Debates of 21 May 2020

MR SPEAKER
PRAYERS 10:50 a.m.
VOTES AND PROCEEDINGS AND THE OFFICIAL REPORT 10:50 a.m.
Mr Speaker 10:50 a.m.
Hon Members, Correction of Votes and Proceedings of Wednesday, 20th May, 2020.
Page 1…9 --
Mr Ras Mubarak 10:50 a.m.
Mr Speaker, on page 6, my Hon Colleague, Member of Parliament for Kintampo South -- Ms Felicia Adjei was in the Chamber yesterday but I see her name marked ‘absent'.
Mr Speaker 10:50 a.m.
Thank you, Hon Mubarak.
Page 10… 17.
Hon Members, the Votes and Proceedings of Wednesday, 20th May, 2020 as corrected is hereby
admitted as the true record of proceedings.
Hon Members, we have an Official Report dated Thursday, 27th February, 2020; any corrections therein please?
Mr Samuel Okudzeto Ablakwa 10:50 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I am most grateful. I have a few corrections to point to. At the last paragraph of column 013, the words should read; ‘in some cases'. The second paragraph of column 014 should read, ‘the media plays in the work of Parliament' in terms of the role of the media in Parliament. If that could also be corrected?
Mr Speaker, at the first paragraph of column 017, the constituency name; ‘Ellembelle' has been captured wrongly and if that could also be corrected, we will be grateful.
Mr Speaker 10:50 a.m.
Thank you very much, Hon Ablakwa.
Hon Members, any further corrections?
Hon Members, in the absence of any further corrections, the Official Report dated 27th February, 2020 as corrected is hereby admitted as the true record of proceedings.
Hon Members, there is a Statement which stands in the name of Hon George Andah on ‘Raising Awareness for Arriving Alive: A Campaign To Curb The Increasing Road Accidents'.
STATEMENTS 10:50 a.m.
Mr George Nenyi Kojo Andah (NPP -- Awutu Senya West) 11 a.m.
Mr Speaker, thank you very much for the opportunity to read the Statement.
Mr Speaker, in almost all African countries, as well as Asia and Latin America, road traffic crashes have become one of the leading causes of death in older children and economically active adults between the ages of 30 and 49 years.
Mr Speaker, road carnage claimed 222 lives in Ghana in January, 2020 alone. This is according to the provisional data on the road accidents from the Motor Transport and Traffic Directorate (MTTD) of the Ghana Police Service for the 16 regions.
The above statistics shows an average of seven deaths daily for the month of January, 2020 from
accidents mainly attributed to reckless driving. The deaths represent a 10 per cent increase compared to the same period last year which recorded 201 deaths.
Mr Speaker, the country is not only losing its human capital to accident related deaths but productive lives are also being rendered disabled due to serious injuries. From the data, persons significantly affected were productive males aged above 18 years.

Mr Speaker, the Central Region, where I come from, leads the path with 48 deaths in 58 crashes, followed by the Ashanti Region with 38 deaths in 275 recorded cases. The total number of vehicles involved is also up from 1,664 to 1,998.

Mr Speaker, though private vehicles were the most involved in accidents, 44 deaths and 294 injuries were recorded in accidents involving private vehicles. Commercial vehicles captured under the report comprise of buses, minibuses, trucks, taxis, and others. On the other hand, private vehicles include minibus, saloon cars, SUV/4x4, trucks and government vehicles.
Mr Speaker 11:10 a.m.
Hon Andah, thank you very much for this well- researched Statement ably presented.
Hon Member for Adaklu?

-- Adaklu): Mr Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to contribute to the Statement ably made by my Hon Colleague. Mr Speaker, road crashes leave in their wake broken families, loss of limbs, significant damage and loss of revenue and livelihood in the country.

I am sure that some Hon Colleagues here, including myself, can talk about their own involvement or near involvement in road crashes. The statistics given by my Hon Colleague reads very green. On January 7, 2020, a story carried by the Daily Graphic and attributed to the MTTD states that 2,284 fatalities happened in 2019 and this represents about 10 per cent increase in the statistics of 2018. Mr Speaker, unfortunately, the story did not tell us the exact cause.

This current Parliament sometime attempted to improve safety on our roads. In fact, when the National Road Safety Commission Bill was in this House, we were told that one of the underpinning reasons to change the National Road Safety Commission into a National Road Safety Authority was to give them a better leverage to be able to come out with policies that would help to minimise the road carnage.

Mr Speaker, our part of the responsibility has been carried out because indeed, this House passed that Bill into an Act and today we have the National Road Safety Authority. We are waiting to see how that tends to reduce the carnage on our roads.

Mr Speaker, but do we all not know why these things are happening? We know that anytime we get statics from the Police, they tell us that at the top of the reasons for road crashes is human error. This means that drivers should have a fair sense of judgement to overtake at a certain speed, not knowing the capability of their vehicles, or secondly; overtaking when they ought not to. We have heard stories of passenger vehicles trying to overtake when visibility was so poor that he could not see an oncoming vehicle. Sadly, in those situations, it turns out recently when many lives were lost.

Mr Speaker, we are also told that some people drive under the influence of substances, be it alcohol or banned substances. Indeed, when one takes an inappropriate substance or even some prescribed drugs, we are advised not to drive because the drug would reduce one's sense of judgement. However, people ignore these and take charge of vehicles, and

unfortunately these lead to road carnages.

Mr Speaker, it is interesting to note that on the list of the causes of road accidents, catastrophic mechanical failure of vehicles ranks the lowest. Hardly would one see a vehicle involved in a terrible accident simply because it had a very catastrophic mechanical failure.

One could burst a tire, but I am sure if one is driving at the appropriate speed at a particular place, the person's chances of controlling the vehicle to a reasonable stop where he could minimise fatalities is always better.

Like my Hon Colleague said, when the speed limit is 50 kilometres per hour and a person is driving at a speed of 100 kilometres per hour or when it is raining beyond the prescribed speed limit, if the person encounters a problem, bringing the vehicle to a very reasonable stop would always be a problem.

Mr Speaker, most people forget that in this country, apart from maybe security agencies and others, one is not allowed to drive beyond 100 kilometres per hour. I am not aware of any road in this country where one is allowed to drive at 120 kilometres per hour, we all buy vehicles and say this car could do 160 kilometres per hour.

Mr Speaker, driving between the speed of 100 kilometres per hour and 160 kilometres per hour is useless as far as this country is concerned. We are not supposed to drive at 160 metres per hour. Even on the motorway, we are to drive at 100 kilometres per hour. One could even attempt to drive at 100 kilometres on the motorway but would see somebody pass by you and it appears you are at a standstill. It means that individual is driving beyond the speed limit.

Mr Speaker, we can all help to reduce carnage by doing very simple things like my Hon Colleagues said, by first of all making sure that the people in charge of vehicles have the necessary competence. If a person is not trained to have the competence to drive a certain type of vehicle, he does not even have to attempt.

Secondly, we need to be sure that for instance, when a person takes a prescribed drug or cold medicine, it could cause drowsiness, therefore one should not drive when he has taken these medicines. It is as simple as that.

Those who believe they could have a certain level of bravado when they take alcohol; for those who think they drive better when they take certain substances, imagine a person sits on an aeroplane and the pilot says he flies
Mr Speaker 11:10 a.m.
Thank you very much, Hon Member for Adaklu.
Any other contribution before Leaders?
Yes, Hon Member? A brief one please.
Dr Mark Kurt Nawaane (NDC -- Nabdam) 11:10 a.m.
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
The results of road accidents could be devastating on the individual. One could have a head injury, a chest injury, abdominal injury or any part of one's body could be injured.
Mr Speaker, I am interested in the prehospital care which is that stage of health that the individual could get into before he gets to the hospital. Sometimes when we see the occurrence of an accident, we see people coming to the scene, some of them to even take pictures while individuals suffer trying to come out of the vehicle or raising their hands for help. People stand elsewhere trying to record the scene and post it on social media. This is not acceptable. It is a breach of the privacy of the individual. Sometimes
they even report the case before the immediate relatives of the individuals get these messages.
Mr Speaker, what we need to do as a country is to carry out a mass training of what we call first aid assistance or medical assistance so that we could certify people.
In some countries, what we call the first aid certificate is issued and it is a requisite for enrolling into a nursing school, medical school, working in the mines. It is a requisite for so many works to train their workers. This is the cardiopulmonary resuscitation. One should be able to do it. If someone is lying down and is not able to breath, we should be able to assist that person while waiting for an ambulance or preparing the person to the hospital.
Indeed, a lot of assistance to individuals at the accidents scenes contributes more to the deaths than what actually happens at the hospitals.
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker 11:10 a.m.
Thank you very much. Yes, Hon First Deputy Speaker?
Mr Joseph Osei-Owusu (NPP -- Bekwai) 11:20 a.m.
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to make
a little contribution to the debate. I wish to thank the Hon Member who made the Statement and who is a victim of road traffic accident recently.
I am sure the Hon Member who made the Statement is a good testimony of how much road accident could devastate a person's life. Even at his level and the level of assistance he could get, he would be a good testimony to the fact that he has not been himself in the last one year or more. He has not been able to do all the things that he has to do and must do and the way he would want to do them.
However, speaking on road accidents, in my view, what we should focus on is driver indiscipline and strict law enforcement.

First and foremost, all road traffic accidents are as a result of driver failure in terms of either misconduct on the road or non-maintenance of the vehicle in a manner which makes the vehicle safe. Our efforts should be focused more on the human elements in the road traffic management.

