Debates of 22 Oct 2020

MR SPEAKER
PRAYERS 11:53 a.m.
VOTES AND PROCEEDINGS AND THE OFFICIAL REPORT 11:53 a.m.
Mr Speaker 11:53 a.m.
Hon Members, Correction of the Votes and Proceedings of Wednesday, 21st October, 2020.
Mr Speaker 11:53 a.m.
Hon Members, we have the Official Report of Tuesday, 13th October, 2020, for correction.
Mr Speaker 11:53 a.m.
Hon Members, at the commencement of Public Business, we shall take the item listed 4 -- Presentation of Papers.
PAPERS 11:53 a.m.
Mr Speaker 11:53 a.m.
Item listed 5 -- Presentation and First Reading of Bill by the Hon Minister for Finance.
Deputy Minister for Finance (Mrs Abena Osei-Asare) (MP): Mr Speaker, I seek your leave and the indulgence of the House to withdraw the Insurance Bill, 2020 which was laid on 3rd August, 2020.
Mr Speaker 11:53 a.m.
Are you with- drawing with liberty?
Mrs Osei-Asare 11:53 a.m.
Mr Speaker, with liberty and to re-lay.
Mr Speaker 12:03 p.m.
Very well, you may.
[Insurance Bill, 2020, withdrawn by leave of the House].
Mr Speaker 12:03 p.m.
Hon Members, the Bill is duly withdrawn with the “liberty to be re-laid”. With that term, are you doing so immediately? Is it ready for relaying? I would give you that opportunity, so, you may do so.
BILLS -- FIRST READING 12:03 p.m.
Mr Speaker 12:03 p.m.
Hon Members, we would move on to the item numbered 6 -- Motion, by the Hon Minister for Energy.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:03 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the Hon Minister responsible for Energy is sorting something out with the Minister for Finance and the President. So, I would seek your indulgence to move the Motion listed as item numbered 6, on behalf of the Hon Minister for Energy.
Mr Speaker 12:03 p.m.
Yes, you may.
BILLS -- THRID READING 12:03 p.m.
Mr Speaker 12:03 p.m.
Hon Majority Leader, do we move on to the Consideration Stage of the Real Estate Agency Bill, 2020?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:03 p.m.
Yes, Mr Speaker, we may move into the Consideration Stage on the Real Estate Agency Bill, 2020, the item numbered 7.
Mr Speaker 12:03 p.m.
Hon Members, we would move on to the item numbered 7 -- Real Estate Agency Bill, 2020, at the Consideration Stage.
BILLS -- CONSIDERATION 12:03 p.m.
STAGE 12:03 p.m.
Nana Amoakoh 12:03 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, delete and insert the following:
“(1) The Board shall
(a) formulate the operational and administrative policies
for the attainment of the object of the Council;
(b) oversee the sound and proper management of the Council; and
(c) ensure the effective and efficient performance of the functions of the Council.
(2) The Board shall, in the performance of the functions, be responsible to the Minister.”
Mr Speaker 12:03 p.m.
Thank you very much.
Yes, Hon Minority Leader?
Mr Haruna Iddrisu 12:03 p.m.
Mr Speaker, this is an improvement on what is in the original Bill under “Functions of the Board.” My only other issue, to which I would demand an explanation from the Hon Chairman would be to ask why he seeks to add subclause (2) to clause 7. Is that where to place ministerial responsibility? Normally, we have a small heading that the Agency shall be subject to ministerial oversight and directives. We have a way of couching the language.
So, with clause 7 (1), I support the Hon Chairman; but with clause 7 (2), we must draft it well. If we would want to place the Agency under the Minister, then there is a way to do it. I am trying to get another Bill or Act as an example and read it. We mostly say that the Minister can issue policy -- [Interruption] -- I agree; but that is where subclause (2), in my view, belongs to. So, the Hon Chairman should convince me.
Mr Speaker 12:03 p.m.
Hon Chairman, are you in agreement? Your response, please?
Nana Amoakoh 12:03 p.m.
Mr Speaker, yesterday when we were debating it, we said that clause 7 should rather be clause 6. We therefore assigned the draftspersons to make sure that it is inserted that way.
Mr Speaker, I would want to convince the Hon Minority Leader that the Board shall, in the performance of their functions, be responsible to the Minister.
This is because when we have a Board and there are services that are going on, the Minister has to be in the know. If the Minister does not know what is going on and something happens and he is asked about it, then he would not have the right answer to give. So, that is why we said that he
Mr Joseph Yieleh Chireh 12:03 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think that the issue of responsibility is not to be formulated the way it has been done. The Minister is the overall person, so, we do not need to put it in the functions of the Board.
If we look at the other parts of the Bill which we considered yesterday, the Minister is to issue directives to the Board, and the Board is to comply. That is the oversight, but in terms of the performance of the functions of the Board -- is he not responsible to the Minister?
This is an Agency, so, even in (a) and (b), it should be the Agency, and not the Council. Which Council are we talking about? We are talking about an agency, and under the Agency, we have a Board. Therefore, it is the Agency that is to do the work. It is also to be the Agency because we would want a separate authority.
Now, we have an authority, and are we saying that people should be directly responsible to the Minister? -- No! There is a Board, and that Board is the one answerable to anybody. It is also already provided
for in the Bill that the Minister would issue directives, so there should not be any formulation now, where everything of theirs is responsible to the Minister. No, it is assumed.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:13 p.m.
Mr Speaker, two things: the first part that is in respect of clause 7(1) (b) should read:
“overseeing the sound and prudent management of the Council”.
Not “proper”. I think most of them were -- perhaps, typesetting got them wrong. The other one that the Minority Leader has spoken about, the “Ministerial directives” finds expression in section 13, and that is different from the Board being responsible to the Minister.
Mr Speaker, there is a tendency for Chairs of certain Boards, in particular, to think of themselves as being independent of the supervision. So, ultimately, they have to respond to the superintending Minister. And in the legislations that we have passed in this House, some of them were omitted but wherever we deemed it appropriate to insert it, it was so under
Mr Iddrisu 12:13 p.m.
Mr Speaker, it is not an issue of offence. First of all, as the Majority Leader himself has related to, and Mr Speaker, I refer you to page 9, clause 13 of the Bill -- Policy Directives:
“The Minister may give directives to the Board on matters of policy and the Board shall comply”.
The Majority Leader himself has used the word. Mr Speaker, Ministers -- the Majority Leader has been one, you have been one and I have been one -- we have no duty to interfere with the work of Boards. This would amount to interference when we are saying that they are responsible to the Minister. The Minister would sit somewhere and think that he can
dictate to the Board, the way he wants things done. In corporate governance, this is not good enough; so I oppose it and -- [Interruption] -- no, I say we support you at clause 13. Then, we can say “agency” -- “The agency shall be responsible to the Minister”. When you say Board --[Interruption]--
Mr Speaker 12:13 p.m.
Hon Minority Leader, please continue and read the appropriate section.
Mr Iddrisu 12:13 p.m.
Mr Speaker, in corporate governance, there is Minister —
Mr Speaker 12:13 p.m.
Please, let the comments come after; read the appropriate section. Is it section 13?
Mr Iddrisu 12:13 p.m.
Mr Speaker, it says:
“The Minister may give directives to the Board on matters of policy and the Board shall comply”.
I fully support that; so, section 17 (2) is redundant. We have already subjected them to ministerial directives in the section 13; so, section 7(1) as formulated, I am all for it. The section 7(2) says:
Mr Speaker 12:13 p.m.
And they can go to jail for what they do. And where would the Minister be then? Would he be part of them in jail?
Hon Majority Leader, when the Board members are going to jail, should the Minister accompany them?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:13 p.m.
Mr Speaker, respectfully, this is not a novel situation at all. Do not forget that at the end of every year, the Board should submit some statement to the superintending Minister who has to interrogate it and submit the Statement to Parliament. It is the reason why the superintending Minister would say he has the overall responsibility. Mr Speaker, it does not mean that he is going to micro-manage the Board. It does not mean that at all.
Mr Speaker, look at all the legislations that we have passed, this is not novel because ultimately, it is the Minister who has to shepherd their Statements and even account annual reports to us. And the Minister has the responsibility to issue Statements on it to Parliament, and that is why ultimately, Boards are responsible to the Minister. That is all that it is.
Mr Speaker, if we want, and it is good to appreciate that in the event of any conflict, we have been bold in this House to inform the Judge as in a direction -- it is not intended to let the Ministers micro-manage the Boards at all. But they have ultimate responsibility in that sense. If we look
at the submission of annual reports and the role of the Ministers and so on, Mr Speaker, ultimately, it should suggest to anybody that they have the responsibility.
If we are saying that it cannot be done, then, perhaps, we better go back and remove the provision from the legislations that we have done. This is not a novel situation at all, and let nobody say that it is being introduced anew.
Mr Speaker 12:13 p.m.
By the way, Hon Chairman -- Hon Yieleh Chireh?
Mr Chireh 12:13 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the argument we are making is that, in all the laws that we have passed, we have not provided what is in the amendment, that is why -- we know the role they play.
In fact, it is the Minister who is here to make the law and therefore, everything that we are saying -- and we are even saying in section 13 that the Minister can give directives for the Board to get to the Minister or to be responsible to the Minister. So, if the Board takes a decision, can they authorise it or they have to find out from the Minister whether he agrees?
That is the point we are making. It is not that the Board is working outside the — no. In the composition of the Board, it is the Minister who would look at the Act, write to the Agency that is to submit claims, after which he would then send it to the Presidency and then, eventually approve the list and then inaugurate the Board.
In other words, they are responsible to him but we do not put it in the administrative things that he has been doing. To now say that the Board shall in the performance of its functions be responsible to the Minister -- why should we do that? The heading of the Bill is Real Estate Agency Bill, 2020 and yet we are talking about council at the same time --“Agency Council”.
So, once again, they shall be sitting as a corporate body which can be sued and also sue, and we are now saying that they are responsible to the Minister.
In fact, if it is a department that is set up under a Ministry without a law, then, they work directly under the Minister because without his authority, they cannot do anything. But if we have a corporate body working under the Minister, they should not be directly responsible to the Minister.
Mr Chireh 12:23 p.m.


I am also challenging the Hon Majority Leader to bring an Act that says that in the performance of the duties of the Board, they are responsible to the Minister. In that case, it is clear that it is unnecessary and will bring about friction between the Board and the Minister.
Mr S. Mahama 12:23 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I made reference to clause 2 of the Bill which says:
“There is established by this Act a Real Estate Agency Council as a body corporate with perpetual succession.”
The Board should be responsible to the Council for any function that it is supposed to perform and not the Minister. In all the past five, six or seven laws that we have passed here, there is no single one where we have said that the Board shall in the performance of its functions be responsible to a Minister.
Mr Speaker, we have tried to create a separation between the functions of the Minister as ministerial directives given straight to the Council. So, there is a separation between the Minister, the Council and the Board
that reports to the Council. There is no way that we should allow the Board to be responsible to the Minister.
In that case, we would not create that separation that we wanted because of the influence that the Council or Minister may have on the Board. With precedents, we have said consistently that the Board is responsible to the Council and not the Minister.
Mr Speaker 12:23 p.m.
Hon Minister?
Mr Akyea 12:23 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think that the sense of the (2), that is, “The Board shall in the performance of the functions be responsible to the Minister” could be placed above controversy by my proposed amendment.
“The Board in the performance of the functions shall not overrule ministerial policy directives.”

That puts it beyond every controversy, that the Board is not being micromanaged but at the same time, the Board should always function within ministerial policy approvals handed down to it. I think that would resolve the controversy

because we cannot also argue in the reverse that the Board can override clear ministerial policy directives. That would be a very balanced way to put the matter beyond doubt.
Mr Agbodza 12:23 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I agree with Hon Colleagues who argued that the way the amendment has been proposed gives cause for worry. It is as if the Board would work at the directions of the Minister. I would like to make a further amendment to the Hon Minister's proposed amendment. If the idea is to make sure that the Minister is fully in control or aware of what is going on, can we have it this way, that:
“The Board shall advise the Minister on the formulation of policies for the Council and ensure implementation of those policies”.
We should just leave it there. I said “advise the Minister”, and obviously, in drafting these things, when we say somebody is advised, the person may take or reject the advice. So, it gives ample opportunity for the Minister to accept or reject whatever the Board says. That creates the opportunity for the Minister not to take over the job of the Board as well.
Mr Speaker, I would take it again, that instead of what the Hon Chairman proposed and a further amendment to that of the Hon Minister, we should rather have:
“The Board shall advise the Minister on the formulation of policies of the Council and ensure the implementation of those policies.”
We should just leave it there, so that it takes away those who are afraid of what the Minister would do with his overwhelming power or the Board overruling the Minister. If the Hon Chairman would agree, I would propose that we adopt this instead of what he said and what the Hon Minister further proposed.
Mr Iddrisu 12:23 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I was persuading the Hon Chairman and the Hon Minister that we can stand down clause 7 and make progress. Respectfully, let me refer you to the long title of the Bill, so that you would appreciate the conflict and confusion we seek to avoid. with permission it reads,
“AN ACT to establish the Real Estate Agency Council”,
yet the Bill read, “Real Estate Agency Bill”.
Are we creating an Agency, a Council or an Authority? So, the
Mr Iddrisu 12:23 p.m.
confusion is that in the long title, it says “Real Estate Agency Council”. So, if we want a Real Estate Council, let us create it. We cannot have a Real Estate Agency Council and then want it to report to itself. Let me refer you to clause 5 which with your permission reads:

Mr Speaker, when we go further, there has been created functions of the Council in clause 4. So, are we creating a Council or an Agency? Let us clarify that policy position and we would understand what to do because by the Interpretation Act, you can have an Agency, Council and Authority.

