Debates of 21 Oct 2020

MR SPEAKER
PRAYERS 11:33 a.m.
VOTES AND PROCEEDINGS AND THE OFFICIAL REPORT 11:33 a.m.
Mr Speaker 11:33 a.m.
Hon Members, Correction of the Votes and Proceedings of Tuesday, 20 th October, 2020.
Any correction?
Page 1 … 26
Mr Haruna Iddrisu 11:33 a.m.
Mr Speaker, on pages 25 and 26, I would want to believe that the Clerks-at-the-Table did not get it right. In respect of clause 18 of the Council of State Bill, 2020, there was “President” in the arrangement of the words. If the Hon Majority Leader would recall, the arrangement had to do with “President”, “Parliament” and
“Minister of State” but I just see the words “Parliament” and “Minister of State”. With the couching of the language, we said:
“The Council of State may request information in the performance of its functions subject to …”
Mr Speaker, when you go to page 26, it flows from there to page 27. We cannot use the word “achievement” in the Long Title. It was “attainment” as was ably moved by the Hon Chairman and supported by the Hon Minister. I abandoned the first leg of my amendment, but for the word “attainment”, we retained it. It must be the Hon Majority Leader, the Hon Inusah Fuseini, Hon Haruna Iddrisu and Hon Yieleh Chireh who are sponsors of the improvement of the Long Title which was to read:
“An Act in respect of the Council of State established under article 89; to provide for the establishment of a Secretariat for the attainment of the mandate of the Council of State and related for matters.”
It is not “achievement of the mandate” so it should be corrected. And those who laboured for it must be recognised; we do not demand royalties. This is our royalties as Hon
Members of Parliament. It was the Hon Chairman, the Hon Majority Leader, Hon Haruna Iddrisu, Hon Inusah Fuseini and Hon Yieleh Chireh who contributed to improving it.
Mr Speaker, the Hon Majority Leader may speak to the issue on the page 25 that I raised. Even at that point, you directed the draftsperson, but the Hon Majority Leader can speak to it. I do not think this is the way the language was couched. The information could come from the President or Parliament in that order.
Mr Osei Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:33 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the Hon Minority Leader is right in the observation that he made in respect of the chronology, but in an earlier provision, we had “Minister of State” preceding “Parliament”, so I said that we should look at that so that we would have a synchronisation of the two provisions in terms of the order of precedence. We should get the two right. It cannot relate to just one provision and the other is left as it was proposed in the Bill. So, if it has to be “Parliament” before “Minister of State, it should reflect in the previous provision as well.
Mr Speaker, the other one relating to the terms and conditions is right and appropriately captured. With the Long Title, if you look at clause 43
on page 26, we decided to delete “achievement” and insert “attainment”, and we said we should do same wherever the word “achievement” appears in the Bill unless the context otherwise determines. So, in the Long Title, that indeed should have been the first port of call, and it should have read:
“… provide for the establishment of the Secretariat and other relevant structures for the attainment of the mandate of the Council of State and for related matters.”
Again, the Hon Minority Leader is right in that regard.
Mr Speaker 11:43 a.m.
Shall we make this amendment and then, as we come to the Third Reading, which is today, we have a Second Consideration Stage of the Council of State Bill, 2020 or once we have this corrected, we could proceed?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:43 a.m.
Mr Speaker, respectfully, the correct amendments were proffered and indeed, adopted by the House. It is the capturing of the amendment that was amended by the House.
Mr Speaker 11:43 a.m.
The corrections should be effected accordingly in accordance with what has been pointed out. So, that becomes the real record before we move on to the Third Reading.
Mr Iddrisu 11:43 a.m.
Mr Speaker, if the Hon Majority Leader would advert his mind to the original in the Bill, it was not captured. As we proceeded with the amendment, I only heard comments on it. Can the Council of State request information from the President? I should think so but we have only tabled “Parliament, Ministers of State or any other body”.
If you read the remit of the article 89 well, they are to counsel the President in the performance of their functions. However, when we are giving them the power to request information, conspicuously lost is the President. So, the Hon Majority Leader should guide us on what to do because ideally -- [Interruption] We must go to the Hansard and in the commentary, one of us probably said “President, Parliament”.
I would ask the Hansard Department to give us the full text. We probably did, but to be sure, the Hon Majority Leader could guide us. I dd not think that we should leave the President out in this narrative.
Mr Speaker 11:43 a.m.
In fact, essentially, the President at any given time is the Chief Administrator, the Chief Executive, the Chief repository of all governmental and allied information. In fact, if one should go back to Committee of Express Reports and so on, you would see that these were some of the things that were captured and later on left alone. It is just a matter of requesting for information and I think that if you circumvent and provide information for all other persons without the quintessential person, it detracts from what you are doing. In constitutional terms, that is my view. [Pause]
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:43 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I agree with the Hon Minority Leader that on his own volition, if they have to consider a Bill and report to Parliament, they could seek information from the President, who would be the sponsor, through maybe, the sector Minister of the Bill. We could seek information from the President, Ministers of State or from Parliament.
I just noticed that in article 91 (3), for whatever it is worth, the chronology given is the President, Minister of State, Parliament or any other authority established by this Constitution. I guess the reason they followed that order beginning with the President is;
Mr Speaker 11:43 a.m.
Yes, so we would do a Second Consideration. In any case, it is very much in line with Article 91 (3). Thank you very much. The appropriate corrections would be effected.
Page 26…28.
In the absence of any further corrections, the Votes and Proceedings of 20th October, 2020 as corrected is hereby admitted as the true record of proceedings.
At the Commencement of Public Business, item numbered 4. Presentation of Papers by the Chairman of the Committee on Employment, Social Welfare and State Enterprises.
PAPERS 11:43 a.m.
Mr Speaker 11:43 a.m.
Item numbered 5, Motion? Hon Majority Leader, we are on item numbered 5.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:43 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the Hon Attorney-General and Minister for Justice is on her way here, so we could jump to item numbered 6.
Mr Speaker 11:53 a.m.
Item numbered 6 -- Real Estate Agency Bill, 2020, at the Consideration Stage.
BILLS -- CONSIDERATION 11:53 a.m.
STAGE 11:53 a.m.
Chairman of the Committee (Nana Amoakoh) 11:53 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I
beg to move, clause 6, subclause 2, paragraph (b), lines 2 to 4, delete “that a reasonable person in that position would reasonably be expected to exercise in the circumstances”.
Question put and amendment agreed to
Nana Amoakoh 11:53 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 6, subclause 2, paragraph (c), line 1, delete “improper''.
Mr Haruna Iddrisu 11:53 a.m.
Mr Speaker, could the Hon Chairman convince me why he wants the deletion of the words “improper use of information''? In the Second Reading of the Bill, we were told about anti- money laundering. In anti-money laundering, there is the financial intelligence centre and other institutions and when information is shared with them, it is proper use of information but if the appropriate thing is not done, that is improper use of information. So, if they delete the word “improper'', the paragraph would read:
“to avoid making…”
Mr Speaker, I want the Hon Chairman to read that paragraph.
Nana Amoakoh 11:53 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the Hon Minority Leader, is right.
Mr Iddrisu 11:53 a.m.
Mr Speaker, he should convince me.
Mr Speaker 11:53 a.m.
Hon Chairman, if you would please read the new rendition?.
Nana Amoakoh 11:53 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the new rendition would be:
“to avoid making use of information acquired by virtue of the position of that member for the benefit of that member or to the detriment of the Council, and''
Mr Speaker 11:53 a.m.
Hon Minority Leader, are you satisfied?
Mr Iddrisu 11:53 a.m.
Yes, Mr Speaker.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:53 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I want to further propose an amendment to the paragraph (c).
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 6, subclause 2, paragraph (c), line 2, before “member'', delete “that'' and insert “the”.
The new rendition would be:
“to avoid making use of information acquired by virtue of the position of the member for the benefit of that member or to the detriment of the Council, and''
Mr Speaker 11:53 a.m.
Hon Chairman, what do you say?
Nana Amoakoh 11:53 a.m.
Mr Speaker, it is just a construction of the English Language.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:53 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the Hon Chairman would appreciate that the amendment I just proposed even runs through the entirety of subclause 2. There is the indefinite article in the preambular --
“Without limiting subsection (1), a member of the Board has a duty
(a)to act honestly in the performance of the functions of that member;''
The definite article follows after the indefinite article.
So, it should read:
(a)to act honestly in the performance of the functions of the member;''
In paragraph (b), the same thing should affect line 2, so that it would read:
(b) “to exercise the degree of care and diligence in the

performance of the functions of the member that…''

Paragraphs (c) and (d), also have the same afflictions. Paragraph (d) should read:

(d) “not to make improper use of the position of the member…''
Mr Speaker 11:53 a.m.
Hon Chairman, are you in agreement?
Nana Amoakoh 11:53 a.m.
Mr Speaker, it is all right by me.
Mr Speaker 11:53 a.m.
Can I put the Question?
Nana Amoakoh 11:53 a.m.
Yes, Mr Speaker.
Question put and amendment agreed to
Nana Amoakoh 11:53 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 6, subclause 3, delete and insert the following:
“(3) A member of the Board who contravenes subsection (1) or (2) commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine of not less than two hundred penalty units and not more than two
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:03 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I want to draw the attention of the Hon Chairman that we have established some relativities in terms of the penalty units translating into terms of imprisonment. So does he want to tell us that two hundred penalty units translates to two years? I am not too sure of that.
Mr Iddrisu 12:03 p.m.
Mr Speaker, you could further direct the draftspersons to ensure that the commensurate imprisonment relative to the penalty units in other enactments should reflect our intentions in the additional subclause 3 of clause 6. The draftspersons, could look at the remits of the law on the penalty units and its equivalences and do same as appropriate.
Mr Speaker 12:03 p.m.
Yes, Chairman of the Committee, are you agreeable?
Mr Banda 12:03 p.m.
Mr Speaker, yes, I think we should do so.
Mr Speaker 12:03 p.m.
So, we would conclude on the amendment before I direct.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Speaker 12:03 p.m.
The draftspersons should kindly align this accordingly for us.
Clause 6 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Mr Speaker 12:03 p.m.
Hon Members, I am inclined to suspend the Consideration stage of the Real Estate Bill for now and go back to item numbered 5, Motion, so that we can finish the Business the way the Hon Attorney-General and Minister for Justice is involved. [Interruption] -- That is why I am directing and have not called any item.
Hon Members, item listed 5, Motion, by the Hon Attorney-General and Minister for Justice.
Mr Iddrisu 12:03 p.m.
Mr Speaker, pursuant to the Standing Order 132 (2), I beg to arrest the Third Reading of the Council of State Bill, 2020 and to move that it be subjected to a Second Consideration Stage in respect of clause 18 and the Long Title.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:03 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to second the Motion.
Question put and Motion agreed to.
Resolved accordingly.
BILLS -- SECOND 12:03 p.m.
CONSIDERATION STAGE 12:03 p.m.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:03 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the proposal is to amend clause 18 which was amended yesterday. So, it is intended to further amend the amendment that was adopted by the House yesterday.
So, Mr Speaker, clause 18 should read:
“The Council of State may subject to the Right to Information Act, 2019 (Act 989) and the Data Protection Act 2012, (Act 843) request information in the performance of the functions of the Council of State from;
(a) the President;
(b) Parliament;
(c) the Judiciary;
(d) a Minister of State; or
Mr Iddrisu 12:03 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I fully support the amendment as it makes those constitutional bodies particularly the Office of the President which is required under articles 290, 291 and 292 of the Constitution when it comes to matters of amendment sometimes entrenched or non-entrenched in their provisions. The two institutions can share information and the Council of State can request same from the President or any other body.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 18 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Mr Speaker 12:03 p.m.
Does this bring us to the end of the Second Consideration Stage?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:03 p.m.
Mr Speaker, respectfully, there is an amendment to the Long Title.
Mr Speaker 12:03 p.m.
All right.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:03 p.m.
Mr Speaker, as I indicated, on the Order Paper for the Votes and Proceedings for today, on page 26, item listed 43, we amended the Long Title by deleting the word “achievement” and inserting “attainment”. It is captured in the Votes and Proceedings. However, when we came to the item listed 44 as captured on page 27 in the Votes and Proceedings it appears there was a mix up. So the “achievement” in the original rendition has been recaptured. So, it is intended to delete that word so that it would read:
“An Act in respect of the Council of State established under article 89 of the Constitution to provide for the establishment of aSecretariat and other relevant structures for the attainment of the mandate of the Council of State and related matters.”
Mr Speaker, I accordingly move.
Mr Iddrisu 12:03 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I support the amendment as moved ably by the Hon Majority Leader and to insist that the Hansard captures the sponsors of the amendment including the Chairman of the Committee, the Hon Majority Leader, the Hon
Minority Leader, the Hon Inusah Fuseini and Hon Yieleh Chireh.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
The Long Title as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Mr Speaker 12:03 p.m.
Hon Members, we are done with the Second Consideration stage, if you would please put the Mace in its proper position?.
Mr Speaker 12:13 p.m.
Hon Members, that formally ends the Second Consideration of the Council of State Bill, 2020. Now, we go to item numbered 5.
BILLS -- THIRD READING 12:13 p.m.
Mr Speaker 12:13 p.m.
We move to item numbered 6 -- Real Estate Agency Bill, 2020 at the Consideration Stage.
STAGE 12:13 p.m.
Mr Iddrisu 12:13 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I have noted the Hon Chairman's proposed amendment on clause 7 but there is a major policy gap in clause 7 and therefore, he must consult with the Hon Minister and come back properly. When we read the headnote of clause 7, it says: “Functions of the Board” but we have only two items where clause 7(1) states how the Board should ensure effective performance of the functions and the functions are not defined.
In clause 7(2), it states: “The Board shall in the performance of the functions be responsible to the Minister”
Mr Speaker, I believe what the Hon Minister should do, as a policy decision, is to go back to the “Object of the Council” and desilt some functions for it but to just put it as: “Functions of the Board”, upon reading the headnote, it does not tell us anything about their functions. It
Mr Speaker 12:13 p.m.
Hon Chairman of the Committee, to be or not to be? What is your view on the proposal regarding clause 7?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:13 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the “Functions of the Council” are established under clause 4. Now, the Board is to see to it that these functions are discharged; they defined the remit of the performance of the functions but the day-to-day implementation is in the hands of the chief executive officer. That is how this body is constructed. The chief executive officer then responds directly to the Board and that is how it is and so, there is nothing anomalous with that construction.
Mr Osei Bonsu Amoah 12:13 p.m.
Mr Speaker, under clause 5 -- “Governing body of the Council”, at clause 6, it is “Duties and liabilities of members of the Board” and at clause 7, “Functions of the Board”. I do not know whether we are referring to the same “Governing body of the Council” as the ‘Board'?. Otherwise, the ‘Board' has not been established; we just see the “Functions of the Board” and then -- the ‘Functions of the Board' should be spelt out under clause7.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:13 p.m.
Mr Speaker, is it the “Governing body of the Council” we are calling the ‘Board' here? If it is so, the functions should be spelt out since that is what we have done in all the Bills we pass here. Indeed, we can give several examples of such situations.
Mr Samuel Atta Akyea 12:23 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think that it all has to do with the placement of the word ‘Board' as it relates to the ‘Council'. So, if we read clause 5: “The governing body of the Council is a Board consisting of …
So, I am tempted to come to the conclusion that it is the Council that will have the Board. That is, it is in the ‘Council that we have an understanding of the Board and then when we go back, the function of that Council which is also the Board, is clearly spelt out. That is, to regulate practice and so on and which I believe supports the position of the Hon Minority Leader and clause 7 would become redundant as we can jettison it.