Mr Speaker, the several accidents that took many lives in recent times, the evidence shows that one driver or the other misconducted him or herself
Mr James Klutse Avedzi (NDC -- Ketu North) 11:20 a.m.
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
I also rise to comment on the Statement made by my Hon Colleague. This is not the first time we have talked about road accidents in our country. A number of statements have been made in relation to it. My simple question is that do we not have laws or regulations in Ghana that govern road traffic? We have them. Are we not applying them? How are we enforcing the regulations? I believe that if we are able to enforce the regulations, we would not have this problem.
Mr Speaker, all of us here as Members of Parliament do have calls from our constituents who tell us they have been arrested by the Police. It is either the insurance covering the vehicle has expired and he has not renewed it or that the driver himself has not renewed his licence. As Hon Members of Parliament, we force our way to speak to the police in order to release them. It means that we as Hon Members of Parliament also
contribute to the carnage on our roads.
11. 30 a. m.
When are we going to stop that? When are we going to tell our constituents that they have to follow the provisions of the law and ensure that they do the right thing?
We can speak here all the time, but if we do not enforce the laws that we have which govern this sector, I believe that after a month or two, another Statement would come again on road traffic accidents. When are we going to stop it?
Mr Speaker, we should try to encourage ourselves and ensure that our constituents behave and obey the provisions of the law. The law enforcement agencies, especially the Police should ensure that -- if for instance a driver is arrested for wrong doing and an Hon Member of Parliament or a Minister calls to plead on the driver's behalf because he might be his constituent, if the Police officer does not process the driver to court, he would also be contributing to the problems that we have on our roads.
Mr Speaker, I think that we have laws that govern this. Once we ensure that the laws are enforced, we would
not have this problem. If not, we would continue to talk about this over and over again. This is my point of view, and it is something that behoves on all of us to ensure that the laws that we have are enforced.
Mr Speaker 11:20 a.m.
Thank you very much, Hon Deputy Minority Leader.
Majority Leadership, any comments please?
Hon Members, if there are no comments, then that brings us to the end of Statement time.
We would move on to the Commencement of Public Business, the item numbered 4 -- Presentation of Papers, by the Hon Chairman of the Committee on Mines and Energy.
Mr Mutawakilu Adam 11:20 a.m.
Mr Speaker, there is an issue with the Report; there is no Report. When the Report was laid and referred to us, we invited the Ghana National Petroleum Corporation (GNPC), and they told us that the drop in oil prices distorted their work programme. Therefore they said that they were going to revise it and bring it back. I just saw the revised work programme today; so we expect the Hon Minister to come and withdraw the old one
and re-lay this one for the Committee to consider.
Mr Speaker 11:20 a.m.
Thank you very much for the useful elucidation.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:20 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I was really wondering why the Hon Ranking Member for the Committee got up and spoke to the issue. The Report before us has to do with a report of the Committee on Mines and Energy on the 2020 Work Programme of the “Ghana National Corporation”. We do not know of any “Ghana National Corporation”; we only know of a “Ghana National Petroleum Corporation.” Therefore to the extent that they did not capture it as “Ghana National Petroleum Corporation”, I even wonder why the Hon Member got up to associate with that Report? There is no such referral in this House. [Laughter]
Mr Speaker 11:20 a.m.
Hon Members, we would move on to the item listed as 5 -- Motion. It is a Second Reading by the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:20 a.m.
Mr Speaker, we would stand the item listed as 5 down. This is because the Attorney-General is engaged elsewhere. I thought that she could have come here before the Cabinet meeting, but unfortunately, she has to
Mr Speaker 11:20 a.m.
Hon Members, we would take the item numbered 7 -- the Education Regulatory Bodies Bill, 2019 at the Consideration Stage.
The Hon First Deputy Speaker may please take the Chair?
[Pause] --
BILLS -- CONSIDERATION 11:20 a.m.
STAGE 11:20 a.m.
  • [Resumption of debate from 20/ 05/2020]
    • Chairman of the Committee (Mr William Agyapong Quaittoo) 11:20 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, subclause (2), paragraph (b), line 1, delete “further” and insert “other.”
    Mr Speaker, the new rendition would therefore be captured as 11:20 a.m.
    “Subject to any other terms and conditions specified in the letter of appointment.”
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 46 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 47 -- Functions of the Director-General.
    Mr Quaittoo 11:40 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, this amendment should only be on subclause (1). This amendment does not represent the whole of clause 47, but it has to do with only subclause (1) of clause 47.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, delete and insert the following 11:40 a.m.
    “47. The Director-General
    (a) is responsible for the day- to-day administration of the affairs of the Commission;
    (b) shall ensure the implemen- tation of the decisions of the Board; and
    (c) is answerable to the Board in the performance of functions under this Act.
    So subclauses (2) and (3) remains.
    Mr Avedzi 11:40 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, the amendment proposed on the Order Paper shows the entire clause 47 as being deleted. It says:
    “Delete and insert the following -- [Pause] -- So, are we deleting subclause (1) and substituting it with this?
    Mr Speaker 11:40 a.m.
    Yes, Hon Chairman?
    Mr Quaittoo 11:40 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, rightly so; I think he did not hear me in the first place. That is what we have done; we have substituted subclause (1) with the whole of (a), (b) and (c). So subclauses (2) and (3) remains.
    Mr Speaker 11:40 a.m.
    Thank you.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 47 as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Mr Speaker 11:40 a.m.
    Clause 48?
    Clause 48 -- Deputy Directors- General
    Mr Quaittoo 11:40 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 48, subclause (2), delete and insert the following:
    “(2) A Deputy Director-General shall hold office
    (a) for a term of four years and is eligible for reappointment for another term only; and
    (b) on the terms and conditions specified in the letter of appointment.”
    11.42 --
    MR FIRST DEPUTY SPEAKER
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:40 a.m.
    Yes, the Hon Member for New Juaben South?
    Dr Mark Assibey-Yeboah 11:40 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would like to draw the attention of the Chairman to Standing Order 129 (c):
    “Where an amendment appears on the Order Paper and exceeds four lines, it shall not be necessary for the Member moving it to read out the amendment”.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:40 a.m.
    Thank you, Chairman.
    Mr Quaittoo 11:40 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Hon Member says that it may not be necessary --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:40 a.m.
    Alright, let us proceed.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 48 as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:40 a.m.
    Clause 49?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:40 a.m.
    None

