Alhaji Inusah A. B. Fusieni 11:24 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the gravamen of this Bill is
Mr Speaker 11:24 a.m.
Hon Member, it is important for the farmer to register. If he does not do so, it is a crime. Do you agree on it?
Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 11:24 a.m.
Yes, Mr Speaker; the sentence of imprisonment. There must be a penalty that would compel registration.
Mr Speaker 11:24 a.m.
Hon Member, you agree to a penalty, but not imprisonment?
Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 11:24 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I agree to a penalty, and
imprisonment is a penalty. Confinement should not be part, but there must be punitive action.
Mr Speaker 11:24 a.m.
Hon Member who moved the amendment, kindly express your reaction.
Mr Ahiafor 11:24 a.m.
Mr Speaker, before I express my reaction, I would draw the attention of the House to the fact that the limitation of tree crops to some stated crop is not wholly true by the law because “tree crops” has been defined in clause 26 of the Bill.
Mr Speaker, with your permission, I beg to read 11:24 a.m.
“tree crops” includes oil palm, rubber, cashew and shea;”.
Mr Speaker, we are trying to add mango. The word used is “includes”. If we apply the ejusdem generis rule, then it means that we could extend it to include any crop; for instance, cocoa, coconut and orange. So the fact that “tree crop” is limited to some crops is wholly true.
If it is the policy that we would want to license and register cocoa farmers, we should say so. If we want to register and license mango farmers before they farm, we have to say so. If the end result should be that failure to register or be licensed should end
them in jail, then we should expressly say so. I am vehemently against sentencing or criminalising the activity.
Mr Speaker, the reason is simple. We do not want to criminalise those who engage in tree crops farming.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:34 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I agree that we cannot delete clause 24(1)(d) because it goes to the grain of this Bill.

Mr Speaker, if we read the second sentence of paragraph 2 of the Memorandum, which I beg to quote:

“One of the recommendations of this policy is for the Government of Ghana and the private sector to set up a regulatory authority to regulate the development of the tree crops sub-sector”.
Mr Speaker, this is at the heart of it, so if we come to the Long Title it reads 11:34 a.m.
“TREE CROP DEVELOPMENT
ACT, 2019
AN ACT to establish the Tree Crops Development Authority to develop and regulate the tree crops sub-sector and to provide for related matters”.
Mr Speaker, so it is really as the definition of “value chain” provides. It is meant to include all the activities identified along the value chain from production to the end market.
Mr Speaker, about four or five years ago in this House, a Bill about genetically modified crops was introduced. We had to stop here because it was perceived that the mutation could develop into something else, perhaps, unintended. So as of now, that Bill is no longer in this House.
Mr Speaker, today in other countries that produce livestock, if any meat gets contaminated, they are able trace and track the country where it came from and get to the farm where it started. This is the intention of this Bill. It is at the heart of it.
I however, agree with my Hon Colleague, Hon Ahiafor, that in the regulation process, we should be careful not to impose conviction on the farmers. How do we get them to be licensed? There should be some incentive, I agree; but because they do not produce for self-comsumption nor for the local market, they would be supported with the provision of fertilizers. They would apply the fertilizers, and that could lead into something else-- to get into the crops, people eat them, it gets into their
Mr Speaker 11:34 a.m.
Hon Majority Leader, so, are you in agreement of not criminalising this and is it true that we should all be very mindful of standards? Criminalisation, however, is apparently out by the obvious consensus now, so it is a matter of how we should re-frame it because there could be a number of benefits from a regulatory body that would incentivise farmers. We would then reach the qualitative standard that we want, like it has been done immemorial with cocoa. We could really ensure purity without criminalisation. That is what we must think about.
Mr Ahmed Ibrahim 11:34 a.m.
The matter before us is a very delicate one, but I think two things have been combined in one. I say this because if we go to the cashew industry, we have the farmers and marketers. There is always a clash between these two bodies. The Government, on its part, is trying to motivate farmers to go into the cashew industry and that is why
the Government is trying to create this body to regulate the activities of the cashew industry as well as the other crops.
Mr Speaker, what happens is that, those farmers in the cashew industry go to the purchasers, some of whom are not licensed. The purchasers come from Vietnam, China, India and the likes. They go directly to the farm gates and do their procurement without the Government getting a penny. So now there is a law that says that we must license all those people in the value chain so that the Government would identify them. If they do not pay the needed money to get the licence, they would not be given the permit to buy from any farmer.
Mr Speaker, the beauty of the game is this; Ghana produces the best cashew—
Mr Speaker 11:34 a.m.
Hon Member, we could incentivise them in the qualitative framework. When they see that there is benefit in that procedure, they would come. Why do we turn them into criminals? This is what we are talking about now.
Hon Member?
Mr Rockson-Nelson E. K. Dafeamekpor 11:34 a.m.
Mr Speaker, thank you for the opportunity.
First of all, I find that this provision undermines the Government's own flagship policy of Planting for Food and Jobs. That is correct.
Mr Speaker 11:34 a.m.
Hon Member, you are on a wrong tangent. You would just concentrate on this formulation and bring out an idea.
Mr Dafeamekpor 11:34 a.m.
Very well, Mr Speaker, I am guided.
Mr Speaker, we seek by this provision to criminalise an agrarian conduct. It is not every farmer who would want to plant tree crops and sell. We are however, making the mistake that when the law is promulgated, the implementation would be piecemeal. It would not; it would apply to every individual found in this country. That is the reason with implementation. So we cannot sit here and make a provision in this law this way.
Mr Speaker, as my Hon Brother said, when we say it includes, it means when this matter goes to court, farmers that plant orange could be caught even though they are not expressly provided for here.
I heard the Hon Majority Leader say that we stand the danger of producers producing contaminated products.
Mr Dafeamekpor 11:44 a.m.


Who says that the licensed farmer cannot produce contaminated products? So, we must be very careful. There is no basis for this provision in this law. If indeed, the argument is that this is the fulcrum of the Bill before us, then it should be withdrawn, realigned and brought back because this provision must not exist in this law, with all due respect.
Mr Ayariga 11:44 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the Hon Majority Leader did advance some arguments in relation to this regulation. It is not the case that, as I speak the sector has not been regulated. The chemicals that are imported into the country for use by farmers in the sector are regulated. Every chemical has to be licensed before it is imported into the country. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which I used to oversight some time ago, was responsible for oversighting the importation of chemicals.
Mr Speaker, so the inputs into the farming process are regulated. The Ghana Standards Authority is involved in regulating the use of equipment, so there is some form of regulation of inputs. So it is not the case that the sector is unregulated, and
it is also not the case that because purchasers from China purchase at the farm gate, the Government loses and does not get anything.
It is not true. When the farmers sell and receive money, they spend the money and in that process, they pay taxes, either directly or indirectly, so the State benefits.
Mr Speaker, more fundamentally, in passing criminal legislation, we need to be very clear in creating the offence.
Mr Speaker, with your permission, I beg to quote clause 24(1)(d), which says 11:44 a.m.
‘‘A person who
(d) fails to register or be licensed commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine of not more than five hundred penalty units or to a term of imprisonment of not more than two years…''
If they fail to register as what? If they fail to license to do what? That is not clarified, yet, this is a criminal provision for which if it is passed today and assented to by the President tomorrow, the farmer in my village could immediately be arrested because there are even no transitional provisions to recognise the fact that
there are many small-scale farmers all over the country who need to be registered and licensed.
Also, there are no elaborate procedures for how they would even be registered and licensed. All that is established under this proposed legislation is an Authority, with an executive director and a proposal that they should set up a committee. They do not have infrastructure in all the districts and communities where these farmers are, so that registration could be facilitated. That is why I said that it is dangerous to just make it criminal not to license and not to register.
As it has been emphasised in this House, we should incentivise them to register and be licensed and then more detailed provisions should be provided to deal with these issues.
Mr Speaker, we all support the principle. I have been very interested in agriculture and plantation development, and I am excited about the establishment of this Authority, which is the right way to go. It is not right to start to criminalise farmers and say that it is the gravamen of the legislation. The gravamen of the legislation is to set up an Authority, finance it and get it to help plantation development in the country.
Mr Speaker, that is my stand on the matter.
Mr Joseph Yieleh Chireh 11:44 a.m.
Mr Speaker, my Hon Colleague tried to bring in the regulation of chemicals but it has nothing to do with this one because every activity is regulated. So, if somebody would bring insecticide to spray, that is regulated and has nothing to do with this one.
The problem is that because there is a value chain, it must be segregated. Those who produce should not be lumped together with this. Clause 24 (1)(a), (b), and (c) list the things that are supposed to be done, until paragraph (d).
So what should be done is for us to separate producers and processors. However, the fear of the promoters of this Bill, which has to be canvassed is that these are tree crops that would be exported and traded. So if we do not license anybody and they just come in from any country to buy, there must be sanctions for those people; but we must separate the producers, value addition to a point that should be different from those who come in to do the other things.
So what we need to do is to leave this as it is, but exclude those who do the farming from it, so that whatever
Mr Speaker 11:44 a.m.
So, the amendment, could be simply rephrased that those who do not register would not benefit. Is that the case?
An Hon Member 11:44 a.m.
Yes, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker 11:44 a.m.
That is all. If there are any benefits to be given by the appropriate authority, those who fail to register would not benefit. Then it would make it attractive and people would benefit.
Hon Member, could you rephrase your amendment so that we kill this matter?
Mr Ahiafor 11:44 a.m.
Mr Speaker, then in the circumstance, we have to delete subclause (d) in clause 24. In clause 27, we could tie the registration to the benefits.
Mr Speaker 11:44 a.m.
At this stage, if we say that those who fail to register would not benefit, what would be done?
Mr Ahiafor 11:44 a.m.
Mr Speaker, clause 27 says that:
(1) “A person or group of persons engaged in the tree crop value chain shall register as a practitioner within six months after the commencement of this Act.
(2) A company engaged in the tree crops value chain shall register with the Authority within six months after the commencement of this Act''.
Then, there could be another clause, maybe, clause 27(3), that would state that:
“A person who fails to register shall not derive any benefit''.
Mr Speaker 11:44 a.m.
So we would delete subclause (d) from clause 24, and then
-- 11:44 a.m.
Mr Chireh 11:54 a.m.
Mr Speaker, as I said, the concerns of the promoters of the Bill has to be addressed. Indeed, we need to read the whole clause for Hon Members to understand what it means. It says:
“24 (1) A persons who
(a) refuses to provide information as requested by an officer of the Authority;
(b) makes a false declaration in a submission to the Authority;
(c) obstructs an officer in the discharge of the duty of the officer; and
(d) fails to register or be licensed…”

Mr Speaker, as I said early on, we have to segregate those people, but that person must register. So, we cannot delete “register” here and put it elsewhere.

We need to separate the producers, that is, those who add value before any other person comes in, so that it would not require us to put a simple vote. We should sit down to re-draft and take the concerns of people into it. Otherwise, just a simple vote out and sending it to the other place would not solve the problem.