Mr Speaker, that is my understanding of it.
Mr Speaker 12:23 p.m.
Any compromise?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:23 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the ‘Board' everywhere exists to assist in the formulation of policies for the attainment of the “Object of the Council”. So, that is usually how it is formulated. Maybe, that one is not well spelt out in clause 7 but to say that the “Functions of the Board” should not be part of the Bill, Hon Minister, I think you are getting it wrong.
I think the opening is missing; every Board everywhere exists to formulate policies for the attainment of the objects of the body that it superintends -- in this case the Council.
Perhaps clause 7(1) can read ‘The Board shall formulate policies for the attainment of the objects of the Council'. Secondly, they usually oversee the effective and efficient management of the Council because the day to day activities are in the hands of the Executive Secretary. I think those two legs are missing and that is why we have a problem. Indeed, what appears as 7(1); ‘ensuring the effective and efficient performance of the Council' is usually the last leg. It is a bit untidy now and we have to tidy it up.
Mr Speaker 12:23 p.m.
Have we landed in safe waters?
Hon Minority Leader?
Mr Speaker 12:23 p.m.
Hon Members, at this stage I want to suspend further consideration of this clause so that you can put your heads together for us to make some progress.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:23 p.m.
Mr Speaker, respectfully, I have just consulted - the Bill before us and I think I was right in what I was saying. It is the arrangement and usually after the Governing Council which is the Board, we move to the Functions of the Board. However, over here, we have “duties and liabilities of members of the Board”.
Just like in the Petroleum Hub Development Corporation Bill, 2020 which we would soon be dealing with, it reads:
“Functions of the Board”
“(6) The Board shall
(a) formulate internal policies for the achievement of the object of the Corporation;”
Mr Speaker, this is of the same order with what I said because usually that is the first function; formulation of policies. Clause 6 (b) of that Bill reads:
“oversee the sound and proper management of the Petroleum and Petrochemicals Hub;”
This is how we do it in all the other Bills and paragraph (c) reads which with permission I quote:
“ensure that the Corporation conducts the affairs of the Corporation on sound commercial lines and in accordance with business and industry best practices;”
Mr Speaker, this is a commercial Bill and that is why we have paragraph (c).
The last one; paragraph (d) reads:
“ensure the proper and effective performance of the functions of the Corporation”.
Mr Speaker, this is how it is.
Mr Speaker 12:23 p.m.
Hon Majority Leader, shall we stand this down because I can see your Hon
Colleague shaking his head rigorously?. If I allow this to go on this matter would not --
The Hon Minister is right here, the Hon Chairman of the Committee and the Hon Leaders. Winnow this out then we can proceed.
Clause 8 -- Tenure of office of members of the Board
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:23 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I have consulted with the Hon Minister responsible for Works and Housing and the Hon Chairman of the Committee for us to stand down further consideration of the Real Estate Agency Bill, 2020 and move rather to the Petroleum Hub Development Corporation Bill, so that when we suspend Sitting we can then do the reconciliation.
Accordingly, I would want us to move to item numbered 7 on page 19 -- Consideration Stage of the Petroleum Hub Development Corporation Bill, 2020.
Mr Speaker 12:23 p.m.
Hon Members, item numbered 7?.
The Hon First Deputy Speaker would take the Chair.
BILLS -- CONSIDERATION 12:33 p.m.
STAGE 12:33 p.m.
Chairman of the Committee (Mr Emmanuel Akwasi Gyamfi) 12:33 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, Clause 1 subclause (1), line 2, delete “with perpetual succession”
The new rendition would now read ‘There is established by this Act, the Petroleum Hub Development Corporation, as a body corporate'.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Gyamfi 12:33 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 1, subclause (3), lines 1 and 2, delete “landed property, the property” and insert “land, the land”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 1 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2 -- Object of the corporation
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:33 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I am just wondering which should precede the other. Are we developing the hub before we promote or we promote before we develop? I just wanted to be very clear in my mind about what is intended.
Mr Iddrisu 12:33 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I agree with the Hon Majority Leader. His would have been a re-arrangement of the words so that “develop” comes before “promote”, but even the word “promote” is that what we want?
Maybe, if the Hon Chairman and the Hon Majority Leader have no objection, it should read:
“The object of the corporation is to develop and facilitate a petroleum and petrochemical hub in the country.”
This should be the object. We do not need the word “promote”. In developing, we promote.
All right. The Hon Majority Leader says it should read:
“The object of the corporation is to develop and promote a petroleum and petrochemical hub in the country.”
If the sponsors are fine with this?.
Mr Gyamfi 12:33 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I agree with the proposed amendment to re- arrange “development” and “promotion”.
  • [MR FIRST DEPUTY SPEAKER IN THE CHAIR.]
    • Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:36 p.m.
    All right. Can we have the final rendition so that I can put the Question on it?
    Yes, Hon Member for South Dayi?
    Mr Rockson-Nelson Dafeamekpor 12:36 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I support the amendment proposed by the Hon Minority Leader that there should be development in addition to promotion. We develop and promote.
    Mr Iddrisu 12:36 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, it is actually the Hon Majority Leader's amendment to re-arrange the words, but my additional amendment, if I have your leave, is that we do need to use “promote” and “develop”.
    If you come to the explanatory memorandum, in the second or third paragraph, it reads “strategic development initiative”. We are saying that post discovery of oil and gas, we would want to develop a petrochemical industry and a hub in that region. This is it. We do not play
    with words “develop” and “promote”. In developing, we are summarising the object of the Bill which is on what we want. The development there means to establish and promote for our purposes. When we use “develop”, it should be sufficient.
    However, there is no problem. We can put the Question on the fact that we it to read:
    “The object of the corporation is to develop and promote a petroleum and petrochemical hub in the country.”
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:36 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Deputy Minister?
    Deputy Minister for Energy (Mr Joseph Cudjoe) (MP): Mr Speaker, the corporation, as we understand, is meant to preside over development of the space. This is an investment attraction space. And there is a lot of promotion that is coincidental right from the beginning. In the ten-year planned development period, there would promotion alongside. Even after its development, there would still be business promotion.
    Mr Gyamfi 12:36 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 3, subclause (1), paragraph (a), line 2, delete “Petroleum and Petrochemicals”
    Mr Speaker, if you go to the interpretation section, “Petroleum and Petrochemicals hub” has been defined. We believe that repeating the “Petroleum and Petrochemicals” in the old Bill right from clause 3 to the end of the Bill would not serve our purpose.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:36 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, petroleum and petro- chemical hub is the term that has been defined. So if we delete “petroleum” and petrochemical” and retain “hub”,
    we are getting it wrong unless we go to the interpretation section and define “hub” to mean “Petroleum and Petrochemicals industry”.
    It is unless we do that, but having not done that, if we say that we should delete “Petroleum and Petrochemicals” we are getting it wrong.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:36 p.m.
    Hon Majority Leader, if you look at clause 3(1) (a), it reads:
    “(a) The corporation shall plan and implement strategies for the development of a petroleum and petrochemical hub in the country.
    However, when you come to paragraph (b), when they used “the hub” it refers to the “Petroleum and Petrochemicals Hub” which has already been mentioned. This is why I think the deletion --
    Paragraph (b) reads “(b) undertake preparatory work for the promotion and development of the hub” because we have already referred to the Petroleum and Petrochemicals hub at paragraph (a).
    Yes, Hon Minority Leader?
    Mr Iddrisu 12:43 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, if I have your leave and indulgence, even before we come -- But I would advise the Hon Chairman to drop this amendment.
    We are following the explanatory memorandum, save what you have guided. They did not separate the words anywhere in the memorandum. So it means the sponsor of the Bill knew that he was coming to develop a petroleum hub and a petrochemical industry. We all understand the industry. Now that we have discovered gas, we want to lose what we are getting from the gas for the purpose of providing electricity. That becomes an addition to developing a petrochemical industry associated with it.
    Mr Speaker, even with clause 3(1), which reads 12:43 p.m.
    “To achieve the object under section 2, the Corporation shall ‘perform the following functions'”
    We must add those words even before we proceed.
    “To achieve the object under section 2, the Corporation shall perform the following functions”.
    Mr Speaker, then the functions would now follow. We just cannot leave it as it is. When we read from “shall”, we come to “plan” and then we come to “undertake” and then to “assist”. Let us define the functions.
    Mr Speaker, I am guided by what you have said; after approving of clause 3(1)(a), wherever we refer to “hub”, we mean the petrochemical hub and the petroleum industry to be established by the intention of this Bill.
    Thank you, Mr Speaker.
    Dr A. A. Osei 12:43 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we have to define “the hub” to mean “Petroleum and Petrochemicals Hub”. Otherwise it is not straight forward. This is because “the hub” is not defined in the interpretation. “Petroleum and Petrochemicals Hub” is defined. So we have to just repeat “the hub” to mean -- [Interruption]
    Mr Gyamfi 12:43 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I agree with the Hon Majority Leader's proposal that we define “the hub” at the interpretation section to mean the petrochemical so that we can do away with the repetition that goes through the Petroleum and Petrochemicals. So if that is defined at the interpretation, we can do away with “the Petroleum and Petrochemicals “ as various amendments have been proposed.
    Mr Gyamfi 12:43 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 3 subclause (1), paragraph (b), line 2, delete “Petroleum and Petrochemicals”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Gyamfi 12:43 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 3 subclause (1), paragraph (c), line 1, delete “provide” and insert “facilitate the provision of” and in line 2, delete “Petroleum and Petrochemicals”.
    So the new rendition would be:
    Facilitate the provision of basic utilities for companies and service providers for the development of the Hub.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Gyamfi 12:43 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 3 subclause (1),
    paragraph (d), lines 1 and 2, delete “Petroleum and Petrochemicals “ and in line 4, delete “their facilities within the Petroleum and Petrochemicals “ and insert “the facilities within the”.
    Mr Speaker, the new rendition would be 12:43 p.m.
    “Assist companies operating in the Petroleum and Petrochemicals Hub to acquire relevant licences, permit from relevant regulatory bodies to develop and operate…” -- we are deleting “Their facilities within the Petroleum and Petrochemicals” and insert “the facilities within the Hub”.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:43 p.m.
    “… bodies to develop and operate the facilities within the Hub”.
    Mr Iddrisu 12:43 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would support the Hon Chairman's amendment but with your leave, I want to further amend it to read:
    “Assist companies operating”
    We want to develop a petrochemicals hub -- there are companies already operating in that region so I would have qualified it to read:
    “Assist companies seeking to invest…”
    Mr Speaker, there are investments in that area but those who are now interested in helping to develop the petrochemicals industry are seeking to invest in the area. So if we can qualify the word, “operating” with “seeking to invest and operate”. That company must have an expressed interest that they want to do business in Ghana and to do business, they must be ready to invest in Ghana. But when we just say “companies operating”, those who are already there have acquired their licences, what are we going to do with them? So it should read as follows with your permission:
    “Assist companies seeking to invest in the Petroleum and Petrochemicals Hub”.
    Mr Speaker, even “operating” is not an appropriate word for my purpose. We should target those who want to come to Ghana to invest in our petrochemicals industry and to further develop that industry into a hub.
    Thank you, Mr Speaker.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:43 p.m.
    Chairman, indeed, there are two petrochemicals - Petroleum and Petrochemicals Hubs but you are deleting one and not talking of the other. Since you have decided to
    define “Hub” to mean “Petroleum and Petrochemicals Hub”, I think you should delete both.
    Mr Gyamfi 12:43 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, it is both, if you read the amendment proposed. [Interruption] --
    “Assist companies seeking to operate in the hub to acquire all relevant licences and permit from relevant regulatory bodies to develop the facilities within the Hub.”
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:53 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the (d) provides that the Development Corporation shall assist companies that seek to operate in the hub to acquire relevant licences and permits from the relevant regulatory bodies to develop and operate their facilities…”, and he says that we should now delete “their” and insert “the” -- “the facilities within the hub”. Is it for the Corporation to develop the Hub or the onus is in on the other companies to develop the facilities? I would want some clarification on that.
    Paragraph (a) says that the Corporation shall plan and implement
    Mr Joseph Cudjoe 12:53 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, companies would simply come in as operators. They would seek to operate within the Hub space. All farms would develop their facilities, fertilizer plant operators would develop their facilities, and all the farmers would develop their facilities. Those even providing ancillary support, by way of power, would also have their facilities. It is in that context
    that this clause has been couched. So, saying “their facilities”, would be in order because in developing a particular facility, one would have to look for the necessary permit, license and approvals from the Petroleum Hub Authority.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:53 p.m.
    Exactly the point, so why do you want to amend it to read “the facilities”? I would first of all listen to the Hon Chairman because we would have to be clear.
    Hon Chairman, why do you want to amend from “their facilities” to “the facilities”?
    Mr Gyamfi 12:53 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the amendment proposed was to take care of the State interest in the overall investment within the Hub. So, if we say “their facilities”, it would then mean in partnership with the State, so, it cannot be “their facilities”. However, when we say “the facility,” it would mean that the State and the investors are both owners of the facility that would be put in place.
    Dr A. A. Osei 12:53 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I agree partially with the Hon Chairman. Nothing should stop the companies from developing their own facilities without State participation. If we say
    “the facilities”, then it covers all. So, I agree with him in that sense, but he should not think that the State must always have a share in the facilities. They may not need the State.
    Mr Iddrisu 12:53 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I have followed the discussion, and with your leave, clause 3(1)(d) could probably read: “Assist companies operating in the Petroleum and Petrochemicals Hub to acquire relevant licences and permits and to operate their facilities in the Hub”, then we could join the rest of the words from “relevant regulatory bodies.” I so submit.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:53 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I wanted to go along with the earlier proposal from the Hon
    Minority Leader. So it should read 12:53 p.m.
    “To assist companies that seek to operate in the Hub to acquire relevant licences and permits from the regulatory bodies to develop and operate the facilities within the Hub.”
    Mr Gyamfi 12:53 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I agree with the Hon Majority Leader.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:53 p.m.
    Hon Members, we would move on to the item numbered (viii).
    Mr Gyamfi 12:53 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, subclause (1), paragraph (f), line 2, delete “Petroleum and Petrochemicals”.
    Mr Speaker, it is consequential.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Gyamfi 12:53 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, subclause (1), paragraph (g), lines 1 and 2, delete “Petroleum and Petrochemicals.”
    Mr Speaker, this is also of the same consequential effect.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Gyamfi 12:53 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, subclause (1), paragraph (h), line 2, delete “Petroleum and Petrochemicals.”
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Gyamfi 12:53 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, subclause (1), paragraph (i), line 3, delete “Petroleum and Petrochemicals.”
    Mr Speaker, the items numbered (x) and (xi) are of the same consequential effect.
    Mr Gyamfi 12:53 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, subclause (1), paragraph (j), line 1, delete “establish” and insert “compile” and in lines 2 and 3, delete “Petroleum and Petrochemicals.”
    Mr Iddrisu 12:53 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, just for want of elegance, “collate” and “compile”, which one is appropriate? In paragraph (j), we have “collate, keep and maintain” -- all right, it is “compile” a register.
    Thank you.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Dr A. A. Osei 12:53 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I just need a little clarification. When we got to paragraph (d), the Hon Minority Leader wanted to leave out the second “relevant” in line three. He suggested -- [Interruption] -- It is defined in clause 2 that is why.