    Clause 49 -- Functions of the Deputy Director-General
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:40 a.m.
    Please hold on.
    Yes, Hon Majority Leader?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:40 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, just a minor observation; we just crossed that line, though. It has to do with clause 47 (3):
    “The Director-General may delegate a function to an officer of the commission but shall not be relieved from ultimate responsibility for the performance of the delegated function”.
    Mr Speaker, I thought the word there rather should be “of”, but not “relieved from the responsibility…”. We are relieved of, so I thought that it rather should read:
    “The Director-General may delegate a function to an officer of the commission but shall not be relieved of ultimate responsibility for the performance of the delegated function”.
    Mr Speaker, I thought that is how it should read?
    Mr Chireh 11:40 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I believe that both are correct, but if he wants a shorter word, “of” instead of “from”, maybe, otherwise, one is relieved from a responsibility and one is relieved of any responsibility. They are both correct.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:40 a.m.
    Hon Members, do I have any more teachers of the English language to assist us? What is the consensus? Should we leave it as it is or we should—?
    Yes, Hon Member for Yilo Krobo?
    Mr Magnus Kofi Amoatey 11:40 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think I am tempted to support the Hon Majority Leader since “relieved from” sounds a bit colloquial. I think the correct form should be, “relieved of ultimate responsibility”. I think I side with the Hon Majority Leader.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:40 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I believe I am right; it should be “relieved of”… Mr Speaker, but one can be released “from” but not relieved from, so it should be “relieved of”.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:40 a.m.
    The proposed amendment is to delete “from” and insert “of”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:40 a.m.
    I will put the Question on clause 47 again.
    Clause 47 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:40 a.m.
    Clause 49?
    Clause 49 -- Functions of the Deputy Directors-General
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:40 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, there is no advertised amendment to clause 49, but clause 49 (2), says:
    “A Deputy Director-General shall perform such other functions that may be assigned by the Director-General”.
    Mr Speaker, if we use “such”, then, the word, “that” in line 2 rather should read “as”. It then should read:
    “A Deputy Director-General shall perform such other functions as may be assigned by the Director-General”.
    Other than that, we would say:
    “A Deputy Director-General shall perform other functions that may be assigned by the Director-General”.
    Either way, once we use the “such”, it should be followed by “as”.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:40 a.m.
    Clause 50?
    Clause 50 - Secretary to the Board
    Mr Quaittoo 11:50 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 50, delete and insert the following:
    “50. (1) The Director-General shall designate an officer of the Commission not below the rank of a Director as Secretary to the Board.
    (2) The Secretary shall;
    (a) record and keep the minutes of the meetings of the Board;
    (b) perform the functions that the Board or the Director- General in consultation with the Board may assign; and
    (c)in the performance of functions, be under the administrative control of the Director-General.”
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 50 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 51 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 52 -- Prohibition on provision of service
    Mr Quaittoo 11:50 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 52, subclause (2), line 2, before “five” insert “not less than one thousand penalty units and not more than”.
    The new rendition would read:
    “A person who contravenes subsection (1) is liable to pay to the Commission an administration penalty of not less than one thousand penalty units and not more than five thousand penalty units.”
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 52 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 53 -- Exemption from taxes
    Mr Quaittoo 11:50 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 53, delete and insert the following: “The Commission is exempt from the payment of taxes.”
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 53 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 54 -- Regulations
    Mr Quaittoo 11:50 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 54, add the following new subclause:
    “(2) Without limiting subsection (1), the Regulations shall provide for the procedure for accreditation of
    (a) programmes, institutions, centres and facilitators; and
    (b) assessors and verifiers.”
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:50 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would like to remind the Chairman of a minor omission which must be inserted in line 3 of clause 54. We have now introduced subclause 2 to clause 54, so the insertion is to the original. It has to include the words “and efficient” after effective. That is the standard language we have employed in the House.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 54 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 55 -- Interpretation
    Mr Quaittoo 11:50 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 55, interpretation of “Recognition of Prior Learning”, delete and insert the following:
    “‘Recognition of Prior Learning' means a process that seeks to assist a person receive formal recognition for what the person learnt through experience;”
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:50 a.m.
    Item numbered (ix)?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:50 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, just a minor correction to “Recognition of Prior Learning”. Even though you have put the Question on that, I just want to have a little insertion made in line 3 of what has been advertised. So it would read:
    “Recognition of Prior Learning' means a process that seeks to assist a person receive formal recognition for what the person has learnt through their experience”.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:50 a.m.
    If you insert “has”, then “learnt” should change to “learned”.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:50 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, “learnt” and “learned” are the same thing.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:50 a.m.
    One is past participle.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:50 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, respectfully, no. “Learnt” is past and we could also say “learned” which is also past. It is not past participle.
    Mr Chireh 11:50 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, this grammarian is wasting our time because without “has”, “learnt” satisfies this condition. He wants to add “has learnt”, so if we say “has learnt”, but then what Mr Speaker is saying is also correct.
    The words “has learned” are -- [Interruption] No, I do not want to hear you because even as it stands, we do not need to insert “has”. The person “learnt”, so it is past. The Hon Majority Leader now wants to add “has”. If we insert “has”, then let us change “learned” to “learnt”.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:50 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Hon Member for Wa West who just made his point should apply himself to what exists in the original clause. This one is only trying to singularise it and if we read it, they have used, “they have learned” already. So I am saying that if we want
    to singularise it, it should be “has learnt”. That is the point that I am making, yet the Hon Member is on a different trajectory.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:50 a.m.
    Let me share what I picked up from the internet. The difference between “learned” and “learnt”. “Learned” and “learnt” are both used as the past participle and past tense of the verb “to learn”. “Learned” is generally accepted in the United States and Canada while the rest of the English speaking world seems to prefer “learnt” for now. So either of them is correct.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    12 noon
    Clause 55 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 56 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 57 -- Transitional provisions
    Mr Quaittoo 11:50 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 57, subclause 2, line 7, delete “hereby”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Quaittoo 11:50 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 57, subclause 4, line 5, delete “the” and insert “that”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:50 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, that clause 57, subclause 3, line 1, after “held”, insert “by all”.
    The new rendition would read:
    “Any moneys in the bank account held by all on behalf of the Council for Technical and Vocational Education and Training or the National Board for Professional …”
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 57 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 58 -- Establishment of the National Teaching Council
    Mr Quaittoo 11:50 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 58, subclause 1, redraft as follows:
    “There is established by this Act, a body corporate known as the National Teaching Council, with perpetual succession”.
    Mr Chireh 11:50 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, we made several changes to this rendition which is as follows:
    “There is established by this Act, the National Teaching Council as a body corporate with perpetual succession”.
    If we add the “to be known as”, it does not add anything. So the original rendition should stand rather than this proposed amendment.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:50 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, we have travelled this road before. The original rendition provides:
    “There is established by this Act the National Teaching Council as a body corporate …”
    First of all, what we have struggled with these days is whether or not we should include the phrase “with perpetual succession” given the fact that a body corporate established has perpetual succession. So we do not need that.
    The formulation for the second; “there is established by this Act the National Teaching Council as a body corporate”, may mean that the National Teaching Council already existed and would now be established as a body corporate, which is why we went back to the original formulation. However, the value really is the same but what we must delete is “with perpetual succession” because that is superfluous.
    Mr Quaittoo 11:50 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, within this very Bill, this is the fourth institution that we are dealing with and the rest of the three institutions go by this original rendition. So I do not know why we want to change this particular one? I do not subscribe to it but it is the amendment of our professor, so -- [Laughter.]
    Mr Chireh 11:50 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, this incidence of a corporate body having perpetual succession, when it is inserted, is for an avoidance of doubt and not a repetition. This is because we cannot assume that the corporate body has perpetual succession.
    So we should retain what is in the original Bill because if we want to change what is in it, we have to delete “with perpetual succession” but those are incidents of a corporate body. I do not understand the argument by the Hon Chairman. The use of
    “known as” does not add any legislative essence to the matter because it is to be established. It is just like when formally we said “it is hereby established” if the “hereby” is deleted, it is still valid.
    I want to advise the Hon Chairman, to withdraw his amendment so that the original rendition could stand.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:50 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Hon Chairman wants to introduce the principle of consistency. If in the other areas we restricted ourselves to the original formulation, then we may have to leave it as such. Except, we should really advert our minds to the phrase “with perpetual succession” because once a body corporate is established, it comes as a consequential amendment that it is established as a corporate body with perpetual succession.
    So we do not need that formulation. If we agree, we could consequentially go back and do what is needful because we have not finished with this.
    Mr Nortsu-Kotoe 11:50 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, on page 11 of the Votes and Proceedings for Wednesday, 20th May, 2020, under the Education Regulatory Bodies Bill, 2020, in clause 41, we amended it and deleted
    the “perpetual succession”. So if we want to be consistent, then we have to delete the “perpetual succession” in clause 58 to agree with what we did yesterday.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:50 a.m.
    Yes, Hon Chairman?
    [Pause] …
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, on clause 41, if you look at the Order Paper for yesterday, that is how we established it:
    “There is established by this Act, a body corporate known as the Commission for Technical and Vocational Education and Training.”
    We deleted “with perpetual succession”. It does appear that what the Hon Chairman of the Committee is saying is inaccurate. Let us do what is needful and be consistent. When we are through, we then go back and see what we did under the Ghana Tertiary Education Commission so that we are consistent with what we have done.
    Mr Speaker, I thank you.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:10 p.m.
    So, what should I do? I am waiting on you for a conclusion so I put the Question.
    Mr Quaittoo 12:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would only agree if we go back to the Part One and delete “with perpetual succession” because that one still has that phrase.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:10 p.m.
    First, there is an amendment being considered. Let us finish dealing with that. Then, if you agree to adopt that as the standard, we could ask the draftspersons to apply that across. So what is your preference for clause 58?
    Mr Quaittoo 12:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I believe that we would maintain the original rendition but delete “with perpetual succession” and then do same in Part One.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:10 p.m.
    So the proposed amendment is to delete “with perpetual succession” so that it ends at “body corporate”.
    Mr Quaittoo 12:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, yes.
    Mr Speaker 12:10 p.m.
    Very well, I will put the Question.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:10 p.m.
    Now, Hon Members, I direct that the draftspersons apply this rendition to all the corporate bodies that have been established in the Bill.
    Item numbered (xiii)?
    Mr Quaittoo 12:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 58, subclause (3), lines 1 and 2, delete “immovable property, the immovable property” and insert “land, the land”.
    Mr Speaker, this will read 12:10 p.m.
    “Where there is hindrance to the acquisition of land, the land may be acquired for the Council under the State Lands Act, 1962 (Act 125) and the cost shall be borne by the Council.”
    Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 12:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I may want to find out the reasoning behind the proposed amendment from the Hon Chairman of the Committee because it is not always that a landed property would be immovable property. There are some immovable property that are not landed. So what is the background? Why does he want to --?
    Otherwise, I would propose that it is better we maintain immovable property instead of deleting that and inserting “land”.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:10 p.m.
    Hon Chairman of the Committee, yes, your microphone was on? I wanted to ask the Hon Member whether apart from land, we can acquire anything under the State Lands Act.
    Alhaji Inusah A. B. Fuseini 12:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, that was precisely the reason “land” was substituted. Even though I had said the “property” cannot stand alone. The property to be acquired under Act 125 can only be land but I think that in this House the Hon Member for Akatsi South, Mr Bernard Ahiafor was the proponent.
    He said that because we know it is land, we should just remove the property and put “land” there but I am on all fours with you. The property to be acquired under Act 125 can only be land and not any other thing.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:10 p.m.
    Hon Members, anyway, this makes it precise.
    Mr Chireh 12:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Hon Member said something. He said that we may have property that is not necessarily land. Could he give us some examples because I cannot see any property?
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:10 p.m.
    No, if we relate the discussion to Act 125, the only thing that the corporate body
    can acquire under that Act is land. So the insertion of “land” makes it precise.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 58 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 59 -- Object of the Council
    Mr Quaittoo 12:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 59, lines 1 and 2, delete “at the pre-tertiary and tertiary levels” so we would have:
    “The object of the Council is to regulate the teaching profession.”
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 59 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 60 -- Functions of the Council.
    Mr Quaittoo 12:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 60, paragraph (b), lines 1 and 2, delete “have successfully completed” and insert “successfully complete”.
    Mr Speaker, we would have 12:10 p.m.
    Mr Quaittoo 12:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 60, paragraph (c), line 1, delete “persons who have successfully passed” and insert “a person who passes”.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I just want to indicate to the Hon Chairman of the Committee that we need to be consistent. In paragraph (b) which we just dealt with, it states:
    “conduct examination for the licensing of persons who successfully complete teacher education programmes.”
    So, the paragraph (c) should also follow the same route. It should read:
    “issue licence to persons who pass examination conducted in accordance…”
    So, we pluralise; we cannot singularise and pluralise in different sections.
    Mr Quaittoo 12:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I have no problem. They are all correct except that we did it this way because it is said that in drafting singular also means plural.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:10 p.m.
    So what are you doing to your proposed amendment?
    Mr Quaittoo 12:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I will go with his amendment. That is, “issue licence to persons who pass the examination conducted by the Council in accordance with paragraph (b);”
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:20 p.m.
    Is that the original?
    Mr Quaittoo 12:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, no. The original was, “who have successfully…”
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:20 p.m.
    All right. So it is “issue licence to persons who pass …” We delete “have successfully passed” and insert “pass”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:20 p.m.
    Item numbered (xvii)?
    Mr Quaittoo 12:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, that paragraph (d), line 1, delete “have satisfied” and insert “satisfy”.
    Mr Speaker, the new rendition will read 12:20 p.m.
    “register teachers after they satisfy the conditions for the issue of the appropriate licence;”
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:20 p.m.
    Very well.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I was just indicating to the Hon Chairman that a better rendition will be; “register teachers who satisfy the conditions for the issue of the appropriate licence”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:20 p.m.
    Item numbered (xviii)?
    Mr Quaittoo 12:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, that paragraph (g), line 2, delete “training” and insert “education”.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:20 p.m.
    Very well.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:20 p.m.
    Item (xix)?
    Mr Quaittoo 12:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, that paragraph (h), delete and insert the following: “issue temporary certification to persons without the requisite teacher education who desire to teach, subject to approval by the Board;”
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:20 p.m.
    Item numbered (xx)?
    Mr Quaittoo 12:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, that paragraph (k), line 1, delete “professional learning” and insert “continuing professional education”.
    Mr Speaker, the new rendition will read 12:20 p.m.
    “develop and promote continuing professional education in the teaching profession”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:20 p.m.
    Item numbered (xxi)?
    Mr Quaittoo 12:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, that paragraph (l), delete and insert the following: “establish standards for teacher education”.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I just want to draw the

    attention of the Hon Chairman. I thought what we did there was to delete “teaching” and insert “teacher education”.