I plead if you could so direct.
Mr Ahiafor 11:54 a.m.
Mr Speaker, as a matter of fact, if we look at the offence as it is in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c), we basically do not have a problem. This is because we were told that sometimes there are diseases like the Xanthomonas bacteria that produces the ABS, which is like the army worm.
So, one cannot obstruct any officer of the Authority visiting one's farm to determine whether the farm has that particular disease. So obstruction can be an offence. If one provides a false declaration, it could also be an offence. What we are trying to avoid, however, is having the person punished for failure to register or license. That is why my proposal for the deletion is basically on sub-clause (1)(d); then we could tie it up to a benefit under clause 27.
Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 11:54 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I have an experience on the copyright offence, which is similar to this instance.
Under the Provisional National Defence Council (PNDC) Law 110, which is now Act 110, it was compulsory for an author to register his interest. If he did not do so, we said it was a criminal offence. It was in the statute books until the current law, Act 690, corrected it that as an individual, one owned something.
Mr Speaker 11:54 a.m.
We thank you very much for this very rich contribution.
Hon Member, you may say a few words and then we may vote on the matter.
Mr Augustine Ntim 11:54 a.m.
Mr Speaker, this Bill seeks to champion the Government's vision of trying to diversify our agricultural economy by bringing on board, six major cash crops that have been identified here.
In doing so, the Government is very careful about the kind of produce that would be churned into the system. To get it right, we need to put up a system that would regulate the seedlings that would be churned out, so that nobody could just get up and raise seedlings; it has to be regulated. How do we do that?
Mr Speaker, first of all, we need to register the kind of people with the expertise to do that at the production levels and then we could be sure of the gene that would be churned out. If it is the issue of cashew, then we know that we are preparing to churn out the right nuts in terms of productivity, chemical residues and so on.
So at that level, it has to -- so that nobody will have to get up and say he or she is raising seedlings. There must be an element of criminalisation, but in the aspect of the farming that we would promote, I seek to agree that there must be a segregation in terms of the actors in the value chain in relation to the criminal aspect.
Mr Speaker, on the whole, I intend to agree that we need to criminalise that, but there must be a regulation in respect to the value additions and so on.
So I want to crave your indulgence to stand that section down for us to --
Mr Speaker 11:54 a.m.
Hon Member, this is just a way of postponing the matter of the jury. We have exhausted this issue, and we should want to come to a conclusion.
Do you stand for criminalisation or not?
Mr Ntim 11:54 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I stand for criminalisation of some value chain actors, but not solely the farmers.
Mr Speaker 11:54 a.m.
Some amount of criminalisation in which direction?
Mr Ntim 11:54 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the criminalisation that would be segregated in a way that --
Mr Speaker 11:54 a.m.
In what manner? How do we segregate the criminalisation of this issue?
Mr Ntim 11:54 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I wish you indulge me by stepping it down for us to do a consultation and come out with a better rendition of that section.
Mr Speaker 11:54 a.m.
To segregate the criminalisation of this matter in what manner? Say that this area should be criminalised and that area should not be criminalised, and show us the parameters for making the distinctions.
Mr Ntim 11:54 a.m.
Mr Speaker, to make a distinction between who the targets are and to exclude the farmers who are trying to promote --.
Mr Speaker 11:54 a.m.
We had a very brilliant example of copyright which we criminalised and decriminalised. If the benefits are there, the farmers would want to register.
Cocoa farm inspectors, as I have known since the 1940s, do not need any registration or otherwise to visit farms. If there is something happening there that is wrong, they will solicit the farm inspectors, as well as where they have to incentivise them; they do so. With the chemicals that killed the akate and so on, you do not need to send any farmer to jail in order to achieve that end.
Mr Andy K. Appiah-Kubi 11:54 a.m.
Mr Speaker, if we look at the Memorandum to the Bill itself and I refer to the second paragraph -- the import of this Bill is to encourage participation in the industry and not to place sanctions on participants.
Mr Speaker, the second paragraph reads 11:54 a.m.
“Tree crop development in this country has generally been fraught with challenges.”
The import of the Bill, therefore, is to correct the challenges in the industry.
Mr Speaker 11:54 a.m.
Hon Kwame Appiah-Kubi, you have just come. Luckily, we have gone beyond this. Now, do we criminalise or not?
Mr A.K. Appiah-Kubi 11:54 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I did not just come, I was sitting at the back.
Mr Speaker, my position is that we do not have to criminalise it but with the clause 24(d) what does “failure to register” mean? Because there are so many players in the industry and so the provision is ambiguous. Mr Speaker, I can assure you that no judge would convict an offender on this provision because -
Mr Speaker 11:54 a.m.
Hon Member, thank you very much.
As you have said, we cannot criminalise an ambiguity. That is brilliant.
Hon Members, I would put the Question.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 24 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 25 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Mr Speaker 11:54 a.m.
There is an amendment standing in the name of Hon Kwasi Etu-Bonde of which the debate is to continue.
Mr Kwasi Etu-Bonde 11:54 a.m.
Mr Speaker, yesterday I moved, clause 26 Interpretation of “tree crops”, after “cashew” insert “mango”.
Mr Speaker, my reason was with the Explanatory Memorandum that accompanied the Bill.
Mr Speaker, with your permission I would read the first three sentences of paragraph 3:
“The success of the cocoa sub- sector is an indication that a well- developed and co-ordinated tree crops sub-sector can contribute significantly to the economic growth of the country. The country has a number of comparative advantages in the production of a large number of tree crops”.
Mr Speaker, the advantages listed include 11:54 a.m.
“political stability, geographic location, and access to large regional and global markets”.
Mr Speaker, from this statement, if you look at mango, out of the 16 regions we have now, mango is commercially grown in 14 out of the 16 regions. This makes the geographic coverage very wide. Also, the current mango report indicates that we have about 80,000 hectares of mango that engages about 11,500 farmers with employment of 55,000 casual labourers. Mr Speaker, this means that it also contributes to the economic development which the Bill seeks to establish.
Mr Speaker, the economic growth and market access -- if you look at the value chain on which mango is operating, at the farm gate the potential is 20 tonnes per hectare. As at last year, a tonne of mango was GH¢1,500 so an acre would give GH¢18,000 compared to cocoa which is GH¢9,000.
So economically, mango could contribute to the country.
We are talking about its processing and among the processers in this country we have big giants like Blue Skies Company who process mango. They sometimes get shortages in mango and they would have to import because the value chain here is not able to supply them whereas if this Authority is able to regulate the mango industry, we could get supply of mango for nine out of the 12 months. Mr Speaker, this could generate about 1.3 billion processed products; Blue Skies, HPW Fresh & Dry, Integrated Tamale Fruit Company (ITFC) and Bomarts Farms are envisaging.
Mr Speaker, meanwhile there are some challenges along the mango value chain in the area of research and development which I hope if it is included in the Authority it would help them.
Mr Speaker 11:54 a.m.
Hon Member, quickly relate this to your proposed amendment.
Mr Etu-Bonde 11:54 a.m.
Mr Speaker, so with this explanation I propose that mango be added to the tree crops.
Thank you.
Mr Speaker 11:54 a.m.
The earlier proponents in arguing against criminalisation drew our attention to the fact that the Bill as a whole was only giving examples of crops to be regulated and by the application of the ejusdem generis rule, since it is only an example that is given, any other crop that can fall within that category is included. That is why it is very dangerous to criminalise if you really appreciated that argument, which was very sound. Otherwise, very soon we shall drag it unto every aspect. Do we now have to start making a new list?
Mr Ayariga 11:54 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I do agree with you that in our earlier contributions to the amendments of other clauses we sought to argue that this clause could be expansive in the sense that other tree crops could be raked in. Indeed, in interpreting statutory provisions the Court would have regard to the debates in the Hansard and our concerns and understanding of what tree crops mean.
Mr Speaker, having brought up the matter, it being debated and the general understanding being that tree

crops in the Interpretation clause is not limited to only oil palm, rubber, cashew and shea, we may choose to leave it that way but ex-abundanti cautela to wit “out of an abundance of caution” -- because the farmers may not go to court and ask the court to interpret whether mango is part of it and the implementers may not be lawyers to understand that having regard to the Hansard of Parliament, they may extend it to mango. Mr Speaker, since he is a representative of a constituency where mango is developed, he seeks to get us to have an expansive interpretation that would cover mango.

Mr Speaker, if the House is so minded then let us vote and accept the expansion because even in my constituency we may cultivate mangoes, too, once we get to know -- in my area we produce shea and that is covered. In the Eastern Region, mango production is a major economic activity and it is so in the Savannah and Volta Regions. Mr Speaker, so there is a huge constituency in this Chamber who are highly in favour of adding mango expressly. Mr Speaker, so I support his proposed amendment.
Mr Speaker 12:14 p.m.
Thank you very much.
In this connection can there be “out of an abundance of caution” and to encourage all those who may want to read it without going into legal interpretations. Can we add any other tree crop? It is being suggested that mango, coconut --

Yes, Hon Member?
Mr Quaittoo 12:14 p.m.
Mr Speaker, at Dunkwa-on-Offin, when the President launched the Planting for Export and Rural Development (PERD), the initial idea was to start with six crops.
Mr Speaker 12:14 p.m.
Hon Member, are you suggesting pear?
Mr Quaittoo 12:14 p.m.
I said when the President launched PERD - Planting for Export and Rural Development -- it is out of this programme that we are now having this Authority. The idea at the time was to consider six crops including mango and coconut. But when they came to the development of this Bill, it was realised that the various associations that had prepared their development plans were associations of farmers of cashew, oil palm, rubber and shea. In fact, that of shea had been prepared long ago when I was working at Ghana Cocoa Board (COCOBOD).
Mr Speaker 12:14 p.m.
Hon Member, do you have anything else to add? This is because the principle is, out of the abundance of caution and in view of the provision for interpretation which is all inclusive, let us add some of the crops that are normally clear to us. Do you have anything to add?
Mr Quaittoo 12:14 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I doubt if we have that authority to do that because it may involve cost implications. It is out of the cost Government would incur that they have considered these four, honestly. If we just add on - This provision is made to give room for future addition of certain crops. That is why it was left this way and defined that tree crops include … So if we add them now, it would have cost implications.
Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 12:14 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I agree with his suggestion, except that it is just for the avoidance -- Just adding mango.
Mr Speaker 12:14 p.m.
Hon Member, are you opposed to the addition of coconut?
Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 12:14 p.m.
Mr Speaker, it is because I was privileged to be part of those who were invited to consider this Bill. Shea, cashew and oil palm presently are developed industries. We used the word “including” to give opportunity for additions depending on the state of the industry.
So if we use oil palm, cashew, shea and rubber, they are developed. We are saying they should add mango because it is also developed, and we are exporting mango. So for coconut, we are not yet exporting it.
Alhaji Muntaka 12:14 p.m.
We are; say you do not know. We are exporting it in huge quantities.
Mr Speaker 12:14 p.m.
Many people abroad are waiting to drink coconut water like I am doing now. Right now, I am drinking coconut water. Coconut is developed.
Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 12:14 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the acting Chairman of the Committee has said it, and I support the fact that by including other tree crops now, it is bringing financial implications, and it is trite.
Mr Speaker 12:14 p.m.
Hon Member, on the financial implications, Government would do what it can, prioritise these and say that mango is more crucial and spend more money on it. But the point is that, nobody holds anybody by the neck. That is the whole issue about government expenditure. It is a matter of opportunity cost and prioritisation. So government would have to prioritise, but we are entitled, as legislators, to say these are also important areas to go into; mango and coconut. Then we are finished.
Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 12:14 p.m.
Mr Speaker, if I still have the Floor, I want to conclude.
Mr Speaker 12:14 p.m.
No. You do not have the Floor.
Yes, Hon Majority Leader? Your Hon Leader is on his feet so you do not have the Floor.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:14 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I believe that we should operate within some confines. It is not for nothing that the Public Financial Management Act of 2016 (Act 921) imposes a burden on ministers and, indeed, any member submitting a Bill to us to come with financial implications. So it cannot just be allowed ad infinitum, a list should be added. It cannot be allowed, otherwise, the provision in the Public Financial Management Act would not have any relevance as far as Bills are concerned.
Mr Speaker, but really, I am not opposed to the addition of mango at all. I think it should be added. My own appreciation of the definition of tree crops is that we should close it to be:
“For purposes of this Act, tree crops means oil palm, rubber, cashew, shea and mango”.
This is because if we say “includes”, it would be subject to abuse. So we should make it much more definite that for the purposes of this Act, “tree crops” means oil palm, rubber, cashew, shea and mango, then we close the chapter.
Mr Ayariga 12:14 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I agree with the argument of the Hon Majority Leader that there should be some regard to the financial implication of the legislation, but the other way that I think we could go is to empower the Minister from time to time to add to the list of tree crops on the basis of available resources and government policy on a particular tree crop.
So I agree with him that we may want to further amend that interpretation of tree crops to say “tree crops” means but not “tree crops” include, but to also add “such other tree crops as may be determined by the minister” after the list. In this way, as and when it becomes government's policy to add a particular tree crop, then the Minister, by Executive Instrument, can declare that a particular tree crop becomes part of the tree crops that the Authority should develop so that in 2021 the National Democratic Congress (NDC) responsible -- [Laughter] -- may be able to add that dawadawa should be added as a tree crop so that the people from my constituency can begin to benefit
from research into dawadawa plantations, processing, and its transportation.
Mr Speaker, in my view, this should be the approach. I accept the proposal of the Hon Majority Leader except to add that the Minister should be given that power from time to time to add without having to come to Parliament to seek an amendment of the Legislation to add a tree crop.
Mr S. Mahama 12:14 p.m.
Mr Speaker, my Hon Colleagues have argued strongly for the inclusion of mango and possibly coconut. I rise to add my voice to the fact that -
Mr Speaker 12:14 p.m.
Hon Member, add your voice by saying what you want to say.
Mr S. Mahama 12:24 p.m.
Mr Speaker, this Bill has been very progressive. That is the reason it says in the Explanatory Memorandum that “tree crops include...” So by addition of mango and possibly coconut - Mr Speaker, you are sipping coconut water and it makes room for many coconut farmers to have a say in this.
One argument that was raised by my learned friend, Hon Anyimadu- Antwi, has to do with funding. If you look at clause 17, which talks about
sources of funding, paragraph (b) talks about internally-generated funds and paragraph (e) talks about subscriptions from various stakeholders in the tree crops industry.