What are we creating? The long title reads,

“AN ACT to establish the Real Estate Agency Council”. You cannot have an Agency and a Council at the same time; one must go. So, if we are establishing a Council or an Agency, let us do it.

Mr Speaker, we insist that if a Board is responsible to a Minister,

then it would do nothing and every other time, they would wait for the Minister. In corporate governance, Ministers are distinct and separate from Boards and we should not encourage that conflict. Human beings are not the same. We know that some reasonable Ministers would allow Boards to function well but there are Ministers who would want to manage Boards on a daily basis.

We have seen it happen in Ghana where every day, a Minister wants to know what is going on at the Board level. That is not ministerial and that should not be encouraged by legislation. So, Hon Majority Leader, what are we creating? Is it an Agency, Authority or Council?

Then it comes to clause 2 which reads: “There is established by this Act a Real Estate Agency Council”. Even in the Hon Minister's own signed Bill, it is “Real Estate Agency” and there is no “Council” in it. So, do we want to create an Agency and a Council or a Council for an Agency? It should be clarified.
Mr Agbodza 12:23 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the use of the word “Agency” here is just to christen the activity. It is not necessarily the nomenclature. Actually, we are creating a Council and indeed, if you go to the interpretation, it says, “ ‘Council' means the Real Estate Agency Council established under section 2". So, we
are actually creating a Council and not an Agency. The Agency is just the activity that takes place in it.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:33 p.m.
Mr Speaker, just as the Hon Member for Adaklu said, this Bill is about Real Estate Agency. The Agency concerns the services rendered by agents and brokers. The face of the Agency is the Council, so the Council reports to the Board and the Board ultimately responds to the Hon Minister. That is the structure and people should get it right at the very outset, otherwise they would confuse the whole picture.
Mr Speaker, if we want for the avoidance of doubt -- because people are sensitive about ministerial interventions and I share that opinion that we should be clear, even though we want the Hon Minister to have ultimate responsibility. If the Hon Minister does not have ultimate responsibility, he cannot interrogate the management, accounts, administration and operations of the Board.
It is the reason why opera- tionalising the Board by an Instrument is submitted to Parliament by the Hon Minister and not the Board. That is how it has been designed but I agree with Hon Colleagues that we should be careful with how we couch the appropriate language.
Mr Speaker, when we dealt with the Petroleum Hub Development Corporation Bill, 2020, we said that the Hon Minister was responsible in the giving of policy directives and the Board shall comply. However, we added that the directives given by the Hon Minister cannot in reality be in conflict with the principles or the object of the Act; he cannot do that.
Mr Speaker, I have noticed that in one of the Bills, we said that “directives given by the Minister shall not adversely affect or interfere with the performance of the functions”. We could even add that so that we are clear in our minds that the Hon Minister would not micromanage the Board. We all agree to that so let us get the appropriate language; but to say that the Board is not ultimately responsible to the Hon Minister, I do not know where that came from.
Mr Speaker 12:33 p.m.
It appears we could go on and on, so shall we stand this clause down?
Mr Chireh 12:33 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the issue we have raised is very simple. A corporate body is one which could sue and be sued. If there is a monitoring and evaluation department of the Ministry of Works and Housing and they do something wrong, it is the Hon Minister that would be sued. In this particular case, if we put in the
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:33 p.m.
Mr Speaker, respectfully, we would not re-invent the wheel. He should tell me; in this House which Commission or Authority had we established that was not subject to the directives of the Hon Minister? If the Hon Minister is not ultimately responsible, how could he issue directives? I do not understand this. We would not re- invent the wheel. I am surprised -- the Hon Member for Wa West, Mr Yieleh Chireh, is a very experienced person in this House and I do not know why we has become so allergic to this?
We want what is best and we do not want the Hon Minister to micromanage the Board. If there is a better way to state it, he should please bring it but to say that the Hon Minister is not ultimately responsible, I do not really understand it. It underpins all the Bills, Commissions and Boards that have been established in this House.
Mr Speaker 12:33 p.m.
The leadership would meet on this issue.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:33 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the Hon Member for Daboya/ Mankarigu, Mr Shaibu, wanted to come with a formulation, so let us listen to him and if we are
not able to resolve it and perhaps we have to stand it down, we could. As I said, we would come back to square one. This is at the very heart of every Bill.
Mr S. Mahama 12:33 p.m.
Mr Speaker, clause 5 says that, “the governing body of the Council is a Board”. Therefore, we should say that:
“The Board would be responsible in the performance of the functions responsible to the Council”.
This is a better formulation instead of the use of the “Minister”. The ministerial directive has already been taken care of in a separate clause.
Mr Speaker 12:33 p.m.
Hon Chairman, should I put the Question on that?
Nana Amoakoh 12:33 p.m.
Mr Speaker, we could step the clause down for further consultation.
Mr Speaker 12:33 p.m.
Hon Members, to step the clause down or not to step it down?
Nana Amoakoh 12:33 p.m.
Mr Speaker, we have finished with the first part, which is “the Board shall” but we are left with the second part.
Mr Speaker 12:33 p.m.
The Hon Chairman is not in agreement. We shall proceed. Please, wait and come to a consensus and guide the House.
Clause 22 -- Requirement for license
Nana Amoakoh 12:33 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 22, headnote, delete and insert the following:
“Prohibition to engage in real estate transaction without license''
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Nana Amoakoh 12:33 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 22, subclause 1, paragraph (b), after “estate”, insert “agent” or a “broker”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Nana Amoakoh 12:43 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 22, subclause (1), paragraph (d), lines 1 and 2, delete “including the business of finding accommodation for a prospective tenant for a fee”.
Mr Chireh 12:43 p.m.
Mr Speaker, does it mean that the new paragraph (d) would, with your permission be as follows:
Mr Chireh 12:43 p.m.