    So it will read: “establish standards for teacher education” and I thought the rest would follow. That is “… for teacher education and provide framework for the development of teacher education curriculum”.

    Mr Speaker, I thought that one was not touched.
    Mr Quaittoo 12:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, no. I think he broke the whole paragraph into sub-paragraph. So you can see that the last amendment is to add something which talks about the provision of framework and so on. We sought to break that paragraph into sub-paragraphs so that we have it as one.
    Mr Speaker, this is because if we look at the new paragraph; it reads: “suspend the licence of a teacher undergoing disciplinary --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:20 p.m.
    Very well. So, are we still considering item numbered (xxii)?
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    -- [Interruption] --
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 12:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, you have put the Question on item numbered (xxi) and that was when I --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:20 p.m.
    Hon Member, I put the Question on item numbered (xxi) much earlier and then I went on to item numbered (xxii). Just before I put the Question, the Hon Majority Leader came up and returned to another matter but we had already done item numbered (xxi).
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 12:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, this is just for the abundance of caution.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 60 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I want us to have a look at paragraph (j) and if it has not been touched --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:20 p.m.
    We did not touch it but we touched paragraphs (h) and (k).
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, that is all right. So of course, the draftpersons then will know where to situate what we have done because after we suspend, in the new paragraph, we would then have cause to restore as captured in paragraph (j). That was why I was wondering but I think that they will know where to situate it.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:20 p.m.
    Very well.
    Clause 61 -- Governing Body of the Council
    Mr Quaittoo 12:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, that subclause (1), paragraph (b), delete and insert the following:
    “(b) one representative each from
    (i) the Ministry not below the rank of a Director nominated by the Minister;
    (ii) the National Council for Curriculum and Assess- ment not below the rank of a Director nominated by the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment;
    (iii) the Commission for Technical and Vocational
    Education and Training not below the rank of a Director nominated by the Commission of Technical Education and Training;
    (iv) the National Schools Inspectorate Authority not below the rank of a Director nominated by the National Schools Inspectorate Authority, and
    (v) the universities involved in professional teacher education on rotational basis nominated by the universities;”
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:30 p.m.
    Hon Chairman?
    Mr Quaittoo 12:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, there is a missing amendment that I have in my draft.I beg to move, clause 61 paragraph (c), line 2, delete “association” and insert “associations”. It would now read: “Two representatives of the Teachers` Associations nominated by the teachers --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:30 p.m.
    It is talking about different associations; and we have different Teacher Associations. So you want us to add “s” in line 2 of paragraph (c) to read Teachers Associations. Is that right?
    Mr Quaittoo 12:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, yes.
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 12:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, because we have two representatives, each representative is to be nominated by the Teachers Association. So GNAT would nominate its representative and NAGRAT would also nominate its representative. So it is the Teacher Association and it would be on rotational basis. Mr Speaker, so there is no “s” in line 2.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:30 p.m.
    Is it the intention that on any particular occasion, one of the Teacher Associations would nominate? So one association serves one term and the other also serves another term or for each term one teacher association would nominate? What is the intention?
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 12:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the rationale is that because we have many teacher associations and they have been given only two
    representatives on the Council, each teacher association would nominate a representative for a term. That is why it would be on a rotational basis.
    So, if UTAG nominates, then another time UTAG would not, but another teacher association would do that so the teachers' associations do not come together to nominate somebody for UTAG but rather it is UTAG that would nominate.
    Mr Quaittoo 12:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, this would only hold if the Teachers' Associations are only two, but if we have more than two Teacher Associations, then it should read ‘nominated by the Teachers' Associations on rotational basis , since there are several associations.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:30 p.m.
    The issue is that whether we would put the “s” there or not would depend on what we intend to do. So we can say for each term of three years, one Teacher Association nominates all the two, then the next term, another Teacher Association nominates all the two. Or for each term, there are nominations for the associations. This would be determined by how we would craft it.
    So let us know what you have in mind so that we would help you to craft it to achieve that.
    Mr Quaittoo 12:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, it is the same in paragraph (d).
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:30 p.m.
    It reads “Two representatives of the head of tertiary education institutions nominated by the heads of tertiary education institutions on rotational basis.”
    So they do not have to come from one institution. Then it is the same as not coming from one union on any occasion.
    Hon Ahiafor?
    Mr Ahiafor 12:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, on this occasion, the Hon Chairman is right. He is right in the sense that -- [Interruption]
    rose
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:30 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, please resume your seat.
    Mr Ahiafor 12:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, this is on the occasion of saying that the Hon Majority Leader is the chairman of the winnowing committee, so if he agreed, then he is correct. On that occasion, he was wrong, but on this occasion he is right.
    We have to add the “s” because we asked this question at the Committee level. The representative
    would come from the Teacher Associations on rotational basis, whether it is coming from A or B, they would be representing Teachers Associations.
    So it would be the Associations and they would decide how to do it on rotational basis. Mr Speaker, so the words to use there are “Teachers Associations”, which would make reference to the “teachers associations” in line 1. So we have to add “s” to line 2.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Hon Member for Effutu?
    Mr Alexander K. Afenyo- Markin 12:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, when the Hon Majority Leader said that the actual law making process in this House normally takes about 20 Hon Members or less, people were chastising him. Mr Speaker, this is an important Bill so let us do the count.
    So the Hon Majority Leader was not wrong. It is important --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:30 p.m.
    Hon Member, by our rules, you can participate in a vote even if you were not available when the matter was being discussed. You have just walked in -- I am emphasising “just walked
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I have a minor correction which has to do with subclause (1)(b). The last item states “The universities involved in professional teacher education …”
    Mr Speaker, the arrangement should have rather been “nominated by the universities on rotational basis”.
    But what we have there is “the universities involved in professional teacher education on rotational basis nominated by the universities”. It should rather read ‘the universities involved in professional teacher education nominated by the universities on rotational basis'.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:30 p.m.
    Very well.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 61 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 62 -- Establishment of committees.
    Mr Quaittoo 12:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 62, subclause (1), line 2, delete “and” and insert “or”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:40 p.m.
    Item numbered xxv?
    Mr Quaittoo 12:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 62, subclause (2), lines 1 and 2, delete “the Board shall establish the following” and insert “there is established by this Act, the following standing”.
    The new rendition would be:
    “Without limiting subsection 1, there is established by this Act, the following standing Committees”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Quaittoo 12:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 62, add the following new subclauses:
    “A committee of the Board may be chaired by a member or non- member of the Board.
    The Board shall appoint members of the standing committees.
    The Board may assign a function to a standing committee established under subsection (2).
    A standing committee specified under this section may establish sub- committees and assign to the subcommittees functions determined by the standing committee.”
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 62 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 63 to 65 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 66 -- Functions of Deputy Registrars
    Mr Quaittoo 12:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 66, subclause (1), line 1, delete “The Deputy Registrars” and insert “A Deputy Registrar”.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, in my view, clause 66(1) should remain the way it is:
    “The Deputy Registrar shall assist the Registrar in the performance of the functions of the Registrar.”
    Subclause 3 is what should be amended, but subclause 1 should remain the way it is. This would be consistent with the Deputy Directors- General in clause 49.
    Mr Quaittoo 12:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, he is just saying something in Twi that “me ara na meyee nanso yenko yen akyi”, to wit, I am the one who proposed it, but let us go back to the original rendition.Mr Speaker, we proposed this amendment because they said a singular means plural in drafting. That is why we changed it to “A Deputy Registrar shall …”. Now he says we should maintain --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:40 p.m.
    If we use the singular, the article “the” must go.
    Mr Quaittoo 12:40 p.m.
    Yes, I said “a Deputy Registrar”.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:40 p.m.
    In that case, it should be as many registrars as we can. Anyway, so what is your position?
    Mr Quaittoo 12:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, then we could abandon all the amendments there because it flows from subclauses 1 and 3. However, subclause 2 reads:
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:40 p.m.
    I think we could leave it. It comes to the same thing. Yes, Hon Member for Akatsi South?
    Mr Ahiafor 12:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Hon Chairman is supposed to move the amendment on clause 66(3) and not on 66(1) because the principle that we draft in singular and not in plural is not applicable.
    We can also draft in plural, but the rule is that, if you are drafting in singular, then it should be singular throughout; and if you are drafting in plural, then you use the plural throughout. Looking at the marginal notes, it says “Functions of the Deputy Registrars”. It is talking about Deputy Registrars. And clause 66(1) says:
    “The Deputy Registrars shall assist the Registrar in the performance of the functions of the Registrar”.
    It means that he is talking about clause 66(2). If you come to clause 66(2), it talks about clause 66(1), which reads:
    “A Deputy Registrar shall perform such other functions that may be assigned by the Registrar.”
    In this case, the two Registrars would be assigned these functions. Maybe, if one is in charge of Academic Affairs and somebody is in charge of Administration, this one becomes a deputy registrar. That is why this one is in singular. So the Hon Chairman would have to abandon his proposed amendment and only move the amendment in clause 66(3).
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:40 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Chairman?
    Mr Quaittoo 12:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, why does he say I should move the amendment in clause 66(3) since here too it refers to the two of them who are responsible to the Registrar? Why should we not make it similar?
    Look at clause 66(3), which says:
    “He shall be responsible to the Director-General --”
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:40 p.m.
    it is not the Director-General; it is to the Registrar.
    Mr Quaittoo 12:40 p.m.
    So we did not even look at this.
    Mr Ahiafor 12:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, by way of responsibility, a Deputy Registrar may be in charge of Administration and another one in charge of Academic affairs.
    However, whether one is a Deputy Registrar in charge of Administration or Academic affairs, one is responsible to the Registrar in the performance of one's responsibilities to be in charge of Academic affairs and in charge of Administration.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:40 p.m.