Mr Speaker, indeed, from the presentations we had from mango growers, I am confident they would be the largest subscribers to this Bill. So for purposes of generating funds, if we include mango --
Mr Speaker 12:24 p.m.
The Hon Second Deputy Speaker will take the Chair.
MR SECOND DEPUTY SPEAKER
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:25 p.m.
Well, happily, I am back. [Laughter] -- I recall that we deferred this issue for further consultation with the policy makers. The Committee should take into consideration the implications of the additions. I hope that has been done. I received directives from the Rt Hon Speaker on the issue. So let us continue with the debate.
Yes, Hon Member for Daboya/ Mankarigu?
Mr Shaibu Mahama 12:25 p.m.
Mr Speaker, we have progressed very
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:25 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I thought we were making progress. We cannot leave it in the hands of the Minister to determine the inclusion of additional crops as and when he deems fit; it cannot be done.
Mr Speaker, we are establishing an Authority and the clear mandate of the Authority must be known. We cannot leave it in the hands of a Minister to say that as and when he deems appropriate, add to the list. The status and competence of the Authority must be known from the very outset. That is the remit of this House. When we
have done that and it needs to be added on, the Minister would come with an application to the House for an amendment; that is how it should be done. We should be definitive in this.
Alhaji Muntaka 12:25 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I agree with the Hon Majority Leader. It is for the avoidance of abuse.
In this country we have seen how things are done sometimes for political expediency. As the Hon Majority Leader said earlier, this Bill was supposed to have come as required by the Public Financial Management Act (PFMA), with the implication on the economy. That has not been done.
Mr Speaker, if we accept the proposal by my Hon Colleague from Bawku Central, Hon Mahama Ayariga, that the definition of tree crops should have a clause that keeps it open, so that as and when the Minister thinks another crop should be added - we would end up having a hopeless Authority. They would pick so many tree crops that they would not be able to do anything for any of them, yet, they would criminalise them on refusal to give accurate information -- [Interruption] -- No, it is only registration that has been deleted, but all the others are still there. If a farmer refuses to give them accurate information and other things, he would be penalised.
Mr Speaker, we should learn from some of the Authorities we have passed in this House. Recently, we passed the Integrated Aluminium and Bauxite Authority Bill. We did not give a caveat that should our country find other useful minerals, the Minister could add on. We limited it, so that we could guard exactly what they would do.
Mr Speaker, I agree with the addition of mango. But even after we have done that, we must demand of the Minister -- the sad thing is that, none of them is in the Chamber. They are supposed to lead their policy discussions -- I have been told they are in a Cabinet Meeting, but they have Hon Deputies -- they are to come back and tell us the financial implication of this as required by the
PFMA.
Mr Speaker, I would want to amend the interpretation of tree crops to include, oil palm, rubber, cashew, shea and mango. So that when it becomes necessary to add, they should come back to the House. If we leave it open, tomorrow, the list would be endless and the net effect on each of them would be lost. If we are not careful, we would be adding more, so that the subscription fee goes up; that should not be the essence. Let us limit it, so that we would know
exactly what the mandate of the Authority is and have a proper oversight on what they do.
Mr Ayariga 12:25 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the argument was that tree crops include the four crop that were mentioned and there was the proposal to add a fifth crop, which is mango. The Rt Hon Speaker said that by his understanding, ‘include' means that any other tree crop could be included. We mentioned only four, because the word “includes” was used, it means others under the ejusdem generis rule. So there was an argument that we could not allow such an expansive interpretation because, depending on the number of tree crops, there are financial implications, and since the fiscal impact of the legislation has not been brought, we cannot tell what the financial implication of opening up to include every other crop would be.
Mr Speaker, that was when I proposed that there may be very good policy reasons why we may have to add other tree crops. Any time there is policy consideration to add a new crop, it may not be very efficient to say that a Bill should be brought to go through all the stages because we want to add dawadawa.
Mr Speaker, my proposal is that, we may amend clause 26 for “tree crops” to mean oil palm, rubber,
Mr Quaittoo 12:25 p.m.
Mr Speaker, when you were not here, I mentioned that
the initial number of crops that were to be considered under this Authority was six; mango and coconut inclusive. However, after an extensive deliberation, particularly, having to do with which of those crop sectors have their associations ready with working documents —
Mr Speaker, as an Hon Deputy
Minister, I worked on this 12:25 p.m.
there were four of them and that is why this Bill limits the tree crops to the four. Today, if this Bill is passed and the Authority is established, as soon as it goes there, it has four working documents on these four tree crops. Working document on shea is long produced in 2013 and 2014; that of oil palm has been produced; that of cashew is done and that of rubber is done.
Mr Speaker, we do not have a working document on mango, and coconut too does not have a work plan. So looking at all these, I think that it was decided at Cabinet that we should consider these four tree crops first and a certain amount of money was mentioned to establish this Authority in view of these four tree crops. So, if we add on any crop, it would have some financial implications.
Mr Speaker, in order to give room for the addition of new crops, when
we were looking at the Bill, the draftpersons from the Attorney- General's Department suggested that if we removed the phrase, “tree crops means” and put there “tree crops includes”, then, there is a leeway for new additions to be made easily.
Mr Speaker, listening to Hon Ayariga, I tend to side with him that, let us define tree crops to mean these four crops and then, add another phrase to indicate how a new crop could be added.
Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 12:25 p.m.
On a point of order.
Mr Speaker, indeed, I heard the Hon Chairman of the Committee on Education make a categorical statement that mango does not have a working document. Mr Speaker, until he left the Ministry of Agriculture, I thought he knew that mango was a strategic, exportable crop developed strategically with a strategic document and that led us to where we are on the cultivation and exportation of mangoes. It was led by the Export Promotion Authority, so they do have a working document.
And just two days ago, the Association of Mango Exporters met some Hon Members of Parliament and showed to them certain documents.
Mr Quaittoo 12:25 p.m.
Mr Speaker, if he says while I was at the Ministry -- I did not see that because I met all these Associations when we were considering this Bill. We turned it into Authority because every crop association wanted their own Boards just like the COCOBOD. And later, we thought that if we formed one Authority and all the Associations come under that authority with various managers, it would be better. That was why this Authority was promulgated.
As at that time -- of course, I left the Ministry about two years, when I invited all the Associations, a working document on mango development plan was being done. I do not know whether it is ready. So I have been fighting why mango was left out in the last minute and they said mango would come onstream very soon because they are still doing some preparations. If the House thinks that we should add mango now without prior authority from the Ministry or the Hon- Minister for Finance, I do not know, we could add it.
Other than that, I think that a lot of considerations went into selection of these four crops. But we could also define just like Hon Ayariga said, “tree crops means” and we mention the four crops and we add a phrase that would allow for addition of other
Mr Chireh 12:25 p.m.
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. While the Rt Hon Speaker was here, the Hon Majority Leader made a conclusive amendment and he was about to consider putting the Question. It is to the effect that we add the mango but change “includes” to ‘means'. And by that, we would have closed the gate.
The argument that Hon Ayariga makes, first of all, as with issue of mango, it was agreed and we all want mango to be added, but the Authority we are setting up would come to a point that each of these could even stand on their own as currently is the case of the COCOBOD. So I think that we should adopt the recommendation by the Hon Majority Leader that, we add mango and change “include” to “means”.
Mr Speaker, the second issue is, if at any time, any Government wants to add a new tree crop, it is very easy. The Bill he is worried about is the easiest Bill to pass because we would say, amendment of tree crops Act, Clause 26. Section 26 is hereby amended by the inclusion of….' And that would have been a different thing but it would have gone through
thorough consideration by the Minister at his level, sent to the Cabinet and Cabinet would have agreed. So all these issues as to whether it is important or it is prepared to be added to this list would have all been considered.
Now, he wants us to give legislative power to a Minister. That, we cannot do. He is not even talking about an L.I. which would still come to Parliament. I think that is a very dangerous way of doing legislation. We should adopt the one proposed by the Hon Majority Leader, that we add mango and change “includes” to “means”'. If any Government in future wants to add another crop or even separate these ones into individual authorities, that is still there. But for now, mango is part and should be considered as such.
I think that we have debated this for long and I would suggest that we put the Question according to what the Hon Majority Leader proposed.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:25 p.m.
Hon Members, I got the sense that this argument has been tied down to a simple amendment. I think the proposal given by the Hon Majority Leader seems to attract my attention. Unless you insist, I would have also agreed that we go by that way of
amending the “includes” to “means” and then, add mango. The only thing we have to do is to also look at other implications, because there were some earlier amendments that we made to some of the clauses; dealing with membership, quorum and the rest.
We have to look at that. in fact, it was for that reason we deferred it for further consideration by the Committee and the promoters of the Bill. I am sure the Committee got in touch with the promoters and are better informed as to the way forward. Without much ado, I would proceed to put the Question. Is that the sense of the House?
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:44 p.m.
Hon Members, there is a proposed amendment to clause 26. The definition of ‘'tree crops'' --
rose
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:44 p.m.
Hon Member, is Mr Speaker out of order?
Mr Essien 12:44 p.m.
Mr Speaker, there is a submission I would want to make.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:44 p.m.
Do you disagree with the sense of the House?
Mr Essien 12:44 p.m.
No, Mr Speaker. There is a submission I would want to make, which has to do with the inclusion of “mango''.
Mr Speaker, the only tree crop that has helped the three Nzema constituencies is the coconut tree, so if we agree to add “mango'' to it, then I want to plead that ‘'coconut'' should also be added to it.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:44 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I am afraid that if we proceed on this line, you would never be able to put the Question. We have sufficiently spoken on this matter.
First of all, I want to disagree with my Hon Colleague that the only tree crop they have in the Nzema area is coconut. It is untrue. They have rubber, some cocoa and coffee.
Mr Speaker, having said that, I want to invoke Standing Order 96. You have proposed the Question and it has been debated sufficiently, so I wanted to beg of you to put the Question.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:44 p.m.
So should I put the Question on the inclusion of “mango'', then the deletion of “includes'' and the insertion of “means''?
rose
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:44 p.m.
I find it difficult to gag Hon Members. Hon Member for Bawku Central, you have had enough. It is not always that you must have your way.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:44 p.m.
Before the Rt Hon Speaker left the Chair, he encouraged all of you to drink coconut water. So I hope in the near future, coconut would be included.
Hon Members, I would put the Question on the whole of clause 26?
rose
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:44 p.m.
Yes, Hon Member?
Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 12:44 p.m.
Mr Speaker, before you put the Question, I was left confused in your last Question because you did not give me an opportunity to express my view. You lumped the Questions together.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:44 p.m.
were you confused because I did not give you the opportunity to express your views on the matter?
Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 12:44 p.m.
Yes, Mr Speaker.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:44 p.m.
If you are confused, that is your, own problem.
Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 12:44 p.m.
Mr Speaker, you put “means'' and “mango'' together and I do not support the insertion of “means'', but I support the inclusion of “mango''. However, you put the Question which looks like a Brexit question about Referendum. [Laughter.]
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:44 p.m.
The Question I put was, “tree crop means''.
Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 12:44 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I do not agree with that. [Interruption.] I was not given an opportunity to vote.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:44 p.m.
Hon Member, the issue is about the House agreeing and not for every Hon Member in the House to agree. You are entitled to disagree, but you lost the vote. You can even win the debate but lose the vote.
I would put the Question on the whole of clause 26.
Clause 26 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 27 -- Transitional provisions.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:44 p.m.
Hon Members, I have with me, some additional proposed amendments to clause 26, which had earlier been submitted by Hon Quaittoo. There are quite a number of them and since we are still at the Consideration Stage and at clause 26, we could take that on board. There are others that we have taken decisions on, so they would be done at the Second Consideration Stage.
Let us listen to the Hon Member, if he is available, to move his proposed amendments.
Yes, Hon Member?
Mr Quaittoo 12:44 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move that in clause 26, the interpretation of “development'' delete and insert:
“development'' includes, sustainable sources of funding, acquisition and protection of land banks for the tree crop industry for the production, processing and marketing of tree crops''.
Mr Speaker, the original rendition is 12:54 p.m.
“‘development' includes, sustainable sources of funding, acquisition and protection of land banks for the tree crop
industry for the cultivation of the specified tree crops;''

Mr Speaker, the word “cultivation'' is quite low because it does not cover the entire activities from land preparation to the harvest level. So at the Committee level, we used the word “production” and that is why we have defined “production”.