    Mr Iddrisu 1:03 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, where you are, I note you are moving towards putting Question on the entire clause 3 but, I have travelled to subclause (2), “relevant regulatory bodies”, conspicuously lost in the list
    is the “Petroleum Commission” so; I am just wondering whether we should not add the “Petroleum Commission” as part of the “relevant regulatory bodies” because in the Petroleum Commission Act, 2011 (Act 821), matters of deepening local content is part of their remit and mandate as a local content institution within the petroleum industry.
    If the Chairman is amenable to accepting, when we come to subclause (2), we should add “the Petroleum Commission” as an additional relevant regulatory body”.
    Mr Gyamfi 1:03 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I agree.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:03 p.m.
    Very well, we would add “(d) the Petroleum Commission”
    Mr J. Cudjoe 1:03 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we have clearly, classified the petroleum and petrochemicals hub as a downstream activity and proposed to be regulated as such. The Petroleum Commission is mandated to regulate upstream petroleum activities, that is why we did not include it.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:03 p.m.
    So, in your view, would they not be relevant in this one?
    Mr Iddrisu 1:03 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I disagree with the Deputy Minister. Come to subclause (3)(1)(g), “monitor and evaluate the developments of the petroleum and petrochemical hub to ensure value retention for the country.” Downstream and upstream are inter- -related; we should not behave as if we can halve upstream from downstream. The activities happening at the upstream have consequence on the downstream.
    In Ghana, we know a petroleum commission established Act (Act 821). For abundance of caution, even when we are talking of deepening local content, today the only institution which guarantees that is the Petroleum Commission.
    When we are developing a petrochemical hub, we should be guided. Go to Qatar go to Bahrain; go to Saudi Arabia, if we do not have our regulatory body, sooner than later, we would complain that foreign have come to take advantage over our petrochemical industry.
    So there is a relationship. I would rather prefer even to be defeated on this on a vote than to allow the Deputy Minister to walk away with it. I do not see why he should object to the addition of “the Petroleum Commission”.
    We establish institutions in this country and part of the problem of this country is losing control, and in this industry, we cannot afford loss to foreigners, therefore, the Petroleum Commission remains a key and a relevant regulatory institution.
    Dr A.A. Osei 1:03 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would like to support the Minority Leader. I do not see any of those agencies listed having the capacity to facilitate the investments in there. It is only the Petroleum Commission that can deal with investments. Ghanaian Ports and Harbours cannot do it; Environmental Protection Authority cannot do it and National Petroleum Authority cannot do it so; even though he defines that to be — it is not a one- to-one correspondence and for the avoidance of doubt, we need to have the Petroleum Commission in here.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:03 p.m.
    Are we agreed? If you have any objection, I want to listen before I put the Question.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:03 p.m.
    I am in full support of what proposal that has come from the Hon Minority Leader that we need really to include the Petroleum Commission but, for the fact that we said they should consult the regulatory bodies, I would have
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:03 p.m.
    So, the amendment is to include “(d) Petroleum Commission”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 3 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:03 p.m.
    Clause 4?
    Clause 4 -- Powers of the Corporation.
    Mr Gyamfi 1:03 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 4, subclause (1), paragraph (a), line 1, delete “companies” and insert “a company” and in line 2, delete “Petroleum and Petrochemicals”
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Gyamfi 1:03 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 4, subclause (1), paragraph (b), line 1, delete “relevant Government agencies” and insert “a relevant Government agency” and in line 4, delete “Petroleum and Petrochemicals”
    Dr Osei 1:03 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think if we are deleting agencies, then, it should have “in collaboration with a relevant Government agency”.
    Alhaji Muntaka 1:03 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I just would like to find out this headnote titled “Powers of the Corporation”, how is it different from the functions of the Corporation?. I ask this because we still say “facilitate” “promote” just as we have done under functions of the Corporation.
    I thought that this should — when we call it “powers of the corporation”, it does not look right for me and looking at the needs under that title, it is totally a function. And why are not rather going to take it and add it to the functions which have been dealt with under clause 3 because the actual sense that is what they are doing?
    Mr Iddrisu 1:03 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I disagree with the Hon Minority Chief Whip. This is a special entity we are
    creating because post-discovery of oil and gas, where the country is lagging behind is a further development of the petrochemical industry. Now, beyond the functions, we are clothing them with an authority as to what they can do and what they cannot do.
    So, we are saying they cannot facilitate joint venture agreements. For instance, they say that Lube oil must work this X oil company for purpose of producing lube petroleum products.
    So I will disagree with the Hon Minority Whip. I will hold my breath, and when we are about putting the Question on the entire clause 4, I have noticed a few grey areas which I will move. Mr Speaker, maybe the Hon Chairman is going for what the modern draftspersons say. When you use “agency”, it means “agencies”. That is what the Hon Majority Leader would say. It is modern drafting. That is what I see him doing.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:13 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, why the use of the word “agency”? In the Constitution, when they refer to “Agencies”, in the same breath, we are referring to Departments and so on. I would rather think that we have
    “Government bodies” or “institutions” rather than “agencies”. I do not know why the trifling for the word “agency”
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:13 p.m.
    I think that “agency” is used in its generic term which mean any government body. Clearly, the agencies are the ones that are neither the Ministry nor a Department, but it is a government body. Many of the agencies that work in the petroleum hub are agencies, so to speak.
    Mr Gyamfi 1:13 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the collaboration that is being sought here could be any one government agency or a number of government agencies.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:13 p.m.
    The issue is, why are you calling them “Government agencies” and not “Government departments” or “governmental bodies”? You rather think “agency” is appropriate?.
    Mr Gyamfi 1:13 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, there is a proposal which I support. Instead of “relevant Government agency”, we should use “relevant Government body”.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:13 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, for the powers of the Corporation, they have to cooperate with other bodies. I do not think that we should even limit it to governmental bodies or governmental institutions.
    Mr Iddrisu 1:13 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, if we want to make life easier for ourselves, then it should be “collaborate with Government Ministries, Departments and Agencies”. That is what the Constitution and our laws know. So we can just use the words as expressed in the Interpretation column of -- [Interruption] Do not use the word “Government”; it should be “Ministries, Departments and Agencies” -- [Interruption].
    Alhaji Muntaka 1:13 p.m.
    But that is Government.
    Mr Iddrisu 1:13 p.m.
    It does no harm if it is qualified with “Government”.
    Mr Gyamfi 1:13 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I support that “relevant Government agencies” be deleted and “relevant bodies” inserted to read: “in collaboration with relevant Government bodies …”
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:13 p.m.
    Item numbered 7(xv).
    Mr Gyamfi 1:13 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, subclause (1), paragraph (c), opening phrase, delete “industrial parks” and insert “an industrial park”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:13 p.m.
    Item numbered 7(xvi).
    Mr Gyamfi 1:13 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, subclause (1), paragraph (c), subparagraph (ii), lines 1 and 2, delete “Petroleum and Petrochemicals”.It is a consequential amendment.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:13 p.m.
    Item numbered 7(xvii).
    Mr Gyamfi 1:13 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, subclause (1), paragraph (d), lines 1 and 2, delete “Petroleum and Petrochemicals”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:13 p.m.
    Item numbered 7(xviii).
    Mr Gyamfi 1:13 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, subclause (2), line 3, delete “Petroleum and Petrochemicals”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Iddrisu 1:13 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, with your leave and the indulgence of the House, I would like to read clause 4(1) (d).
    “promote the economy and efficiency of the Petroleum and Petrochemical Hub.”
    I have difficulty accepting the use of the word “economy” -- [Interruption] Is the use of the word “economy” all right?
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:13 p.m.
    What is the meaning of “promote the economy”?
    Mr Iddrisu 1:13 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we are making a law and industrialists and investors will read it. What do we mean by it?
    Secondly, when you go to clause 4(1) (c) (i), it reads:
    “to promote the manufacture of downstream petrochemical …”
    I would delete the word “manufacture” for “production” if I
    have my way. I will not use “manufacture”.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:13 p.m.
    I wanted us to reach a consensus on the use of the word “economy”. I believe that promotion is a consequence of this hub doing its work; if they do their work well, as a consequence, the economy may be promoted, but to put it as a power or function --
    Dr Osei 1:13 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we have the economy of Ghana and Tamale South, so the word “economy” can encompass all spatial areas. All the economic activities within that area are in the economy.
    An Hon Member 1:13 p.m.
    Economy of the House.
    Dr Osei 1:13 p.m.
    Like we have the economy of this House. It is limited to the House, so it is all right.
    Mr Avedzi 1:13 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, if we refer to the economy, it might be the entire economy or the hub. So can we amend it to read: “to promote the economic activity and efficiency of the Hub”?. It means that we are promoting the economic activity and the efficiency of that sector.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:23 p.m.
    Let me listen to the Hon Deputy Minister and promoter of the Bill.
    Mr J. Cudjoe 1:23 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the idea here is that we want to promote the economy and efficiency because different companies investing in the same space could occur.
    For example, in the case of pipeline investors, I find companies fighting on a workspace because they want to develop a pipeline from the left space to the right space. If another company on the right space wants to develop a pipeline from the right space to left space, it would be uneconomical for the hub.
    So, in this case, the Petroleum nub Development Corporation would have to step in and put in the necessary requirements and say that one pipeline should be constructed between the two spaces and be shared by the companies. Then we are ensuring that the hub as a unit is
    economical in its use. It is in that sense that this word is being used. It is being used as we use the words “fuel economy” to mean efficiency in a sense.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 4 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 5 -- Governing body of the Corporation
    Mr Gyamfi 1:23 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 5, subclause (1), paragraph (e), delete and insert the following:
    “one person nominated by the Chamber of Bulk Oil Distributors representing bulk oil supply, storage and petrochemical companies and other allied services;
    one person with expertise in downstream petroleum industry nominated by the Minister responsible;”
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 5 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 6 -- Functions of the Board
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:23 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I believe we have to look at the construction of clause 5 (1) (g). It says and with permission I quote:
    “two other persons nominated by the President, at least one of whom is a woman and each of whom has specialised knowledge…”
    I do not think that we need “and each of whom”. It should read :
    “at least one of whom is a woman with specialised knowledge and experience in matters relevant to the functions of the Corporation”
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:23 p.m.
    That would refer to only one person but if you read the context, they want both nominees to have the specialised knowledge, except that one must be a woman. Your amendment would suggest that only the woman would have the specialised knowledge, unless I did not get you right.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:23 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, not at all. If you have the construction, “two other persons nominated by the President, at least one of whom is a woman, with specialised knowledge and
    experience in matters relevant to the functions of the Corporation” and we remove the words in parentheses, it applies to the two.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Alhaji Muntaka 1:23 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I have not seen the Hon Chairman try to do this. Almost all have being “nominated by the Minister”, or “appointed by the Minister” -- For example, we have starting from clause 5 (c), “Free Zones Authority not below the rank of Director, nominated by the Minister responsible for Trade and Industry”. It is not only that, if you come to clause 5 (e), we have : “two representatives of companies operating within” -- [Interruption] That one has been amended?
    Mr Speaker, our practice with the Free Zones Authority is that let the Authorities there nominate that person and not the Minister sitting far away from that Authority. We did it with the Attorney-General's Department. When you are picking nominees, you do not ask the Minister to do it but you rather ask the Authority to nominate somebody within. We know the way our setup is.
    Sometimes, when the Minister is not on good terms with the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the
    Dr A. A. Osei 1:23 p.m.
    The Authority is currently under the supervision of the Minister. It is not right on these matters for Authority CEOs to nominate people without the Minister's approval. It would be taking the responsibility away from the Minister. If things go wrong, it is the Minister who would be held responsible and not the Authority. That is why he has to be nominated by the Minister responsible for Trade and Industry.
    Mr J. Cudjoe 1:23 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would like to throw more light on why the Minister comes in. We have a
    space where we can have a petrochemical factory and the fact that factory oversight comes under the Ministry of Trade is the reason we linked the Minister to do the nomination for the Free Zones Board.
    These modalities came up as a result of long consultation between the two Ministers. The fact that we do not operate factories in that space but the Ministry of Trade and Industry would not have any control over what happens in there, that is how we achieved this representation.
    Alhaji Muntaka 1:33 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Hub is supposed to be run by a governing body and in many instances, they would have to deal with the Ministers.
    Mr Speaker, you have been a Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Driver and Vehicle Licensing Authority (DVLA) before. For example, a representative from DVLA may be mated by the Hon Minister for Roads and Highways. We should not create laws that would endanger conflicts.
    The reason is that there is an Authority that would oversee the day- to-day activities of Free Zones and there is the CEO and if we think that the Authority cannot nominate but a
    citizen somewhere would have to nominate somebody within their Authority.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:33 p.m.
    The Hon Minister, does not sit somewhere. The Hon Minister is directly responsible and receives report from the Agencies regularly.
    Alhaji Muntaka 1:33 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I do not dispute that. That is why we have to encourage them because they report to the Hon Minister but when we say the Hon Minister would -- [Interruption] for those of us who have had the privilege to head an Agency and become Hon Ministers, we know this would create conflicts.
    Dr A. A. Osei 1:33 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, normally, the Hon Minister would consult the CEO, to bring a nominee. There is no conflict but it is when it is left to the CEO that the conflicts arise. When there is trouble, the Hon Minister would find out why the CEO did that but normally, the Hon Ministers would consult them to bring their work. In practice, that is what really happens.
    Mr Speaker, with regard to the new paragraph (e) of clause 5, subclause 1, the word “responsible'',
    should be deleted. It should be “by the Hon Minister'' because the “Minister'', has been defined.
    Mr Gyamfi 1:33 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I support what the Hon Member said. So, the word “responsible'', should be deleted.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:33 p.m.
    Very well.
    Question put and amendment agreed to
    Alhaji Muntaka 1:33 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I just want to know if the Question that you put was for the amendment that I proposed?.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:33 p.m.
    I did not put the Question on your amendment.
    Alhaji Muntaka 1:33 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I moved an amendment which was being discussed and you put the Question. If they do not agree with my amendment, they should say so.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:33 p.m.
    No! Hon Minority Chief Whip, I thought you had abandoned your proposed amendment after the argument, so the Question I put was on the deletion of “responsible'' after “Minister''.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:33 p.m.
    The amendment was to delete “Minister responsible for Trade and Industry'' and insert “the Authority''
    Question put and amendment negatived.
    Clause 5 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:33 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the amendment proposed by the Hon Chairman, had to do with paragraph (e). Apparently, there was no proposed amendment for paragraph (c).
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:33 p.m.
    The amendment to paragraph (c), was proposed by Hon --
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:33 p.m.
    So, the status quo remains.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:33 p.m.
    Yes.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:33 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, so in that context -- [Interruption] -- So, it should be
    the “Minister responsible for Trade and Industry'' -- that one would remain because the “Minister'', is defined as “the Minister responsible for Petroleum Affairs''.
    Clause 6 -- Functions of the Board
    Mr Gyamfi 1:33 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 6, paragraph (b), lines and 2, delete “Petroleum and Petrochemicals''.
    Mr Avedzi 1:33 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, based on the issue raised by the Hon Majority Leader, the second numbering to the amendment proposed by the Hon Chairman to clause 5 (1) (e), says that “one person with expertise in downstream petroleum industry nominated by the Minister…''
    Question put and amendment agreed to
    Dr A. A. Osei 1:33 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, with regard to clause 6 (a), I do not know why the word “internal'' has been used in the sentence -- “formulate internal policies''. It should be “formulate policies for the achievement of the object of the Corporation''. [Interruption] -- Then the word “internal'', should be defined.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:33 p.m.
    Have you withdrawn your suggestion that they should define the word “internal''?
    Dr A. A. Osei 1:33 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I do not know about “internal policies'', so maybe, the Hon Chairman could educate me.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:33 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, what do you suggest? Should I put the Question on that?