    He may also assign the Deputy Registrar any other function. That is where clause 66(2) comes in. In addition to being a Deputy Registrar in charge of a specific area, the Registrar may assign a person some other function. This is the essence of clause 66(2). With clause 66(3) where the Director-General is in, I do not follow. Were you substituting that for the Registrar? That is right.
    Mr Quaittoo 12:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Director-General should be changed to “Registrar”.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:40 p.m.
    Very well. So in clause 66(3), we are to delete “Director-General” and insert “Registrar”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:40 p.m.
    Now I would put the question on the entire clause 66.
    Yes, Hon Member for Effutu?
    Mr Afenyo-Markin 12:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I wonder if the Hon Chairman would want to have a second look at clause 66 (4) which reads:
    “The more senior Deputy Registrar shall act in the absence of the Registrar.”
    If the Hon Chairman would not mind, I would want to suggest to him that we amend that to be “the most senior-- [Interruption] -- You have limited it to only two. [Interruption]
    Mr Speaker, is it the case that by this enactment, we would strictly limit the Deputy Registrar -- [Interruption] -- Mr Speaker, we do not anticipate any situations where there would be another office for Deputy Registrar -- [Interruption] -- Yes, that is why I am trying to bring this across. Normally, we have administration and academic. [Interruption] --Yes, I have seen it just as the Hon Chairman of the winnowing Committee has been
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:50 p.m.
    Hon Member, address me; I am listening to you.
    Mr Afenyo - Markin 12:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, that is intimidating. I think he being more senior at the Bar, he would sit down and listen to me quietly.
    Mr Speaker, we are aware of the recent Supreme Court decision in the Hon Dr Dominic Ayine's matter, and that should remind us that in law making, we should not be that restrictive. I agree that we are talking
    about the appointment of two deputy registrars largely because at our universities we have Deputy Registrar in-charge of Administration and Academic Affairs. That is perhaps, the reason those policy makers in putting this Bill together proposed this. They may not be wrong, but we are enacting this law for the future where situations may change.
    Mr Speaker, instead of limiting the appointment to two, we should say, “The President shall in accordance with Act 195 of the 1992 Constitution appoint Deputy Registrars for the Council.”Mr Speaker, if at any moment it is limited to two that is fine.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:50 p.m.
    Hon Member, kindly take your seat. Now, we are dealing with clause 66. If you want to propose an amendment to clause 65, wait and propose your amendment so that we can discuss it, but as at now, you are moving us from clause 66 into clause 65.
    Mr Afenyo-Markin 12:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I agree with you except that if we do not cure this now and allow the more senior -- [Interruption]it means that we cannot come back again.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:50 p.m.
    Hon Member, that is a very small amendment that can be done, but you can propose your amendment to clause 65 now.
    Mr Afenyo-Markin 12:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would oblige your pleasure.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:50 p.m.
    Let us discuss it and if we want it, we would take a decision on it.
    Yes, Hon Majority Leader?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, with respect to my Hon Colleague, I believe he is shifting like the sand dunes in the Sahara Desert.
    Mr Speaker, he started by saying that the word “more” should rather be deleted and in its place, we insert “most”. That was the original amendment he sought to propose. Then his attention was drawn to the fact that a decision has already been taken in respect of clause 65, that the President is to nominate two persons .That decision has been taken by the House. In that regard, the substitution of “more” for “most” cannot stand.
    Mr Speaker, in that regard, may I draw his attention and refer him to Order 128 (4) (b) which provides as follows?:
    “At the Consideration Stage of a Bill, the House may make such amendments as it considers fit, provided that the amendments
    (including new clauses and new schedules) comply with the following conditions:
    (b) they must not be inconsistent with any clause already agreed to or any decision already come to by the House.”
    Mr Speaker, this would be inconsistent with the decision already taken by the House, and that is without prejudice to his support of the position that I espoused that he had entered the House to defend. I am most grateful to him for his eternal support, except that in this case, he is wrong. Mr Speaker, can we move on and make progress?
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:50 p.m.
    Hon Members, I want to put the Question on clause 66 (3), unless you would want to comment on it, Hon Member for Effutu.
    Mr Afenyo-Markin 12:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Hon Majority Leader has drawn my attention to clause 128 (b) of the rules of this House. But Mr Speaker, we are the masters of our own rules -- [Interruption] -- We have had several occasions that he as the defacto Chairman of the winnowing committee, although we took
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, respectfully, you are in charge of the Business of this House. You have given indication to my Hon Colleague and he said that, if the House, which you preside over, will not be flexible -- he is referring to the conduct of Mr Speaker -- [Laughter] --
    Mr Afenyo-Markin 12:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, no! -- So Mr Speaker, can we move on?
    rose
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:50 p.m.
    Hon Member, can you resume your seat? The Leader is on his feet.
    Yes Hon Leader, are you done?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, he is referring to your conduct, that you are being inflexible.
    Can I refer him to Order 93(5) , that he cannot raise any matter relating to your conduct and indeed the conduct of Hon Members, that we are inflexible?
    [Interruption]
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1 p.m.
    Hon Member, you are disrupting proceedings. I had indicated that I wanted to put the Question on clause 66 (3), and you were still on your feet; so I asked you whether you had any comment on clause 66 (3). You however took us back to talk about clause 65 and so on so you are out of order.
    Hon Member for Bawku Central, if you have any comment on clause 66 (3), I would admit it.
    Mr Mahama Ayariga 1 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, clause 66 (3) comes before clause 66 (4), and I think that there is something in clause 66 (4) that should prompt us to take another action in clause 66 (3).
    Clause 66 (4) anticipates that between the two Deputy Registrars, one would be a senior Deputy Registrar. However, there is no provision anywhere between clause 66 (1 to 3) for the determination of who among the two should be the senior Deputy Registrar. Clause 66 (4) reads: “The more senior Deputy Registrar…” This means that we have two Deputy Registrars to be appointed.
    So how do we determine that one of them is senior and the other is junior ? Assuming that they are all appointed the same day, which is most likely to be what would happen?
    How would we know the more senior Deputy Registrar? Would we use age or first in time of appointment? I thought that there should be some mechanism in clause 66 to determine who should be the more senior Deputy Registrar among the two.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1 p.m.
    Hon Member, you are a senior Counsel. When four Supreme Court judges were put before us and we approved of their nominations yesterday, how did we determine which one is senior to the other?
    Mr Ayariga 1 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, every institution and its practices. At the Bar, the practice could be that -- it is not “could”; the practice is actually based on the year of one's call to the Bar. In some organisations, they may use degrees. Somebody may come to be a Deputy Registrar with a doctorate degree (PhD), or a professorship degree. Another person may also be appointed a Deputy Registrar based on his university degree. They would all be in the same office and we are talking about --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1 p.m.
    I think that the “more senior” here refers to date of appointment. If they are appointed the same day's the first in time would be the senior, and I think that we should encourage that practice.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 66 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 67 -- Registration procedure
    Mr Quaittoo 1 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, subclause (1), line 1, delete “that” and insert “the.”
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Quaittoo 1 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, subclause (2), line 2, delete “manner” and insert “form.”
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Ahiafor 1 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, before you put the Question on the entire clause 67, clause 67 (2) reads: “A person who seeks to register as a teacher shall apply to the Registrar in the prescribed manner”. Should it be captured as “a prescribed form” or “a prescribed manner”?
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1 p.m.
    The “prescribed manner” has been deleted and in its place, we have inserted “prescribed form.” Are you questioning the use of the “prescribed form” also, or you prefer the “prescribed form” but you are not --
    Mr Ahiafor 1 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I actually prefer the use of the “prescribed form”.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1 p.m.
    It means that you were just not paying attention. [Laughter]
    Mr Afenyo-Markin 1 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I thought that normally, the Hon Chairman of the Committee would give us the justification. Is the use of the “prescribed manner” defective? And if so, how does the
    use of the phrase “prescribed form” cure that supposed defect? The Hon Chairman only said that he seeks to insert the word “form” instead of “manner”. I would therefore want to understand it so that I can explain it when any enquiry is placed before me.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1 p.m.
    Do you have a problem with the use of “form” instead of “manner”? I would want you to speak to that so that --
    Mr Afenyo-Markin 1 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Hon Chairman of the Committee has a problem with the use of “manner”, and he is replacing same with “form”. I would therefore want him to explain --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1 p.m.
    Do you have a problem with “form” instead of “manner”?
    Mr Afenyo-Markin 1 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would want the Hon Chairman to tell us why he is changing “manner” to “form”?
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1 p.m.
    Very well.
    Clause 67 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 68 -- Qualification for registration
    Mr Quaittoo 1 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, subclause (1), opening phrase, line 1, delete “that” and insert “the.”
    Mr Speaker, the reason being that, I have learnt from the winnowing committee that when we start with the use of the indefinite article “a”, the next word to follow goes with the definite article “the” or “that”. This is by the kind courtesy of the Chairman of the Winnowing Committee.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Quaittoo 1 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, subclause (2), line 3, delete “prescried” and insert “prescribed.”
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, also, to be consistent, I think that we have been using the Queen's English in the use of the word “practice”. The verb form is captured by the use of “se”, and that is what we have done consistently, but in a few places it comes with the use of “ce”. For instance, as in clause 68 (2), line 3 , it should be “se”.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1 p.m.
    Clause 68 (2) reads: “Despite subsection (1), the Board may register
    a person to “practise”…” That has been captured with “se”, so what are you proposing that we amend?
    My Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu: Mr Speaker, what you read is clause 68 (3), but I am referring to clause 68 (2) which says: “…with a licence to “practice as a teacher…”
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:10 p.m.
    All right, so clause 68 (2), line 3, delete “practice” and insert “practise”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 68 as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 69 is ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 70 -- Types of registers.
    Mr Quaittoo 1:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, Clause 70, subclause (1), paragraph (c), delete and insert.
    “(c) a provisional register for --
    (i) newly -- qualified teachers; and
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:10 p.m.
    Hon Members, the item listed (xxxiv)?
    Mr Quaittoo 1:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think that clause there is wrongly placed. In clause 70, subclause (1), line 2, we do not have the word, “manner”. I think it comes in clause 71.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:10 p.m.
    Do you probably want to withdraw the proposed amendment in your name?
    Mr Quaittoo 1:10 p.m.
    Yes, Mr Speaker. It is rather in clause 72, subclause (1). What is on the Order Paper is wrong so; that amendment goes to clause 72 (1). When we get to clause 72, we would have it there.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:10 p.m.
    Does is it mean there is no further amendment to clause 70?
    Mr Quaittoo 1:10 p.m.
    Yes, Mr Speaker.