My amendment includes the redefinition of what we mean by “production”.

Mr Speaker, cultivation is only at the planting stage; that is, whatever you do for the plant to grow well. So, we say “production”, by the definition, it will include land or soil selection and preparation, through to the seed stage up to harvesting. That is why I am adding this new amendment, that:

“devel opmen t ' inc ludes sustainable sources of funding, acquisition and protection of land banks for the tree crops industry for the production, processing and marketing of tree crops”.

Mr Speaker, so if you say “production”, “processing” and “marketing”, it covers all the value chain.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:54 p.m.
Hon Members, early on, we amended the word “crop” to “crops” so that has been taken care of. Now, your proposed amendment is for us to delete “cultivation” --
Mr Quaittoo 12:54 p.m.
Mr Speaker, we delete “cultivation” and “specified”. So we are replacing “cultivation” with “production, processing and marketing”.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:54 p.m.
Hon Member, yes, I got your proposed amendment.
Alhaji Munataka 12:54 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the proposed amendment by Hon Quaittoo is himself here but what he is doing does not seemed to be part of what we have. So, it is difficult to follow --
On the sheet that the Hon Member presented, clause 26 begins with item (6) which talks about interpretation of “development”.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:54 p.m.
That is what the Hon Member just moved and I need to put the Question on it before we proceed to the rest. He just moved that we should delete “cultivation” and insert “production, processing and marketing”. I was adding that we delete the (d) so that it will read; “marketing of specified tree crops” and not of --
Mr Quaittoo 12:54 p.m.
Mr Speaker, because we thought that we could add on more clauses, I intended deleting the “specified”.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:54 p.m.
Hon Member, but it will still be “specified” even when you add it. You cannot just open it to --
Mr Quaittoo 12:54 p.m.
Mr Speaker, so, I want to delete “specified” so that it would just read “crops”.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:54 p.m.
Hon Member, it has to be specified before it comes under the Authority, if not it is --
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:54 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I agree with the proposed amendment by Hon Quaittoo. In clause 26 the last line for the interpretation of “development”, we have the word “cultivation”. Then when we come to the body of this Bill, it really refers, not only to “cultivation”, but the entire value chain. The value chain include other activities which include production, processing and marketing.
So I think that we should be able to accommodate that. However, the way he started, he was about confusing everybody. So, I think that it is a very useful amendment and it could be accommodated.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:54 p.m.
Hon Members, I think he is just properly capturing the policy as stated in the Memorandum.
Alhaji Muntaka 12:54 p.m.
Mr Speaker, with the explanation from the Hon Majority Leader, it is clear.
I want to find out from the Hon Member why he wants to delete “cultivation”? I thought he would have left it and added “processing and marketing”.
Mr Quaittoo 12:54 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the lawyers will say it is “subsumed” by production, that is, cultivation is part of production. So we changed it, since “cultivation” was in the Memorandum, to “production' since “production” is broader.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:54 p.m.
In the Memorandum, the words used there are “production” --
Mr Quaittoo 12:54 p.m.
Mr Speaker, there is left with one more word, “cultivation” but because we do not amend the Memorandum here, I have not been able to do it. I have underlined that the word “cultivation” and in the Memorandum, it should also be changed to “production'.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:54 p.m.
Where is it?
Mr Quaittoo 12:54 p.m.
Mr Speaker, it is on the seventh line of the third paragraph of the Memorandum.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:54 p.m.
Yes, it is; “suitable for the cultivation, processing and export of”
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Quaittoo 12:54 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, interpretation of “large plantation”, delete and insert; “large plantation means” a farm of more than five hectares”.
Mr Ahiafor 12:54 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I want to know whether there is any distinction apart from the introduction of ‘a'. This is because the current rendition says that; “large plantation” means farms more than five hectares”.
Mr Quaittoo 12:54 p.m.
Mr Speaker, it says “large plantation” and not “large plantations'. Plantation is a farm, and usually, good draftpersons will always want to draft in the singular.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr A.K. Appiah-Kubi 1:04 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I just want to refer you to the clause that we just amended. The
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:04 p.m.
Unfortunately, we are not on that now.
Mr Appiah-Kubi 1:04 p.m.
Mr Speaker, but if we leave it as it is, then it would not make the necessary -- [Interruption] -- I rose but I could not catch your eye and I even gave it to him to explain. Please read it because it does not bring out the import --
rose
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:04 p.m.
Hon Member, do not belabour the
point. Let us take the Question on what we are considering now. Once we are still at the Consideration Stage, we can always come back to it. The Hon Member has already moved another amendment that we are considering now, so just hold your gun and when we finish with that, we could listen to you.
Hon Majority Leader, I saw you on your feet?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:04 p.m.
Mr Speaker, first of all, even though we have gone beyond that stage, my Hon Colleague for Asante Akim North is drawing your attention to the omission. Mr Speaker, I agree with him that it should rather have read “development' includes sourcing for sustainable funding, acquisition …” I think that this is a better rendition but we can come back to that.
For now we are at (7) -- “large plantation' means a farm of more than five hectares”. I thought that we could improve this further because we are talking about the size of the farm. So, it could be “a farm size of more than five hectares” and not just “a farm of more than five hectares”.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:04 p.m.
Hon Members, there is a further amendment to the definition of large plantation. The Hon Majority Leader
further proposes that after “farm” insert “size”.
So the new rendition would read “large plantation means a farm size of more than five hectares”.
Mr Appiah-Kubi 1:04 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the proposal from the Hon Majority Leader changes the existing rendition a bit. Mr Speaker, the existing rendition reads “large plantation means farms more than five hectares”. I would propose a further rendition to read “farm size of five or more hectares' because this would then include five hectares and beyond. [Interruption] Mr Speaker, “more than five hectares” means “five hectares” is not included. It should read “five or more hectares”.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:04 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I was just discussing with the Hon Deputy Majority Leader after I made the submission that we should have a definition of what a “plantation” is. We are talking about “large plantation” now. If “plantation” means any farm size, for instance, between two and five hectares then we cannot include “five”. Then it should be more than five hectares.
Mr Speaker, we should know from the industry players and the Ministry if a plantation is between two and five
hectares, then a large plantation should be more than five hectares. Mr Speaker, so we have to know from them the definition given to a plantation, then we can proceed from there.
Mr Quaittoo 1:04 p.m.
Mr Speaker, a farm size of up to five hectares is not a large plantation but anything above five hectares is a large plantation.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:04 p.m.
This is a technical definition and so the technical people would give it to us.
Mr Quaittoo 1:04 p.m.
A large plantation is about five hectares.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:04 p.m.
Hon Member, are you speaking to me or to the Hon Leader?
Mr Quaittoo 1:04 p.m.
A plantation is any farm --
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:04 p.m.
Hon Member, people from Akim Oda do not talk that way. [Laughter]
If I give you the opportunity, you address me. You do not take that opportunity to address your Hon Leader.
Mr Quaitto 1:04 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I take a cue.
4189Tree Crops Development Authority 28 November, 2019 Bill, 2019 -- Con Stage 41904187 Tree Crops Development Authority 28 November, 2019 Bill, 2019 -- Con Stage 4188 [ALHAJI MUNTAKA]Mr Second Deputy Speaker:
Let me listen to Hon Afeku.
Mrs Catherine A. Afeku 1:04 p.m.
Mr Speaker, thank you.
Mr Speaker, this is an emotional appeal, and knowing you, you would listen to the plea. Mr Speaker, the good people of Nzema land would want to take you back to a clause that took out coconut. Mr Speaker, we have been told that there is not enough support and research to give the good people of Nzema land their livelihood. Coconut, is one of the major crops that sustains livelihood in Nzema land.

Mr Speaker, I started by saying “emotional appeal,” and so it has nothing to do with the clause. We are just appealing to you emotionally to have mercy on the good people of Nzema and add coconut. Mr Speaker, thank you.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:14 p.m.
Hon Member, there is no provision here where coconut has been taken out. There was a proposed amendment to include coconut which the House declined. I have listened to your passionate appeal which has been delivered emotionally for the good people of Nzema land. This is what multi-party democracy is about; how we respond to the diverse interests of the society. So the House would have the opportunity to reconsider it but for now, let me put the Question on what we are considering.

There is already a proposal on the Floor. Let us take a decision on that, then we could come back to what was raised by Hon (Dr) Appiah-Kubi and yours because we are still at clause 26.

We are on the definition of “large plantation”.
Alhaji Muntaka 1:14 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I would want to side with Dr Appiah-
Kubi to include “five hectares”. My Colleague, Hon Quaittoo knows that five hectares equals 12.5 acres. I would want to believe that anything above 10 acres can fairly be regarded as large. This is because we would say 12.5 acres would not qualify, but 13 acres would have qualified as large; the difference is just half an acre. Even 12.6 acres would be more than five hectares.
So I want us to define it to include the five hectares, so that 12.5 acres and above would be regarded as large. This is because in our country, anything above 10 acres is largely seen as a large farm.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:14 p.m.
Well, I indicated that this was a technical definition. We are not just talking about a plantation. But a large plantation. So there would definitely be a definition of “plantation”: What is the size of a farm that is usually referred to as a “plantation”? Now, you have added “large plantation” and that is where we need the guidance of the technical people.
Alhaji Muntaka 1:14 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the definition of plantation is simply a farm..
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:14 p.m.
Is every farm a plantation?
Alhaji Muntaka 1:14 p.m.
Yes, but it is not in relation to size. However, I would agree that when we say large plantation, we would want to mean large farm. I then said that looking at our situation here, when you describe a farm as large, I would want us to include that it is anything 12 acres and above should be seen as large. That is why I set that example of five hectares being 12.5 acres and 13 acres would be considered as large when 12.5 acres would not qualify. That is why I wanted us to include five hectares to mean that 12.5 acres and anything above that is a large farm.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:14 p.m.
What is the response from the Ministry, Hon former Deputy Minister?
Mr Quaittoo 1:14 p.m.
Mr Speaker, defining plantations as large or small is relative. It depends on the crop that you are dealing with. In some areas, it is difficult to crop on a very large farm, and so if you say you have a large farm or plantation, the size is small. But when you come to tree crops, the spaces are very big, and so a five hectare farm is not considered as a large plantation, but as a small plantation. Anything above five hectares then becomes a large plantation.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:14 p.m.
His proposal is for us to move it to 12 hectares.