    Mr J. Cudjoe 1:33 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, “internal policies'' relate to the policies that are formulated by management team approved by the Board which is distinct from policies that emanate from regulators and oversight ministry.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:33 p.m.
    So, would you define “internal policy''?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:33 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the difficulty has to do with who formulates policies. The formulation of general policy really, is on the shoulders of the Hon Minister, so they just wanted to draw a distinction between the policies that they are talking about.
    There are local policies more or less and then the general policy is on the shoulders of the Hon Minister, who issues these policy directives and the
    Body then complies. That is where the dichotomy is.
    1.43 p.m..
    Alhaji Muntaka 1:33 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, Ministers naturally do not start the formulation of policies. The very genesis of formulating policies is by Agencies that communicate to the Minister. After acceptance, he or she carries same to Cabinet and if approved becomes a policy. So, we cannot differentiate between internal and external policies.
    Mr Speaker, they formulate policies and the Minister accepts same. He or she carries it to Cabinet and those that need to come to Parliament do come. Once it is accepted, it becomes a policy that would be used for their operations. So there is nothing like internal policies.
    Once, we talk about a policy and its formulation, usually, almost all the Agencies draw the attention of the Minister on the need to do A, B, C and D. That is how it starts. Mr Speaker, I think that this particular one meant so that policies that affect the Hub would have to come through them to the Minister and then it gets crystallised.
    Dr Akoto A. Osei 1:33 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I do not know which era tells us that it is the Agencies that formulate policies to the Minister. I do not know who operates that way?. If the government wants a petroleum hub, it is the government that determines and not the Agency and that is the policy.
    Mr Speaker, but his explanation qualifies as a good definition of internal policies. It was quite self-explanatory. So, if he could formulate that and put that in there, it would provide the clarification that we need. He defined it very well.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:33 p.m.
    Hon Chairman of the Committee, yes, what is your proposal? Hon Leader, I would come to you. Let me listen to the Chairman of the Committee.
    Mr Emmanuel A. Gyamfi 1:33 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, to avoid this controversy, I believe that a policy is a policy and it depends on where the formulation process starts.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:33 p.m.
    All right, so, would you want to delete “internal” so that we move on quickly? [Interruption] Yes, let us remove “internal” and move on.
    Dr Akoto A. Osei 1:33 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Chairman of the Committee must be careful. He should look at clause 13 and I read with your permission:
    “The Minister may give directives on matters of policy”
    Mr Speaker, that is why I think that the Hon Deputy Minister 's clarification would be better served. If we just leave it at “policy”, then it is in conflict with this.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:33 p.m.
    I do not see where the conflict is if any. I read:
    “The Minister may give directives…”
    If he gives directives on policy, they would implement it. It is in addition to what they do. So, if you delete “internal” then whatever they would want to do unless they exceed their powers or they transcend into someone else's. It is policy planning and implementation.
    Mr Avedzi 1:33 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I see this as a way of internal control system that the Corporation has put in place for the attainment of the object of the Corporation. So in that case, in order to maintain that policy, I have two proposals which with your permission reads:
    “Formulate operational policies for the attainment of the object of the Corporation”.
    So, here, instead of “internal policies”, we should make it “operational policies”; or we take that out completely and say:
    “Put in place internal control mechanisms for the attainment of the object of the Corporation.”
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:33 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, by way of further improving what the Hon Deputy Minority Leader is proposing, the internal activities relate to both operations and administration. So in that case, we can say:
    “operational and administrative policies”
    Mr Speaker, we have always been struggling with this and I think today's engagement provides us with useful lessons as to how we can get it right going forward. I think it should relate to “formulate operational and administrative policies” because these are internal policies.So, the new rendition would be:
    “Formulate operational and administrative policies for the attainment of the object of the Corporation.”
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:33 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, this is just some proposal with respect to the paragraph (c) of the Chairman of the Committee, if it would find favour with him?
    “(c) ensure that the Corporation conducts the affairs of the Corporation on sound commercial lines in accordance with business and industry best practices.”
    Mr Speaker, what we did in the earlier one was, this which I quote with permission 1:33 p.m.
    Mr Emmanuel A. Gyamfi 1:33 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I support the Majority Leader's amendment.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:33 p.m.
    Very well.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:33 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, finally, “proper and effective”; we have now resorted to “efficient and effective”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 6 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 7 -- Duties and liabilities of a member of the Board
    Mr Emmanuel A. Gyamfi 1:33 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 7, subclause (2), paragraph (c), line 1, delete “improper”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:53 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, a few cleaning up of paragraph (a) of subclause (2) of clause 7. With your permission, it states:
    “(7) Without limiting subsection (1), a member of the Board has a duty to;
    (a) act honestly in the best interest of the Corporation in the performance of the functions of the member.
    (b) exercise a degree of care and diligence in the performance of the functions of the member that the person in…”
    (d)”exercise a degree of care and diligence in the performance of the functions of the member that a person in that position would reasonably be expected to exercise in the circumstance”.
    Mr Speaker, clause (c) states that 1:53 p.m.
    (c) “avoid making use of the information acquired by virtue of the position of the member so as to benefit that member or to the detriment of the corporation”.
    So, those are the amendments for sub clauses (a), (b) and (c).
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 7 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 8 -- Tenure of office of members of the Board
    Mr Gyamfi 1:53 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, subclause (1), delete and insert the following: “(1) A member of the Board shall hold office for a term of four years and is eligible for re-appointment for another term only.”
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 8 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Mr Kyei-Mensha-Bonsu 1:53 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, respectfully, I think that the closing paragraph for clause 8 where we have said that:
    “The Minister shall notify the President of the vacancy and the President shall appoint another person for the unexpired term in accordance with this Act”
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:53 p.m.
    Hon Majority Leader, which clause are you reading?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu; Mr Speaker, the closing paragraph of clause 8(7). I think we are relating to the process of nomination and I believe we have a formulation for that and I do not know whether it is so expressed here.
    The President does the appointment in accordance with the process of nomination contained in the Act and I do not know how exactly we have done so?. But I just wanted to draw attention of the Hon Chairman.
    Mr Speaker, you may direct that the draftspersons should just look at the appropriate formulation.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:53 p.m.
    Very well.
    Clause 8 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    I direct the draftspersons to re- formulate subsection 7 of clause 8 to reflect the new drafting standard approved by the House.
    Mr Gyamfi 1:53 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, subclause (1), line 2, delete “despatch” and insert “conduct``. Mr Speaker, the new rendition will read; “The Board shall meet at least once every three months for the conduct of business at a time and in a place determined by the chairperson”
    Question put and amendment agreed to
    Clause 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:53 p.m.
    Hon Members, having regard to the state of the Business of the House, I direct that the House Sits outside the regular Sitting hours.I just have been given an Order Paper Addendum. Hon Majority Leader, what is your pleasure?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:53 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I believe that these amendments were done by the Committee. Unfortunately, they did not find expression on the original Order Paper and the Table Office printed them out and so, they are all coming from the Committee.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:53 p.m.
    The Hon Second Deputy Speaker will take the Chair.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 11 -- Establishment of Committees.
    Mr Gyamfi 1:53 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, add the following new subclause:
    “A committee of the Board consisting of non-members of the Board shall be advisory.
    A committee of the Board consisting of members or non- members or both shall be chaired by a member of the Board”
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:53 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, what I have here for clause 11 on the Order Paper
    Addendum is -- “(i) add the following new clause“. Is that what you meant?
    Mr Gyamfi 1:53 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, yes. There is a proposed amendment on clause 11 and --
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:53 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, are you moving a different one and not what I referred to? Did you move what you have on the Order Paper Addendum (i)?
    Mr Gyamfi 1:53 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, rightly so.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:53 p.m.
    All right
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:03 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the second leg of the proposed amendment provides -- indeed, from clause 11 it reads: “(1) The Board may establish committees consisting of members of the Board or non-members of the Board or both …” The “both” means administer of members and non-members.
    The second leg is “a committee of the Board consisting of members or non-members shall be chaired by a member of the Board” is incongruous
    because if there is a committee that is entirely composed of non-members then how would it be chaired by a member of the Board?
    Mr Gyamfi 2:03 p.m.
    At the Committee meeting we considered that non- members of the Board would be asked to deliberate on an issue by the Board and since that directive is from the Board, then a member of the Board should chair that committee of non-members.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:03 p.m.
    Hon Majority Leader, the point you have raised is quite relevant. My experience has shown that committees of the Board that are made up of only non-members of the Board are usually technical in nature and they advise. Therefore, there is no member of the Board on that committee and so a member of the Board cannot chair a committee that the member does not exist. So, you are right on your point.
    Hon Chairman, did you get the issue raised by the Hon Majority Leader?
    Mr Gyamfi 2:03 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, there could be a subcommittee that would comprise members and non- members.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:03 p.m.
    So, the word “both” would cover that.
    Mr Gyamfi 2:03 p.m.
    Also, there could be a committee of non-members --
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:03 p.m.
    Yes, and a member of the Board would not be there so a member cannot chair that committee.
    There must be a further amendment.
    Mr Avedzi 2:03 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to propose a further amendment to read “A committee of the Board consisting of members and non-members shall be chaired by a member of the Board”.
    Mr Gyamfi 2:03 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I support the further amendment.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:03 p.m.
    Hon Majority Leader?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:03 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we are talking about “chairship” of committees. A committee that comprises just members of the Board would certainly be chaired by a member of the Board. If it consists of members of the Board and non-members of the
    Board, it shall be chaired by a member of the Board. However, when we have a committee comprising of non- members then it cannot be chaired.
    So, since the emphasis is on the chairship, then it should read:
    “A committee of the Board shall be chaired by a member of the Board except where the committee is comprised of non- members only”.
    The emphasis would be on the chairship. This rendition is the same as the proposed further amendment but the emphasis is on the chairship.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:03 p.m.
    Hon Members, what I have noted is “A committee of the Board shall be chaired by a member of the Board except where the committee is comprised of non-members only”.
    I would put the Question.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 11 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:03 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, sorry to take us back to clause 10 -- Disclosure of interest. We have developed a template for
    this provision and so I would plead with the Table Office to capture the appropriate rendition that we have developed.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:03 p.m.
    Did you earlier amend clause 10(1)?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:03 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, no, we did not amend clause 10(1), but I am just drawing our attention that we have developed a common template for setting out clause 10(1) in more details than it obtains in the Bill now. So, for reasons of consistency I am just drawing the attention of the Table Office to import that template to clause 10(1). Mr Speaker, so you can direct for the appropriate thing to be done.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:13 p.m.
    I direct that the Table Office incorporates that new rendition into the text under clause 10(1).
    Clauses 12 to 15 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 16 -- Appointment of other staff
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:13 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I just have a minor amendment in line 3 of clause 16. It is
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:13 p.m.
    That is clause 16(1) line 3, after “effective”, insert “and efficient”.
    Hon Chairman, have you got the proposal?
    Mr Gyamfi 2:13 p.m.
    Very well, Mr Speaker. I accept it.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:13 p.m.
    So Table Office, capture it accordingly. It would be for the effective and efficient performance of the functions of the Corporation.
    Clause 16 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill
    Clause 17 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 18 -- Funds of the Corporation
    Mr James K. Avedzi 2:13 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, on clause 18, paragraph (d), I wonder whether the Minister for
  • [MR AVEDZI Finance can approve some money to the corporation without recourse to Parliament. Paragraph (a) talks about moneys approved by Parliament; (b) internally generated fund; (c) grants and loans; and (d) other moneys approved by the Minister responsible for Finance. This is my concern. I am not too sure. If the Hon Chairman could explain it?.
    • Mr Gyamfi 2:13 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we sought for an explanation to this. We were told that for some corporations, based on their balance sheet, they could borrow, but they would need approval from the Minister responsible for Finance before they could be done. In that case, it does not come to Parliament for approval. This is the explanation that was given.
    Mr Avedzi 2:13 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Minister for Finance, when going to borrow, comes to Parliament under article 181 of the Constitution for approval. How come he would approve for a corporation to borrow without parliamentary approval?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:13 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, if the corporation has to step out to borrow, they would be taking
    a loan. This is provided for in paragraph (c). So the issue that is being raised by my colleague is difficult to justify.
    Mr Speaker, I must admit that we ourselves have also not been consistent. In certain legislations, we have allowed this to stay, and in others, we quibble. Perhaps we should take a common position on this.
    For instance, in the Petroleum Commission Act which is before me now, for the sources of funds for the Commission captured under section 14, we have provided “any other moneys approved by the Minister responsible for Finance”. However, in the Petroleum Exploration and Production Act, we argued and decided to delete that one. I think we ourselves should be consistent.
    Indeed and in truth, the Minister responsible for Finance cannot on his own approve of any allocation to them. Even if it has to do with a contingency allocation, it must come to Parliament. So really, there is a difficulty to that. As I was saying, the House has not been consistent with this. Occasionally, we allow it, and at other times, we say no, let us not allow it. What should be the position, going forward?
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:13 p.m.
    That has been the experience of the House. It is true that we have wavered because the explanations always come from the Ministry. Sometimes, we are made to believe that some moneys are so infinitesimal to be processed through Parliament and so sometimes they go to the Ministry for just the approval.
    However, legally and constitutionally, the Minister has no such power. But we have allowed some of these to go through. What is the position of the House now? Do we insist that we should no longer look aside and allow some of these things to sail through, and so we should delete paragraph (d) and make sure that the “and” is shifted to after “generated funds”? Is that the position of the House so that we capture that?
    Hon Chairman, are you with us? The House has taken the position you took at the committee level, and they agree with you that there is no such convincing argument to give such power to the Ministry of Finance when there is none. In the face of the law, the Ministry of Finance has no such powers to approve funds for bodies established by Parliament.
    Mr Gyamfi 2:13 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we could delete paragraph (d) which reads: “other moneys approved by the Minister responsible for Finance” [Pause]
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:13 p.m.
    Hon Members, we are taking some technical advice. That is why I am holding on. [Pause]
    Yes, Hon Majority Leader?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:23 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think that the House should take a position on this going forward. This is because attention is just being drawn to the fact that only yesterday when we dealt with the Council of State Bill, we left it.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:23 p.m.
    Yes, you drew our attention to earlier Bills. So it is the same situation today.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:23 p.m.
    This one really is a Development Corporation. It is supposed to run on sound business principles and as you have said, best commercial practices. So what do we do? Maybe, we could leave it but resolve that going forward, we should be looking at this. I am not too sure that we can leave the Minister responsible for Finance to just by the wave of hand be approving of
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:23 p.m.
    I am with you on that but I drew the attention of the House to the fact that the Ministry earlier put in an argument that some moneys are so small that it would even cost you to process them than for approval by Parliament than the Ministry approving them.
    So sometimes that power is given to the Ministry to approve those small amounts but legally, definitely, they do not have that power. If Parliament decides to give them, why not?. They would exercise it because that is the law we passed.
    The Constitution does not specifically say that the Ministry of Finance cannot approve any money for corporations or agencies of the Public Service established by Parliament. So if we are still not too
    sure, let us let it pass and then later on we can discuss it with the Ministry and then defend the position.
    Yesterday, you made it to pass.
    Yesterday's one was the Council of State Bill and that one is even worse. This one is a commercial corporation so I do not know why you are saying - The Clerk is giving me a different one indicating that yesterday was even worse.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:23 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, in dealing with the functions of the Board a few moments ago, I proffered an amendment to 6(c), which provides that the Board shall ensure that the Corporation conducts the affairs of the Corporation on sound business principles and in accordance with prudent commercial and industry best practices.