    Clause 70 as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 71-- Permanent Registration.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:10 p.m.
    There is no advertised amendment to clause 71.
    Clause 71 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Mr Ahiafor 1:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, it is permanent registration, but they are saying that a permanent registration is valid for a period of two years. How can a permanent registration be valid for a period of two years?
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:10 p.m.
    I think that if you go to subclause (3), it talks about renewal. One is a permanently - registered member, but one must validate it every two years. Hon Members, is that alright? Let us proceed with clause 72 then.
    Clause 72 -- Temporary registration.
    Mr Quaittoo 1:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 72, subclause (1), delete the word, “manner” in line 2 and insert “form”.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:10 p.m.
    Very well.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Quaittoo 1:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 72, subclause (2), line 2, delete “not more than two years” and insert “another term only”.
    Mr Speaker, the new rendition reads 1:10 p.m.
    “A temporary registration is only for a period of one year and it is renewable for another term only”.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:10 p.m.
    Another term as in first term, second term or third term?
    Mr Quaittoo 1:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I said one year.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:10 p.m.
    I think it is better to put one year because ‘term' can be confusing in the academic sector. It should be “it would be renewable for another year only. Is that right?
    Mr Quaittoo 1:10 p.m.
    Yes, Mr Speaker, I agree with you.
    Mr Afenyo-Markin 1:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, what is the new rendition then? I would like the Chairman to let us know.
    Mr Quaittoo 1:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the new rendition reads:
    “A temporary registration is valid for a period of one year and it is renewable for another year only”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:10 p.m.
    Hon Member for Akatsi South, I think clause 72, subclause (3) answers your question.
    “A person registered on a temporary register shall practise only in an approved school or institution”.
    If I understand the clause properly, one applies as a temporary teacher for two years maximum, but specific to teaching in a particular institution or in an approved institution. Hon Chairman, is that the intention?
    Mr Quaittoo 1:10 p.m.
    Yes, Mr Speaker.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:10 p.m.
    Is that clear? That is why one is called a temporary teacher or one has a temporary license.
    Mr Ahiafor 1:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, clause 71 (2) says: “permanent registration”. Under permanent registration, we are saying that a permanent registration
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:10 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Chairman, what is your intention? If you explain your intention properly, probably, we could couch it to achieve the purpose.
    Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 1:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the clause immediately preceding this one talks about provisional registration so the second one is distinguishing the provisional one and that is why the permanent one is introduced.
    Mr Ahiafor 1:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I agree with the “permanent” and “provisional”, but if the thing is a permanent register, why should something that is permanent be valid for only two years? If it is temporary, then, we could say that the temporary one is valid for a particular period but we are told that it is permanent. However, it is valid for only two years. That is where my difficulty is.
    Mr Quaittoo 1:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, driver's license is permanent, I
    suppose, but it is renewable after every three years. Is that correct?
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:10 p.m.
    Well, first, they issued it for six years as the lifespan of the license and then, it is renewed every two years. It is validated every two years. So it is not a permanent one; after the six years, the Authority may decide that one does not deserve another one or the renewal.
    And even the renewal is subject to one's eyes being as clear and so on. However, with this one, you do not appear to want any qualification for renewal but just validation every two years. So probably we could change the rendition to achieve the same purpose.
    Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 1:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I want to find out whether with driving licenses, we have the provisional license for learners? Now, is the one that is given for six years a permanent licence? If it is permanent, then --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:20 p.m.
    It is a driver's license. [Laughter] The temporary one is called the provisional license and is for a person who is learning. So they are only permitted to sit behind the wheel to learn.
    Probably, we could look at the rendition. I propose that the winnowing --
    rose
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:20 p.m.
    Hon Member, I have not seen you since morning, so what are you bringing in?
    Dr Apaak 1:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, just for the sake of emphasis and clarity, with your kind permission, I thought it would be useful for us to consider the definition of “permanent” to guide us. The word “permanent” means lasting or intended to last or remain unchanged indefinitely.
    I think that is where Hon Ahiafor sees the obvious mismatch within the current context. I think your directive is right and we need to look for a better rendition. This is because we cannot say two years and say it is permanent because two years is definitely not indefinite.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:20 p.m.
    Unless we define “permanent” at the interpretation section differently - That is another option but I think that the better way is to choose a better rendition to describe what we want. Once you have a permanent license, you validate it every two years.
    Yes, Hon Ranking Member for the Committee on Constitutional, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs?
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 1:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I like the second suggestion, that we define “permanent” in the law because “permanent” here is used in contrast to “temporary”. That is the sense in which it is used, but I appreciate what the Hon Member said.
    However, we are looking at temporary licenses and permanent licences. In that case, we are setting them apart, one against the other, but the effect is what he is alluding to. Probably we need to define it, so that permanent licensing is for a certain category of teachers, subject to renewal every two years.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:20 p.m.
    Very well. Hon Chairman, it is up to you. Let us continue.
    Clause 73 -- Provisional registration
    Mr Quaittoo 1:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 73, subclause (1), lines 1 and 2, delete “the period determined by the Board” and insert “a period of six months”.
    The new rendition would read:
    “A provisional registration is valid for a period of six months
    Mr Ntow 1:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think that you have to impress on the Hon Chairman to give us the new rendition. The way he read the new rendition flowed. So he cannot just move the amendment without giving us the new rendition. This would let the amendment flow smoothly.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:20 p.m.
    The Hon Chairman would take note.
    Mr Banda 1:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am just trying to reconcile clause 74 and clause 75. Clause 74 deals with suspension and clause 75 deals with cancellation. The presumption is that once it has to do with suspension, the matter is being investigated. For instance, clause 74 (1)(a) says that where the conduct is being investigated, the license of the person can be suspended.
    However, clause 74 (1)(b) and (c) makes it definitive. It is as though the matter has been determined. If we
    say the teacher has made a false declaration, then it means the matter has been gone into and it has been determined that the teacher has made a false declaration. That is my understanding.
    Also, if in subclause (c), the teacher has contravened the provisions of this Act, what it means is that the matter has been determined and the finding is that the teacher has indeed contravened a provision of this Act. Once that contravention has taken place, clause 75 (1)(a) would kick in because clause 75 (1)(a) is dependent on the teacher con- travening a provision of this Act.
    Clause 75 (1)(a) says “is convicted” and clause 74 (1)(c) says: “the teacher has contravened a provision of this Act”. Contravention means that the matter has been determined and the teacher is found guilty. Immediately, clause 75 (1)(a) would also kick in, so how do we reconcile clause 74 (1)(c) and clause 75 (1)(a) because it also deals with contravention of a provision under this Act.
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 1:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, clause 74 as the headnote suggests, deals with suspension of registration, so there is no finality yet to the action taken against the teacher. That is why clause 74 (2) says that
    even before you suspend, you must go through some procedural requirements and give notice. So, it is like interdiction.
    Clause 75 is when the offence committed under clause 74 has been established. So you would talk about clause 75 (1)(a) where one can only be convicted in a competent court of jurisdiction. So an allegation has been made against you that you have contravened provisions of this Act and notice is given to you. You are then suspended and processed for court and convicted and that is when clause 75 would kick in. So clause 74 is actually an interdiction and clause 75 deals with the proven offence.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:20 p.m.
    What I see is that clause 74 is doing two things. Where there is an allegation or where even if as they say, you are caught in flagrante delicto -- even if you are caught breaching the rule, you would still be given the opportunity to state your side and then they may suspend you before due process is followed. That is what I see clause 74 doing, and clause 75 is after due process, cancellation.
    Mr Banda 1:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, clause 74 (2) says a person would be suspended unless he or she has been
    given the opportunity to be heard. Would it still be suspension if it is established that the person has contravened the provision of this Act?
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:30 p.m.
    That appears to be the case.
    Mr Banda 1:30 p.m.
    Yes, that appears to be the case.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:30 p.m.
    We have established that for instance, a teacher is not supposed to cane a child but the teacher has been caught canning a child and he or she would be suspended, meanwhile what should be the process to deal with the teacher who has canned the child?
    That one would kick in under clause 25 or even if the teacher is given punishment under clause 74 and he or she fails to comply with it, then clause 75 would come in. I think clause 74 sufficiently takes care of the things that could be seen but could still be given a hearing.
    Clause 74 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 75 -- Cancellation of registration
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:30 p.m.
    What you have suggested is that if a person is convicted of an offence which involves dishonesty but the person is sentenced to two years, then he or she does not come under clause 75. What is the rationale for the three years?
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 1:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, if we look at the Criminal and Other Offences Acts, a person sentenced to a period of three years loses his or her position and so cancellation becomes automatic as a teacher. However, if the person is sentenced to less than three years, it is a disciplinary action, so the person does not lose his or her position.
    If the person occupies a public office and is sentenced to a period of imprisonment for more than three years, the person would lose the office but if it is less than three years, the person would not lose the office.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:30 p.m.
    Is that an existing law?
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 1:30 p.m.
    Yes, Mr Speaker. It is in the Criminal and Other Offences Act.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:30 p.m.
    I am not familiar with that one.
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 1:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, it is so nebulous that so many people do not advert their minds to it.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Banda 1:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, clause 75 (1) (a) is hanging because it says:
    “is convicted for an offence under this Act or the Regulations''.
    Mr Speaker, so once the person has been convicted, there are two options of either a fine or a custodial sentence. With the custodial sentence, once the term of imprisonment has not been predetermined, there is the tendency for the person to be given less than three years, which would then defeat the reasoning behind the amendment we just effected.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:30 p.m.
    We are not assuming that the judge would want to defeat this Act because the
    sentence is a discretion of the court and often the circumstances would determine. However, if you are a lawyer for him or her, I am sure you would fight that he or she would get two years 11 months which would still be lower than three years. You are entitled to that anyway.