talking about acres. He has converted the hectares into acres.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:14 p.m.
Is that the case? I thought we were moving forward.
Mr Quaittoo 1:14 p.m.
Mr Speaker, five hectares is about 12.5 acres. That is what he said, and for tree crops, 12.5 acres is not a large plantation.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:14 p.m.
Please, let us maintain the hectares. We should not introduce acres.
Mr Quaittoo 1:14 p.m.
Mr Speaker, it is hectares, and by the definition of those who crafted this law including all the technical people who were present, up to five hectares is small. Something above five hectares is large. Mr Speaker, it is a simple definition.
Mr A. K. Appiah-Kubi 1:14 p.m.
Mr Speaker, it has just dawned on me, the size that is being demanded here. Indeed, the Bill takes a strong cue from the success of the cocoa sector. The cocoa sector is not planted in large plantations. They are done by small-scale cocoa farmers and yet it has been successful. The stipulation that 12.5 per cent can only be assisted by the Authority is a bit dangerous. Does it mean that the Authority would not assist small-scale farmers dealing in these tree crops? Where are we
going to get such large land sizes in Ghana here currently?
I would suggest that we reduce the sizes, so that the Authority would facilitate small-scale farmers everywhere in the country, to engage in tree crop farming. Otherwise, it would be very difficult to get such huge spans of land sizes for the tree crop plantation. We need to be careful here to promote small-scale farming, so that in the end, just as we did with cocoa, we would have large production of these tree crops.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:14 p.m.
Hon Members, we must move forward. The proposal before us is to amend the definition of large plantation as follows:
“large plantation' means a farm size of more than five hectares.”
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:14 p.m.
Earlier, my attention was drawn to the definition of “development”, and I indicated that we would take the decision on this before we consider that. Looking at the word “development”, which is action oriented, we are being invited to insert “identifying” after the word “includes”.
So it would read:
“Development” includes identifying sustainable sources of funding, acquisition and protection of land banks for the tree crop industry for the production, processing and marketing of the specified tree crops.”
That is the proposal from Hon Appiah-Kubi; am I right?
Mr A.K. Appiah-Kubi 1:14 p.m.
Mr Speaker, yes, but better still, we could interchange the words with “sourcing for sustainable funding” which places a responsibility on the Authority to so do.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:14 p.m.
It “includes sourcing for sustainable funding” as the new rendition?
Hon Members, this is the new rendition now. It is for the consideration of the House.
Mr A. K. Appiah-Kubi 1:24 a.m.
Mr Speaker, once I have your permission, I would want us to also consider the fact that there is a requirement for registration.
Therefore, in looking at land sizes in relation to the farms we have in Ghana, we might be asked to exclude as many people as possible. This is
because in the Ghanaian situation, you would hardly find somebody with even five acres.

We are enacting to only capture people with 12.5 acres.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:24 a.m.
Hon Member, let us decide on your initial proposal, and then we would go to other things.
Mr A. K. Appiah-Kubi 1:24 a.m.
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Mr Quaittoo 1:24 a.m.
Mr Speaker, with the initial proposal that he made, if we adhere to it, what happens to “acquisition”? It does not have the same meaning as sources of funding. In that case, by his proposal that we should delete “acquisition” -- [Interruption.]
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:24 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the proposal rendered by Hon Appiah-Kubi, the Hon Member for Asante Akim North, is accurate because development is an activity. In the context he put it, development includes sourcing for sustainable funding. Acquisition and protection relate to land banks. So, acquisition and protection of land banks are both activities.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:24 a.m.
I wanted to draw his attention to that. The Hon Majority Leader is right. Sourcing does not deal with acquisition and protection; it deals with --
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:24 a.m.
So, the definition of “development” includes sourcing for sustainable funding, acquisition and protection of land banks for the tree crop industry for the production, processing and marketing of the specified tree crops.
Mr Quaittoo 1:24 a.m.
Mr Speaker, did we maintain “specified tree crops” “Tree crops” have been defined. So, I thought in my amendment I deleted “specified”.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:24 a.m.
The Table Office should take note of that. We have deleted “specified”.
Hon Member, your next proposed amendment, which is item numbered
8.
Mr Quaittoo 1:24 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 26, interpretation of “processing”, delete and insert, “processing” meaning value addition to produce or products from a tree crop.”
Mr Speaker, a produce is a freshly harvested agricultural product. It includes meat. If we harvest the fruit of any plant or even an animal, it is a produce. If value is added to it, it becomes a product. For example, cashew is not usually plucked from the tree; it falls -- [Interruption] --
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:24 a.m.
I have seen the cause of your problem -- [Laughter.] Your Leader is heckling you. Please, do not forget about place value in the definition. The only thing you will add to the produce is transporting them to another place. Once they are sent to another place, value has been added. It has been brought from the farm to the market centre. The price could change between Tamale and Accra because of the transportation cost. It is in economics. The planners disagree with me.
Mr Chireh 1:24 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the original of his amendment is:
“Processing” means value addition to products from the tree crops”.
The Hon Member said “processing” meaning, value addition to the produce or product from a tree crop.
Mr Quaittoo 1:24 a.m.
Mr Speaker, if we harvest from any plant or animal, it is a produce. If we process it, we add value to it. So it changes its original fresh form and becomes a product. We could also have primary and secondary additions. If we say agricultural product, it does not include its fresh form. It means that it has been changed from the fresh form into another form. So, the fresh form is called produce. That was why I said that processing starts with produce.
A product is a result of manufacturing. So, if I take fresh mango, if I transport it anywhere and it is still fresh, I have not changed its form; it is still a produce. When I peel it, package it and sell it, it is a product.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:24 a.m.
What about the statement that, ‘it is the product of my labour”?
Mr Quaittoo 1:24 a.m.
Mr Speaker that is economics. I am defining it in agricultural terms.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:24 a.m.
We do not say it is the produce of my labour, but product of my labour.
Mr Quaittoo 1:24 a.m.
Mr Speaker, that is English or Economics. In agriculture, if a goat is slaughtered now, the meat is a produce. As soon as it is put in the frying pan and cooked, it is a product.
Mr Speaker, that is why we have the Produce Buying Company (PBC). Cocoa, which is dried before it is sold, is still called a produce because it has not been through any manufacturing process.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:24 a.m.
I have a challenge here.
Hon Member, the draftspersons take a lot of things into consideration including the decisions of courts. We may not have the advantage of reading all those decisions. So when you are changing very critical terms, it becomes a difficulty just to take it alone on the face of it. I am just drawing your attention to it.
Let me listen to the Hon Majority Leader.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:34 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I agree with my Hon Colleague.
The only point of disagreement is when he said that a produce is a freshly harvested fruit. He even cited an example of cocoa. When cocoa is harvested, it is brewed, and it is brought to the house and sun-dried.