“(d) engage in a real estate transaction” and it should not include the others that he included? Is that the meaning he wants to propose and why so?
Nana Amoakoh 12:43 p.m.
Mr Speaker, we are deleting the paragraph (d); delete “including the business of finding accommodation for a prospective tenant for a fee”.
So, there would be a full stop after “transaction” to read:
“(d) engage in a real estate transaction”.
Mr Speaker, so the total rendition would be 12:43 p.m.
“22 (1) A person shall not
(a)provide real estate agency services;
(b) provide services as a real estate agent;
(c) engage in any business connected with the provision of real estate agency services, or
(d) engage in a real estate transaction.”
Mr Shaibu Mahama 12:43 p.m.
Mr Speaker that is it. The preamble is “A person shall not” and it follows through with paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d). Indeed, we are taking away “including the business of finding accommodation for a prospective tenant for a fee” because this is taken care of in the Rent Act and so it stops at “transaction”.
Then, the whole of that continues with “if that person is not licensed real estate broker or a real estate agent under this Act”. Mr Speaker, I think that solves it up.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:43 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I associate myself with the amendment proffered by the Hon Chairman of the Committee in respect of paragraph (d). I thought, for paragraph (b), we should also clean it up to read:
“(b) provide services as a real estate broker or a real estate agent.”
Mr Speaker that is how the paragraph (b) should read. Then it would sit with the closing phrase which reads:
“if that person is not a licensed real estate broker or a real estate agent under this Act.”
Mr Speaker 12:43 p.m.
Hon Chairman of the Committee, over to you.
Can we have a look at it as it has been suggested?
Mr Haruna Iddrisu 12:43 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I support the Hon Chairman of the Committee but when we come to you putting the Question on the entire clause 22 because of the Head note;
“Prohibition to engage in real estate transaction without licence”.
Mr Speaker, there is something wrong with it. Secondly, clause 22 (2) does not belong there at all. With your permission, I quote:
“The Council shall submit an annual report to the Ghana Revenue Authority and the Financial Intelligence Centre of persons licensed in accordance with subsection (1).”
Mr Speaker that cannot be under the prohibition of licenses. So, when we are taking clause 22, we should take only clause 22 (1); the clause 22
(2) does not rhyme with the Headnote. If he wants, the clause 22 (2) should stand on its own with a small heading: “Submission of Annual Report” or “Annual Report” then we state that:
“The Council shall submit an annual report to the Ghana Revenue Authority and the Financial Intelligence Centre of persons licensed in accordance with subsection (1).”
Mr Speaker, the language must improve. So, I have a problem with clause 22 (2). We have accepted his proposed Headnote and it is to prohibit, yet, he is including submission of annual report. It is incongruous.
Nana Amoakoh 12:43 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I would want to propose an amendment to the Headnote --
Mr Speaker 12:43 p.m.
Hon Chairman of the Committee, kindly let us hear your Hon Colleague and then you may come up with your amendment.
Mr Banda 12:43 p.m.
Mr Speaker, for the Headnote, you would realise that the whole of clause 22 (1), paragraphs (a) to (d) is a prohibitory provision. It requires a person not to do certain things. So, the Headnote is crafted the way it is because of the content of the provision. The Head note does not
Mr Agbodza 12:53 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I would want the Hon Chairman of the Committee to explain this. When we did the winnowing, the understanding I got was that we were talking about disposing a property in terms of both sale and renting. If that is the case, then I find it difficult to see why the Hon Chairman of the Committee crafted clause 22 (1) (d) this way. I think this came up during the winnowing.
Mr Speaker, are we saying that, for instance, if somebody is in the village and has got one room in his house to rent to a teacher who has been posted to the village, that person must be duly registered as a real estate broker or agent before he can rent it?
I thought we discussed this and there was a proposed amendment but going through the Bill, I did not see that. However, if we leave it this way, would someone renting a one bedroom facility in his house even to his daughter be breaching this Act if passed? If you could guide me on this because what the Hon Chairman of the Committee on Constitutional, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs
Committee just read talks only about conveyance in terms of sales. Does it also have to do with renting? This is because that is not the definition here since real estate agency activities does not only have to do with sales, it is also about renting.
Mr Speaker, in fact, the biggest problem we have now is not about the sales but renting. When landlords charge more than necessary, tenants ran away leaving the rented houses in trash because there is no security mechanism at the rented premises.
Disposal of the landlord. I thought that was what we wanted to cure in this Bill but significantly, I think that this clause is not addressing it. So, first of all, my question is; does this include renting as well because the definition does not include renting. Secondly, does that mean that if I rent one room in my house in the village, I should be duly registered as a broker or agent before I can do that?
Mr Banda 12:53 p.m.
Mr Speaker, if we consider clause 1 which deals with the application of this Act and it reads:
“This Act applies to real estate transactions including the tenancy for a term of not less than one year”.
Mr Speaker, so to the question as to whether this Bill includes a tenancy, the answer is yes. That is, if the tenancy is for a term which is not less than one year.
Mr Agbodza 12:53 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the second one has to do with one having to be registered as an agent to be able to rent one‘s room in my house located in my village to a teacher or a nurse?
Mr Speaker 12:53 p.m.
All over the world, even in the advanced ones, there are people we call, lodgers similar to what the Hon Member for Adaklu is saying. Hon Chairman, what is your stand on that?
Mr Speaker 12:53 p.m.
In a way, lodgers are like tenants but with a different perspective.
Mr Agbodza 12:53 p.m.
Mr Speaker, unless, maybe, the Hon Minister has the ability to come up with a Legislative Instrument (L. I) to clarify this [Interruption] -- We can actually make a way. but I do not see how we will pass this law and not criminalise people who would be rightful -- [Interruption] -- When a teacher is posted to a village, the duration of that posting is more than
Mr Speaker 12:53 p.m.
The Hon Minister must ensure that the point being raised by the Hon Member for Adaklu is very real. It is quite common in Europe but over here, we do not seem to get it here but a lot of students are lodgers. That is, the landlady has a spare room and so, university students stay there and pays and again rents for the lodging.
When we take an omnibus approach, does a person commit a crime by the prohibition to engage in
real estate without licence? This is what the Hon Member for Adaklu is seriously referring to. There must be some exemption otherwise, it will either be otiose, in breach or whatever.
Hon Member for Adaklu, is that not the reality of the situation? Yes. It is something that might be thought of, and provided for, as we propose a law. A law is meant to rope in and deal with real criminals and not those who are just doing the regular thing but without registration as such.
All these people must be registered as such. There must be some exemptions somewhere; that is, something provided for, so as those who want to do the right thing do it without being caught by the law and for the law to also catch those who really need to be caught.
Mr Akyea 12:53 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think the necessity to take care of some of these transactions which are personal in nature should find space in the law and the proper exceptions also made part of the law.
However, what we should also bear in mind is that the transactions that should be exempted in this area should not have a commercial motive. At the end of the day, one of the benefits of
this law is to exact the requisite tax on transactions which relate to real estate.
Mr Speaker, so, I think that before we bring the curtains down, we should find space to bring the exemptions but from the top of my head, I can see a situation in which it is not of a commercial nature.
That is, it is not somebody trying to make some huge money out of a real estate undertaking. This is where we should look at and add some exception but one of the objects of the law is that insofar as there is a commercial dimension to real estate transactions, then we should ensure that the law applies and the requisite taxes exacted.
Mr Speaker 12:53 p.m.
Hon Members, let us stand the Consideration Stage down as further consultations take place. Let us consider the Order Paper Addendum 2.
Consideration Stage suspended.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:53 p.m.
Mr Speaker, we can deal with the Order Paper Addendum 2.
Mr Speaker 12:53 p.m.
Hon Majority Leader, I have just been advised that the Long Title that needs to be read is not ready and so we have to wait. The Table Office is not ready with the Long Title that would be read the moment this is done so --
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:03 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I do not know where this is coming from. I handed over the document, in respect of the Ghana Assets Corporation Bill, to the head of the Table Office and so I am surprised. However, we can stand it down and do the -- [Pause]
Mr Speaker 1:03 p.m.
Hon Members, we are now ready to proceed with Presentation and First Reading of Bills. Item numbered (a) -- Ghana Assets Corporation Bill, 2020. Hon Minister for Finance?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:03 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I understand that the Hon Deputy Minister for Finance has just stepped out and so if you do not mind, I could present it on behalf of the Hon Minister.
Mr Speaker 1:03 p.m.
Very well. Please proceed.
Mr Speaker 1:03 p.m.
Item numbered (b) -- Hon Minister for Tourism.
Ghana Creative Arts Industry Bill, 2020
AN ACT to establish a Creative Arts Agency to provide the institutional framework for the development and management of the creative arts industry and for related matters.
Presented by the Minister for Tourism, Arts and Culture (Ms
Barbara Oteng-Gyasi). Read the First Time; referred to the Committee on Tourism, Arts and Culture.
Mr Speaker 1:03 p.m.
We would resume the Consideration Stage.
The Hon Second Deputy Speaker would take the Chair.
BILLS -- CONSIDERATION 1:03 p.m.
STAGE 1:03 p.m.
Mr Speaker 1:03 p.m.
Clause 22?
Have Hon Members used the time to do some consultations?
Mr Haruna Iddrisu 1:03 p.m.
Mr Speaker, on clause 22, the Hon Chairman only introduced a new headnote which was adopted by the House. Now, if we were to revert to the original requirement for license then we do not need to reposition clause 22(2). I think that his new rendition of prohibition was not necessary and it does not capture the intent.
Mr Speaker, with your leave and indulgence, subclause 2 must stand on its own -- Annual Report. We can
deal with clause 22(1) and then we would create a new clause for subclause (2) as Annual Report.
Mr Speaker, the Hon Majority Leader is whispering that we should move the amendment for clause 22(1) but I am interested in the improvement of subclause (2) with the heading “Annual Report”. It would then read ‘The Council shall submit an annual report to the Ghana Revenue Authority and the Financial Intelligence Centre of persons licensed in accordance with this Act”.
Mr Speaker, thank you.
Mr Agbodza 1:03 p.m.
Mr Speaker, clause 21 already talks about annual reports and other reports. Indeed, clause 21(1) reads:
“The Board shall, within one month after receipt of the audit report, submit to the Minister an annual report covering the activities and operations of the Council for the year to which the report relates.”
So, I would rather suggest that clause 22(2) should be moved to clause 21 as a new clause because the heading of clause 21 reads “Annual report and other reports”.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:03 p.m.
Mr Speaker, if we can go step - by - step and deal with clause 22? I was advising that the headnote ought not to have been changed and it should be ‘Requirement for licence to operate'. Whether a person is a broker or an agent, the person would require a license to operate. So, it should simply read ‘Requirement of licence to operate'.
If we agree, then we can deal with paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d). Let us deal with the headnote and I would process that; the Hon Chairman would abandon his proposed amendment so that the headnote would read ‘Requirement for licence to operate'. Mr Speaker, I so move.
Mr Speaker 1:13 p.m.
Hon Members, should we accept this?
Mr Agbodza 1:13 p.m.
Mr Speaker, that is in order.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:13 p.m.
Mr Speaker, in the amendment proffered by the Hon Chairman in respect of clause 22(1) (b), he says it should provide services as a real estate broker -- The amendment is not even
Mr Speaker 1:13 p.m.
Hon Chairman, any further amendment?
Mr Agbodza 1:13 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the Hon Minority Leader and other Hon Colleagues made an observation. However, clause 22(2) -- [Interruption] . All right.
Mr Speaker 1:13 p.m.
The Hon Second Deputy Speaker takes the Chair.
  • [MR SECOND DEPUTY SPEAKER IN THE CHAIR.]
    • Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:15 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Chairman?
    Mr Amoakoh 1:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, just a rehash of paragraph (d):
    “To engage a real transaction including the business and finding the commission for prospective tenant for a fee if that person is not a licensed real estate broker or real estate agent under this Act.”
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:15 p.m.
    We are dealing with clause 22(d).
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, it is clause 22(1) (d). The Hon Chairman rehashed the amendment to us. He proposed to us that we should delete all the words in paragraph (d), after “transaction” so that it reads “Engage in real estate transaction” and the other words following are to be deleted except the closing phrase. That one is different.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:15 p.m.
    Hon Members, I am sure you got the proposed amendment. It is for the consideration of the House.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Chireh 1:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we agreed that subclause (2) does not belong there. It was in the report. So if we could relocate it? Where an Hon Member suggested was for it to be relocated as a subclause in clause 21.
    If the Hon Chairman agrees to that arrangement, then we could push that amendment through.
    Mr Amoakoh 1:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I agree that you should let the draftsperson relocate it from clause 22(2) to clause 21.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:15 p.m.
    Alright, thank you very much, Hon Chairman. I direct that the draftsperson should relocate clause 22(2) to clause 21. The arrangement should be properly done by the draftsperson.
    I would put the Question on clause 22 standing part of the Bill.
    Now, there would not be any subclause (1); it would just be clause 22 since there is no subclause (2). So the “(1)” there should be deleted.
    Clause 22 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 23 -- Application for a licence
    Mr Amoakoh 1:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 23, paragraph (d), line 1, delete “where appropriate”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Amoakoh 1:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 23, paragraph (e), delete.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:15 p.m.
    Is there any reason for the deletion?
    Mr Agbodza 1:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, if I recollect, at winnowing, I raised an issue that, currently, some of the biggest real estate agents or brokers in this country are not even Ghanaians but are working under Ghanaian laws. And there are Ghanaians who do same in other jurisdictions.
    To make it mandatory that one must be a citizen to participate might actually be breaching other laws and might not be helpful to us. So we deleted it to ensure that we do not say that only Ghanaians could participate in this particular activity. This is what I recollect as the reason for deleting that.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:23 p.m.
    It is not part of local content?
    Mr Iddrisu 1:23 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, even though the intention is to ensure that this opportunity is opened to citizens and non-citizens, if you read the Explanatory Memorandum, firstly, it
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:23 p.m.
    Hon Minority Leader, let us finish with paragraph (e). You raised a very good point on paragraph (e). Let us listen to what the House says to that. His
    reference is that we are talking about corporate body. You said we should delete it but there is the need for one to show evidence that it is not just an individual but a corporate body.
    Mr Chireh 1:23 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, talking about the deletion of paragraph (e), I do not agree that we delete it. I think that the other issue about it is a situation issue. When we say “citizen”, it can also include a company that is registered in Ghana. So I do not see why we are deleting it with the argument that my Hon Colleague was raising.
    We have Ghanaians who also do this business in other countries but the requirement would be for them to form a company there and register under their laws. So if it was because of the reciprocity, then we should not delete it.
    I do not think that any Ghanaian can go to any country and begin to engage in this business without being or without forming a company that is a citizen of that country. So I do not know the real reasons for the deletion but I do not agree with the explanation that my Hon Colleague is giving.
    Mr Banda 1:23 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would want to start my submission from the use of the word, “society” --
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:23 p.m.
    Hon Member, I wanted him to finish with paragraph (e).
    Mr Banda 1:23 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the original thinking was that this business should be left to only Ghanaians to undertake , but upon a second thought, we were made to understand that the business of real estate agency is a capital - intensive one. So there is the need to let other citizens from other countries partake in the real estate business so that at the end of the day, Ghana can earn a lot of revenue from whatever is brought into the country by way of investment. That is point number one.
    Mr Speaker, point number two, which is the point that my Hon Colleague, the antecedent speaker rightly pointed out that if we were to restrict the real estate business to only Ghanaians, there is the likelihood of other countries also saying that if real estate business is restricted to only Ghanaians, then we would also not let Ghanaians living in their countries engage in real estate business. So that is the second reason.
    Mr Speaker, after we were told this, then we felt that it was appropriate that the restriction of the real estate agency business to Ghanaians with
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:23 p.m.
    Practitioners, is there anything wrong with making sure that -- [Interruption] we are not dealing with individuals, we are dealing with body corporates. Is it any reason that we should not demand that they register under our law in Ghana whether it is a foreign company or not? There is nothing wrong with you incorporating under our laws as a body corporate to engage in that business.
    Mr Agbodza 1:23 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am surprised that Hon Yieleh Chireh was the one who is making this argument. The Minister and the team that met us made it quite clear. They were not talking about a corporate citizen. Indeed, in this country, even as a citizen, one must register to do business. So that is the giving.
    We are talking about individuals who are not Ghanaians and I drew their attention to the fact that in this country, foreigners are allowed to do business both from stated laws. To be
    honest, the biggest real estate operators in this country are not even Ghanaians --
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:23 p.m.
    When you say they; that they are not Ghanaians, what do you mean by that? Are you talking about the individuals or entity?
    Mr Agbodza 1:23 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I brought in the individuals simply because if I take Broll, it is one major operator in real estate agency brokerage in this country.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:23 p.m.
    Broll is an entity. It is not an individual.
    Mr Agbodza 1:23 p.m.
    Exactly, Mr Speaker. So this provision has nothing to do with the entity. It was about the individual. So when the Hon Chairman says we should delete it, he is doing that appropriately because one would not be allowed to do a business in this country even if he is a citizen without registering. So it is not a corporate body we are talking about but an individual. So deleting it is appropriate.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:23 p.m.
    Legally, I do not think that it is appropriate but you are to take the decision.
    Let me listen to the Hon Majority Leader.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:33 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, there are three issues to clause 23 which I think we are not getting right. The first one relates to paragraph (d). The Hon Chairman has made us delete more appropriately but upon reflection, I realised that the Hon Chairman is wrong.
    It should have been retained. The application for a licence exempts persons who already are qualified to practice and that is expressed in clause 24. It is the reason clause 23 is saying that application for a licence, shall, where appropriate, be accompanied with the prescribed fee for examination. Certain categories of people have been exempted. So that one ought not to have been deleted.

    Mr Speaker, you would see that clause 24 for instance says “Conditions of grant for licence”. It reads:

    “The Board may issue a licence to a person if that person

    (c) is a valuation or estate surveyor registered by the Ghana Institution of Surveyors …”

    Mr Speaker, in that case, we do not need to submit the application with

    “accompanied by a prescribed fee for examination” because the person is already qualified. It is the reason this was provided “where appropriate”. So, that ought not to have been deleted.

    Mr Speaker on the face of paragraph (e), “be accompanied with evidence that the applicant is a citizen”, I think it is wrong, but against what is intended is that it must be accompanied with evidence that the applicant is registered or licensed to practise in Ghana. That is the intendment.

    So, it is not that the person should demonstrate that he is a citizen, but the person should show that he is registered or licensed to practise in Ghana. I believe that is how it should be. The Hon Chairman may not have to lead us to delete paragraph (e) in its entirety, but rather to amend it --