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 1:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, there are two matters. Even though three could encompass clause 75(a), it actually speaks to a conviction of a criminal offence. One, a person is bound by the provisions of this Act and the person violates the provisions of the Act. For example, if a teacher steals somebody's goat, he or she has not violated the provision because there is no provision which says that a teacher shall not steal a goat in this Act.
    However, that stealing of the goat is a criminal offence, so if the person is convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of three years, then he or she would lose his or her office. This Act says that a person cannot practice without a license and that license has to be renewed, so we would give them the opportunity to explain why the license has not been renewed. If it is established that it was done with impunity, the license would be cancelled.
    Mr Banda 1:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would want to know the difference between clause 75 (1) (a) and 75 (1) (c)?
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:30 p.m.
    Clause 75 (1) (a), is “offence under this Act or the Regulations'' and clause 75 (1) (c), is for criminal offences. So that goes to the Criminal Offences Act.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Regulations to ensue from this Act would be part of the Act. So do we still need all the Regulations? It is convicted for an offence under this Act.
    Mr Chireh 1:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, as we earlier observed, clause 75 (1) (a) says that one could be convicted “under this Act of the Regulations''. [Interruption] Yes, the Regulations made under this Act -- that is where the meaning is. So it is an indication as to which law one could be convicted on. If the conviction is for a day's imprisonment or whatever, that is one.
    However, when it comes to the general one in paragraph (c), it does not have to be “under this Act'' because it is a criminal offence and with any criminal offence the sanctions are determined by the offence. If the
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:40 p.m.
    Hon Majority Leader, you talked about offence under this Act and Regulations, so I think it is safer to leave it like that. If the Regulation creates an offence, it is important that we keep the two because if I commit an offence which is not created under this Act but created under the Regulation and the rendition says “offences under this Act”, I will fight to the Supreme Court to say that I have not committed an offence under the Act. So I suggest that we leave it as it is.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Quaittoo 1:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 75, subclause (1), add the following new paragraph:
    “has been adjudged or declared to be of unsound mind or is detained as a criminal lunatic under any law in force.”
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 75 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 76 -- Annual list of registered teachers
    Mr Quaittoo 1:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 76, add the following new paragraph:
    “(b) daily newspaper of national circulation; and”
    In that case, we would delete the “and” after “gazette” so that would come to paragraph (b) and the original paragraph (b) would become paragraph (c).
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think we should prefix it with the word “in a” if that would be the new paragraph (b).
    “The Registrar shall publish annually the list of teachers in a
    (b) daily newspaper of national circulation; and”
    It cannot just begin as it has been done; the two words should precede “daily newspaper of national circulation”.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:40 p.m.
    Very well, we would precede that with “in a”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 76 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 77 -- Removal and restoration of name in register.
    Mr Quaittoo 1:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 77, add the following new paragraph:
    “(c) whose registration has been cancelled pursuant to section
    75(1).”
    Mr Speaker, it presupposes that the “or” after the paragraph (a) would have to come after paragraph (b).
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:40 p.m.
    Very well, that is clerical.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 77 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 78 -- Representation to the Board and appeal
    Mr Quaittoo 1:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 78, subclause (1), line 2, delete “one month from the date” and insert “thirty days upon receipt”.
    Mr Speaker, the new rendition will be 1:40 p.m.
    “A person whose application for registration is refused may appeal against the refusal to the Board within thirty days upon receipt of the decision of the Board.”
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 78 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:40 p.m.
    I direct that the draftspersons change the numbering accordingly.
    Mr Afenyo-Markin 1:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, clause 78 (2) as has been directed:
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:40 p.m.
    Hon Member, that is precisely what we have provided for.
    Mr Afenyo-Markin 1:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we have provided for that to the High Court.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:40 p.m.
    Hon Member, the High Court is after the appeal. That is what is here:
    “A person whose application for registration is refused may appeal against the refusal to the Board within one month from the date of the decision of the Board.”
    So, after that appeal, you may then go to the High Court.
    Mr Afenyo-Markin 1:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, with respect, this is consistent with what we already have. [Interruption]
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:40 p.m.
    Hon Member, let me listen to you please?
    Mr Chireh 1:40 p.m.
    -- rose --
    Mr Afenyo-Markin 1:40 p.m.
    So it is not applicable mutatis mutandis. [Interruption] Why do we have principles and why do we apply to fit specific instances. You would have to listen to me first.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:40 p.m.
    Hon Member, please, resume your seat.
    Mr Chireh 1:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, in all the University Bills we have considered and passed here, the Appeals Board is always provided for. If we look at all the Acts that we have passed, it is there.
    It is an internal mechanism for the universities to resolve conflicts. When somebody thinks that he is not being promoted or he is wrongly placed, those are for the -- But if the
    University Council takes a decision against somebody or someone is dissatisfied with the decision of the University Council, he or she cannot go to that Appeals Board but to go to court because it is an administrative body.
    Mr Speaker, what we are considering now is not about a university.
    Mr Afenyo-Markin 1:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the decision will be an administrative decision and it is a Board that is taking a decision. I am only drawing the attention of the House if it is possible to have a second look at it?
    Mr Speaker, perhaps, I would have to bring the decision of the Court to specifically assist Hon Chireh who is vehemently opposed to --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:50 p.m.
    Hon Member, we considering the National Teaching Council.
    Mr Afenyo-Markin 1:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, yes.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:50 p.m.
    There is a provision for appeal against decisions to the Board and after that
    to the High Court. That is what we are discussing now.
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 1:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, his concerns have even been taken care of in this Bill. This is because an appeal's committee of the Board will be an appeal's committee of the Board and if a person is dissatisfied with the decision -- an appeal's committee of the Board would submit their decisions to the Board for implementation. A person dissatisfied with the decision of the Board, appeals to the Court of Appeal.
    Mr Speaker, this is because clause 62 says that --
    Mr Afenyo-Markin 1:50 p.m.
    -- rose --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:50 p.m.
    Hon Member, please, I have not given you the Floor.
    Mr Afenyo-Markin 1:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, so --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:50 p.m.
    Please, let us proceed with the Bill. We will continue with the debate --
    Mr Afenyo-Markin 1:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, there is an appeal's committee of the Board. If that is so, then it is clear that your explanation --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:50 p.m.
    Hon Member, the Bill is before you. Please, read it.
    Mr Afenyo-Markin 1:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, however, the Hon Member is saying something different.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:50 p.m.
    Hon Members, did we put the Question on clause 78? Very well.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    I direct the draftspersons to effect the corrections in the numbering.
    Clause 78 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 79 -- Employment of registered teachers
    Mr Quaittoo 1:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, that subclause (1), delete and insert the following: “A person shall not knowingly or negligently employ a person as a teacher in an institution unless the teacher is registered under this Act”.
    Mr Banda 1:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, this is an obligation being placed on anybody at all not to do a certain act.
    Mr Speaker, in our criminal statute books, where an act is supposed not
    to be done, one cannot say; “knowingly|”. For instance, we do not say; “a person who knowingly steals” but “a person who steals commits an offence.”
    However, I would want to submit that the original rendition is rather more apt and appropriate. This is because the original rendition says; ‘a person shall not employ a teacher in an institution unless that person is registered under this Act'.
    Mr Speaker, that alone, suffices. Then the offence which is being created under clause 79 (2) is where appropriately, the guilty knowledge of the person ought to be taken care of. ‘A person who knowingly or negligently -- but in the first rendition which is captured under clause 79 (1), I do not think that we still have to insert ‘knowingly'.
    This is because it is a mandatory provision in that the guilty knowledge of the person in clause 79 (1), does not matter but it is the offence which matters and this is being created under clause 79 (2) which is where the guilty knowledge of the person matters.
    So I submit that clause 79 (1) ought not to be disturbed. It is more elegant and appropriate than what is being suggested.
    Mr Chireh 1:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we looked at what the Hon Member is saying and even if he looks at clause 79, the offence is created as well as the particulars of the offence. That is a different matter.
    Now, in this particular case, if we look at the further amendment being made, it is to the effect that we contravene what the amendment is seeking to do.
    Indeed, if we should look at clause 79, the expression; “knowingly' is used or ‘negligently” and all these are the ingredients to be looked for in the offence. If we say that the person has contravened that provision, then these are the consequences that follow.
    Mr Speaker, we looked at all that but considering what the Hon Member is saying in the original sub-clause (1), what has he done there? He was describing -- as I indicated in clause 79, it will create an offence and then give the particulars of the offence.
    With the amendments done by the review commissioner -- the amendment by the late V. C. R. A. C. Crabbe in the green books we have, we may see the formulation is slightly different from the original Act but this is the way the Committee looked at it and considered it as the most appropriate thing to do.
    Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 1:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, ordinarily, what the Hon Chairman for the Constitutional, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs Committee is proposing is the straight point but I would want him to advert his mind to, when for instance, somebody is charged and the person has to put up a defence. The person may say that well, it was in a book and I could not have actually separated this person from it and so, it is not my fault.
    Mr Speaker, so the introduction of the “knowingly” or “negligently”, is only saying that we would want to make the offence a strict liability offence so that nobody can run away --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:50 p.m.
    No. We rather put the burden of proof on the prosecution that a prosecutor, before he or she charges any person, must show that the person knew or ought to have known that the person is not registered. As far as I know, that is changing the prosecution.
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 1:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, this drafting is known in criminal law; “a person who intentionally causes the death of another person”. So, one would have to prove the general intention on the specific intention and also, “a person who recklessly causes financial loss”. We would have to prove the financial
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 2 p.m.
    loss and the recklessness; that is, specific and general intention and these are known in criminal law.
    Secondly, clause 79 (2), one would notice the formulation such that; “a person shall not knowingly or negligently employs … commits an offence”
    Mr Speaker, so we have not created the offence of “knowingly” or “negligently” but we are convicting for “knowingly” and “negligently”.