After a period, it is bagged. Even in that condition, it is still a produce
Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 1:34 a.m.
Mr Speaker, it makes profound sense. The only thing I share with the Hon Majority Leader is the use of “freshly”; freshly harvested. That would be a problem. It makes sense because if cocoa beans are processed into cocoa butter, it becomes a product; but we could still process the cocoa butter into something else. So, we do not process the produce; we process the product into cocoa powder.
So, I agree and it makes a profound sense.
Mr Quaittoo 1:34 a.m.
Mr Speaker, any agricultural fruit or first fruit is a produce. When it is processed, it then becomes a product. So, if we are defining “processing” here, it should be about processing of the produce—
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:34 a.m.
Let us move on -- item 9?
Mr Quaittoo 1:34 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, that “production includes all the activities from land selection, land preparation, seed stage to the harvesting of the produce.”
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:34 a.m.
The proposal is to amend the definition of “production”. It is at page 11 of the Bill.
Mr Chireh 1:34 a.m.
Mr Speaker, if he is adding another word — I have the draft amendment and in that one he says:
“production includes all the activities from selection, land preparation, seed stage to the harvesting of the produce.”
When he was talking, he however, added “land selection”. So should we add “land” before “selection” because that is not on the paper?
Mr Quaittoo 1:34 a.m.
Mr Speaker, exactly so.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:34 a.m.
Yes, he said we should add land.
Mr Ben Abdallah Banda 1:34 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I would like to improve upon his proposed amendment. Instead of repeating “land”, I would want to propose that it should read “land selection and preparation.”
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:34 a.m.
So when we have only land “selection”, is it not part of production?
Mr Banda 1:34 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the word here is “land”, which is repeated in “selection” and “preparation”—
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:34 a.m.
I get your point. I am only saying that can “land selection” not stand alone as part of production? -- Land selection alone without ‘and'. Is land selection part of production?
Mr Banda 1:34 a.m.
Rightly so, Mr Speaker. “Land selection”, standing alone, is part of production. I however thought that once we are speaking to the same issue of land, we could combine the two.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:34 a.m.
You know the interpretation; if we say “land selection and preparation”, it means the two must come together before they constitute an act of production. That is the challenge we have.
Hon Majority Leader, let me listen to Dr Appiah-Kubi.
Dr Kojo Appiah-Kubi 1:34 a.m.
Mr Speaker, does the addition of “land selection” make any difference? Can land be prepared if it had not been selected? So in my opinion, land
preparation implies that the land had already been selected.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:34 a.m.
Mr Speaker, in this enterprise, the appropriate land must be selected. Perhaps it must be tested and so on and that is why we have this. So, one cannot just walk to any land and start preparing it. That is number one.
Mr Speaker, the other one from the Hon Chairman of Constitutional, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs Committee was that he wants us to conjoin “selection” and “preparation”. If that must be done, then the proper word would not be “and” but “or”. You would appreciate that, so the Hon Member should go on that path and I would support him; but “and” would be wrong - “land selection or “preparation”. In that case, ‘land' would affect both the “selection” and the “preparation”, and it should be “or” and not “and”. This is because if it is “and”, the two necessarily must go together; but either one would stand alone. So it should be “land selection or preparation.”
Mr Speaker, just for the avoidance of doubt, because we want to make this reader-friendly, we could let this stand -- “land selection, land preparation …” I think that is a better way.
Mr Quaittoo 1:34 a.m.
Mr Speaker, they are two different activities. Land selection refers to testing the soil. We have several plantations in Ghana that do not do well because they did not do soil testing. The person just got the land and thought that he would plant. So, if the soil is not fit for the plant, we would lose that crop. That is where farming begins; we must test the soil, and that is what I mean by land selection. [Interruption.] Preparation is going to clear the land and all that.
Dr K. Appiah-Kubi 1:34 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the Committee met the draftpersons and some consultants in Koforidua on this subject, and these issues were ironed out. This definition became a bone of contention -- hot exchanges there; but we finally settled on what we have in the Bill. Now that preparation consists of all the processes before planting, we all agreed that we should use that terminology for the purpose.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:44 p.m.
What you are doing is to oppose the amendment.
Mr Yaw Frimpong Addo 1:44 p.m.
Mr Speaker, from our Committee meeting, we believe that the amendment should be withdrawn. [Interruption.] No, he is changing the definition.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:44 p.m.
Hon Member, please address me.
Mr Addo 1:44 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the Hon Member wants to amend the definition as agreed in the Bill. When the Committee met, there were different shades of opinions on the definition.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:44 p.m.
Let me put the Question, so that when you are able to convince Hon Members to maintain it as it is, the decision of the House would prevail.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:44 p.m.
Item numbered 10.
Hon Majority Leader?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:44 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I thought that we went back. I proposed to the Hon Chairman of the Constitution, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs Committee that in his own proposal, which you just read to us, the intervening word should rather be “or” and not “and”. To make it much more reader friendly, we could stick to the original proposal by Hon Quaittoo by doing the separation --
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:44 p.m.
Hon Majority Leader, I get the point.
Table Office, take note of it that the House prefers, “land selection, land preparation…”.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:44 p.m.
Mr Speaker, beyond that, because the Hon Member of Parliament for Manso-Adubia said that there was some resistance, the matter of substance that I observed was that this new amendment that we have agreed to excludes “planting”. Is it deliberate that the word was excluded because, perhaps, the seed stage would include that?
Mr Quaittoo 1:44 p.m.
“Seed stage'' means planting.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:44 p.m.
Mr Speaker, then he is right.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:44 p.m.
Hon Member, move item numbered 10 -- definition of “promotion”.
Mr Quaittoo 1:44 p.m.
Mr Speaker, with your permission, if we could go back? When they considered the Bill at the Committee level, I was not available, and that is why I have all these amendments to make. According to Hon Yaw Frimpong Addo, they deliberated on it seriously with all the consultants, and “planting” should not
mean the same as “seed stage”; also, “land selection” should have been subsumed under “land operations”. So for the avoidance of doubt, let us add the “planting”.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:44 p.m.
Table Office, take note of that.
So the definition would be:
“. . . includes all the activities from land selection, land preparation, seed stage, planting to the harvesting of the produce''.
Hon Member, move your next proposed amendment.
Mr Quaittoo 1:44 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move clause 26, interpretation of “promotion”, delete and insert, “promotion' means, encouraging a value chain activity of tree crops in Ghana''.
Mr Speaker, the original rendition is 1:44 p.m.
“promotion' means encouraging the activity of tree crops in Ghana”.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:44 p.m.
The Hon Member has just defined that activity to be a value chain activity, and not any type of activity.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:44 p.m.
Mr Speaker, usually, in the interpretation column, we rather interpret words that are used earlier in the Bill. I asked the Hon Member; where in the body of the Bill do we have “promotion”?
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:44 p.m.
That has already been captured in the definition column. In clause 26, there is a proposed definition of “promotion”.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:44 p.m.
Yes, Mr Speaker, but “promotion” is not in the Bill.
Mr Quaittoo 1:44 p.m.
Mr Speaker, clause 3 (b), says; “promote and support''.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:44 p.m.
That is not ‘promotion'.
Mr Quaittoo 1:44 p.m.
Mr Speaker, then we should define “promote” and not “promotion”.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:44 p.m.
Hon Member, let us not rush to do that. Please, take your time. I am sure the draftpersons would have seen the word “promotion” in the Bill.
Mr Quaittoo 1:44 p.m.
Mr Speaker, in clause 19 (b), under “Disbursement of the Fund,” it says:
“for the promotion of sustainable practices…”
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:44 p.m.
Yes, Hon Member for Wa West?
Mr Chireh 1:54 p.m.
Mr Speaker, we should not even define “promotion”. I would recommend that we delete it from the original Bill because it would create confusion. We all understand what “promotion” is, whether it is to promote somebody or an activity. It is not a term of art.
Sometimes we define words to confuse everybody. Now that he mentioned clause 19 and defined “promotion”, they do not relate but we all understand. It is not a complex thing, so I would rather suggest that we delete what was originally there. If we do not delete it for whatever value it has -- but it really has no value in this matter. This is because the kind of “promotion” we are talking about is not peculiar. I do not think we should be worried about changing the meaning.
Mr S. Mahama 1:54 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I just want to support Hon Chireh.
I believe that “promotion” as found in clause 19 does not warrant any definition. Apart from that, there is no other word. I have scanned through where promotion has been used, but I cannot see that.
I think we should delete that from the definition.
Mr Banda 1:54 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I believe that we do not need to define “promotion”. Words are defined where they carry technical meanings and the ordinary meaning is not what is being conveyed. In this particular case however, I do not think “promotion” is used in a technical sense. It is understood by everybody, so it would be needless to seek to define it.
Question put and amendment negative.
Mr Quaittoo 1:54 p.m.
Mr Speaker, well, they are against my amendment, but what they are saying is that it is important --
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:54 p.m.
I will get to that one.
Now, there is a second proposed amendment from Hon Chireh to delete the definition of “promotion”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:54 p.m.
Can we now take your last proposed amendment, which is on “subvented agency”?
Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 1:54 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I do not challenge your ruling, but I just want to draw your attention. You said that “promotion” should be deleted from the interpretation column of the Bill.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:54 p.m.
The Interpretation clause.
Hon Members, I invoke Standing Order 40(3) to extend the Sitting of the House beyond the stipulated time.
Mr Quaittoo 1:54 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I did my amendment and with the help of a Clerk-at-the-Table, it was given to a draftsperson to type; but I believe that while we were doing that she could not finish everything.
So the last one I am amending is actually not captured here, but the essence of it is to add certain agencies to the agencies that are mentioned in the Bill.
“Amendment proposed - Interpretation of “subvented agency”; it ended there.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:54 p.m.
Well, Hon Members, it is not captured; but he says it is the draftperson who did not add it.
Mr Ayariga 1:54 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think that the listing of subvented agencies in his interpretation must be related where ‘‘subvented agencies'' is used in the Bill.
So if he could do that, we would understand why he is packing into the Interpretation clause a list of subvented agencies. That would help us understand why he wants to add these new agencies to the list.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:54 p.m.
Hon Member, could you kindly draw our attention to which clause the term ‘‘subvented agencies'' is used, and you feel that --
Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 1:54 p.m.
Mr Speaker, clause 23:
‘‘The Board shall collaborate with subvented agencies and other bodies in the performance of functions under this Act.''
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:54 p.m.
There is ‘‘and other bodies''.
Mr Chireh 1:54 p.m.
Mr Speaker, in fact, even the use of subvented agencies - this Authority needs to relate to every other agency of State.
Indeed, when we say ‘‘subvented agency'' and we later add a list, there are some institutions that are not subvented. They are autonomous and self-accounting, like the Ghana Cocoa Board (COCOBOD). Is the COCOBOD subvented?
Mr Speaker, so, I think we should rather leave out “subvented”, in the first place, in clause 23. They are supposed to collaborate with other agencies; whether Government agencies -- but not “subvented”. This is because, indeed, the list provided in the interpretation, not all of them are subvented agencies. Some are autonomous and have their own means of doing things, so we may need to re-visit clause 23 itself.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:54 p.m.
Hon Member, what do you say to the proposal? Were you not listening?
Mr Quaittoo 1:54 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I listened to him. It is right that some of them like COCOBOD is not a subvented agency. So, if we could remove “subvented” in clause 23 and make it just “agencies”, then we could list all these agencies.
Mr Speaker, we could make it “relevant agencies” because there is no way the Authority can work without the three agencies I have added --the CSIR, GSA and FDA --for the licensing of the products. That was why I added them to the list.
Mr Speaker, maybe, the word “subvented” is the challenge there, and we could delete it.
Mr S. Mahama 2:04 p.m.
I wanted to just support the fact that “agency” still has to be qualified because of the second phrase that reads “and other bodies”. Mr Speaker, so, we could substitute “relevant” for “subvented”. So it would read:
“relevant agencies and other bodies”.
This is because there is an additional body that has been added
to the ones to be consulted. So relevant agencies and other bodies in the performance of the functions under this Act --
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:04 p.m.
I see that the Hon Member has more proposed amendments on earlier clauses that we have agreed on. I think that this one could be added to it so that that could come according to what the Speaker has proposed - the Second Consideration Stage. We cannot take it now but what we can do is to move an amendment to delete the phrase “subvented agency”. Then during the Second Consideration Stage we would then bring the relevant agencies, that is if you want to define it.
So please move the amendment for the definition of subvented agency.
Mr Chireh 2:04 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, under the definition clause delete the definition for “subvented agency”.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:04 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I would just appeal to you to relax the rule so that the new interpretation would make sense and for him to do the needful by deleting “subvented” and inserting “relevant”.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:04 p.m.
Hon Majority Leader, there are other proposed amendments to earlier
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:04 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I do know that it is up to clause 22 but this one has to do with clause 23 and so it is outside the capping of the Rt Hon Speaker. [Laughter]
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:04 p.m.
No, we have agreed on clause 23 like the other clauses. Even if we finish now and you move for a Second Consideration Stage we can allow that and then take all that on board.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:04 p.m.
Mr Speaker, then in that case, I would plead that we stand it down so that when we come to the Second Consideration Stage we would deal with clause 23. Mr Speaker, this would make sense.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:04 p.m.
If you are sure that we would not retain it then why do we not do it now?
Mr Chireh 2:04 p.m.
Mr Speaker, because we wanted you to relax the rules so that we can even go back and do this
as a normal procedure instead of the Second Consideration Stage. Mr Speaker, if we could consider whatever has been listed including this one -- that is why I wanted us to remove the word “subvented” and replace it with “relevant”. The list under this definition has a bearing on the authority in terms of relevant experiences, resources, support and so on. So if we could just change “subvented” to “relevant”.
Mr Speaker, so we could go back to the earlier ones and under the relaxed rules of the Consideration Stage we can do all that so that there would be no need for the Second Consideration Stage. In that case, n what I would propose here is to delete “subvented” and insert “relevant”.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:04 p.m.
Hon Members, let us insert “relevant” before we come to the deletion of “subvented”. Since you want us to over relax the rules we would do that.
Mr Chireh 2:04 p.m.
Mr Speaker, so I beg to move, the headnote of clause 23 should read: “Collaboration with relevant agencies”.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:04 p.m.
Hon Members, I would put the Question.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:04 p.m.
Mr Speaker, just a minor, further amendment.
Mr Speaker, it should rather read 2:04 p.m.
“Collaboration with relevant agencies and bodies” and not “other bodies”.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:04 p.m.
Hon Member, I could eavesdrop the discussion between you and the Hon Member for Wa West and so I thought you agreed on what has been proposed. But you have changed your minds.
We would delete the “other”. So Table Office should take note that it is “Collaboration with relevant agencies and bodies”.
Therefore the body of clause 23 would be consequential amendment. So we would have “relevant agencies and bodies in the performance of the functions under this Act”.
We would go back to clause 26 - - we are being told -- [Interruption] Hon Chairman, I am sure you followed up to when they proposed that we should delete “subvented” and insert “relevant”.
Hon Members, I would put the Question.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:04 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I thought that we should get the construction right. We are referring to relevant agency and body to reflect what we did in clause 23. So we are giving a definition to “relevant agency and body”.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:14 p.m.
Is that the proposal? It should be ‘‘relevant agency and body''. That is the proposal; to include “body”.
Mr Chireh 2:14 p.m.
Mr Speaker, we should not add “bodies”. We should say “relevant agencies”. With the other bodies, the distinction here is that, these ones which are specified are the ones that they must work closely with immediately. At anytime they are dealing with any other body, it is covered, but we cannot define that other body to include this. This is restricted for the agency they must collaborate right with. So we do not need to define those bodies as we are doing here.
Mr Chireh 2:14 p.m.
Mr Speaker, in law making, if we do that, it is fine. However, what I was trying to say is that, because they wanted to isolate these, the agency I am talking about is really a body. It has no special meaning. If they would want us to group the word “relevant agencies and bodies, means or includes”, there is no problem. That should be able to take care of it.
Mr Quaittoo 2:14 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think the import of this clause is also to include international bodies. This is because the Authority may sometimes want to collaborate with other international bodies. It includes international bodies.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:14 p.m.
Actually, I was of the view that there was no need to define the word “body”. I thought we should be looking at only the relevant agencies.
But the Hon Majority Leader added “any body”. Body is a very general term. It includes both domestic and foreign, and an attempt to define it would be so elusive. So let us restrict ourselves to the definition of “relevant agencies”. Are we all right?
Mr Quaittoo 2:14 p.m.
Mr Speaker, if you did that, what would be the place of collaboration with international bodies?
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:14 p.m.
It is in the clause 23.
“The Board shall collaborate with relevant agencies and bodies in the performance of the functions under this Act.”
Mr Quaittoo 2:14 p.m.
And you are saying we should delete it. Is it from the headnote that you would want us to delete “body”?
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:14 p.m.
No. It is at clause 26, the Interpretation clause. There is a proposal to include it. So it would be “relevant agencies and bodies”. Then we define that. And I am saying it is not necessary to define “bodies”. We should just leave it at “relevant agency” and define that to include --
Mr Chireh 2:14 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I still think that adding “bodies” to this
definition would not make sense because “agency” in this particular case should not be conceived as when we talk about ministries, departments and agencies. Agencies, authorities and all the other companies are agencies. So I think that if we make it “other bodies” we would not have to define it and we know what we mean. So it should still be “relevant agencies' means or include - So we should leave out “other bodies” in the definition.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:14 p.m.
Yes, Hon Fuseini?
Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 2:14 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the problem with Hon Chireh's proposal is that in the body of the law, we had used “relevant agencies and other bodies”. When you come to the interpretation section and you decide to interpret --
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:14 p.m.
Actually, we deleted the word “other agencies and bodies”.
Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 2:14 p.m.
Mr Speaker, we have used “relevant agencies and bodies” in the body of the Bill. When we come to the interpretation section and we interpret only “relevant agencies” and leave out “bodies”, we leave it hanging without a definition. That is the import.
So, if we want relevant agencies to include bodies, we just provide for relevant agencies in the Bill. Then in the definition clause, we define “relevant agencies” to include bodies. [Interruption.] That is how it is because when we leave it in the Bill --
Mr Speaker, let me state it again; I heard ‘‘no” coming from an Hon Member. In definition, because this is a Bill, it can take any definition that we assign to it. In the body of the Bill, we had used “relevant agencies and bodies”. These are the institutions the Authority would collaborate with, but in the definition column, we have sought to play down “bodies”, defining only “relevant agencies” and leaving “bodies” hanging in the Bill. What are bodies, then?
So to cure it, we can use only the term “relevant agencies” and then define it to include bodies or we come back and repeat “relevant agencies and bodies”. These are the only ways we can do it. If not, we would have a lacuna with “bodies” hanging without knowing what they are.
Mr Quaittoo 2:14 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I side with Hon Fuseini. This is because in the performance of the Authority's duties, it would have to collaborate with a lot of international bodies. In exportation, they would have to agree with bodies like the International
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:24 p.m.
Yes, let me listen to the Hon Chairman of the Committee on Constitutional, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs.
Mr Banda 2:24 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I thought that “agency” and “bodies” are being used differently, because not all bodies are agencies. In that case, I do not think that we need to define agency to include bodies. If the Hon Ranking Member's submission is anything to go by, in which he proposes that we should define agency to include bodies, then we do not need to repeat agency under clause 23. We can only say, “relevant agencies…”. The definition clause would then define agency to include organisations listed as well as bodies.
Mr Chireh 2:24 p.m.
Mr Speaker, with similar Bills that have passed through this House, we also say, collaborate
with other State institutions or bodies. With the use of ‘‘agency'' here, that was why I did not want to add bodies. In this case it is general. A body would also mean agency.
Mr Speaker, the draftpersons and promoters of the Bill would want to isolate certain agencies, which this Authority must collaborate with, and that is why they have been listed. If we want to define bodies to mean any other institution, that is a different thing. But to say that “agency and body means…”, is clumsy, because the two words do not come together naturally when we are talking. One is agency, and it can include a body; and a body can also include an agency.
In this case, the promoters want specified agencies which are listed and separate from - for instance, the Cocoa Alliance is an international body. We could separate them and define body if we want to, or else we could replace the whole Bill with institutions and that could cover every body. But now, it means we will defeat the purpose of this Bill, by saying “specify by names”.
We want this to be the focus of the collaboration. COCOBOD has experience in all these things and they would need to work with them. I think we should not add “bodies” to this definition. If we want to define “bodies” to mean something else, we should do so.
Mr Ayariga 2:24 p.m.
Mr Speaker, fundamentally, the problem is that we are trying to legislate what we should not. The duty of every agency of Government to collaborate with relevant agencies is assumed. We do not have to legislate that an agency should collaborate with relevant agencies because they will collaborate with them. This is because they are also State agencies established by law.
So, we cannot begin to have provisions such as we should collaborate with relevant agencies. Depending on what is being done, a particular agency becomes relevant. We have not mentioned the Ghana Police Service. When it comes to enforcing some of the provisions, they may be forced to get the Police Service to work with them. I do not think there is the need to be verbose in legislation. Why do we want to legislate an obligation to collaborate with other relevant agencies? State agencies collaborate when the need arises. That is why we have this problem.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:24 p.m.
Hon Member, this morning, I heard you talk about the Latin phrase ex- abundanti cautela. I think we should apply, and not assume. When we do not specifically legislate, it becomes an issue of discretion. So there is nothing wrong with us legislating. I am
making sure that we fill all the loopholes.
Dr K. Appiah-Kubi 2:24 p.m.
Mr Speaker, my good Hon Friend said that it is assumed by operation. If there is a board which presides over an institution which does not want to collaborate, and they are not enjoined by law to so do, then we would be in a fix. It happens. So the enactment to put an obligation on such an institution for collaboration is proper. Therefore, a board cannot say they will not work with somebody and his institution. The board would be under obligation to work with him.
Mr Speaker, I agree that we must legislate on it and also agree that the agencies are different from boards. As we try to define what an agency is, I believe we should also define “bodies”. If we define agencies to include bodies, that cannot be because they are different.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:24 p.m.
There is no proposal before us to define agencies to include bodies.
Dr K. Appiah-Kubi 2:24 p.m.
Mr Speaker, that was the argument put forward by -- [Interruption] -- yourself and maybe --
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:24 p.m.
No, he did not put that across at all.
Mr Appiah-Kubi 2:24 p.m.
Mr Speaker, my suggestion would be, since we have --
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:24 p.m.
What we have before us is to delete “subvented” and insert “relevant”.
Dr K. Appiah-Kubi 2:24 p.m.
Mr Speaker, we have done that. I was looking at the interpretation and there was an argument that interpret agencies to include bodies; I would want to disagree with that.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:24 p.m.
No, it was the Hon Majority Leader who said we should interpret “relevant agencies” and “bodies”.
Mr Appiah-Kubi 2:24 p.m.
Mr Speaker, we went over that.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:24 p.m.
Well, I said the Question I would put would not include “bodies”
Hon Members, the Question is, the definition of the term “subvented” agency. Delete “subvented” and ins “relevant agency” to include Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Ghana Commercial Bank (GCB), Ghana Investment Promotion Centre (GIPC), Ghana Export Promotion Authority (GEPA), Ghana EXIM Bank (GEB), Centre for
Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), Food and Drugs Authority (FDA) and Ghana Standards Authority (GSA).
Question put and amendment agreed to.
We would now attend to the passionate appeal from the Hon Member for Ellembele.
Mr Appiah-Kubi 2:24 p.m.
Mr Speaker, in clause 23, we need to insert the word “its” otherwise the rendition does not --
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:24 p.m.
Hon Member, on which page?
2. 34 p. m.
Dr K. Appiah-Kubi 2:24 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the “subverted agencies and bodies in the performance of its functions”.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:24 p.m.
We inserted there “in the performance of the functions under this Act”, not its functions.
The Hon Member is no longer present in the House; the Hon Member for Evalue Ajomoro Gwira was putting in a passionate appeal for and on behalf of his people but I can no longer sight her. Any attorney?
Mr Quaittoo 2:24 p.m.
Mr Speaker, she did not ask me to do anything for her. However, as I said, with my amendment, the drafter could not complete what I gave to her so this is—
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:24 p.m.
On the same clause 26?
Mr Quaittoo 2:24 p.m.
Yes, Mr Speaker; and also on clause 27. I have some amendment there but it is not complete.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:24 p.m.
Hon Member, we do not have that at all.
Mr Quaittoo 2:24 p.m.
Mr Speaker, yes, she could not type all so I do not know whether we should consider it another time in a Second Consideration. But I have it; I have done it on my sheet but it was not printed out.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:24 p.m.
How many more are left?
Mr Quaittoo 2:24 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think they are two.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:24 p.m.
Two? Let me listen to the Hon Member for Bawku Central.
Mr Ayariga 2:24 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I walked up to her and we had a discussion, and the discussion was to
the effect that we should seek an amendment of tree crop to include --[Interruption] --
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:24 p.m.
Hon Deputy Minority Whip, today alone, I have observed you walked across four times without giving due reverence to the Mace and you are a senior Member of this House who knows the right thing to do. Hon Member, is it that because it is Consideration Stage, there is no longer a Mace? I have never heard of that; we must recognise the Mace and give due reverence to it. Do the proper thing!
Now, I want to see you do that.
Mr A. Ibrahim 2:24 p.m.
[Rose and bowed to the Mace.]
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:24 p.m.
You are not giving respect to Mr Speaker; it is to the Mace which is the authority of the House so do not look at my small body and walk pass. It is not me; it is the Mace. [Laughter.]
Mr Ayariga 2:24 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the contention was that because a number of constituencies including hers in the Western Region — they want coconut—
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:24 p.m.
So, would you want to move a Motion on her behalf?
Mr Ayariga 2:24 p.m.
Yes, Mr Speaker, for an amendment of clause 26 - the Interpretation Clause where we try to define tree crop to include coconut so that it would read:
“Tree crop means oil palm, rubber, cashew, shea, mango and coconut.”
Mr Speaker, I so move on her behalf based on the passionate plea she made to this House that a number of constituencies in the Western and the Central Regions have potential for the development and expansion of the coconut tree. So coconut should be included so that the people of the said Regions would benefit from the resources that would be available for the development of the tree crops that are mentioned in this legislation.
Mr Speaker, essentially, that is what it is and I urge Hon Colleagues to duly consider the appeal made by Hon Members of Parliament for those constituencies.
Mr Quaittoo 2:44 p.m.
Mr Speaker, as I said earlier, I was the schedule officer for the development of these tree crops at the Ministry. And we listed a number of tree crops initially eight in number. We dropped two and it came to six, coconut inclusive. Deliberations started as to the developmental stages of each of the crops.
Mr Speaker, if we take coconut for instance, if one drives from Accra towards Western Region, one would realise that most of the coconut trees are diseased and got spoilt. So research is still underway struggling to, more or less, unravel and resolve this disease situation.
Mr Speaker, seed variety to even develop coconut is also a challenge. So, when the President launched the PERD programme in Dunkwa-on- Offin, Parliament was on recess but I drove to the place. Coconut was part of the six crops that were mentioned by the President. But finally, when we were coming out with this Bill, we dropped coconut and mango.
Personally, I went to the Ministry to question why mango was dropped and they said that the lack of working plan and money involved was such that they needed to drop mango for now, but it would come on board very soon. But for coconut, they were far off and that was why they dropped coconut.
Mr Speaker, I am not here to speak for the Ministry but none of the Hon Deputy Ministers is available, especially Hon Kennedy Nyarko who is in charge of tree crops, to defend this. I really do not have anything to say but I think it has to do with some financial implication. This is because
the Tree Crops Authority is to be established with a seed-fund by the Government and everything has been costed. I am told it is either GH¢5 million or US$5 million. I do not know where it would be coming from but that is the promise.
So if we add on more crops, it means that the calculation that was done with the seed-money to be given by Government would be put out of gear. That is my understanding and that is what I believe. That notwithstanding, the calculation in terms of value for money for coconut is enormous; you would not believe it.
If we sent a tonne of coconut outside, the value we would get from it - and even mango. The competitive advantage of coconut compared to other crops is very high. Except that the agricultural research and other things to even develop that to a stage where we could have an authority to regulate it is a bit too far.
Mr Speaker, the Authority is to come and regulate more or less, the more developed crops where people are operating haphazardly. Coconut is very good though it is operated by a certain niche within the agricultural market. Documents as to this is what we could work with and all that - when they brought in the oil palm research institutions, they brought in all the
technical people. The amount of money that they demanded to go and research into coconut to come out with these seedlings was huge.
So we said a certain amount of money should be found and given to the researchers to research into the varietal development of coconut because what we have now is not disease resistant. They grow the crops and diseases eat up the crops. Therefore they need to come out with a new variety that would be disease tolerant. Their main problem now is purely research funding to overcome that challenge.
So that is the reason coconut was dropped and it was agreed that we should find some money for the research to be well developed before we could come to a point where regulation could come in. If we take the four or five crops that have been mentioned, as for them, they are already well developed. Oil palm is everywhere; people are just operating anyhow and that is why the regulation is important.