    “must be accompanied with evidence that the applicant is registered or licensed to practise in Ghana”.
    Alhaji I. A. B. Fuseini 1:33 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I do not know why the Hon Member wants us to delete clause 23(e). It is there for a reason, and it flows from clause 22.
    Clause 22(1) says that:
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:33 p.m.
    That one was deleted. It ended at “engage in a real estate transaction”. An amendment was moved to delete “including the business of finding accommodation for a prospective tenant for a fee”.
    Alhaji I. A. B. Fuseini 1:33 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, clause 22(1) ends with “if that person is not a licensed real estate broker”. So, having a licence is sine qua non for engaging in real estate business. That is what clause 22 says.
    Clause 23 now says that for the purposes --
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:33 p.m.
    There is an alternative -- “or a real estate agent under this Act”.
    Alhaji I. A. B. Fuseini 1:33 p.m.
    I wanted that provision, but to complete it -- “not a licensed real estate broker or a real estate agent under this Act”. So, a person must necessarily be licensed before he can engage in this. That is what clause 22 says.
    Mr Speaker, clause 23 says that for the purposes of applying for the licence, a person needs the requirements in paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e). Paragraph (e) is there for a reason. I have heard arguments that this applies to corporate persons and not natural persons. It is not so.
    Mr Speaker, paragraph (c) talks about corporate persons so, if it talks about corporate persons, it means that paragraphs (a) and (b) can be natural persons. I am reading this and coming from the background of somebody who worked with the Minerals and Mining Act of 2006 (Act 703). I am reading this with that understanding that for a natural person in Ghana to be a real estate broker or agent, that natural person must be a Ghanaian. That is what it says.
    So, we do not expect Nigerians to come and set up real estate brokerage or agency here as individuals. That is
    my understanding. It involves a contract and its enforcement. Where the Nigerian, Ivorian or Guinean disappears, where would he be found? Do you not think that it is one of the requirements of exclusivity that for the purposes of a person engaging in brokerage or agency, a natural person, that person must necessarily be a Ghanaian? That is how I read it, and I think that as a Parliament, we should think of how to find jobs for Ghanaians.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:33 p.m.
    Well, that is why I raised the issue of local content. Hon Agbodza, the point you raised is quite interesting. We will take that on board, but the examples you cited were all corporate bodies, not individuals.
    Mr Agbodza 1:33 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I was happy the Hon Member actually guided me which already suggests that the one which is about corporate bodies has already been taken care of. That reinforces my point. Why do we think that to create jobs in this country is to shut the door for any other person? It appears to us that if we say only Ghanaians --
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:33 p.m.
    Hon Member, the foundation is wrong. We are not shutting the door to any other person. Any other person
    is entitled to engage in the business when they register as corporate, but as a person, the likelihood, as the Hon Member has drawn our attention is that, when you enter into that contract, and then the person leaves the jurisdiction, how do we enforce it? For a corporate body, it can be enforced because it is against the corporate body and not the individual. That is the issue the Hon Member raised. We are not shutting the door to other people.
    Mr Agbodza 1:33 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Hon Member read portions that already gives corporate bodies to do that which is appropriate. Then he went further to say that we should be creating jobs for Ghanaians. In other words, his interpretation of paragraph (e) is that one must necessarily be a natural person or Ghanaian, and I am saying that this House, in 2020, cannot pass laws for an operation that is very complicated as this to say that only Ghanaians -- In my view, it does not support anything.
    Mr Speaker, is there anything in this country that will stop a Ghanaian? -- [Interruption]. Hon Senior, let me argue.
    Mr Speaker, I registered and practised as an architect in London without becoming a citizen of the United Kingdom (UK). I was happy
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:33 p.m.
    No, we are not saying they must be natural citizens of Ghana.
    Mr Agbodza 1:33 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, then he is confusing me. He read paragraph (e) to mean that it is a natural person unless he did not say exactly what I am saying. He said paragraph (e) is a natural person; that is what he said.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:33 p.m.
    Hon Member, when you go through clause 22, “Requirement for licence”, which we have already taken and agreed to, it talks about different areas of practice.
    “(1) A person shall not
    (a)provide real estate agency services,
    (b)provide services as a real estate agent,
    (c)engage in any business connected with the provision of real estate agency services, or
    (d)engage in a real estate transaction if that person is not a licensed real estate broker or a real estate agent under this Act.”
    That is what we are trying to cover. You made reference to your practice in the United Kingdom (UK), but you practiced under the name of a registered entity. You did not just go to the UK and start practicing as the Hon Kwame Agbodza, just because you had a license in Ghana -- No! You would have to go through the system, register, and be licensed before you start practising in the UK. Nobody is preventing that.
    Mr Agbodza 1:43 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Hon Minister could guide us. Maybe I did not hear him well when he said that we should be creating jobs for Ghanaians. Can he basically clarify whether he is talking about a corporate entity as a person, or a natural person? If it is the policy of Government that if one is not a natural citizen of Ghana, then he cannot practice, and that is the policy of Government, then we would pass it
    for them. As he keeps on saying, if his intention is to regulate and take out miscreants in the system, in order to raise revenue for the country, then I agree with him 100 per cent.
    He must also guide us, if that is where his policy ends. However, if we would want to go down the root of what my Hon Senior Colleague has said, that it applies to only the natural citizens, then he should also advise us because I would not be part of that one.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:43 p.m.
    Hon Member, when you read clause 24 -- “conditions for grant of a licence”, even clause 24 reads: “The Board may issue a licence to a person if that person; (d) In the case of a person who is not resident in this country, is a licensed real estate broker or real estate agent in the country of residence of that person…”
    So, we have even extended it beyond residence. There is a process for you to get the license and all those things, but if you get the qualification from any country, and you just start with an implication to practice, and you are granted as an individual, then there is a danger. I think that is the issue that they raised for our
    consideration, but I saw the Hon Chairman for the Constitutional, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs Committee on his feet.
    Yes, Hon Member, you may speak?
    Mr Banda 1:43 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I thank you very much for the opportunity.
    Mr Speaker, if we take the Bill from clause 22 coming downwards, the word “person” does not refer to natural persons only. It refers to natural and legal persons. This is point number one.
    If we come to point number two, which is on clause 23, which uses the word “applicant”, we should not interpret the word “applicant” to mean just natural persons. It can also mean corporate bodies, partnerships, and so on and so forth, and that is clearly borne out under clause 23 (c).
    The issue of clause 23 (e) is on whether clause 23 (e) refers to only natural persons. Clause 23 (e), to my understanding, does not refer to only natural persons. It refers to both natural persons and legal persons, corporate bodies, societies, partnerships, and so on and so forth.
    So, if we should delete paragraph (e), then we are shutting the doors to persons from other countries, and
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:43 p.m.
    That is why immediately he moved it, I raised the issue on why we should delete it, and asked him to justify it. I had a different opinion from the position of the Committee, which has been expressed here by the Hon Chairman, and that was why I raised the issue.
    I agree with those who are proposing that we should rather deal with the term “citizen”. When you use the term citizen, there are so many implications, and I agree that we should be talking about -- the Hon Majority Leader proposed some terms that deal with registered enterprises, which allows even non- Ghanaians or say non-citizens; in effect natural persons, who are not
    Mr Samuel Atta Akyea 1:43 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, it seems to me that immediately we would want to restrict the citizenship to natural persons, it might want to befit the proceeding clauses that we have considered. If we pay regard to for instance paragraph (c), we are talking about company, society and the rest of the partnerships. So, it would not be very consistent with what we have done, if we should assert strongly that this business is for Ghanaians only.
    If we permit a business to have a foreign corporate ownership, then at another point, how can we say it is only Ghanaians who can go into it? The difference is that the corporate body has never been behind it. That is a serious consideration, while these arguments are going on. We cannot do that. In so far as we are trying to have national corporate engagements and all the other things that we have permitted in this country that
    foreigners can come and do business here, we cannot restrict them from coming here.
    So, I am of the humble view that we should delete it, unless we would want to go ahead and also delete for instance paragraph (c). However, if we permit paragraph (c), then we do not have any business in saying that we should not delete paragraph (e). This is because every human person is the one who goes to set up a company, and we have talked about ownership of companies. The company is just the face, but we have people who are the operators. So, it will make for consistency that this is deleted, so that the field would be broad.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:43 p.m.
    There must be evidence that we are dealing with a legal body. This is because when we read paragraph (c), it talks about something different. It says that the application for license shall in the case of a company, society, association or partnership be accompanied with an attestation that officers of the company, society, association or partnership do not have any criminal record. That is what it is dealing with. It is talking about attestation that there is no criminal
    record of the officers, and that they are in good standing, which is not only about practice, and about integrity.
    So, what paragraph (e) is talking about, is just evidence that we are dealing with not just a natural person, but a legal person. I think that, that is what paragraph (e) is trying to do. So, if we say that we should delete it, then it means that when one puts in his application, he may not need to attach a certificate of a corporation or whatever.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:53 p.m.
    If you want to attach, there must be basis for attaching it because you send attestation without attaching this, you just put the company's name.
    Mr Akyea 1:53 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, that concern of yours is taken care of by subclause (c) so; all the requisite evidence —
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:53 p.m.
    Subclause (c) is not requesting you to put any evidence of incorporation, it is simply saying we should submit attestation.
    Mr Akyea 1:53 p.m.
    Yes, for purposes of applying for a license. So, show your bona fides and once again, before one is issued a license, one needs to
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:53 p.m.
    Yes, we have gone beyond that one, we are now saying that the person must be a Ghanaian.
    Mr Akyea 1:53 p.m.
    So, we should delete it.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:53 p.m.
    I did not support the deletion but I do not take a decision, I only guide. It is for the House to take a decision. I wanted the term, “citizen” substituted for something else to avoid this misunderstanding that it has been referring to Ghanaians only; natural citizens of Ghana only.
    Hon Minister, just a minute, let me listen to Hon Inusah Fuseini.
    Alhaji I. A. B. Fuseini 1:53 p.m.
    There is absolutely nothing wrong in providing exclusivity in relation to a particular operation to Ghanaians. There is absolutely nothing wrong.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:53 p.m.
    Hon Member, we have gone beyond that one.
    Alhaji I. A. B. Fuseini 1:53 p.m.
    I can give you many examples.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:53 p.m.
    The concern being raised is that the House is more inclined to non- Ghanaian citizens.
    Alhaji I. A. B. Fuseini 1:53 p.m.
    And if the House is not inclined -- this Bill came to this House, drafted in a particular way, unless one has a logical inconsistency, one would have to go with it because the draftpersons did not give us drafting instructions, the drafting instructions would convey the drafters' — we reduced the instructions into legislations, which legislation was approved by the Minister before it came to this House.
    So, unless there is something fundamentally wrong, and that is why I am trying to say -- yes, the power by Parliament to make laws is absolute. I do not have a problem with that but I am saying that in ensuring logical inconsistency, and it is not out of place for the Parliament of Ghana to be thinking about Ghanaians first in making the law. It is not improper!
    If we say that Ghanaians should be here for the purposes of working, it is not improper. -- [Interruption] -- I am just saying that —
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:53 p.m.
    Hon Member, I thought you listened to the submissions of other Hon Colleagues. They said, this is a sector which is capital intensive so; we need to open it up for other people to come in to invest. If we restrict it to only Ghanaians, we would not get the services that are required to develop this country -- the Housing sector and others so I got convinced.
    Alhaji I. A. B. Fuseini 1:53 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the object of this Bill is to help Ghana as a country to deal with the issue of money laundering.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:53 p.m.
    Where is it stated?
    Alhaji I. A. B. Fuseini 1:53 p.m.
    It is stated in the Memorandum.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:53 p.m.
    It is to help Ghana?
    Alhaji I. A. B. Fuseini 1:53 p.m.
    Yes, it is to deal with the issue of money laundering. People are acquiring properties in the names of the affected people. To deal with taxation, people engage in transactions without paying taxes. This is the purpose of this Bill. It is part of the -- [Interruption]--
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:53 p.m.
    Clause 3, the object of the Council.
    Alhaji I. A. B. Fuseini 1:53 p.m.
    The study revealed the diverse ways in which - first of all —
    Alhaji I. A. B. Fuseini 1:53 p.m.
    Additionally, Ghana is a signatory to international conventions on corruption, including —
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:53 p.m.
    Where are you reading from?
    Alhaji I. A. B. Fuseini 1:53 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, that is page (ii).
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:53 p.m.
    Yes, go on.
    Alhaji I. A. B. Fuseini 1:53 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, it says:
    “Additionally, Ghana is a signatory to international conventions on corruption, including the African Union Convention on Preventing and Combating Corruption and the United Nations Convention against Corruption needs to adhere to international standards for the prevention of money laundering. In this regard, the International Action Group against money laundering in
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:53 p.m.
    So, where is it written that it is for only Ghanaians? Because what you started reading says “additionally” so, there are earlier ones.
    Alhaji I. A. B. Fuseini 1:53 p.m.
    Let us look at the top one:
    “There is therefore, the need to regulate real estate agency services to rid the industry of fraud, laundering of illegal income and tax evasion”.
    It appears to me that when the Committee met, they did not look at the Memorandum. I read the Memorandum and this is the second time I am reading it and I am
    convinced in my mind that this is not about investment in building houses, it is to deal with our responsibility.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:53 p.m.
    No, I read it as “Housing sector”. I am not talking about building houses.
    Alhaji I. A. B. Fuseini 1:53 p.m.