    That is why the amendment was proposed to move the specific intents to the law itself; to the offence creation section. So we would now amend (2) to read that “a person who contravenes subsection (1)”. Mr Speaker, because it is not a State liability --

    Clause 79 (2) was saying that “a person who knowingly or negligently employs a person purporting to be a registered teacher knowing …”

    So the specific intent is to put in the punishment section, but we said that is not how to draft the law. The specific intent to be proved should be put in the offence creating section and that is why --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2 p.m.
    Kwamina Ansah Nya Meneba -- knowledge of the fact -- is what is being transported here.
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 2 p.m.
    Knowledge of the fact or capacity to know that that person is not a registered teacher.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2 p.m.
    Or knowing the fact or neglecting to find the fact. That is the offence.
    Mr Banda 2 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, this style of rendition gives an impression of offence creating provision, but this one is not creating the offence. [Interruption]
    Please let us read: “A person shall not knowingly or negligently employ a person as a teacher in an institution unless the teacher is registered under this Act”.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2 p.m.
    Hon Members, I intend to close at 2.00 p.m. but we have to conclude this and so I am not extending the time because we are still within it. Let us continue.
    Mr Banda 2 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, this is not the offence creating provision. The offence creating provision is rather 79 (2). [Interruption]
    That is where the offence is being created and that is where the penalty for committing the offence is prescribed. Clause 79 (1) is an obligation on the person not to do a certain act. If the person fails to do it then the punishment is 79(2). So clause 79(2) is the offence creating provision and not clause 79(1).
    Mr Ahiafor 2 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, what we should take into consideration is that the proposed amendment seeks to amend the whole of clause 79. We have to read the proposed amendment as a whole in clause 79 to be able to appreciate it.
    If Clause 79(1) as it is in the law, is matched with the proposed amendment, then we may not understand it. If we look at the entire clause 79 as it is in the law and the entire proposed amendment of clause 79 then basically we are talking about one and the same thing, but it is neater in the proposed amendment than in its original form in the Bill.
    Mr Speaker, because clause 79(1) reads; “A person shall not knowingly or negligently employ a person as a teacher in an institution unless that teacher is registered under this Act”.
    However, clause 79(2) reads; “A person who contravenes subsection (1) …” This means that a person can be employed to teach in an institution, but if it is not knowingly or negligently then the provision of the Act has not been contravened for which reason there would be no punishment.
    However, it is only when a person is employed as a teacher under the conditions as stated in the law; knowingly but failed to conduct due diligence, then it would attract the punishment.
    Mr Speaker, so it is neater in the proposed amendment to clause 79.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2 p.m.
    When we used to play cards, there was a point that we would mix all together and say woafutu to wit “it's been mixed”. That is what has happened here; the two have been mixed but the ingredients are the same.
    Hon Chairman, I think we can proceed.
    Mr Quaittoo 2 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think that the whole amendment was necessitated by the fact that the second word “person” made subclause (1) very ambiguous. “A
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, this is a “thou shall not kill” construction, so I am struggling to understand what my Hon Colleague is saying.
    The “thou shall not kill” construction is what is here.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2 p.m.
    I would put the Question.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2 p.m.
    Item numbered (xliii).
    Mr Quaittoo 2 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 79 subclause (2), delete and insert the following: “A person who contravenes
    subsection (1) commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine of not less than five hundred penalty units and not more than one thousand penalty units or to a term of imprisonment of not more than one year or to both.”
    Mr Banda 2 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, this is a non-controversial one because the minimum and maximum units have been stated in the penalty units, but the minimum is not stated for the custodial sentence. This is non- controversial.
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 2 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the minimum is not stated because the upper limit of the imprisonment is stated. So, a person could be fined or a sentence would be imposed which should not exceed one year.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2 p.m.
    We are satisfied with even one day. Is that what we intend to say?
    Alhaji I.A.B.Fuseini 2 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we are saying that because of the nature of this offence, we would only punish for impunity. A person might commit the offence out of necessity but not impunity; not being negligent but knowingly.
    So we said it should be capped at one year and a fine. So the discretion is quite wide; a 12 month discretion.
    The sentence could be one day or one month but it should not exceed one year because of the exigencies.
    A person has been employed to teach in a school and that person is actually teaching. So the only offence that has been committed is that that person who has been employed is not registered. So the person can take steps to register and that is why we put the upward limit and gave the court a wider limit. But if you still want us to put a lower limit we could put, not less than six months because six months corresponds to a misdemeanour.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:10 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Member for Asante Akim Central?
    Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 2:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am convinced by the explanation of the Hon Ranking Member, save to say that impliedly, the minimum sentence now would be a day's imprisonment. So the Judge has the right to give a day's imprisonment or a month's imprisonment.
    Mr Ahiafor 2:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Hon Chairman of the Committee on Constitutional, Legal and Parlia-
    mentary Affairs is right. He is right in the sense that in this particular law, giving the option of a fine, we stated the minimum fine and the maximum fine.
    Therefore what we should do is to find the corresponding minimum prison sentence for the minimum fine stated. We stated the minimum and maximum fines and we should also state the corresponding prison sentences so that if the judge decides that there is an offence for which the minimum punishment is imposing a fine of 100 penalty units, for example, and then if one fails to pay the fine of that 100 penalty units, what would become the corresponding prison term?
    So we must set the minimum prison term as we have set the maximum prison term by the law; we must set the maximum fine by the law. In this way, in the event one fails to pay the minimum fine, the judge is not given too much discretion to say that although the person has not paid the fine, the law has given the judge the option to sentence a person for one day. What is the corresponding prison sentence for the minimum fine as prescribed by the law?
    The draftsperson could even help us to do the equation, and we would be safe and sound.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I believe that should be a conclusion. Indeed, the Hon Chairman of the Committee on Constitutional, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs said he was not introducing any controversial amendment. I think we just need to look at the corresponding sentence in terms of the 500 penalty units. Let the draftspersons determine that and insert it, then we can move on.
    Mr Chireh 2:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, this is exactly the problem we created by presumptions. We are saying that the draftsperson should look at the corresponding term of imprisonment to match with the minimum we have given, which has not been done. In my view, they should just add it.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:10 p.m.
    Six months is half of 1,000 penalty units. Is that right? The maximum is 1,000 penalty units or one year and so half of which is 500 penalty units should be equal to six months. Please insert “six months”.
    Mr Ahiafor 2:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Drafting Department of the Attorney- General's Department knows how to find the corresponding minimum term of imprisonment. One penalty unit is GH¢12.00 and so 500 penalty units would amount to GH¢6,000.00. With
    what would be the corresponding term of imprisonment for a fine of GH¢6,000.00? They have a chart and they would be able to help us.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, it is the reason we said we should leave it to the draftspersons because indeed, depending on what we would want to establish, the 500 penalty units really translates to about two years, and the 1,000 penalty units to about four years. So we just need to be mindful of what we would want to do. If it is six months, then the penalty units should come down, and if it is one year, certainly, it would also have to drop.
    Let us look at that. If the general rule is that it should be six months and one year, in commensurate terms, we should look at the penalty units and bring it down. As I said, however, we could leave it to the draftsperson.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:10 p.m.
    So I would put the Question on the text, and the draftsperson would effect the corresponding minimum term of imprisonment. Let us first agree on the one-year and six-months term of imprisonment. Do we want the minimum to be six months?
    Very well. So I would put the Question.
    Mr Quaittoo 2:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, No. Mr Speaker, I think we just read what the draftsperson brought to you saying that 1,000 penalty units is about four years. That would be too much.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, that is why I am saying that the six months and one year is what we are accepting. Then the corresponding penalty units would have to be determined by the draftsperson.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:10 p.m.
    Have we agreed now?
    Very well. So I would put the Question.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:10 p.m.
    the Draftspersons are directed to insert the corresponding penalty units for a minimum of six months prison sentence and a maximum of one year prison sentence. I so direct.
    Clause 79 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:10 p.m.
    Now it is 20 minutes pass 2.00 p.m. and I do not intend to go beyond 2.00 p.m. That is why I did not extend the time.
    And there is no advertised amendment to clause 80. If any Hon Member proposes any amendment, I would defer it. If not, I would put the Question on clause 80.
    Yes, Hon Majority Leader?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would entreat that we end here because I realised that there is an amendment proposed on clause 80 which is not captured on the Order Paper. So let us end here. There are two amendments that we proposed but they are not captured.
    So let us end here. We would confer with the Table Office to have it captured for tomorrow.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:10 p.m.
    Very well. That brings us to the end of the Consideration of the Education Regulatory Bodies Bill, 2019 for today.
    Hon Majority Leader, if there is no announcement, I am bringing the proceedings to a close.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Hon Member for Effutu is urging that he has an announcement. I do not know what announcement he has, but the announcement for me is that Hon Members who have not as yet availed themselves for the

    testing of the Coronavirus should avail themselves today and latest by tomorrow. I should think they would end the testing tomorrow.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:10 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Member for Effutu?
    Mr Afenyo-Markin 2:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Hon Majority Leader drew my attention to the earlier submission I made on which you ruled me out of order at that time, that having regard to his view on the number of Hon Members present and participating, we did not exceed 20. He wanted me to re-echo the fact that he has been vindicated.
    Mr Speaker, I so reiterate that --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:20 p.m.
    Hon Member for Effutu, this has very serious implications, so I would direct that the Hansard Department obliterate this comment from the
    records. There is a number for making decisions and we have that number and we have made decisions on the Floor.
    Thank you very much.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I noticed that whenever you wanted to put the Question, people rushed in, participated and walked out. And those of them who were doing the consideration these are the numbers; not more than twenty (20) -- [Laughter] -- but people who when you put the Question would rush in, participate and walk out --
    Mr Speaker, that is the issue that the Hon Member for --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:20 p.m.
    Hon Member, I do not confirm or deny what you have said. It is just that I have ruled that we have the numbers and we made decisions which were supported by the law.
    ADJOURNMENT 2:20 p.m.