It is the same with cashew, shea and rubber, but with coconut, we really need to do research to come out with varieties to fight the diseases that it has. With that, coconut has been placed on another pedestal. We have to look for funding to do
rose
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:44 p.m.
Hon Member, the Motion was moved on your behalf by the Hon Member for Bawku Central. Maybe, you have a few things to add.
Mrs Afeku 2:44 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I thank the Hon Ayariga for moving the amendment on my behalf.
Mr Speaker, I listened to Hon Quaittoo and we still have a very passionate appeal to make. If it is only research funding, then I would appeal to my Hon Colleagues to lobby, so that the next Budget Statement would ensure that there is money to do that research. This is because coconut is the bread and life of a group of people in this country. We are busily supporting other imports and exports in and out of our country and coconut could easily replace some.
Mr Speaker, in the 1960s and 1970s, some of us grew up on well documented research coconut work, in the Nzema area. Those documents are still available. Hon Dr Appiah- Kubi would bear me out, that the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) has done that research on new varieties of coconut that grow and could produce fresh diseaseless coconut. So, we in that region could attest to the fact that coconut is back and it has more nutritional value than other oils.
Mr Speaker, we want to appeal to this House to add us to the regulation for the future. If we do not get an opportunity to be added to the Tree Crops Development Authority now, then when? That is why the people of that region have elected us, so we could also voice our opinion, but it cannot be shelved because of research funding. If we could make money to import GH¢1.3 billion worth of rice from other countries, then surely, a listening government like the New Patriotic Party (NPP) Government would listen and make available, money for research to ensure that coconut and all its value chain is brought to bear in our dear country, especially, in an era when we have done 1D1F to ensure that there are jobs for our people.
Mr Speaker, I am very passionate about this coconut issue because it would create jobs for the people in the Western Region, but more specifically, those in the Nzema area. We grew up on coconuts and it still thrives. Against the whole era of Cape Saint Paul, Wilt disease coconut is thriving. The new hybrid is working and we, on behalf of the rest of the people from that area who live on coconut and feed our children on it, appeal to my Hon Colleagues to ensure the clause is maintained, that coconut would be part of the Tree Crops Development Authority.
When we speak to the Government, they would find the money to fund the research because we have money to import rice, and so we would definitely have money to support the agro farmers who grow coconut in my constituency and that of Jomoro, Ahanta and Ellembele.
Mr Speaker, please, that clause should be retained and that provision of coconut to stay in the Tree Crops Development Authority should be part and parcel of the legacy of this House.
Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 2:44 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I understand the passion with which our Hon Colleague spoke, but her passion is misplaced. This is because the tree crops selected for
this Bill were not selected on the basis of the regions they come from. They were selected on the basis of farmers who would come together to produce those crops and those farmers being regulated. That is the basis.
Mr Speaker, she could be passionate about her region and the fact that they have coconut in that region; however, that does not qualify it to be in this Bill. She must demonstrate her passion by showing us a group of farmers who have come together with the sole purpose to produce coconut, which production process has a value chain. We could then consider that having established a coconut industry, coconut could be part of the Bill.
Mr Speaker, I simply, do not see the basis of her passion, that coconut grows in the Western Region, they feed their children on it and that the product is good, so it should find space -- and that we import rice, so we should find money for coconut development -- [Interruption] -- I do not contest the statements that she made, but they simply do not find favour in the Bill on the basis of the criteria for selecting tree crops.
Ms Safo 2:44 p.m.
Mr Speaker, given the various arguments that have been made on whether to include coconut, I would urge your good Self that we
Mrs Afeku 2:44 p.m.
Mr Speaker, if it is a policy matter, I was in Cabinet and when the Hon Minister for Agriculture came to discuss this Memorandum, coconut was part of it, so that policy is a matter of record. So the records could be brought to Parliament for deliberation. When it comes to policy, it has already been decided.
It is only when the Bill was brought to this House that, I believe, coconut was dropped. because that document is available and the Secretary to Cabinet could make provision for it to be distributed to the House. So it is not just passion but there is fact to support it.
Mr Speaker, just this September, the Coconut Association celebrated
the International Coconut Day and the Ghana Export Promotion Authority (GEPA) also supports coconut growers. So, there are scientific facts to support it. However, I appealed to Mr Speaker, when the Hon Member was not in the House, on an emotional basis but we have all the facts to support coconut and the policy to back it.
I was part of Cabinet when that decision was made. This is a serious matter for the good people of a region, whose livelihood depend on coconut.
rose
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:44 p.m.
Hon Members, is this something you people want to litigate further? Definitely, the mover of the proposed amendment would wind up, but let me listen to other Hon Members.
Mr Chireh 2:44 p.m.
Mr Speaker, it was the Rt Hon Speaker himself who added coconut and some people said it was conflict of interest because he is from the coast. [Laughter.] Mr Speaker, given the fact that the Rt Hon Speaker himself suggested the addition of coconut, we have to make an immediate decision and not this postponement for policy. With these policy issues, Parliament has to create enough grounds for policy makers to adjust their policies.
Thank you very much.
Mr S.K. Acheampong 2:54 p.m.
Mr Speaker, when the amendment was moved, the proposers spoke for us to include “mango”. This is a House of records. The premise upon which the House agreed was not one of any empirical evidence as a matter of research. It was based on similar propositions and as we see it, the Rt Hon Speaker spoke to that effect. There are several value additions on “coconut” today.
I consume coconut flour which is similar to the consumption of our normal cassava gari and this is on the market today. I consume coconut water daily and it is well processed and nicely packaged and sold on the market. This is an indigenous commodity -- and it is not we alone. If you travel across - this is no passion but speaking on what we have done in this House today. There were no mango farmers association with us in this Chamber, but post conversation among ourselves, we came to the realisation that it was prudent that we add it.
The Speaker, on leaving the seat for the Hon Deputy Second Speaker to continue, he said; “please, do not forget my coconut”. He cannot take part in our debate but he sent us a good indication, that we should
consider same, and these are the only two crops. It is clear here, from the acting Hon Chairman of the Committee who spoke that at the outset, coconut and mango were included but upon arrival of the Bill to this House, we realised that those two had been dropped.
Fortunately, mango has found itself here today, and so adding coconut will not take anything from us. I want to plead with the Hon Deputy Majority Leader and my Leadership, that we are not speaking behind them, we are just expressing matters we believe in. As a House that always dialogues, we can do further dialogue and make progress. That is all we want to plead.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:54 p.m.
Yes, Hon Ayariga, you moved the Motion.
Mr Ayariga 2:54 p.m.
Mr Speaker, Hon Afeku has established that when the memorandum went to Cabinet, she was there and coconut was part of the Bill. So at least, at the policy level, that answers the Hon Deputy Majority Leader's concerns. We assume that we are all persons of integrity here and what we say reflects what we have seen.
Mr Speaker, listening to the argument, it is presented that the
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:54 p.m.
Hon Members, yesterday, I directed the Committee to get in touch with the promoters of the Bill because I think this is a policy matter. I had not heard from the Committee when I took over from the Rt Hon Speaker; I thought that before the inclusion of “mango”, the Committee would have informed the House as to the policy decision of Government.
So, if the Hon Chairman of the Committee is here, we want to hear him or her before we proceed. What is the position? Yes, Hon Deputy Majority Leader?
Ms Safo 2:54 p.m.
Mr Speaker, as you rightly said, you have heard Hon Members on the argument whether or not to include coconut.
Given its nature and the policy direction that ought to be given in this regard -- You said early on, that you even directed the Committee to go on that tangent and as we speak, I do not see the Hon Chairman of the Committee on Agriculture here either.
Mr Speaker, that is why early on, I made the proposal that we step this clause down for further consultation. You have heard from Hon Afeku, Minister of State, that she was indeed part of Cabinet.
So, it does not spoil anything if we step it down, go and get all these because this is a House of records, so that we can be clear in our minds. The Hon Majority Leader himself is at a Cabinet meeting now and was a witness to what happened. I am sure he will seek the right policy direction on the way forward and then we can move on as a House.
Mr Speaker, we cannot direct policy and I am sure --
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:54 p.m.
Actually, that was the reason for deferring it yesterday for direction from the Government. Now, the challenge we have is that if we have not received any such information from the Committee, what was the basis for the inclusion of “mango” and not “coconut”?
Mr Chireh 2:54 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the Hon Majority Leader moved that Motion and he was in Cabinet when this was discussed. So he supported it and that is why we all agreed and voted massively for it.
Mr Quaittoo 2:54 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I was of the same view as the Hon Deputy Majority Leader, that we consult the Ministry first; but overwhelmingly, they voted for the inclusion of mango and I was defeated.
Now, I am only acting in the stead of the Hon Chairman of the Committee on Agriculture because he is not here and I know a lot about this. Hon Catherine Afeku is right and I have said it several times here, that even in Dunkwa-on-Offin, the President mentioned six crops and in Cabinet it was initially accepted with coconut included. However, when the Bill was finalised, the two crops were dropped based on technical grounds.
So, if we are taking decisions here to include them without consulting the Ministry, I think we are making a mistake.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:54 p.m.
That is the challenge we have. Why mango but not coconut?
Mr Quaittoo 3:04 p.m.
We should consult the Hon Minister for him to come and defend it or direct whether we are to add it or not.