    Mr Speaker, this is distinct from the Council of State. This really has a charge to run the affairs of the Corporation on sound business principles and in accordance with prudent commercial and industry best practices. The two are completely different.
    Mr Speaker, I would think that given where we are now, in setting up, the Minister must perhaps approve
    some allocations for the operation of the initial start-up of the Corporation that would be different. But to legislate it that beyond that, the Minister can approve. I do not think so at all.
    So as part of the consideration of this, we can say that if it has to be set up, we could excuse it for just one term but it cannot be legislated to be eternally part of this that the Minister for Finance can approve of moneys and do the allocations to the Corporation. So I would think that we may have to delete (d) but given the circumstances of the setting up of the hub, if it becomes necessary to do that at the very outset, that would be acceptable but not beyond the setting up of the Corporation.
    After that, they cannot be allowed to be there. so for the purposes of the passage of this Bill, I would propose that we delete (d) with the understanding that setting it up now, we could have the Minister do some allocation to the Corporation at the very outset that is on the bloc, they could do that but not to legislate same into this piece of legislation.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:23 p.m.
    But Hon Majority Leader, if we delete it, where would the Ministry get the power to approve for the establishment of the Hub? That is the
    issue. This is because it is this one that the Ministry can rely on. If we want to be specific, we can say “moneys approved by the Minister responsible for Finance to establish the Hub”. We can make that specific. So it is only for the purposes of establishing the Hub.
    Mr Gyamfi 2:23 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, ordinarily, I would not like to debate my Leader but --
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:23 p.m.
    But you are not debating your Leader. You want to say that normally, you do not want to disagree with a position taken by your Leader.
    Mr Gyamfi 2:23 p.m.
    Thank you, Mr Speaker.
    Mr Speaker, the practice of some of the corporations have been that on their balance sheets, they can take a loan and pay it off from the proceeds of what they do with the loan.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:23 p.m.
    That one, they do not need the approval of the Minister for Finance.
    Mr Gyamfi 2:23 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the fact is that before they can take that loan, they need exquisite approval of the Minister for Finance. That is the practice within the Corporation.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:23 p.m.
    They need no objection from the Minister.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:23 p.m.
    From the Government. The Government acts through the Ministry of Finance. Like Ports and Harbour and the rest -- they on their own balance sheet, can go in for a facility but because of Government's policy on monetary and financial matters or fiscal matters then they would need them to give no objection but not approval.
    So if you want us to allow the Ministry to approve money for the establishment of the Petroleum Hub Development Corporation, that one we can do it specifically for that.
    Mr J. Cudjoe 2:23 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would go by the proposal you are making -- making funds available for development. You used “esta- blishment” but I would go for “development” because “esta- blishment” creates a motion of inception and then you are there. But the “development” phase of the Petroleum Hub is --
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:23 p.m.
    We are dealing with the Corporation so for the establishment of the Corporation not for the development
    of the Corporation. This is because clause 18 is dealing with the Corporation not the whole Hub.
    Mr J. Cudjoe 2:33 p.m.
    But funds for the Corporation -- we are saying that the establishment of the Corporation itself would require funding. Then in developing the Hub, we would also require funding. We do not want to curtail it at the ‘establishment' and end it there because we would need Government, channelling funds for the development of the Hub through the Corporation over time.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:33 p.m.
    That would not come under funds of the Corporation. That would come under a different clause.
    Mr Gyamfi 2:33 p.m.
    Mr Speaker -- [Pause] , I have already proposed that it should be deleted. So, we may go with that.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:33 p.m.
    So, you agree with the Hon Majority Leader that we should delete it?
    Mr Gyamfi 2:33 p.m.
    Yes, Mr Speaker.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:33 p.m.
    Hon Members, I direct the draftspersons to capture the new rendition by the insertion of “and” at the end of paragraph (b). So, it would read: “…Internally generated funds,” and paragraph (c), “grants and loans.” I so direct.
    Clause 18 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 19 to 26 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 27 -- Regulations
    Mr Gyamfi 2:33 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 27, opening phrase, delete “may” and insert “shall, within twelve months of the coming into force of this Act.”
    Mr Avedzi 2:33 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am not actually raising any issue under the amendment proposed, but I can see a mini conference under way here at my left Side of the Chamber. I do not know the type of conference that is ongoing over there.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:33 p.m.
    Hon Members, please! Your attention was early on drawn by some Hon Members, but it looks like you ignored it and continued. Your discussion is interrupting the proceedings of the House, and you
    know the rules. By virtue of the current situation, they are relaxed, but please take note and do not be loud in your discussions.
    So, can I put the Question? Hon Deputy Minority Leader, your position was just to draw our attention to the interruption. All right, I would put the Question.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:33 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, you have some more proposed amendments to clause 27.
    Mr Gyamfi 2:33 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, paragraph (b), lines 1 and 2, delete “Petroleum and Petrochemicals”.
    Mr Speaker, early on, we agreed that we would have a definition for “Petroleum and Petrochemicals” at the interpretations side.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:33 p.m.
    So, it means that the rest are consequential amendments?.
    Mr Gyamfi 2:33 p.m.
    Yes, Mr Speaker.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:33 p.m.
    I so direct.
    Mr Gyamfi 2:33 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 28, add the following new definition: “Hub” means the Petroleum and Petrochemicals Hub.”
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:33 p.m.
    That is not what we have on the Order Paper. What I have on my Order Paper has to do with the definition of “project”, lines 1 and 2, delete “Petroleum and Petrochemicals.”
    All right, there is one before this one.
    Hon Members, I am informed that early on, there was that issue concerning the definition of “Hub”. So, it has been provided for on the Order Paper, and has been moved by the Hon Chairman of the Committee.
    Mr Chireh 2:33 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, if you look at the definition section, “Petroleum and Petrochemicals Hub has been defined. However, now, we seek to define only “Hub”. I do not understand that because the Hub on its own as an English word is different from this definition. I do not know what the Hon Chairman seeks to do
    here. I see that early on, from clause 27, the item numbered (iii) to (v), they deleted “Petroleum and Petrochemical”. I do not understand this new definition that is being given in the way it is.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:43 p.m.
    Well, it is usually not done, and I learnt that they wanted to say as we do in drafting of deeds. When you read the phrase, “petroleum and petrochemicals hub herein after referred to as the hub”, because that is not captured, and they have decided to delete the whole phrase and be using the word, “hub”, they thought that they should define the “hub”.
    Again, there is the challenge there because we also have the “Corporation” and the corporation is also using the word, “hub” -- we have the “Petroleum Hub Development Corporation.”
    So, the “hub” is not only used in the petroleum and petrochemicals hub but the corporation is also using the word, “hub” so when you attempt defining the word and you say it only refers to the “petroleum and petrochemicals hub”, it is not
    comprehensive because the same word is also used in the body of the corporation so there is a challenge there. And the issue raised by the Hon Member for Wa West has to be considered.
    Mr Gyamfi 2:43 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the “hub” as defined in clause 28 means “petroleum and petrochemicals hub”. But if we want to understand the petroleum and petrochemicals hub, it has also been defined to mean an area with a network of infrastructure for the processing of crude oil and raw natural gas into petroleum and the petrochemical products for the purposes of trading, storage, transportation and the distribution of the products to third parties and for export.
    So, because of the earlier challenge that we had, that is why we are proposing this new definition for the “hub” so that if we go to the Bill, we would see “hub” and we would refer to petroleum and petrochemicals. But if we want the actual meaning of the petroleum and petrochemicals hub, the definition has also been provided in the Bill.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:43 p.m.
    But you have not captured the concern that has been raised. The
    “hub” is not only used in the petroleum and petrochemicals fields, it is also used in the establishment of the corporation.
    And now, we are defining only that hub dealing with the petroleum and petrochemicals hub but not the one dealing with the corporation. I thought that there is no need for the definition of the hub because the areas in which it is captured, is just because we do not want to be repetitive that is why we decided to summarise it.
    In fact, I asked the Hon Majority Leader what harm is caused by repeating it? There is no harm. And in fact, in communication, if one wants to be effective, there is nothing known as repetition; one has to keep on hitting on the same word so that it can stick in the minds of the readers or the people operationalising the Act. But that was the decision of the House and so, that is where we are now.
    Mr Chireh 2:43 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, looking at what the Chairman said, we have the definition still being maintained; “the petroleum and petrochemicals hub”. But because it was being referred to frequently, the idea was to make it “hub” and then define it in terms of petrochemicals. But the second issue that has been raised is,
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:43 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I appreciate the challenge that is confronting us because in reality, I have not even looked at the Short Title; that is “the Petroleum Hub Development Corporation Act. But if we look at that and look at what we have done, then, we have a challenge.
    Curing the challenge would mean going back to section 2 -- “The object of the Corporation is to develop and promote a petroleum and petrochemicals hub in the country”. Then we can say that referred to as “the hub”. The definition is not merely “hub”, the definition then would be
    “the hub”, and the hub then, would mean “petroleum and petrochemicals hub”. That is the way to cure it.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:43 p.m.
    Yes, exactly what I stated from the very beginning that it should be, “referred to herein as the hub”. And so, the hub would be what we are defining, and that has taken it out from the “hub” as used in the corporation.
    So Hon Chairman, your new proposed amendment would be two things: first, we are going back to clause 2, and then, after that, you now take your definition and it would now be, “the hub”.
    Mr Gyamfi 2:43 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I agree with what the Majority Leader proposed.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:43 p.m.
    Very well, thank you so much. Hon Members, we would go back to clause 2, and there is a proposed amendment there that now, clause 2 should read:
    “the object of the corporation is to develop and promote a petroleum and petrochemicals hub in the country referred to herein as the hub”
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 2 as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:43 p.m.
    We are now going to the definition of “the hub”.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:53 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, as I said, the definitions column in clause 28, when the Hon Chairman proposed that we add a new definition, that definition should lead to “the hub”, which means a petroleum and petrochemicals hub”.
    Mr Chireh 2:53 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, once we have defined “the Hub” in clause 2 by the new formulation, we do not need to define it again. So the Hon Chairman should rather withdraw the definition of “the Hub” since we have already defined it by this linkage that we have made.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:53 a.m.
    You are right. Clause 2 takes up the issue of the definition, so the Hon Chairman is asking the leave of the House to withdraw his proposed amendment; and leave is granted.
    Mr Gyamfi 2:53 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, exactly so, I withdraw the amendment.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:53 a.m.
    Hon Members, I think that is all we have. There is another proposed amendment to clause 28 but I think that it is part of the consequential amendments.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:53 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I was even saying that even the definition of “the Hub” can be left for the avoidance of doubt. This is because in legislation, whenever you have said that the governing body of something is a Board, you go back to define what is meant by “a Board”. So to me, even though it appears an overkill, it does not really derogate from what is intended.
    Even in clause 5, under Governing body of the Corporation, it says: “The governing body of the Corporation is a Board”. So, at the outset, we know what a Board is, and that is the governing body of the Corporation. When we get to interpretations, we defined “Board” to mean, “the governing body of the Corporation established under section 5”.
    That may appear to be an overkill as well but that is standard practice. So, if we maintain it with a further amendment, to me, it would not really hurt a fly. However, the principle established by the Hon Member for
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:53 a.m.
    Hon Members, we would move to the Long title of the Bill.
    Long title ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:53 a.m.
    Hon Members, we have come to the end of the Consideration Stage of the Petroleum Hub Development Corporation Bill, 2020. [Interruption]
    Is that a manifesto promise by the Hon Majority Leader? Is it a pledge? [Laughter] It is a pledge that does not lie in his hands.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:53 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I suggest that we take a suspension for one hour and then come and do up to 6:00 p. m. So, we would come at 4:00 p. m.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:53 a.m.
    All right. The Hon Majority Leader is requesting for a suspension for one hour.
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 2:53 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, ordinarily I would not have anything to say about that request except that before he made the request, he made a pronouncement to the effect that every day, we would work on one Bill. He said it is one day, one Bill, that is “one D, one B”, so we have finished for the day. [Laughter]
    I know that we have to do the Real Estate Agency Bill, 2020 and on a more important note, the Hon Minister has been frequenting the House since last week. We have to do it but the Hon Majority Leader pronounced a parliamentary promise or what do we call it -- ?
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:53 a.m.
    They say it is a pledge and the pledge has been fulfilled. Hon O. B. Amoah says that the pledge has been fulfilled -- one day, one Bill.
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 2:53 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, he just indicated to me that he did not intend to push it far -- [Laughter] -- so, we would suspend for one hour.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:53 a.m.
    Hon Members, it is now three minutes after 3 o'clock by my clock here. We would have to suspend the House for one hour; therefore, we would be back here by 4:00 p. m. 3.01 p. m. -- Sitting suspended.
    5.11 p.m. -- Sitting resumed
    MR SECOND DEPUTY SPEAKER
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:53 a.m.
    Hon Members, you are welcome back from the short break.
    Hon Majority Leader, where do we now go to?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:53 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, we were dealing with the Consideration Stage of the Real Estate Agency Bill, 2020. We got to clause 7 but there were a few difficulties, so we could continue with it.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:53 a.m.
    Is the Hon Chairman of the Committee ready?
    Chairman of the Committee (Nana Amoakoh) 2:53 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, we want to make a few changes on the numbering. The “functions of the Board”, which is clause 7, should rather be clause 6 and the clause 6, which is on the “duties and liabilities of members of the Board”, should be clause 7.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:53 a.m.
    Hon Chairman, I am sorry, but we
    need to do the usual procedure arrangement before we continue.
    Hon Members, the Real Estate Agency Bill, 2020, at the Consideration Stage.
    BILLS -- CONSIDERATION 2:53 a.m.
    STAGE 2:53 a.m.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:53 a.m.
    Yes, Hon Chairman?
    Mr Amoakoh 2:53 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, we want to replace the numbering and the amendments would follow suit. As I said earlier, clause 7, would replace clause 6 and clause 6 would also replace clause 7.
    Mr Speaker, again, there are a few amendments I would want to propose even though they have not been advertised on the Order Paper.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:53 a.m.
    Very well.
    However, let me first direct the draftspersons to take note of the --
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:53 a.m.
    I wanted to direct the draftspersons to take note of what he said but we would definitely go according to what is on the Order Paper. We finished with clause 6, which was on the “duties and liabilities of members of the Board” and we would continue with clause 7. At the end of the day, the draftspersons would take care of the arrangements.
    Mr Amoakoh 2:53 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 7, add the following new clauses:
    “(1) The Board shall formulate operational and administrative policies for the achievement of the objects of the Council
    (2) The Board shall oversee the effective and efficient management of the Council.
    (3) The Board shall efficiently and effectively perform the functions of the Council.
    (4) The Board shall be responsible to the Minister”.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:53 a.m.
    Hon Chairman, I do not have any documents on the proposed amendments you just moved.
    Mr Amoakoh 2:53 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, they are new amendments that have been proposed.
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 2:53 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, he has rearranged the clause 7. He should move what has been advertised in the Order Paper, which is to delete “proper and effective “ in subclause 1, line 1, and to insert “effective and efficient”. He could re- advertise clause 7, so that we would consider it tomorrow.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:53 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, unfortunately, we just finished with the reconciliation that we wanted to do and there is no much time for us to advertise same before we come to it. If we go slowly, Hon Members would appreciate what has been proposed by the Hon Chairman.
    Mr Speaker, as you have directed, when the clause 7 is moved, in terms of chronology, after establishing the governing body of the Council, which is the Board, the next stage is to define the functions, which is why he said that indeed, clause 7 should precede clause 6, as it is in the original Bill. We have finished with clause 6 already, so we could go to clause 7
    and as you have directed, when it is complete the draftspersons would be advised to locate it at the appropriate place.