    It is the Minister who has sponsored the Bill; he says we should delete it so; I drop my objection to the provision.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:53 p.m.
    Let me listen to -- the Majority Leader earlier raised some issues and I do not know whether he would want to further that tangent or he would also drop it.
    Hon Majority Leader, I saw that you were pensively studying the roadway now before coming back. The Minister insists that we should delete (e) for a good reason.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:53 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I have made my point; I thought that the application should indicate that the applicant is registered to practise in Ghana but, if it does not find favour with the sponsoring Minister and he wants to cause a deletion, so be it.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:53 p.m.
    Hon Members, before I put the Question, let me direct that Sitting be
    held beyond the prescribed Sitting hours in view of the nature of business before the House.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:03 p.m.
    Now, earlier, the Majority Leader, and I think the Hon Minority Leader, drew our attention to paragraph (d) where the Chairman earlier moved for the deletion of “where appropriate” and the Hon Majority Leader says that there is no need to delete “where appropriate” because there are some inventions. So definitely, the charging of fees is not applicable to all applicants for licence. So, Hon Chairman, what is your position on this?
    Nana Amoakoh 2:03 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, for now, we would bring back “where appropriate” in clause 23 (d), line 1 instead of deleting it.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:03 p.m.
    What did you say? Do we delete where applicable?
    Nana Amoakoh 2:03 p.m.
    We are not deleting it anymore. We have abandoned that amendment.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:03 p.m.
    Now, you have abandoned the earlier amendment and agreed with the Hon Majority Leader?
    Nana Amoakoh 2:03 p.m.
    Yes, Mr Speaker.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:03 p.m.
    So, I would have to put the Question again on clause 23 (d) because the House agreed to it. I put the Question earlier and it was agreed for us to delete “where applicable”. I think I do not need to put the Question since the Hon Chairman said that he has abandoned that? [Interruption]
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:03 p.m.
    Clause 23 (c)?
    Alhaji I. A. B. Fuseini 2:03 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, clause 23 (c) says that, “in the case of a company, society, association or partnership”. Is the Hon Minister saying that a society can apply for a licence for the purpose of engaging in real estate transactions? [Interruption] If a group of people come together to form a society and incorporate that society, it becomes a company. They would have to incorporate it under the Companies Act. I think that we should delete it.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:03 p.m.
    Hon Member, please address the Chair.
    Alhaji I. A. B. Fuseini 2:03 p.m.
    I want to draw attention to the fact that in the case of a company, when you put “in the case of a company, society, association or partnership”, then the characteristics of the company becomes different from the society and different from the association. What do we seek to convey?
    Mr Agbodza 2:03 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, my Hon Senior Colleague is reading this as law. He should not forget that the character of this Bill is such that we have gone round the world -- though I did not participate -- to study the best practices and how they happen. Indeed, you can have companies as
    estate agents and have building societies among others who provide different aspects of housing to people across the world.
    It exists, so we cannot call a building society in that sense a company. Yes, they have to register to operate legally, but we are not trying to put all entities duly registered under law as companies. That is not what we are trying to do here but we are trying to capture the sense of all the levels of housing and the provision of real estates that are available.
    In other jurisdictions, low cost accommodation is handled separately by local authorities under a different operation, where the cheapest possible rent may be for the homeless people. So, we are not trying to say that when we say company and we say building society, it means that building societies are not supposed to be registered. We can call that a term of art in the industry, based on the group that went around America and other places although I did not go with them.
    This is different from interpreting this as a company so that once we use “company”, we can ignore the rest. That is not exactly what the law is trying to do. The Hon Chairman needs to help us a bit more.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:03 p.m.
    We understand the term “society” in the industry but in the general sense, society is understood beyond what is in the industry. So, maybe, we may need to give a definition to “society”, so that we would know that it is a term of art in the industry. This would prevent the general societies from saying that they have been captured under the Bill.
    So, the Hon Chairman should take note of that and maybe, when we get to the interpretation section, we would try and get something for it. I however do not think that it is out of place.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:03 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, first of all the construction of clause 23 is a bit problematic. If you look at the preamble,
    “The application for a licence shall
    (a) be signed and supported with a statutory declaration by the applicant;
    (b) be made to the Board in the form determined by the Council”.
    In other words, the application for a licence shall be made to the Board. Then we come to clause 23 (c) where we have the problem and it reads, “(c) in the case of a company…”.
    The proper construction should be,
    “(23) The application for a licence shall, in the case of a company”.
    We cannot begin (c) with a comma, so we should rather pull “shall” down, so that it reads:
    (23) The application for a licence
    (a) shall be signed by…”
    So, in (c), it would be appropriate to bring a comma after “shall”.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:03 p.m.
    Yes, I agree that there should be a comma after “shall”, otherwise, it would not flow. However, earlier, the Hon Minority Leader raised the issue of the article “the” in “The application”.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:03 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, if you agree with this earlier amendment, we can go there.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:03 p.m.
    All right, that is agreed. I would put the Question.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:03 p.m.
    I think that to the extent that this is the first time we are talking about the process of applying for a licence, it should rather read, “An application for
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:13 p.m.
    Hon Members, there is a further proposed amendment to clause 23. We have to delete “the'' and insert “an'' and also after “shall'', insert “,''.
    Hon Chairman, that is the proposed amendment.
    Nana Amoakoh 2:13 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, yes, we just want to substitute the “shall''.
    So, the new rendition would read:
    “A person shall,…''
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:13 p.m.
    Yes, I just want the comma to be inserted after the “shall''. What do you say about the deletion of the “the'' and the insertion of “an''? Do you agree to that?
    Nana Amoakoh 2:13 p.m.
    Yes, Mr Speaker.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Speaker 2:13 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 24, delete and insert the following:
    “(1) The Board may issue a license to a person if that person
    (a) is an individual who has passed a qualifying exami- nation conducted by
    (i) the Board, or
    (ii) a professional body designated by the Board;
    (b) Is a member of the Ghana Institution of Surveyors in good standing and certified by the Governing Council of the Institution to practice Estate Agency or is a lawyer in good standing licensed by the General Legal Council to practice as a lawyer;
    (2) In addition to subsection (l), the Board may license a person if that person
    (a) is an individual who is of “sound mind” and has not been convicted of a crime involving fraud, dishonesty or moral turpitude;
    (b) has a Tax Identification Number;
    (c) in the case of a company, society, association or partnership
    (i) has submitted an application which is not an application for a licence as real estate broker or agent;
    (ii) has designated at least one of its officers or partners as its repre- sentative for the purpose of obtaining the licence; and
    (iii) has for the purpose of the licence, designated an officer or partner who as an individual has a licence to practise as a real estate broker or agent as the represen- tative of that company, society, association or partnership;
    (d) has executed and submi- tted to the Council a professional indemnity insurance cover or has had executed and submitted to the Council on behalf of that person, by a surety company licensed to operate that business in this country, a professional indemnity insurance cover in the sum specified and in the form approved by the Board.”
    Mr Chireh 2:13 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am sorry to take you back. Item numbered (vii) on the Order Paper, with regard to clause 23 was not moved. The amendment was to add a new subclause which says:
    “A person may apply for a licence as a real estate broker or an agent''.
    We should raise the setting unless they want to drop the amendment.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:13 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we all fell into a trap.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:13 p.m.
    We skipped item numbered (vii) on the Order Paper.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:13 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, it should have been the subclause (1), of clause 23 and it should read:
    “A person shall apply for a licence to practice as a real estate broker or a real estate agent''.
    Moreover, the “the'', that was deleted should be reinstated so that the subclause (2), would read:
    “The application for licence…''
    We sorted it out in the morning in my office but I was caught in the dark and the Hon Chairman did not also bring me back [Laughter].
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:13 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, you did not draw our attention to this new addition and we spent a lot of time to delete and insert.
    Hon Members, let us reconsider clause 23.
    Hon Chairman, move your proposed amendment.
    Nana Amoakoh 2:13 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 23, add the following new subclause:
    “(1) A person shall apply for a licence to practice as a real estate broker or a real estate agent as the case may be''.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:13 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, I did not get your amendment. I heard the Hon Majority Leader say “a person shall apply''.
    Nana Amoakoh 2:13 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 23, add the following new subclause:
    “(1) A person shall apply for a licence as a real estate broker or an agent''.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:13 p.m.
    The Hon Majority Leader's proposed amendment was:
    “…apply for a licence to practice as a real estate broker or a real estate agent''.
    Mr Chireh 2:13 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, if the Hon Chairman would agree with me, he should not add “as the case may be'', to the rendition he proposed.
    Secondly, he said “an agent'' but we have insisted that he should repeat “real estate agent''. If that is done, then the Question could be put.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:13 p.m.
    The other question is, why the use of “shall''? I have the discretion to apply or not to apply, so why should it be “shall''? We could use “may apply''.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:13 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, in that context we may say:
    “A person shall not practice without being licensed''.
    That is the import of either as a real estate broker or a real estate agent. If we want to put it in the positive, we may use the “may'' and not the “shall''. So that it would read:
    “A person may apply for a license to practice as a real estate broker or a real estate agent…''
    Mr Speaker, that is a bit untidy.
    Mr Chireh 2:13 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we should use the word “may'' because the formation of a company is permissive. Clause 22, is the requirement for a licence and that is where the “shall'' has been used. One cannot practice unless he or she has the licence but the person could apply a licence.
    So, it should not be “shall''. The “shall'' is used in terms of drafting and it does not compel anybody because
    it is permissive. Once there are alternatives, one may apply for a licence as a real estate agent or a broker. So, because of the permissiveness of the sentence it should be “may''.
    Mr Agbodza 2:23 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we spent a lot of time to clarify the fact that people were confused with the difference between what was a broker and an agent. To make it clear, we are saying that one can actually practise as an agent or a broker. If that is the case, then, let us make it clear that one can be licensed or make an application to practise as a broker or an agent. That is the whole import of bringing it back home because it has to be made.
    Mr Speaker, in fact, the new rendition is quite clear 2:23 p.m.
    “A person may apply for a licence to practise as a real estate broker or an agent.”
    That is a simple thing and I agree with the Hon Majority Leader. Then, we can follow up with the rest.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:23 p.m.
    Hon Members, so, the final rendition as I captured from the discussion is:
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:23 p.m.
    Hon Members, in view of the adoption of this paragraph, we would have to reconsider our earlier decisions. So, I will put the Question first on the opening line of clause 23.
    “The application” would have to stay, so, I will put the Question for the rescission of the decision to delete the “The” and insert “An”.
    Question put and amendment rescinded.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:23 p.m.
    So, we have rescinded our decision and restored the word “The” in line 1 of clause 23. I think that is the only thing we would have to do there.
    Mr Chireh 2:23 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I thought that you may direct them to relocate the insertion as the first.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:23 p.m.
    Yes, that would be done by the draftspersons.
    Clause 23 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 24 -- Conditions for grant of a licence
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:23 p.m.
    Hon Members, the Chairman of the Committee moved clause 24 -- [Interruption] -- He has not moved it?
    He moved it earlier but because we went back to consider clause
    23 --
    Hon Chairman of the Committee, they would want to hear you again.
    Nana Amoakoh 2:23 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 24, delete and insert the following:
    “24. (1) The Board may issue a license to a person if that person
    (a) is an individual who has passed a qualifying examination conducted by
    (i) the Board, or
    (ii) a professional body designated by the Board;
    (b) Is a member of the Ghana Institution of Surveyors in good standing and certified
    by the Governing Council of the Institution to practice Estate Agency or is a lawyer in good standing licensed by the General Legal Council to practice as a lawyer;
    (2) In addition to subsection (l), the Board may license a person if that person
    (a) is an individual who is of “sound mind” and has not been convicted of a crime involving fraud, dishonesty or moral turpitude;
    (b) has a Tax Identification Number;
    (c) in the case of a company, society, association or partnership
    (i) has submitted an application which is not an application for a licence as real estate broker or agent;
    (ii) has designated at least one of its officers or partners as its representative for the purpose of obtaining the licence; and
    (iii) has for the purpose of the licence, designated an officer or partner who as an individual has a licence to practise as a real estate broker or agent as the represen- tative of that company, society, association or partnership;
    (d) has executed and sub- mitted to the Council a professional indemnity insurance cover or has had executed and submitted to the Council on behalf of that person, by a surety company licensed to operate that business in this country, a professional indemnity insurance cover in the sum specified and in the form approved by the Board.”
    Mr Banda 2:23 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, a few amendments; the first amendment relates to the preamble, delete “that” and insert “the”. Also, in subclause (1) paragraph (b) “Is” should read “is”.
    Mr Speaker, I would wish that for the sake of elegance, the line 5 of paragraph (b) of subclause (1) should be a stand-alone provision so that we
    Mr Banda 2:23 p.m.