That is an issue we have to take on board. As I said, I personally listened to the Rt Hon Speaker urge the House to take coconut into consideration. He indicated that even at the time he was presiding, he was drinking coconut water.

I think that we cannot take that lightly because he even invited all of you to drink coconut water. There is an abundance of evidence, that coconut water is being processed, available and being used. With the issue on research, there would always be research and further research. I find it difficult not to put the Question for the inclusion of coconut as rightly moved by the Hon Member for Evalue Ajomoro Gwira through her pro tem attorney. So I would put the Question because it is for the House to decide and not me.
rose
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:04 p.m.
Hon Deputy Majority Leader and Leader of Government Business in situ.
Ms Safo 3:04 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I know that per our rules, if your decision is made there is a procedure to go by to vary that decision. Mr Speaker, but there
have been instances in this House where issues of this nature — where there seemed to be some ambiguity regarding a proposed clause which had been stood down for further consultation.
Mr Speaker, it is not that there is a strict position that Hon Members who are advocating for us to include coconut which is not being adhered to by Leadership of the Majority Side. I know you have sat in this big chair before and you know the exercise of discretion to allow or disallow, especially on clarity and ambiguity relating to these matters, when Cabinet has not been adequately briefed on the way forward.
Mr Speaker, I definitely agree that it is important to include coconut and some Hon Members are advocating for that. The de facto Hon Majority Leader takes instructions from the Hon Majority Leader himself and his clear instructions before he left -- and early on he was part of this debate - - [Interruption] Of course, I am the Hon Deputy Majority Leader and so I would plead with the Chair that stepping this down would not cause further harm. I humbly plead that we step it down.
Mr Speaker, as I indicated earlier, today is a meeting day for Cabinet and the Hon Majority Leader has left to attend the meeting. I am definite
and sure that we can bring finality to this clause by tomorrow. I would beg that since its past 2.00 p.m. there is a cry that the curtain should be drawn. Mr Speaker, this is in no way challenging your authority, but it is a humble plea that we step it down. The sentiments are strong but we have to be sure on the policy direction of this before we proceed.
Mr Speaker, I humbly submit.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:04 p.m.
Hon Members, the Hon Deputy Majority Leader is now acting as the Hon Majority Leader of the House and we know that she is an Hon Minister of State at the Office of the President in charge of Procurement. She has put in a plea that we defer putting the Question and take a decision for further consultation. It is quite a difficult situation but since Hon Speakers take guide from them, it is also not in the interest of the House to ignore the plea.
The Motion has been moved, and so we can defer the decision and put the Question on another day. It is not foreclosed, but I think that we cannot just ignore the plea and proceed to put the Question.
As you know, even though I am an Hon Member of Parliament, when I sit here I represent the Rt Hon Speaker and I do not have a vote in this matter. So I may want the Rt Hon
Speaker to preside so that I would also have a vote. I would urge Hon Members to let us listen to the Hon Deputy Majority Leader and give the Committee one more day to consult with the framers of the policy, that is Government, and come back properly tomorrow.
I am really doing this with severe difficulty because I am very conscious of the dictates of the constitutional provisions on such matters. I am constrained; but with deference to the Leadership, I would not put the Question and urge Hon Members that we should defer it till tomorrow. This is because I cannot understand the basis for mango being added without coconut. Hence I hope and pray that at the end of the day coconut would see the light of day.
Hon Members, it is past 3.00 p.m. and so I would draw the curtains on the Consideration Stage of the Tree Crops Development Authority Bill, 2019 for today, and with your kind indulgence, adjourn the House.
Ms Safo 3:04 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I am most grateful.
ADJOURNMENT 3:04 p.m.
  • The House was adjourned at 3.14 p.m. till Friday, 29th November, 2019 at 10.00a.m.