    Mr Speaker, that is the reason I have explained it. So, for clause 7, we could say 2:53 a.m.
    “The Board shall
    (a)formulate the operational and administrative policies for the achievement of the object of the Council”.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:53 a.m.
    Hon Majority Leader, that is what I want to get in that order. If you want to propose an amendment to clause 7 (1), say so, so that I could note it down.
    Mr Chireh 2:53 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, as you rightly said, it would be appropriate for us to go by what is in the Order Paper. If not, we should stand clause 7 down and consider other clauses that do not have any problem. Hopefully by tomorrow, if what he has proposed has been captured in the Order Paper, we could consider it. When he dictates to all of us, we cannot tell the nature of it. It is not also just having moved the
    amendment but he added something -- [Interruption] -- No, it is a complete reformulation and that is difficult to follow.
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 2:53 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, that was why I said that if the amendment that had been proposed was inconsistent with what had been captured in clause 7, then we had to step it down. If it is not inconsistent but an addition, we would take what has been advertised because that is what we know of and then advertise what we want to do, so that we could take all at the same time tomorrow.
    However, if he wants to change the way clause 7 has been formulated, then we should step it down and consider clause 8, so that if it is advertised by tomorrow, we could take it.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:21 p.m.
    I want to hear him again so that we can then take a decision because I thought he was trying to amend clause 7, subclause (1). It is just the way he went about it that is why I could not get the sense out of it.
    So, propose your amendment to clause 7, subclause (1).
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 5:21 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, just so that the effort on clause 7 does not stall the conduct of Business, let us step it down and move to clause 8 so that we come with a new formulation for clause 7. It would be advertised sufficiently unto tomorrow's Order Paper and then we move on.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:21 p.m.
    Hon Members, accordingly, clause 7 is stood down until we get the final rendition that is being proposed.
    Clause 8 -- Tenure of office of members of the Board
    Nana Amoakoh 5:21 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 8, subclause (1), lines 2 and 3, delete “but a member shall not be appointed for more than two terms” and insert “for another term only”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Nana Amoakoh 5:21 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 8, subclause (7), closing phrase, line 2, at end, add “for the unexpired term”.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 5:21 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would just want to make a further amendment to that as we did
    in the morning in respect of the Petroleum Hub Development Corporation Bill, 2020. We further improved it to read:
    “The Minister shall notify the President of the vacancy and the President shall appoint a person in accordance with the provisions of this Act to fill the vacancy for the unexpired term.”
    Mr Speaker, that is the language of what we did in the morning and I think that is more comprehensive.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:21 p.m.
    Hon Chairman of the Committee, have you got the rendition of the Hon Majority Leader?
    Nana Amoakoh 5:21 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, yes, I have.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:21 p.m.
    Yes, so, go through it and let me hear you.
    Nana Amoakoh 5:21 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, with your permission, he added just a few words to what we had advertised. I do not think I have a problem with it.
    Alhaji I. A. B. Fuseini 5:21 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, what the Hon Majority Leader is proposing is an
    improvement on how we have been drafting this, that the Governing Board is constituted by a certain criteria where people from different institutions come together to form it.
    Now, the idea is just giving the President the power to appoint another person to fill a position but that person must necessarily conform to the provisions of this Act. He or she must come from the relevant institution to be able to fill the position. So, the Hon Majority Leader is just improving upon the formulation.
    Mr Speaker, so, the amendment by the Hon Chairman of the Committee is right. We have always said that because the members of the Board have a determined tenure of office, if we just appoint somebody without necessarily indicating that the person is appointed for the unexpired term, that person might think that he or she has a full term of four years.
    Mr Speaker, so, the proposed amendment of the Hon Chairman of the Committee is proper for the unexpired term and the further amendment by the Hon Majority Leader makes it clearer. So, it should be:
    “(7) Where there is a vacancy
    (a) under subsection (3) or (4) or subsection (2) of section 10;
    (b) as a result of a declaration under subsection (6), or
    (c) by reason of the death of a member,
    the Minister shall notify the President of the vacancy and the President shall appoint a person in accordance with the provisions of this Act to fill the vacancy for the unexpired term.”
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:21 p.m.
    So, the proposal is to insert “in accordance with this Act” after “person” and that is what I wanted captured so that we know what we are approving.
    Mr Chireh 5:21 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, if there should be a further amendment and we refer to where they were appointed rather than just say, “to this Act” and their appointment is in section 5 -- So, it should be in accordance with section 5 because
    Mr Chireh 5:21 p.m.


    that is where the nominations are done. So, the various institutions that have been nominated are all mentioned there.
    Nana Amoakoh 5:21 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, so, we are just adding “in accordance with the Act” or “in accordance with section 5”. It is better we use “section 5” in filling the vacancy.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:21 p.m.
    Hon Members, what I have from your deliberation is that:
    “(7) Where there is a vacancy
    (a) under subsection (3) or (4) or subsection (2) of section 10
    (b) as a result of a declaration under subsection (6), or
    (c) by reason of the death of a member,
    the Minister shall notify the President of the vacancy and the President shall appoint a person in accordance with section 5 to fill the vacancy for the unexpired term.”
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 8 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 9 -- Meetings of members of the Board
    Nana Amoakoh 5:31 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would want to make a little amendment to the sublcause (1) of clause 9 -- the Board shall meet, at least, once every three months --
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:31 p.m.
    Sorry, is it subclause (1)? All right.
    Nana Amoakoh 5:31 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, it says: “The Board shall meet at least once every three months for conduct of business at a time and place determined by the chairperson.”
    Mr Speaker, so, we are deleting “despatch” and inserting “conduct”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Nana Amoakoh 5:31 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 9 add the following new subclauses:
    “The proceedings of the Board are not to be invalidated by reason of a vacancy among members or any defect in the qualification of a member.
    Subject to this section, the Board may determine the procedure for meetings of the Board.”
    Mr Chireh 5:31 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, now, I think that what he should do is to say that he is adding a new clause. Secondly, he should move the clauses one after the other but not the two at the same time.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:31 p.m.
    That is why I take time to locate - because the Hon Chairman did not really say; “amendment proposed” or “add the following new subclauses so and so”. So I was trying to look through to see which one was being amended.
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fusieni 5:31 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, in principle, I have nothing against the new additions but the second addition is in the same section. So, we cannot subject a provision in the same section to that same section.
    We are then saying that the Board will determine the procedure for the meetings of the Board. So, that is the formulation.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:31 p.m.
    I get the point you have raised.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 5:31 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, it is rather “subject to this Act” and not “to this section”.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:31 p.m.
    Let us get the import from the Hon Chairman -- it is even in the Order Paper as: “Subject to this section…” It does not say: “Subject to this Act”.
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 5:31 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the problem is that he read the amendments together; he should have first of all announced to us that he was making a further amendment to the second provision. So our attention will be -- this is because we are told he read it as: “Subject to this Act”; but we are still referring to it as: “Subject to this section.”
    Mr Speaker, so if it is “Subject to this Act”, which is the generality of the Act, there is nothing wrong with it.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:31 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, since we do not have what you have on your paper, let us take it one after the other and be very specific in your presentation so that we can follow you properly.
    Mr Chireh 5:31 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Hon Ranking Member for the Committee on Constitutional, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs first made a point that in all these Boards that we set up, when it comes to their
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 5:31 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, it cannot be ridiculous. That is what we have always done because meetings are not conformed to section 9; committees of the Board, which may, as happens in Parliament, include a Committee of the whole Board which could be captured under the meetings.However, it will appear under a section of committees.
    So, it is the reason we subjected it to the Act and not the section. Indeed, what we did just this morning in respect of the Petroleum Hub Development Corporation Bill under
    clause 9 -- “Meetings of members of the Board”. -- that is, “Subject to this Act, the Board shall determine the procedure for meetings of the Board.”
    Mr Speaker, we have always done this so for my Hon Colleague to say that it is ridiculous -- it is not ridiculous. However, it is just for the avoidance of doubt and so, I believe we can go on with the proposition by the Hon Chairman of the Committee.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:31 p.m.
    Well, this is a new development and as you said, if we have already taken those decisions in earlier Acts, maybe, the procedure of meetings is in the bosom of the members of the Board.
    So, if we subject it to the Act, it means that there are some provisions in the Act that may affect issues of the procedure of the meetings.
    Hon Members, so, if you want us to be consistent then we will take it as it is. It means, “Subject to this Act, the Board may determine the procedure for meetings of the Board”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 9 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 5:31 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, there is nothing to worry about because this is just a minor amendment. I was on my feet but I saw you were concentrating on what you were doing.
    Mr Speaker, it has to do with clause 9(2); more insertions of punctuations. In line (1) it reads: “The chairperson shall,” and in line (2), after “Board” there should be a comma.
    So, it will read: “The chairperson shall, at the request in writing of not less than one-third of the membership of the Board, convene an extra- ordinary meeting of the Board…”
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 5:41 p.m.
    We have two punctuations overthere and you may direct the draftspersons to take care of that.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:41 p.m.
    Well, they are really not amendments but just a matter of editing.
    Hon Members, I already put the Question and the amendment was accepted subject to the editing made by the Hon Majority Leader.
    Clause 10 -- Disclosure of interest
    Nana Amoakoh 5:41 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 10 subclause (3), line 2, before “benefit”, delete “the” and insert “any”
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 5:41 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, just as we did in the morning, I indicated that we have developed a common template for subclauses (1) and (2). It looks like the draftspersons at the Office of the Attorney-General keep repeating what we have corrected and so we would leave it to the draftspersons to insert the proper formulation for both subclauses (1) and (2). It is not really a major amendment but it is to improve what obtains here and I believe the Table Office know what I mean.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:41 p.m.
    Hon Members, I direct that the draftspersons should capture the rendition that has been adopted by the House with regard to clause 10(1) and (2).
    I would put the Question on the clause.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 10 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Nana Amoakoh 5:41 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 11 subclause (1), line 2, after “non-members” insert “of the Board or both”.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:41 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, there would be a repetition or is that the template adopted by the House?
    It would read: “The Board may establish committees consisting of members of the Board and non- members of the Board or both to perform a function”.
    Mr Chireh 5:41 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the addition of the “non-members of the Board” is not necessary because it is either they are members of the Board or not. It is a composition of members of the Board or non-members or both. We do not have to qualify people as “non-members of the Board” because they are non-members. That is all.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:41 p.m.
    Usually when we say non-members we do not have to add “of the Board” because there would be “or both”. It would read: “members of the Board or non-members or both”.
    Nana Amoakoh 5:41 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I agree and in that case we would delete the “and” and insert “or”.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:41 p.m.
    So, the new rendition would read: “The Board may establish committees consisting of members of the Board or non-members or both to perform a function”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 5:41 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, for the avoidance of doubt, in the amendment proposed by the Hon Chairman, he sought to insert “of the Board or both”. However, we would need to do away with the conjunctive in line 2 to read “or”. Mr Speaker, you got it right when you read the new rendition but that is not what is advertised in the Order Paper.
    So it should read: “The Board may establish committees consisting of members of the Board or non- members or both to perform a function”.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:41 p.m.
    That is exactly what I read. I am sure the Table Office got it, so we will move on.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 5:41 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we must close the clause 11(1), after “function” with the words “of the Board”.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:41 p.m.
    Very well.
    I will put the Question on the new rendition: “The Board may establish committees consisting of members of the Board or non-members or both to perform a function of the Board”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Nana Amoakoh 5:41 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 11 subclause (2), paragraph (a), before “Examinations”, insert “Education and”
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:51 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, go over it. Without limiting subsection (1), the Board shall establish --
    Mr Amoakoh 5:51 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, subsection (1) (a) reads:
    “The Board may establish a committee consisting of members of the Board --”
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:51 p.m.
    Read from subsection (2).
    Mr Amoakoh 5:51 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, it reads:
    “Without limiting subsection (1), the Board shall establish:
    (a)education and examinations committee”
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:51 p.m.
    Hon Members, what I got from the Hon Chairman on subclause 2 is:
    “Without limiting subsection (1), the Board shall establish
    (a)an education and examinations committee”
    Hon Chairman, is that it?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 5:51 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I was having some discussions with the Hon Chairman. Clause 11 provides for the establishment of the examination committee.
    If we go to clause 25, the remit of that examination committee includes, necessarily, education. The headnote of that is just examination. It says: “The committee shall design and curricula and programmes of studies including the relevant subject or courses, duration of studies for the
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:51 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Member for Wa West?
    Mr Chireh 5:51 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, is it one committee? If it is, we are saying that it reads:
    “Without limiting subsection (1), the Board shall establish
    (b)an education and examinations committee”
    However, if you go to the section that creates this committee, as the Hon Majority Leader said, there is nothing about education there. So basically, why do we want to add “education” to this committee?
    In any case, the Board is not restricted to forming this committee. It can always set up any committee.
    So if the court now wants an education committee, they can set it up, but to add it to this when we did not provide for it in the substantive clause, I do not know why the Hon Chairman is doing that? What is his basis for what he is doing?
    Mr Amoakoh 5:51 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, when we say education, we are just limiting ourselves because we are talking about examination and education. It is very educative. We have some people who would be in the classroom, and after that, they would have to take an examination on real estate practice. This is why we brought in the education aspect of it, but if because of the heading on clause
    25 --
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:51 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, is it your understanding that the Committee would be in charge of education in addition to the examination?
    Mr Amoakoh 5:51 p.m.
    That is the reason we brought the “education”.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:51 p.m.
    But the Bill does not mention education.
    Mr Amoakoh 5:51 p.m.
    If it is so, we might abandon the amendment and maintain just examinations so that we do not
    have any conflict when we come down to the examination aspect in clause 25, and we would be consistent.
    Mr Chireh 5:51 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, as I said earlier, the Board is not restricted from doing it. However, this Committee is just to examine people who claim they have already acquired some experience or education somewhere and the Board wants to examine whether they have the requisite knowledge or experience.
    At best, the Board could also help those training institutions with the kind of training they would want those people to have. But it is not the Committee that would educate. It can only examine people. And in this examination, the Examination Committee is not even the one that may even examine people.
    But they oversee the expert who do this on their behalf. And so the Committee would then report to the Board for approval. So it has nothing to do with education. Are they going to open a school?
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:51 p.m.
    Mr Chairman, it looks like you are introducing a new matter to the Bill?. Clause 25 does not only deal with the Committee. It even says that that
    function could be given to a competent institution. So it is only dealing with examination. They are not to handle education. The people are already educated, they are coming in and they need to be examined whether they really have the requisite qualification and experience to do the work.
    Hon Member for Tamale Central?
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 6:01 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the amendment of the Hon Chairman is informed by clause 25 as indicated by the Hon Majority Leader and also clause 4, particularly paragraphs (b) and (f).
    When you look at clause 25 (a), on the committee, there is no problem with describing it as an education committee, but the committee would have the duty of designing the curricular and programme of studies including the relevant subjects or courses and the duration of studies for the examination. So it would be on the structure of the education. And when you look at the clause 3(a), you have to demonstrate a fair understanding of the principles of real estate practice.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:01 p.m.
    Then we may at the end of the day look at the long title too; if it would carry along the additional function of education. That is quite comprehensive. When you deal in real estate agency, they have to handle education of the people who are to do the practice. It is a very wide area, if we add the education. We would have to relook at a lot of the clauses.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 6:01 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, what is contained in clause 25, which is the prescription of the curricular and the programme of studies. It is education. I was only saying that if we include “examination” in 11, then we should be minded to include same in clause 25. Other than that, we can omit it and have “examination”, which would also include the “education”. Mr Speaker, that is all that I have said.