    have a separate paragraph (c) for “is a lawyer in good standing licenced by the General Legal Council…” because we are putting different issues in one paragraph.

    Mr Speaker, the same thing applies to the preamble of clause 24, subclause (2); the word “that” should be “the”. For now, I would want to deal with clause 24, subclause (1). The Hon Majority Leader has something to say on that and afterwards I would come to clause 24, subclause (2).
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:23 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think the Hon Member for Offinso South is right on the opening phrase. The second line should read “the” in place of “that”. So it will read:
    “24 (1) The Board may issue a license to a person if the person…”
    Mr Speaker, then paragraph (b) of subclause (1) should begin with a small letter “i” in “is”. Then, in line 2 of paragraph (b), we do not need “in good standing”. It should simply read:
    “(b) is a member of the Ghana Institution of Surveyors and certified by the Governing Council of the Institution to practise Real Estate Agency
    Mr Agbodza 2:33 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Memorandum of this Bill is quite clear on that. The first one says the purpose of this Bill is to regulate the real estate agency practice -- this means we admit that it is already going on -- the conduct of real estate practitioners, commercial transactions in real estate including the sale, purchase, rental and leasing of real estate as well as other real estate transactions.
    Mr Speaker, if we come to the proposed amendment by the Chairman of the Committee, clause 24, subclause (1), paragraph (b), the attempt is to list the professionals that would practise this. The question is this; currently, because the Memorandum already says that this is happening, how many lawyers are real estate practitioners?
    How many surveyors are real estate practitioners? In fact, there is a course at the Kwame Nkrumah
    University of Science and Technology (KNUST) which is a Bachelor of Science (BSc) in Real Estate Management and these people are not listed here.
    Mr Speaker, I can see the attempt by surveyors and lawyers because they were the most vociferous at the winnowing, to make this an exclusive preserve for the people who do not actually practice. I do not know how many lawyers or surveyors who are real estate agents today. And so, what is the point in roping themselves into this law when the practice is for people who have other things to do differently from lawyers and other people?
    The fact that someone who acquires a Bachelor of Science (Bsc) degree in Real Estate Management is not even qualified to be exempted. What are we trying to do? Is it another case of ‘job for the elites'? That is not what the memorandum is saying. It says that we recognise that these people exist and currently, they are not lawyers nor surveyors. So, why are we making a law to make it a preserve for those people; so that we set up a company and rather hire these people to work for us?
    Mr Speaker, I see something fundamentally wrong with this and I was about to suggest that the Hon
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:33 p.m.
    Well, you have raised a very important point except that you were personalising it. I do not think that there was the intention of those at the winnowing committee to restrict it -- it might be an oversight. So do not personalise the issue.
    Mr Banda 2:33 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think that the concern of my Hon Colleague is taken care of under clause 24 (b) and with your permission, it says:
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:33 p.m.
    You have attempted to respond to his concern but if what you are saying is the case, why then particularise two professions in clause 24 (b)?
    Mr Chireh 2:33 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, with clause 24 (b), the way it is captured is the problem. This is because if I say; ‘one individual should have all these professional qualifications' but if we had put it as; ‘a member of the institute with registration of surveyors. We just end it at this point because with the other one where all the things about the Council will not apply. This is because if one is not in good standing, one will not be a member.
    So, we should stop at ‘surveyors' and then the other one is, a lawyer because if we use ‘a lawyer' then it is another professional. So, in clause 24 (b) where we have “an individual” can also apply in practice.
    Mr Speaker, for me, the rest of the issues, we would need to make sure that if one is not licenced or even if you are a lawyer who has been called to the Bar but you do not have practicing licence, you cannot practice. It is an annual thing.
    So, if we want professionals to do so, it should not be combined in one person. We should first have the member of the Ghana Institution of Surveyors or a lawyer -- but I do not want this institution to practice estate agency -- it should not be there at all and then we have the lawyer.
    Mr Speaker, if there is another professional who needs to be here, they should be listed as so but if we leave it as it is, it connotes the idea that, that one person who is a member of the Institute of Surveyors, is also a lawyer. That is where I want us to separate them.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:33 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, first, I sympathise with the matters raised by Hon Agbodza but really, he is not entirely correct. The course that he referred to, at the Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology (KNUST) used to be estate management. Right? It is the same course that has now been graduated to real estate management.
    Now, those who qualify as practitioners now have to be registered by the Ghana Institution of Surveyors; they are part of that group. It is the reason we are not particularising it. Otherwise, if we look at the original Bill of clause 24, which with your permission I read:
    “The Board may issue a licence to a person if the person
    (a) is a valuation and estate surveyor registered by the Ghana Institution of Surveyors”.
    Mr Speaker, they have only deleted the preceding phrase but the value is the same because these practitioners are also registered by the Ghana Institution of Surveyors (GhIS) unless maybe, he thinks that they may be getting missing and so, we should bring them back so that we know that it is that particular group of people that we are talking about. Unless that is the intention, otherwise, what is captured here is right.
    The matter raised by Hon Chireh; ‘a person must be a surveyor registered by the Ghana Institution of Surveyors or is a lawyer licenced by the General Legal Council to practice as a lawyer. If we like, we can break it down to have (b) (i) as: “a surveyor
    registered by the Ghana Institution of Surveyors” and the other one will be to practice but not to be described as a person in good standing.
    Mr Speaker, the second one will be (b) (ii) which will read 2:33 p.m.
    ‘a lawyer licenced by the Ghana Legal Council to practice as a lawyer'.
    I think that would be tidier.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:43 p.m.
    Hon Majority Leader, why not take part of the (b) to (c) to make it (a), (b) and (c). Instead of (i) and
    (ii) under paragraph (b), we would take ‘is a lawyer in good standing Licensed by the General Legal Council to practise as a lawyer as (c)”.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:43 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, that could be done except that sometimes when there is a cross- reference we may run into some problems if we are not careful and that is why we can still have it under (d) and then break it down.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:43 p.m.
    When we do (i) and (ii) then it means that the subject matter under (b) is the same that is being broken down into subclauses (i) and (ii).
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:43 p.m.
    But the subject matter is not the same because we are talking about two professions; the Ghana Institution of Surveyors and the General Legal Council.
    Hon Member for Wa West?
    Mr Chireh 2:43 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I get the sense that paragraph (b) is talking about those who qualify under paragraph (d). One is from the Ghana Institution of Surveyors and the other is a lawyer and they belong to --
    Mr Speaker, paragraph (a) is talking about a different person and paragraph (b) is related to profe- ssions. The (a) is talking about the writing of examination and that is different so the person cited under (b)(i) would be a member of the Ghana Institution of Surveyors and the one under (ii) would be a lawyer.
    Mr Agbodza 2:43 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I get the point made by the Hon Majority Leader but since the world is evolving quickly, would it not have been better for us to rather leave clause 24 (1) (b)? It reads: “The Board may issue a licence to a person if that person is a member of a relevant professional body”.
    Mr Speaker, because the application is to the Board, the Board can determine which profession, qualification and training would make it easier for a person to practise so that we avoid listing them. Mr Speaker, every day we talk about the Ghana Institution of Surveyors but Parliament does not know any group called Ghana Institution of Surveyors. Have we ever passed a law? -- [Interruption] --
    Mr Speaker, I am not saying that people have not acquired degrees in quantity surveying and so on, but has this House passed any law setting out the Ghana Institution of Surveyors just like the Ghana Bar Association or the Ghana Medical Association? We make reference to the Ghana Institution of Surveyors nicely everyday.
    My Hon Colleague, Mr Bedzrah, is a fellow of the Ghana Institution of Surveyors but that is just in name. Mr Speaker, he is a surveyor with a qualification from the university but I am asking that, does that organisation exist in law such that Parliament should make reference to it? Mr Speaker, no.
    If Parliament knows that in law nothing exists as the Ghana Institution of Surveyors yet we want to state it in law, then as I asked, why do we
    not state that as “a member of a relevant professional body”? Since the application is to the Board, the Board would determine which qualifications would qualify a person to do that. So, whether the person is a lawyer or another professional.
    I do not intend to denigrate them that we do not have surveyors in this country. We have surveyors, but we have qualified medical doctors who belong to a professional body called Ghana Medical Association. The Ghana Medical Association is known in law but the Ghana Institution of Surveyors is not known to this House. Mr Speaker, we are lawmakers and so we have to speak to the law because this House does not know that Association.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:43 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, I can see you.
    Nana Amoakoh 2:43 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, Hon Agbodza has been raising this issue since the winnowing meeting on this Bill. Maybe, we can further amend the proposed amendment to read: “ … is a member of the Ghana Institution of Surveyors in good standing and certified by the Governing Council of the Institution to practice Estate Agency” or “ … is
    a lawyer in good standing licensed by the General Legal Council to practise as a lawyer” -- and other recognised or professional institution.
    Mr Speaker, if we redraft it in this sense it would include everybody and not limited to these two groups that we are debating about.
    Mr Dafeamekpor 2:43 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I agree with Hon Agbodza that once we have a difficulty in determining whether or not the Ghana Institution of Surveyors is a properly registered entity, we should then redraft the provision to read “a relevant professional body”. Mr Speaker, the relevance would take care of the recognition because we are not dealing with members of the Dental and Medical Council.
    So, whoever the law would render eligible to register and practise, the Board would determine the relevance of the professional entity the person belongs to and accordingly register the person.
    Mr Owusu-Bio 2:43 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to differ with the ongoing argument especially with the issue that the Hon Member on the Opposite side of the aisle raised regarding the fact that the Ghana Institution of Surveyors is not a recognised body by law in Ghana. If we say this, then we should cast
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:43 p.m.
    Hon Deputy Minister, you just misinformed the House because the Act on the General Legal Council was passed long ago and it is the same for the Ghana Medical Council. Before we did so, we had Ordinances so these associations have legally been in existence long ago.
    The Hon Member is not saying that we do not recognise the Ghana Institution of Surveyors, but he is just drawing our attention to the fact that Parliament has not passed a law to establish the Institution. There are so many proposals to the amendment moved by the Hon Chairman and I wanted to get the final rendition so that I can put the Question.
    Mr Owusu-Bio 2:43 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, before then I beg to differ and say that the rendition as it is in the Bill should remain the same. We should not change it.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:53 p.m.
    Are you arguing for us to maintain what is in the Bill?
    Mr Owusu-Bio 2:53 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, yes, we should maintain what is in the Bill.
    Dr A. A. Osei 2:53 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I completely disagree and I would want to propose a further amendment. Apart from what has been stated, we can add;
    “ … is a member of the Ghana Institute of Economists in good standing and certified by the Governing Council of the Institute.”

    What does the Hon Member mean by “they do not exist”? They exist.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:53 p.m.
    That is why there is a proposal that we should use a general term to cover
    them and allow the Board to determine the professions that could go into this practice.
    Mr Agbodza 2:53 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, at winnowing, there were people who had background in Business Administration. Some have doctorate degrees in Philosophy and Business Administration.
    The world is evolving. This is not like what obtains in the medical field, for example, where one sits in a medical school to acquire a specific knowledge in brain surgery or general medicine or something; it is not like what happens in the legal field where one would go and seek for a year of pupillage and others. This is more like a transactional thing.
    I agree that lawyers could do this, and surveyors could do this. Indeed, there are people who are just businessmen and can do this. In fact, a chartered accountant can do this. This is not about putting up a building. It is about transacting business in the sale and leasing of property.
    So I am saying that instead of attempting to list the possible qualifications with which one could handle this, since there would be a Board, why not leave it as “ … is a member of a relevant professional
    body” since we are saying that an application would be made to the Board? The Board is reasonable and would be able to determine that if a lawyer applies, he might be given an exemption; and if one is a surveyor, he might be given an exemption.
    Mr Speaker, my idea is not to say that the Ghana Institute of Surveyors does not exist. We have surveyors in this House and we recognised them. I am only saying that, when we begin to use certain terms like professional bodies, the Ghana Bar Association, the General Legal Council and the Ghana Institute of Architects which are known in law in this country -- the Ghana Institute of Surveyors, however, is not known in this sense.
    We would want to navigate this so that we have a law but do not wake up one day and say “any other profession”. If it would be any other profession, would not these lawyers and surveyors -- So let us leave it nebulous for the Board to do it.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:53 p.m.
    Is there any reason we are giving these two professions a pride of place? This is because, there are other issues you mentioned that are covered by other paragraphs of the clause, but why is the pride of place for only these two chosen professions? It is what is raising the concern.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:53 p.m.
    Hon Majority Leader, your submission is an overgeneralisation. They are not saying we should just leave it open. That is not the submission they made.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:53 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am here, and my eyes, even though they are looking at you and looking at my Hon Colleagues seated in front of me, I am hearing what my Hon Colleague is saying. [Laughter.]
    Mr Speaker, I am hearing what he has been saying. He would want it open-ended.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:53 p.m.
    I am not hearing what you are hearing. [Laughter.]
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:53 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am hearing what he has been saying. He wants it to be open- ended, and he says we should leave it to the Board to determine.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:53 p.m.
    He vehemently disagrees with you. [Laughter.]
    Dr A. A. Osei 2:53 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I vehemently disagree with him because I think it is not up to those two professions to dictate to the Board that they must be exempted, so to speak. They cannot determine for the Board. The Board is, for example, to oversee an examination for anybody, but this prevents them from allowing these two professions to come in.

    Mr Speaker, he has to be very careful. I have no difficulty --
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:53 p.m.
    Hon Members, we might need to suspend Sitting and get this sorted out before we come back.
    Dr A. A. Osei 2:53 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I agree with the Hon Chairman's amendment even though it is not clear. If we go that way, it would help all of us.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:53 p.m.
    Let us suspend Sitting and allow the Hon Chairman and the rest to put their thoughts together and give us a better rendition.
    I also raised the issue of why the pride of place for these two professions because we would be exempting them from going through the examination while the rest including individuals would all be hauled in to go through the examination.
    Hon Chairman of the Committee on Constitutional, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs, you are itching to be heard.
    Mr Banda 2:53 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, under clause 25(3), you realised that there are certain courses that an individual
    who would want to practise must take: real estate practice, real estate law, basic law of agency, and rudimentary principles of economics et cetera.
    Mr Speaker, it is assumed that before one comes out as a practising lawyer, he might have had some working knowledge in this. For this reason, a lawyer needs to be exempted from writing the examination.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:53 p.m.
    Are you sure that one might have read rudimentary principles of economics or whatever that means? We do not do this in the law profession. Maybe, you are talking about economics at the Advanced level (‘A' Level), but as a profession, we do not take any course in economics.
    Let us look at it properly. We should not be seen to be discriminating. That definitely is unconstitutional.

    Hon Members, Sitting is suspended for one hour. And so we should be back here at 4.05 p.m.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:53 p.m.
    Hon Members, welcome back to business. We were at the Consideration Stage of the Real Estate Agency Bill, 2020. Unless there is a change of agenda, I believe we are still going to continue with that.
    Leader of the House, is that the case?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:53 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I believe we can continue.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:53 p.m.
    Thank you.
    BILLS -- CONSIDERATION 2:53 p.m.
    STAGE 2:53 p.m.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:53 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, as we said, there is really nothing wrong with that and what we need to do is when we get to clause 25, where the Minister is required to give directives -- we said we would close -- Mr Speaker, if you would permit me, we would just tighten the directive that comes from the Minister when we get there.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:53 p.m.
    So we take clause 7 as already agreed to by the House. At that time, my Hon Colleague was presiding and I recall there was an amendment to clause 1(7)
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:53 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I believe for clause 7, we can agree. We said that the (b) should read:
    “… oversee the sound and prudent management of the Council.
    (2) The Board shall in the performance of the functions be ultimately responsible to the
    Minister”.When we come to the ministerial directives in clause 13, just for the avoidance of doubt, we would tighten the screws there so that the Minister would not be tempted to interfere in the management of the Board.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:53 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, you heard the Leader.
    Mr Amoakoh 2:53 p.m.
    Yes, Mr Speaker, if the consensus of the House is that we should maintain it, we should go ahead and maintain it. So we should leave “The Board shall in the performance of the functions be responsible to the Minister” as it is in the amendment column.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:53 p.m.
    So in respect to the proposed amendment that you have, you are withdrawing (2) and we can only take clause 7(1) -- [Interruptions] -- Are you maintaining both?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:53 p.m.
    Yes, Mr Speaker, except to change the “proper” to “prudent” in clause 7(1)(b).
    Mr Iddrisu 2:53 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, even though the Hon Majority Leader -- I think clause 7(1) is all right. It goes with any management practice. If you read any management book, it says
    that “sound and proper management”. “Prudent” is more into economic management. For my purposes, “sound and proper” should stand even though initially I had some objections to clause 7(2).
    If I have your leave and indulgence, my view is that clause 7(2) should read: “The Board shall in the performance of the functions be responsible to the Council” instead of “… to the Minister”. [Interruption] -- The Hon Majority Leader is confusing us with “agency” and the “Council” but I still do not think that a board -- what happens tomorrow if a person decides to sue the Board? Would that person join the Minister?
    That is what this would mean if we say the Board is responsible to the Minister. It has been created in (1) as a corporate personality with perpetual succession. So distinct is the Board from the Minister. If we say that the Board is responsible to the Minister, we are roping him in. Any matter of the Board -- that Minister would be roped in. I would abandon my opposition but this is my view.
    Let the Hansard capture it because time and again, I have said -- and the Minister himself is a student of Pepper and Hart, which has been domesticated in the Ghanaian constitutional jurisprudence that
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:51 p.m.
    Which words have you finally agreed upon?
    Clause 7(1) (b): “oversee the sound and proper management” or “oversee the sound and prudent management”? [Interruption] --
    “Proper”. All right. Table Office should take note.
    For (2), after “be”, the Leader has inserted “ultimately”.
    Definitely responsible to the Minister. Is that acceptable? All right, Hon Members, I would put the Question. Clause 7 was already agreed upon, so, we would have to rescind it.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 5:51 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we conjoined -- because of subclause (2) --
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:51 p.m.
    Did we not put the Question?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 5:51 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, no. I was insisting that we put the Question on subclause (1) and leave subclause (2), but it was not agreed to. So, the whole thing is in abeyance.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:51 p.m.
    Hon Members, I would put the Question on the whole of clause 7, but let us take this amendment first as captured on the Order Paper Addendum, subject to the amendment that has been agreed upon.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 7 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:51 p.m.
    Hon Members, we would now go back to clause 24.
    Hon Chairman, have there been any agreements? If so, then let us have the rendition.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 5:51 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I was just indicating, that given the fears of some Hon Colleagues -- yesterday, on clause 13, which has to do with the policy directives, we had a subclause (2). Subclause (1) reads: “The Minister may give directives to the Board on matters of policy, and the Board shall comply.” We then added the subclause (2), which reads: “The directives given by the Minister shall be consistent with the object of this Act.”
    Mr Speaker, because of what we have done in respect of the Petroleum Commission Act, if you would allow us, just so that we would be very clear in our minds, there is a provision in the Petroleum Commission Act, 2011 (Act 821), that relates to the Ministerial directives to the Commission. Subclause (1) reads:
    “The Minister may give directives in writing to the Board on matters of policy and the Board shall comply”,
    and then we have the subclause (2), which also provides:
    “The directives given by the Minister shall not adversely affect or interfere with the per-
    formance of the functions and exercise of powers of Commission under this Act”.
    Mr Speaker, I was indicating that if you want, just so that we put this matter beyond doubt, we can now have a subclause (3), which would reflect what we have in the Petroleum Commission Act which reads:
    “The directives given by the Minister shall not adversely affect or interfere with the performance of the functions and exercise of the powers of the Board under this Act.”
    I think that we would be home and dry on that.
    Mr Iddrisu 5:51 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would support the Hon Majority Leader, but with the phrase “adversely affect”, for this purpose, it should just be one where he shall not interfere with the functions and powers of the Agency. He can do away with the first part, even though he is reading from the Petroleum Commission Act.
    He should not add the portion on “adversely affect”. We should leave out the first leg, so that the second leg would strengthen it, so that at least, the Minister would know that he is not to sit in his office and just dictate anything to the Board. It must be with the object and the functions of it.
    Mr Akyea 5:51 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, by necessary implication, can we also say that the Minister can positively interfere? [Laughter] -- [Interruption] --
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:51 p.m.
    Actually, yesterday, what I got from the Hon Majority is this:
    “The basic directives given by the Minister shall be consistent with the objects of this Act.”
    That was what I got down. Is that the rendition you would prefer?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 5:51 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, that one stands, and just to take the matter beyond doubt, just to allay the fears of Hon Members, I would want to add subclause (3) to read: “The directive given by the Minister shall not interfere with the performance of the functions and exercise of the powers of the Board.”
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:51 p.m.
    Hon Members, we would move back to clause 13. There is an additional subclause being proposed to clause 13, and this is the proposal from the Hon Majority Leader. It reads: “The directives given by the Minister shall not interfere with the performance of the functions and exercise of the powers of the Board under this Act.”
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:51 p.m.
    Hon Majority Leader, you are introducing so many -- [Laughter] --I may not intend to interfere by the directives that I would give. So, if you say “shall not be intended”, that may not be his intention, but the directives could be interfered with.
    So, you do not need to introduce the word “intended”. This is because directives can interfere. Therefore, it would be captured as: “The directives given by the Minister shall not interfere with the performance of the functions and exercise of the powers of the Board under this Act.”
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 13 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:51 p.m.
    Hon Members, I am sure that now, we can proceed to clause 24, and there is an Order Paper Addendum.
    Yes, Hon Chairman, clause 24.
    Nana Amoakoh 6:01 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 24, delete and insert :
    “(1) The Board may issue a licence to a person if the person --
    (a) is an individual who has passed a qualifying examination conducted by
    (i)The Board; or
    (ii)An independent testing service designated by the Board;
    (b) is a valuation and estate surveyor registered by the Ghana Institute of Surveyors or is a lawyer licensed by the General Legal Council to practice as a lawyer; or
    (c)Who is not resident in this country, is a licensed real estate broker or real estate agent in the country of residence of that person.
    (2) The Board may issue a license to a person if the person
    (a) has a tax Identification Number;
    (b) in the case of a company, society, association or partnership
    (i) has submitted an appli- cation which is not an application for a licence as a real estate agent;
    (ii) has designated at least one of the officers or partners as the representative for the purpose of obtaining the licence; and
    (iii) has for the purpose of the licence, designated one of the officers or partners who, as an individual, has a licence to practice as a real estate broker as a representative of that company, society, asso- ciation or partnership.
    (3) The Board may issue a licence to a person if the person has not been
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:01 p.m.
    On the Order Paper Addendum? Except on page 2, subclause (3), we have to insert “Board” after “the”.
    Mr Banda 6:01 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I have just sighted the title in subclause (2) -- “The Board may issue a license”, and the “Licence” must end with ‘ce'. We have the same at clause 24(4) and clause 24(1).
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:01 p.m.
    Hon Member, you are talking about the spelling of licence.
    Mr Iddrisu 6:01 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I support the improvement on the language by the Hon Chairman of the Committee on Constitutional, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs. Even though the Hon Member was trying to litigate on this matter, I was reminding him that there is British and there is American nomenclature with the usage of these words.
    Therefore, this must be permissible. Suffice to add to him to read: Recently, when the Princess of Wales was in America, there was a debate in the British newspapers about her use of a particular word. So it is tenable within the Dzelukope corridor there.
    rose
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:01 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Member, why are you on your feet?
    Mr S. Mahama 6:01 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, subclause 4(b)
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:01 p.m.
    The whole of subclause 4?
    Mr S. Mahama 6:01 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the subclause 4(b) says:
    “engaged a surety company licenced to operate that business…”
    I am not sure what “that business” means. Is it a surety business or a licencing business? Can we not repeat it for clarity purpose?
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:01 p.m.
    So, we would delete the “that” and insert “indemnity insurance business”. -- [Pause] --
    Mr Dafeamekpor 6:01 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I have a problem with subclause (4); I see that it is a redraft of paragraph (g) under the original provision. But I am struggling to appreciate why we are asking for an indemnity insurance cover. The Hon Chairman should justify why for the issuance of licence to be predicated on this. I am struggling to see the justification.
    Mr Agbodza 6:11 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think there is a new understanding that for instance, certain professionals ought to have a professional indemnity insurance to be in good standing. Indeed, in the industry, there are some clients that would not engage you unless you can prove you have professional indemnity insurance.
    This is because there are too many damages that cannot be claimed by victims so; if you are an engineer or an architect or somebody, the client says, show me your professional indemnity insurance to cover the risk of what you are coming to do.
    Now, I can understand that that is what they want to do here but I agree with Hon Colleagues. How does one show their professional indemnity cover at the time of getting one's licence? If you were to be the one engaged by Parliament, the variation of properties on the premise here may be different from those in somebody's house. So, while somebody's house may be worth just GH¢100,000, the professional indemnity insurance should cover that. So, we cannot have a blanket one.

    In every jurisdiction, there are brackets, so maybe from 10,000 to 50,000, from 50,000 to 100,000 and maybe beyond one million. So, I do not think that it is at the time of application that you need to show that but to be in good standing after the application, you ought to have a professional indemnity insurance. So, I am not sure if this is in the right place at the time of the application. Also, the way it is captured, I just know of professional indemnity insurance.
    Alhaji I. A. B. Fuseini 6:11 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, it is becoming part of the requirements for the performance of professional duties to take an indemnity insurance because a lot of people are exposed to risks. Even with lawyers who are practising in a chamber, there is professional indemnity risk where somebody comes with a big case and the lawyer misconducts himself in court and the person loses.
    The new Insurance Bill we are working on will formalise it in great detail, so it is a good thing. Professional Indemnity Insurance is up to an amount, so it does not really matter that you do not yet know the value. You can take a professional indemnity insurance up to a certain amount. It is the amount that would determine the premium you would pay, so that is the problem. So, if you are going to take up a big business, you can go for a reassessment of the risk. That is the way it is supposed to be arranged.
    Also, if you are already in the business, and your licence expires , every application for a renewal is in effect an application for a new licence. That would require that you show professional indemnity, so I do not have a problem with paragraph (a). The (a) has no problem but it is the paragraph (b) which is like when we go to file our documents for
    parliamentary elections. You are to show evidence of payment of your taxes or arrangements that you have made for the purposes of paying the tax. [Interruption].
    I think that paragraph (a) is alright and paragraph (b) should look at showing evidence of engaging somebody for the purpose of underwriting your professional indemnity, but the way it is --
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:11 p.m.
    Let me listen to the Hon Chairman of the Committee on Constitutional, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs.
    Mr Banda 6:11 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, in both instances, it is a condition precedent. It is not after the licence has been issued to you and that is the intendment of the provision.
    Clause 24 (1) (a) appears to not have a problem but in the case of paragraph (b), what it is also saying is that the applicant must engage an indemnity insurance company and that indemnity insurance company must have executed the insurance cover and submitted it to the Council on behalf of the applicant. In the case of (a), the applicant himself does it but in the case of (b), the applicant causes a company to do it on his behalf but the company must have done it and submitted it to the Council.
    Mr Agbodza 6:11 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, if I go to an insurance company to buy a professional indemnity insurance, they would ask certain questions, including how much risk I would want them to cover. When they are satisfied with that, they would give me a premium. If I execute the premium, they would give me a certificate to cover me for a period of time normally up to 12 months.
    That is the way I read paragraph (a), but with paragraph (b) -- I heard my Hon Colleague saying that paragraph (a) is yourself but no, paragraph (a) is also coming from a reputable insurance company and is covered by a certificate. So, paragraph (b) is actually not necessary at all.
    If it is about insurance, professionals only take professional indemnity. If it is about the property or other things, you can take another insurance but if it is about professional indemnity, clause 24 (a) is enough because that would have to be necessarily executed by an insurance company, backed by a certificate.
    If the client wants to check, they go back to the insurance company to verify whether the document given them is actually legitimate. So, I do not think paragraph (b) is necessary because on the indemnity, they write
    exactly what you want to do with it. They will write directly on it, the purpose, so it is not for everything but specifically for what you want to use it for. I think that we should just get rid of paragraph (b) and go with paragraph (a).
    rose
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:11 p.m.
    I wanted to hear from the Hon Chairman whether he is disposed to doing away with (b), so that we could move forward. Hon Member, does your position differ from that of your colleague? Hon Majority Leader, just a minute, let me hear from him first.
    Mr Dafeamekpor 6:11 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, professional indemnity insurance is a type of insurance designed to protect professional people against potential claims for injury or loss. Now, if this is the intendment in paragraph (a), then I see that we have a problem because there is supposed to be a range.
    When you are taking out a polity, it is supposed to cover a certain quantum or have an estimation. I am taking the policy to cover maybe a loss in excess of GH¢200,000 or GH¢100,000 for which I would pay
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:11 p.m.
    In the sum specified and in the form approved by the Board. The issue on paragraph (b), Hon Majority Leader?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 6:21 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I believe my Hon Colleague has now seen it. Really, the sum is not stated but it would be provided for in the regulations, so it is in the sum specified and in the form approved by the Board. It would be covered in the Regulations.
    The issue raised by the Hon Member for Offinso South is really germane in the sense that as he said, it is meant to be a condition precedent. In paragraph (a), it is well expressed that the Board may issue a licence to a person if the person has executed and submitted to the Council, a professional indemnity insurance cover.
    Then the paragraph (b) says, engage a surety company licenced to operate insurance business in the country to execute and submit to the Council, a professional indemnity
    insurance cover. Mr Speaker, in that case, we are not indicating that the action ought to have taken place and that is why the Hon Member for Offinso South is improving it.
    What we ought to state is:
    “The Board may issue a licence to a person if the person has engaged a surety company licenced to operate the insurance business in the country and caused to have been executed and submitted to the Council, a professional indemnity insurance cover''.
    So, that deed ought to have happened just like in paragraph (a) - “executed and submitted''. So, that ought to be better expressed. I do not know whether we could say:
    “engage a surety company licensed to operate insurance business in the country to have executed and submitted to the Council a professional indemnity cover''.
    If that is simpler, then we could take it but the deed ought to have happened just as in paragraph (a). Paragraph (b), should have a similar construct so I want to propose that we have this rendition:
    “engage the surety company licensed to operate insurance business in the country to have executed and submitted to the Council a professional indemnity insurance cover''.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:21 p.m.
    Hon Members, I thought we have resolved this issue but most of you are still on your feet.
    Mr Codjoe 6:21 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the problem is with where the “has'' has been positioned.
    “The Board may issue a license to a person if the person has
    (a) executed and submitted to the Council a professional indemnity insurance cover; or
    (b) engaged a surety company licensed to operate that business in the country to execute and submit to the Council a professional indemnity cover''.
    Mr Speaker, I do not know why this should be an issue. In paragraph (a), the thing has been done and in paragraph (b), the person has taken the steps to do it.
    Mr S. Mahama 6:21 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the reason I raised the issue is because of the introduction of “that business''. The two sound very straightforward and the Hon Majority Leader has improved it by changing the “that'' to “an insurance company''. It is instructive to say that:
    “The Board may issue a license to a person if that person has already executed and submitted to the Council a professional indemnity cover or if the person has engaged a surety company licensed to operate and insurance business in the country to execute and submit to the Council''
    It is straightforward. The person could do it to him or herself or might have engaged a surety company to do it. So the improvement is to delete “that'' and replace it with “an insurance company''
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:21 p.m.
    That is different from what the Hon Majority Leader submitted. His position was that that indemnity insurance company should have executed and submitted to the Council.
    It is a known indemnity insurance company that deals with the Council. The Council knows that it is a
    Mr Agbodza 6:21 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the one in paragraph (a) must necessarily come from a reputable insurance company. A person cannot insure him or herself so, he or she has to engage a reputable insurance company to give him or her a professional indemnity insurance. However, the paragraph (b) has no place in this. In fact, we are obliged to buy indemnity insurance from this country.
    Mr Speaker, in this House, there are agreements we take and the extent of risk is such that insurance companies in this country cannot take it. So, the developer uses insurance companies outside this country simply because the local companies cannot ensure them against the risk into which they would get into.
    There are many projects in this country that they cannot touch because they cannot bear the risk. The paragraph (a) is clear that whatever indemnity insurance a person wants to buy, must come necessarily from a reputable insurance company. In fact, why should my institute expect my insurance company to issue them
    a cover directly? No! I have to buy the insurance and take the details to them and if they wish, they could crosscheck to find out whether I am duly covered. So I do not see how the company could execute something on my behalf and present it to the Council. Who do they insure? It is either an individual or a business.
    Mr Speaker, my proposed amendment is that paragraph (b) is not necessary at all because paragraph (a) is enough.
    Mr F. K. Codjoe 6:21 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, my understanding of the paragraph (b) is clear. There are two conditions that have been set for a person to be given a licence. It is either the person has submitted his professional indemnity cover or is in the process to do so. That is what has been captured in the Bill [Interruption] -- It is a requirement and it has been indicated that he or she is in the process of doing so and he or she would not be denied the license.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 6:21 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Hon Member for Daboya/Mankarigu, Mr Shaibu and I conferred on this issue. In the original Bill, the paragraph (g), which we are dealing with says:
    “The Board may issue a license to a person if the person has
    (g) executed and submitted to the Council a mortgaged bond or has had executed and submitted to the Council on behalf of that person…''
    Mr Speaker, this envisages a situation where the person is not resident in the country as obtained in what we did earlier in paragraph (d). The person is not in the country but once he or she engages an insurance to do this, that cover is provided. In that case, it would be in sync with what obtains in the original paragraph (g) that the person has executed and submitted to the Council a mortgage bond or has had executed and submitted. The deed has already happened. That was why I rose to further amend the paragraph (b) so that it would be in sync with paragraph (a).
    So, paragraph (b), would read:
    (b) “may issue a license to a person if the person has engaged a surety company licensed to operate insurance business in the country to have executed and submitted to the Council a professional indemnity insurance cover.”
    Mr Speaker, that is how it is supposed to read.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:21 p.m.
    Hon Members, I think this settles the matter. But it is not just insurance business; it is an indemnity insurance business. That is my understanding.
    Yes?
    Alhaji I. A. B. Fuseini 6:21 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, insurance is just indemnity; that one is promising to indemnify -
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:21 p.m.
    Hon Member, I am not introducing any new phrase. The phrase is already in paragraph (a) which reads:
    “professional indemnity insurance cover”
    So, I am just following the indemnity insurance -- [Laughter] --
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Iddrisu 6:21 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, before you put the Question on the entire clause 24, subclause (3), line 2, wherever we have “crime”, delete and substitute with “offence”. That is what is in the Constitution. It does not say “crime”; it uses “offence” and it must be consequential wherever “crime” is mentioned.