    Mr Chireh 6:01 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the issue we have is this: these are professionals -- this Board is supposed to have an Examination Committee and what they do is not to educate the professionals who are coming into the practice there. What they do in this curriculum development is to liaise with the schools and the professional training institutions and agree on the subject and the things they should teach.
    Take for instance the Medical and Dental Council. When one comes out, they would have to conduct an examination for him to write and become a doctor. More professions do that. They have an examination
    committee but we make that a committee of education and examination committee, it implies that they also conduct education but all they do is like approving a course of study. If one wants to be a pharmacist, the only time he becomes a pharmacist is not when he trains in the university.
    The Pharmacy Council must agree with the National Accreditation Board and also the university authorities to the particular subjects which are required in the profession. So they are not in charge of his education. They are in charge of examination. When he comes out, he would write a professional examination -- forensic examination. It is the same thing. So there is no need to add “education” there.
    Alhaji Fuseini 6:01 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, to pray on my Hon Colleague to state that there is the need.
    Recently, the Ghana Bar Association, until last year, was faced with a challenge of what was happening at the Law School.
    When your Committee, Mr Speaker, directed that the Constitutional, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs Committee of Parliament met with the students, it came out clearly from the students that what they were being taught in the
    school did not manifest in the examination. So there was a disconnection. So what this thing is trying to do is that it has given us an indication of the areas of study that people wishing to be real estate practitioners must engage in.
    So the Education and Examination Committee would liaise with other institutions to ensure that anybody wishing to take a certificate of practice in real estate must undergo this particular type of education. It does not spoil anything. As I said, if in reading the Committee, we can read into it that it is also responsible for setting the standard and determining courses, there is no problem.
    But it makes it clearer that this same Committee which is responsible for examinations would also help in setting the standards, approving the courses of study for people who want proficiency in real estate practice. This is what I get from this examination. So, I think that just as the Leader has said, if we go with that amendment, it means that in clause 25, we must amend it and the value would be the same.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 6:01 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, as I indicated earlier, this is to help us define what is intended to be done under clause 11 and clause
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:01 p.m.
    I just want to situate your contributions in the functions of the Council to make sure that they have the mandate to deal with that area and I saw that in clause 4. They have copious provisions on that.
    It has not just been the practice, but then at a prescribed and approved courses of study, and they are also to conduct and set standards for qualifying examinations.
    When we go to (i), it reads:
    “Facilitate and promote education.”
    We therefore, have provisions on that, to even include establishing a programme for continuing education.
    So, it is better for us to add the “education and examinations”, and then at clause 25, you take note for us to capture it. Hon Members, on clause 11, subclause (2), the final rendition on the proposed amendment reads:
    “Without limiting subsection (1), the Board shall establish;
    (a) An Education and Examinations Committee.”
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:11 a.m.
    Hon Members, we still have two proposed amendments to clause 11.
    Yes, Hon Chairman?
    Nana Amoakoh 6:11 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, subclause (2), add the following new paragraph: “a Regulations and Compliance Committee”.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:11 a.m.
    “Regulations and Compliance Committee”?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 6:11 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, clause 11 provides for the Board to establish committees that they deem appropriate to perform the functions of the Board. Clause 11 (2) says and with permission I quote:
    “Without limiting subsection (1), the Board shall establish an Examinations Committee”, which now, we seek to expand to include “education”.
    Therefore, we have an “Education and Examinations Committee”. Paragraph (b) deals with an Appeals Committee, but once we make provisions for it in the Statute, we should define the remit of the committee.
    For examinations, we have now to de-rechristen education and examination. For the Appeals Committee, we have defined its remit. So what is the remit for the Regulations and Compliance Committee?
    If we do that, then we would have to define it in the Bill ; the remit of it would have to be captured in the Bill. We cannot just mention it, so, we should leave it as it is, and if the Board deems it appropriate, then the Board may define the remit for it. What we are doing is wrong.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:11 a.m.
    Maybe, provision may have been made for that too.
    Mr Dafeamekpor 6:11 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I support the Hon Majority Leader's position on the matter. Indeed, I was going to ask the Hon Chairman to justify the decision to include this new committee, and why it is at this particular point of the provision?
    However, like the Hon Majority Leader said, we should leave it, so that as and when the Board sees it fit, they can always establish a committee of that nature to handle that particular function, which would end it. We should therefore abandon the amendment.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:11 a.m.
    The Hon Chairman may be in the position to justify it, so, let us hear from him.
    Nana Amoakoh 6:11 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would abandon the proposal without going any further. With the way it stands, since we do not have everything together on the Regulations and the Compliance Committee, I think that we should drop the amendment.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:11 a.m.
    Therefore, the amendment is withdrawn. I did not want us to use more time, and that was why I went

    back to the Hon Chairman, so that he could do the right thing. He now says that he has withdrawn the proposed amendment. So, we cannot now debate something that does not exist. [Laughter] -- You cannot see something that does not exist, so, let us move on.
    Mr Chireh 6:11 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would like to make a comment on this. This is the tenth time that I am saying this. If we look at the draftpersons, they gave “an Examinations Committee``, and we added “education.” However, as the Hon Majority Leader himself is saying, once we have been given the authority to set up committees the Board at its own meetings, would set up any committee that they would want.
    But if we mention that committee as the Hon Chairman is trying to do, then it means that we must give it functions [Interruption] -- When we set up a committee in the Bill, that committee has to be given membership, functions, and be shown what they would have to do.
    The Regulations and Compliance Committee is generally for the Board -- that is the issue. Therefore, if they set up a committee, then that would
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:11 a.m.
    Hon Members, let us move on. That one is withdrawn.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:11 a.m.
    Hon Members, we may now take the last proposed amendment to clause 11.
    Yes, Hon Chairman?
    Nana Amoakoh 6:11 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, add the following new subclasses:
    “A committee that consists of non-members of the Board shall be advisory.
    A committee that consists of members of the Board and non- members of the Board shall be chaired by a member of the Board.”
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:11 a.m.
    Well, in practice, a committee of non- members of a Board are only advisory. Actually, committees of Boards are all advisory. They do not take the decision, but they submit recommendations, proposals and advice to the main Board to take the decision. So, basically, committees of Boards are advisory.
    However, you people have changed the drafting, and I think that this is not the first time that I am seeing this. Even this morning, a decision was taken on it. A committee that consisted of non-members of the Board shall be advisory, but I do not know which committee that is not advisory.
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 6:11 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, the problem is that because we have adopted this formulation, we are changing what we know of committees. If we say a committee consisting of non-members of the Board is advisory, then in reading it at the flip side, it would mean that a committee which is of members of the Board would not be advisory. That is what it means, but that is not the case.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:11 a.m.
    That should not be the case.
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 6:11 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, so, that is the only problem that technically, we are running into. We have put it in law that it would be advisory only. So, a committee that consists of members of the Board may not be advisory. There comes a situation where a committee that consists of members may sit on a matter, take a decision and purport to implement the decision without recourse to the governing Board, and that could run into problems.
    Mr Chireh 6:21 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, in the corporate world, we have standing committees which have been authorised by the Boards or the Councils to carry out specific things , and they do not refer to the Board. For instance, the Bank of Ghana has a Monetary Policy Framework Committee. When they meet, they do not go and give the outcome of the meeting to the Bank of Ghana as a Board to announce it.
    No, it is that Committee that does it if in the law, they are given the power. [Interruption] That is why when we say “not limiting”, we give power to examinations committees to conduct examinations. After they have finished with the examinations, if we do not put it in the law that they should bring the results to be approved by the Board, they can release the results.
    So, there is merit in always saying that if there are standing committees, then, it means that they cannot be meeting frequently, but once the Board raises the matter, the committee does that on their behalf, and it is valid.
    If we are talking about the public sector, that may be a different matter but, such institutions have such bodies which would take a decision and carry
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 6:21 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I associate myself with what the Hon Chairman has set out, and indeed, the extrapolation given by the Hon Member for Wa West. In Parliament here, we have our own Committees. We could charge a Committee to go into a matter and continue.
    It is like the Finance Committee; they grant the Minister power to do something on behalf of Parliament, but if for the purposes of conducting the business of this House, a Committee engages, let us say a Committee of experts, that Committee of experts cannot do any execution so; in this case, that Committee is advisory only.
    So, any Committee that is formed by the Board, if it comprises only of non-members, that Committee is advisory only. The other Committees could be charged to report back to the entire Board. They would also be asked to execute some functions on behalf of the Board but the technical committee or a committee that comprises only non-members is only advisory.
    Mr Speaker,that is the distinction.
    Mr Akyea 6:21 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think in the sense of the law, we might be repeating the obvious. As a matter of fact, even when you are members of a Board and the Board should handpick you, maybe three of you, to do a special task and report to the entire Board, what we are trying to do is not binding on the entire Board but, you are bringing some position or opinion for the consideration of the entire Board.
    So, I am of the humble view that we might leave it and it would not hurt a fly since in the corporate understanding that is what is supposed to be. And when we state the obvious, it might sound like understanding is challenged. It is like you saying that the sun is shining when it is actually shining. It is obvious to everybody.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:21 p.m.
    Well, Hon Members, the addition of the new clauses is what we have been discussing so far. It is just stating the obvious. Those things that we have referred to have basis in the law; the law so says it should be that either in the Constitution or the enabling ACT.
    Yes, Hon Majority Leader, I wanted to put the Question.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 6:21 p.m.
    Just the words that are added at the end, and I think that is very instructive that we add that word, “only”.
    “The Committee that consists of non-members of the Board shall be advisory only”.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:21 p.m.
    Yes, that was what happened in the morning. It says “advisory only”. So, Hon Members, and I am sure the Table Office has taken note and added to the “only” to the “advisory”?.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 11 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 13 -- Policy Directives
    Nana Amoakoh 6:21 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 13, the Minister may give directives to the Board on matters of policy and the Board shall comply. And the new proposed amendment should read:
    “The directives given by the Minister shall be consistent with the object of this Act”.
    Mr Ras Mubarak 6:21 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Hon Chairman's proposed amendment is well situated in that, we do not want the situation where the Minister may be giving directives that are at variance with the object of the Act. In avoiding any such future conflicts, I think it is important that this is captured in the Act.
    Mr Chireh 6:31 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, we have argued a lot of times about this and the reason is that we do not want the Minister to interfere in the daily activities of the Board of any institution. But if there is a Government policy which affects all institutions, including the institution that we are dealing with, the Minister would communicate that but, if we do not limit it to…
    The Minister will communicate that, but if you do not limit it to policy and say that “as within the Act”, then the Minister will look at the Act and say that I asked you to do this. That would involve political activity within an institution which should not do that.
    We have argued about this and only a few days ago, we had a problem like that in terms of regulations .When you ask a Minister to issue directives, he will issue directives that are within but that

    would not be the appropriate thing to do. Then the autonomy of the Board to even advise the Minister would be compromised. So this must be composed on Government policy only. Now, if we say that within the Act, he can always take the Act, look at some aspect of it and say I direct you to do this because it is in the Act.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:31 a.m.
    My attention has been drawn to the fact that in the Petroleum Hub Development Corporation Bill whose consideration stage we just finished with, this was a second subclause that was taken and adopted by the House. It said that, “The directive shall be consistent with the object of this
    I am sure this is done with a lot of experience behind us in these matters . So these are lessons learnt from trying to implement some of the provisions that we passed. There is nothing wrong with improving and making things clearer for the implementers of legislation.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 13 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 14 -- Appointment of Chief Executive Officer
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:31 a.m.
    Is that the new development that you have adopted? If you have incorporated it in earlier Bills, I want to know. What is the function of a CEO? The function of a CEO is leadership management. The other aspects are technical and can be bought. You can get people to give you the knowledge, competence and expertise, but you must have leadership qualities and managerial abilities.
    However, if you decide to make that part of the eligibility criterion for appointing CEOs, that is all right. We can legislate it and would have to vet them, if not, the President could go ahead to do it and say that he thinks the person is competent, has the expertise and knowledge. We however do not vet CEOs.
    Mr Chireh 6:31 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Hon Majority Leader is not saying what he has introduced. It is always with the Boards that when you are appointing members of the Board, it is not just anybody who should be on
    it. As you rightly said, it is supposed to be those who are knowledgeable in the area to be able to advise whoever is running the Authority or Institution.
    In the case of the CEO, he or she by our Constitution must go through an interview process, Public Services Commission and even the Board of that institution. In some cases, it is people who have worked in the area who are promoted until they reach the point where they can be CEOs.
    In the case that you are advertising, of course, the background of the person is important but to put it in the law, we would be taking over the work of the Public Services Commission and the Board.
    This should not be the case because they are the ones who would advertise and give the criteria and qualifications needed. However, instead of saying that the President should in appointing, do this, we rather must insist that those occupying executive positions in the public corporate bodies must be people who have gone through interviews and have passed them properly. They should have the basic qualification and background but we should not put it in the legislation.
    Mr Ras Mubarak 6:41 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am yet to see an instance even if there were, where the Public Services Commission has actually failed to confirm the appointment of an officer for interview. I say this because we are dealing with practical issues.
    Once the President nominates, even though the Public Services Commission is clothed with the powers to approve or disapprove -- but we have rarely seen that happen in this country and of all the thousands of appointment that have been done over the years, there have been instances where we could tell from the criteria that Mr “A'' or Madam “B'', is not cut for it but they just pass through.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:41 p.m.
    The issue I raised had to do with non- professional and technical areas but this one deals with real estate agency. So, the chief executive would need some qualification, experience or expertise and knowledge because it is a professional area.
    Mr Akyea 6:41 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am excited that the Hon Majority Leader wants to raise the bar and the standards of those who sit in good places to take decisions. It is eminently
    sensible that we should state it for the consumption of everybody that in so far as a person would occupy a very serious position, this Parliament insists that the person should have a requisite competence to do so.
    Mr Speaker, as the Hon Member for Kumbungu, Mr Ras Mubarak rightly said if it is to make somebody happy politically and then the system ignores the competence dimension, he would be put in the saddle and he would not know his left from his right and the nation would suffer for it.
    Again, could we envisage a situation in which by reason of this law or the improvement of what we want to do, somebody, could go to court for a declaration that “x'', who has been appointed and gone through all the processes is incompetent and so, he or she wants a declaration to that effect? This is because the law says that the person who should occupy the position should be competent. If that happens it means, we have improved the law.
    I am very excited that this new position would be an in-role in leadership that when we try to do anything in the best interest of this nation, we should find competence. If the law said so and we get one who is not in accordance to it, somebody
    could go to court for declaratory relief that a person was appointed as a chief executive and is incompetent and the court would so declare. It is eminently sensible that we should raise the bar.
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 6:41 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I have always said that we should be careful to limit the executive authority of the President. When we put in qualifiers, it means we want to restrict the excess of that power -- [Interruption] -- Yes, it means that there has been over compliance with those qualifiers and that is a limitation. Even in the Constitution, where it intends to limit through institutional and procedural compliance or substance requirement, it does so clearly.
    Apart from that the Constitutions says the President shall appoint Hon Ministers -- there is no restriction. Apart from the Hon Attorney-General and Minister for Justice, there is no restriction on the power of the President to appoint Hon Members.
    This is so because of the democratic accountability. If the President refuses to exercise the authority given him under article 58, in a responsible manner, he would democratically be held accountable after four years. These are the institutional mechanisms.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:41 p.m.
    I just raised that issue because it should not be of general application but I said in the areas of expertise, technical or professional, you need to have these because I do not think that those who have proposed that for example, Hon Members of Parliament must have some requisite qualifications in some areas before they come to
    Parliament is something that would see the light of day. [Laughter] If not, we would move that further to the presidency.
    To be the President of a country then the person must have a particular qualification and not a matter of age alone but the person must have some professional and technical knowledge. So, it should not be of general application but definitely, when we look at the subject matter we are dealing with, the Real Estate Agency is a specialised area where there should be somebody with that kind of knowledge to be the chief executive.
    Mr Akyea 6:51 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am very grateful that you are stressing how sensitive this area is. Therefore, if it is somebody's pleasure to go and bring a bar manager to sit at this place.
    Mr Speaker, if we did not raise the standards as the Hon Majority Leader is trying to urge us on and we have some docile folks from the bottom-up and he is there --
    Mr Speaker, my learned friend here in whom I am well pleased said something that is not the position of the Constitution. [Interruption] Yes! The Constitution did not say anybody
    could just come along and be a Minister. Let me quote it for your consumption.
    Mr Speaker, with your permission, article 78 (1) reads 6:51 p.m.


    Mr Speaker, no, we should not abuse language. How can you park the Cabinet with -- Please, let me finish.

    Mr Speaker, you are a lawyer of repute. How can one run something very efficient with incompetent people? It is contradictory in terms. So, his position that there is no

    qualification as to who helps in the efficient running of the State is not the position of the Constitution and he should recount what he said.

    Mr Speaker, he is trying to say that the Constitution can promote “nobodies” in the name of party political arrangements to be part of a Cabinet. It would not work. So, anything which is efficient is not run by incompetent people; it is run by people who are supposed to be competent. That is the intendment of the Constitution and we should promote it.

    Mr Speaker, I am grateful to you.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:51 p.m.
    Hon Members, this is not the Supreme Court; this is the Parliament of Ghana. I do not think we should veer into the interpretation of articles of the Constitution. Let us go on with our Bill.
    Are you still insisting?
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 6:51 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, he opened the door for me to enter.
    Mr Speaker, the Minister is a Minister for Works and Housing. I know that he is a distinguished lawyer at the Bar; I do not know him to have any technical knowledge in works and
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:51 p.m.
    Hon Members, let us just get the rendition and I will put the Question but let me assure you that today's discussion would be subject to comments by many observers and writers in future.
    Yes, so, Hon Majority Leader, go on.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 6:51 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, just before you put the Question because, I guess, we are all agreed.
    But Mr Speaker, before you put the Question, it is important that the Constitution in article 296 where it vests discretionary powers in the hands of the President, there are qualifiers. So, no authority is given to the President which is unfettered. He cannot exercise any power that is unfettered.
    Mr Speaker, my Hon Colleague Member for Tamale Central appears to think that once authority is given to
    the President, he can exercise it as he deems appropriate. No, he cannot! Even where the power is discretionary, it is not unfettered.
    Mr Speaker, in case we are in doubt, article 298 provides which with your permission I quote:
    “Subject to the provisions of Chapter 25 of this Constitution, where on any matter, whether arising out of this Constitution or otherwise, there is no provision, express or by necessary implication of this Constitution which deals with the matter, that has arisen, Parliament shall, by an Act of Parliament, not being inconsistent with any provision of this Constitution, provide for that matter to be dealt with.”
    So, the exercise of the President's power is fettered; it is not unfettered in whatever way. If we deem it appropriate, we can apply brakes and we should be applying brakes.
    This matter about the appointment of Ministers in the Presidential System, whoever becomes a Minister in any sector has the technical competence; in the Westminster System where one is not required to
    be technically competent, one ought to have served in the Committee, perhaps one should have risen to be a shadow Minister.
    So, when you are appointed maybe in your third or fourth term and your Party wins and you become a substantive Minister, you know every nook and cranny of that sector. That is why, first of all, we must graduate to the status of a shadow Minister.
    Mr Speaker, one of the things that keep dragging us back is the appointment of persons to positions that they do not qualify to hold. We must insist on this. Which is why in the new Standing Orders, we are even proposing that once the President appoints anybody to any sector and the President wants to reshuffle that person, that person should come back to Parliament to be vetted again. It would improve on our governance and that is the way to go.
    I do not think that we would have to further litigate this matter. Mr Speaker, put the Question and we can make progress.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:51 p.m.
    He is unrepentant on that and he does not regret it.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 6:51 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, do you mean I should go over what I proposed?
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:51 p.m.
    Yes, I have not got it down.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 7:01 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I said, with your permission: “The President shall in appointing the Chief Executive Officer have regards to the competence, knowledge and expertise of the person being appointed”
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:01 p.m.
    That will be subclause (3).
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 7:01 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, so, have you got it?
    Nana Amoakoh 7:01 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, that is all right.
    Nana Amoakoh 7:01 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move that add an additional clause:
    (3) “The Chief Executive Officer shall ensure implementation of the decision of the Board and any other functions determined by the Board”
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 15 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 7:01 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, respectfully, although the Question has been put on clause 15, I just want to plead with the Table Office to have a second look at clause 15(1). There are two functions that are combined in one, so maybe, they
    can break it down in to two parts to read as follows. The first part should read:
    “The Chief Executive Officer is responsible for the day-to-day administration and operations of the Council”.
    The second part should read:
    “The Chief Executive Officer is answerable to the Board in the performance of the functions under this Act”.
    Mr Speaker, so, if we stream them out that will be much more appreciative.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:01 p.m.
    I direct that they be captured as two subclauses instead of one subclause.
    Clause 16 -- Appointment of other staff
    Nana Amoakoh 7:01 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move that subclause (1), line 3, delete “proper and effective” and insert “effective and efficient”
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 16 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 17 -- Regional offices of the Council
    Nana Amoakoh 7:01 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move that subclause (1), line 1, after “regional”, insert “and district” and in line 2, after “region”, add “and district”
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:01 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, it will read:
    “The Board may establish regional offices of the Council in each region and district”
    Hon Chairman, is that what you want added?
    Nana Amoakoh 7:01 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we are dealing with the subclause which states that after “regional”, insert “and district” and in line 2, after “region”, add “and district”
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:01 p.m.
    So, we have “and district” appearing twice in the same subclause (1)?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 7:01 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I believe we should add at the end, “as the case may be”. Otherwise, how it is constructed -- with your permission it says:
    “The Board may establish regional and district offices in each region and district”
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:11 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, do you agree with the Hon Majority Leader that it should now be amended to read that:
    “The Board may establish regional and district offices of the Council in each region and district as the case may be”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Nana Amoakoh 7:11 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, Clause 17 subclause (2), delete and insert the following:
    “The regional and district offices of the Council shall perform the functions of the Council in the region and district as the Board may determine.”
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:11 p.m.
    Is it “and” or it is “or”?
    Nana Amoakoh 7:11 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, it is “or”.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:11 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, it is not properly constructed.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 7:11 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, it should read ‘The regional and district offices of the Council shall perform the functions of the Council in the region or district as the case may be.”
    So, we have to further delete “as the Board may determine” because it is not the Board that determines the functions of the Council. The functions are already determined by this Bill so we have to introduce “as the case may be” and further insert “or” between “region and districts”.
    This may be that even in the earlier amendment we have to make the minor correction by inserting “or” to read “region or district”.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:11 p.m.
    Hon Members, still on clause 17 and with what we have done to the proposed amendment to subclause (2) we have to relook at subclause (1). The line 2 of subclause (1) should read “each region or district as the case
    may be”. Same would apply to subclause (2) to read “The regional and district offices of the Council shall perform the functions of the Council in the region or district as the case may be.”
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 17 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 18 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:11 p.m.
    Hon Majority Leader, any indication because we got to clause 18? Clause 19 is on the Finances of the Council but I am not too sure I have much energy left.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 7:11 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, if you do not mind we can continue to clause 21 which marks the end of another section of the Bill. Clause 19 is just on the sources of money for the Council and I am not too sure it has any amendments. So, we can do clauses 19, 20 and 21 and by 7.30 p.m. we should close.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:11 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, the Hon Majority Leader is insisting that we continue with clauses 19, 20 and 21.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 7:11 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, respectfully, I am pleading and not insisting.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:11 p.m.
    Well, after the Speaker has put in -- [Laughter] -- now it cannot be plea.
    Hon Members, let us take the three clauses.
    Clause 19 -- Sources of money for the Council.
    Nana Amoakoh 7:11 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move Clause 11 paragraph (b), delete and insert the following:
    “(b)internally generated funds in the performance of functions of the Council”
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:11 p.m.
    Are there some internally generated funds that can be generated without the performance of functions of the Council?
    We took one decision this morning in connection with funds and what I read was “internally generated funds”.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 7:11 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, it should simply read “internally generated fund”. I think the Hon Chairman is taking inspiration from the original 9(b) which reads
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 7:11 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, this is a new formulation that our Hon Colleague, Mr Bernard Ahiafor, introduced. The provision is ‘fees, charges and levies' and we have passed an Internally Generated Fund Act and all these go into internally generated funds. That is why this confusion is now being generated, but it is fees, levies and charges.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:11 p.m.
    So, we have to just say internally generated funds.
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 7:11 p.m.
    That is all.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:21 p.m.
    So I am going to put the Question on that. What is on the Order Paper is further amended.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:21 p.m.
    Yes, any further amendment? On page 6 of the Order Paper, it says “Add the following new paragraph …”
    Mr Amoakoh 7:21 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, add new paragraph which reads: “moneys accruing from administrative penalties;”
    It is internally generated fund and so I think we should abandon that proposed amendment.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:21 p.m.
    I am sure this proposed amendment did not go through winnowing. [Interruption] I think the members of the winnowing team were dozing off. [Laughter.]
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 7:21 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, it went through but it was heavily influenced by somebody who stands for these provisions. It went through, but there is somebody in the winnowing team who is the new advocate for this provisions. Administrative penalties are part of internally generated funds.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:21 p.m.
    So clause 19 would read:
    “The sources of money for the Council include
    (a)moneys approved by Parliament;
    (b)internally generated funds; and
    (c)donations and grants.”
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 19 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:21 p.m.
    For clarity, Table Office, the second proposed amendment on page six has been withdrawn. It talks about moneys accruing from administrative penalties. It is part of internally generated funds.
    Clause 20 -- Accounts and audit
    Mr Amoakoh 7:21 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 20, subclause (1), delete and insert the following:
    “The Board shall keep books, records, returns and other documents relevant to the accounts in the form approved by the Auditor-General.”
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:21 p.m.
    Hon Members, I think the amendment proposed has been the standard rendition that we have been adopting.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Amoakoh 7:21 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we made an amendment on subclause (2) to read:
    “The Board shall submit the accounts of the Council to the Auditor-General for audit within six months at the end of the financial year.”
    It is six months instead of three months.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:21 p.m.
    Hon Members, there is a new proposal to delete “3(2) in line 2 of subclause (2) and insert “six”.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 7:21 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, really, this is not where the six months belongs to. The Board is submitting the accounts of the Council to the Auditor-General for audit, and they do so at the end of the year.
    So there, it should read:
    “(2) The Board shall submit the accounts to the Auditor- General for audit at the end of the financial year.”
    Subclause (3) rather should read:
    “The Auditor-General, shall within six months, submit…”
    Mr Speaker, we have a formulation for that and so I do not see how we have run into that?.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:21 p.m.
    Yes, we have adopted some rendition, which is not this one. We looked at the constitutional provisions and lifted the provisions, adopted them, which is what we have been approving in Bills. This rendition is quite different. Could we get it?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 7:21 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, just as I was saying, we have this formulation to be in sync with the constitutional provision. We have that, and so just give the directive.
    This is because, the first one should really read:
    “”(2) The Board shall submit the accounts to the Auditor- General for audit at the end of the financial year.”
    Subclause (3) rather should read:
    “The Auditor-General, shall within six months, after the end of the financial year, audit the accounts forward a copy …”
    Again, the formulation is there.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker; Hon Members, I direct that the draftsperson should capture the correct template that we adopted for this kind of provisions. I so direct.
    In that case, I would put the Question on clause 20, unless you would want them to adopt it and bring it back to the House. But I think if we take the decision and it is so done, they do not need to come back. So I would put the Question on clause 20 to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 20 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 21 -- Annual report and other reports
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:21 p.m.
    There is no proposed amendment, and so I would put the Question on the clause standing part of the Bill.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 7:21 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I believe in these enactments we have gone beyond the calendar months. We rather relates to days so that clause 21(1) should read:
    “(1) The Board shall, within thirty (30) days” and not “one month”.
    Then subclause (3) should also read same:
    “The Minister shall, within thirty days …”
    These are the minor corrections.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:21 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, you heard the Hon Leader.
    Mr Amoakoh 7:21 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, yes. We are to use the same language. Instead of one month, we should use “thirty days”.
    So it should read: “(1) The Board shall, within thirty days, after receipt from the audit” in clause (1).
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:31 p.m.
    Hon Members, the proposed amendment from the Hon Majority Leader is that wherever we see one month in clause 21, delete and insert “thirty days”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:31 p.m.
    I would put the Question on the whole of clause 21.
    Yes, Hon Majority Leader?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 7:31 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, again, pursuant to the principles of transparency and accountability, increasingly, these days, we have added on the issue of annual reports and other reports, but Boards would be obligated to publish the reports of the Boards. So we should not omit that provision.
    I believe the draftspersons could assist us. So we should have a subclause 5. The Board shall publish the reports of the Council or the Board in a medium of communication that the Board considers appropriate. Increasingly, just to be in sync with the principles of transparency and accountability, we have now developed this provision and it should be part of it.
    Mr Speaker, I think it is also determined by the Public Financial Management Act of 2016 (Act 921). So we should have a fifth subsection under clause 21 to read as follows with your permission:
    “The Board shall publish the reports of the Council in the medium of communication that the Board considers appropriate.”
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:31 p.m.
    Is that the rendition -- “in the medium of communication”?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 7:31 p.m.
    Yes, Mr Speaker.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:31 p.m.
    Let me direct that it should be captured as adopted by the House in earlier Act. If we cannot recollect it, I just direct and it would be so done.
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 7:31 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, even though I get the intendment of the amendment, at what point would the Board publish? This is because this is procedural and we receive the annual reports and forward a copy to the Minister and the Minister in turn, within some time, forward a copy to Parliament for Parliament's deliberation. At what point would the Board publish that report?
    This is because until Parliament considers the report, they cannot put it out. Just like we have agreed that when the Auditor-General audits, because he is an officer of Parliament, when he audits on account, he has no obligation, no duty to publish the accounts.
    This is because he is an officer of Parliament, he has to submit it to Parliament and it is only after it has gone through the motions in Parliament that the report can be published. So if we are saying that the annual report can be published by the Board, at what point could that be done? [Interruption] -- The Minister has a duty to submit it to Parliament.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:31 p.m.
    Well, Hon Member, I think that is the report of the Council. What we would do here is to adopt the report. We do
    not actually re-write or amend the report.
    We make recommendations for future consideration of the authority or council or board. So that would not affect the report. So that report could be published by the Council after it is submitted because that is its report.
    Hon Members, let me just direct that the draftsperson should capture the template that has been adopted by the House in earlier legislations with regard to this subject matter.
    I would put the Question on the whole of clause 21
    Clause 21 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:31 p.m.
    With this, we come to the end of the Consideration Stage of the Real Estate Agency Bill, 2020 for today.
    ADJOURNMENT 7:31 p.m.
  • The House was adjourned at 7.36 p.m. till Thursday, 22nd October, 2020, at 10.00 a.m.