    Yes, I think that is right.
    Alhaji I. A. B. Fuseini 6:21 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, yes, that is it. It is not a crime until a person has been convicted for that offence and --
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:21 p.m.
    Yes, you are right.
    Alhaji I. A. B. Fuseini 6:21 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, secondly, this provision is a prohibitive clause. It prohibits the Council from giving a licence to a person convicted of an offence.
    Mr Speaker, normally, prohibitive provisions are couched in the negative and not couched in the positive. So, if we look at the Constitution, it is not couched in the positive. The clause 24 states:
    “The Board may issue a licence to a person who has not”
    [Interruption] --
    It should read:
    “The Board shall not issue a licence to a person who has been convicted of an offence.”
    Mr Speaker, it is supposed to be in the negative.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:21 p.m.
    Well, to start with, “may” would be deleted and be replaced with “shall”.
    So, Hon Members, the subclause (3) would read:
    “The Board shall not issue a licence to a person if the person has been convicted of an offence involving the security of the State, fraud, dishonesty or moral turpitude.”
    Mr Agbodza 6:21 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I noticed on the Order Paper Addendum that they have gone to adjust or change the rendition of paragraph (d) slightly. Basically, what they did is to say valuation and estate surveyors.
    Mr Speaker, I am saying this simply because I have been part of this Bill since 2014 and there has always been intense disagreement even amongst surveyors. Somehow, somebody convinced the Chairman of the Committee this afternoon when we suspended the House to introduce valuation and estate surveyors into this. I am just an individual here but I can tell you that this was fought intensely at the last meeting.
    Mr Speaker, I know the Hon Deputy Minister for Lands and Natural Resources was of the view that this should be the rendition but
    let us just be aware that the sponsors of this Bill did not want this. At least, that was my impression when we met them at Aqua Safari Resort. So, unless the Hon Minister is very convinced that this is the policy of government. What I heard there was not this.
    Mr Speaker, my view of just leaving it to “professionals who have training and qualification relevant to this Bill” would have been better. I still see the intention to introduce the surveyors and lawyers licenced by the General Legal Council; I have nothing against it but I just think it is wrong to write a law knowing very well that there are other auxiliary clauses that anybody could use but as for these two professions, they must be specifically mentioned.
    I think that is not the right thing because I know an economist can do this. This is not about valuation; this is about land transaction. In fact, the Land Act we passed has got better clauses in there to deal with the things we are fearing here because if we listen to the first part of the memorandum, it states, with your permission:
    “The purpose of the Bill is to regulate real estate agency practice…”
    We notice it is already happening and like I said earlier before we suspended, I am not yet aware of a lawyer who is an estate agent or broker. All the ones I met during the consultation, at least, none of them said he or she was a lawyer.
    Mr Speaker, to continue the quote 6:21 p.m.
    “…the conduct of real estate practitioners, commercial transactions in real estate including sale, purchase, rental and lease of real estate,”
    Mr Speaker, how does this become an issue of valuation? Indeed, the rent one pays today is a factor of demand and supply.
    It has nothing to do with the real cost of brick or block because the price of a six inch block is probably just GH¢3.50 everywhere but when it is installed in East Legon, the demand for property in East Legon would mean that even when I send that block to Adaklu and create a room, people would be prepared to pay 50 times the value of that at East Legon than in Adaklu because of the factor of demand and supply. So, it is not to say that when somebody is a valuation officer, he knows how much
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:21 p.m.
    Hon Member, we also have what we call place value.
    Mr Agbodza 6:21 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, yes, but much of it has got to do with what somebody is ready to pay for it. So, a 3-bedroom house in East Legon could be US$2 million and a 100- bedroom in Adaklu could be a
    US$100,000.
    Mr Speaker, that would be my last statement but we should know that what we are doing, in my view, is not responding really to the memorandum that we are dealing with and I fear the sponsors of this Bill were not envisaging that lawyers and surveyors would become the operators obviously in this and then they would come under an auxiliary clause which makes anybody else to join if they write an examination.
    Mr Speaker, I feel we are not addressing the issue but that would be my last statement, and I guess I am in the minority on this one.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:41 p.m.
    Hon Member, I do not know why you concluded that way .That one is even paragraph (b). Paragraph (a) deals with individuals before paragraph (b) ,and paragraph (b) deals with surveyors and lawyers. They only need to write some examination. But there is the issue you have been raising.
    There is no exclusion; it should rather be inclusion. There should be many more professionals that should see this as inviting them to participate. This is because it is not leading them to any particular profession. The sponsors of the Bill will respond but let me listen first to the Hon Majority Leader.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 6:41 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Bill that is before us has a purpose and it is expressed in the Long Title. The Long Title provides and with your permission, I read:
    “An act to establish real estate agency council to regulate real estate agency practice…”
    That is the first leg. The second leg is: “commercial transactions”. The two are not the same. When we talk about the practice, we are talking about examinations and so on and it relates to a practice but not the transactions.
    Mr Speaker, so, let us not box the two into one basket. However, since my Hon Colleague feels strongly about what he is saying and he is a practitioner of a kind, in another yard, even though he can also operate in this enclave, he does not belong here. However, he could, if he wants, to migrate to this enclave.
    So, certainly, he thinks that there must be a window for every relevant professional. It cannot be open- ended.
    Mr Speaker, let me remind my Hon Colleague as well that at this stage which is the Consideration Stage, we are not discussing the principle of the Bill, we are discussing amendments. So, if one has an amendment to the extent that this is not the end of the Consideration, would he or she propose one so that we can get this behind us. If it finds favour with the House, we will certainly adopt it.
    So, make a proposal so that if he has to even engage the Institution of Surveyors, he could but it cannot stall the Consideration of the Bill.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to submit.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:41 p.m.
    I hope the Table Office followed the discussions and the proposed
    amendments that have really improved what has been submitted by the Hon Chairman.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 24 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:41 p.m.
    Hon Members, the pledge of the Hon Majority Leader is one day, one Bill and we are still at clause 24. So, as we move along, we have to take that into consideration so that we do not repeat each other's submissions. If you support, say so and then we move on.
    Clause 25 -- Examinations
    Nana Amoakoh 6:41 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, add the following new subclause:
    “The Council may exempt an applicant from the exami- nation in any of the courses specified in subsection (3) considering prior qualification and experience of the applicant.”
    Mr Iddrisu 6:41 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I support the amendment but the Hon Chairman should delete the words; ‘at least'. If we want a committee, we
    Mr Agbodza 6:41 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Council will have the ability to establish an examination committee because they are constantly going to be carrying out examinations. The way it is couched, I am sure they are also clothed with the powers to appoint -- for instance, KNUST and University of Ghana (UG) to conduct examinations for them in a particular course but the way it has been couched, it is as though we could either have the five member committee or engage competent registration to be responsible for examinations.
    Mr Speaker, is it the case that we want one or the other? So, if we appoint UG for instance to undertake this, it means that we would not have an internal examination committee. Every professional body has a committee that handles their examinations though the examinations will not necessarily be written in that body, another body will do it. I do not think that our intention is to have a five member committee for an
    institution. Is that the intention? If the members of the committee are not necessarily people who are examiners -- that is not the intention I got at the winnowing.
    We said that one could appoint an institution to carry out the examinations. The Building Technology department of the KNUST could be those undertaking the examinations but to have an examination committee that sees to the process -- estate management is the exact word. The intention is not to have either of them and so, I think we should change this to read;
    “The Council shall establish a committee of at least five members responsible for the conduct of examination”
    Mr Speaker, then we also have 6:41 p.m.
    “The Council may appoint a competent institution to be responsible for the conduct of the required examinations under this Act”.
    Mr Speaker, that is my proposal because --
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:41 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, the Hon Member is breaking it in two so we have sub
    clauses (1) and (2) but with (1), there must be a standing examinations committee and (2), the Council may --
    Mr Banda 6:51 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, it appears to me that if we should adopt the rendition that he is proposing then we will be repeating the establishment of
    committees under clause 11 which clearly takes care of the concern that he has raised. Upon reading clause
    11 (2):
    “Without limiting subsection (1), the Board shall establish
    (a)an Examinations Committee”
    Mr Speaker, I remember that some amendment was effected when we got here but there is in place, an examination committee which has to be established by the Council. So, to repeat it here that we have an examination committee as is being proposed by my Hon Colleague, will amount to repeating what is already contained in clause 11.
    So, I will rather say that we adopt the proposed amendment that the Hon Chairman has proposed because it is clear and it does not admit of any
    ambiguity. It says that “the Council shall establish a committee of at least five members to be responsible for the conduct of the required examinations under this or engage a competent institution to be responsible for the conduct of the required examination under this Act”. This is basically what it says.
    Mr Speaker, the original rendition in the Bill is to the effect that the Council may appoint but we thought that the appointment may not necessarily convey the sense and intendment of clause 25(1). However, “engaging” a competent institution is the appropriate word to be used so that it would convey or carry the sense that this provision intends to convey.
    Mr Speaker, so I support the proposed amendment advertised in the Order Paper.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:51 p.m.
    I think that something is missing.
    Mr Iddrisu 6:51 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I support the improvement made by the Hon Chairman of the Committee on Constitutional, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs but I still do not think that it should be left open-ended to read “at least five”.
    Maybe we should add “but not more than nine” so that we would know that it is not just any size. Mr
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:51 p.m.
    The Hon Chairman of the Committee on Constitutional, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs drew our attention to clause 11(2) which reads:
    “Without limiting subsection (1), the Board shall establish …”
    I recall we amended it to read “… an Education and Examinations Committee”. That was what we did for Clause 11(2).
    So by this provision, the committee could be established or ought to be established but under Clause 25, we are repeating it and it is not the Board but rather the Council. Clause 11 was Board and Clause 25 is Council and it reads:
    “The Council shall establish a committee of at least five members and not more than nine members or engage a competent institution to be responsible for the conduct of the required examination under this Act”.
    So, that is the Council and either the committee is established or a competent institution is engaged.
    Hon Members, is that what we want to convey? Well, those behind the policy say yes.
    Mr Agbodza 6:51 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Council will not establish any Committee, but it is the Board that will establish the committee.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:51 p.m.
    Exactly! That is why I am drawing our attention because Clause 11 is about the Board and Clause 25 is about the Council.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 6:51 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, you are right in your observation; it is the Board that establishes the examination committee. Yesterday, I was advising that it should not be an education and examination committee. Now, we are vindicated that what the Hon Chairman sought to do was wrong.
    Mr Speaker, just to tidy up, in clause 25(1), we can say that “the Examinations Committee established under clause 11 shall compromise not less than five members and not more than nine members and it shall be responsible for the examinations required for an applicant under this Act”.
    Mr Speaker, you can put the Question on this rendition and then we go to the second leg.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:51 p.m.
    Hon Members, I note that this rendition by the Hon Majority Leader for clause 25(1) has taken clause 11 into consideration. So, I would put the Question.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:51 p.m.
    We would now move to the second leg.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 6:51 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the second leg relates to the conduct of the examination and indicates that “they shall be responsible for the examination” and this is the committee. However, who would conduct the examination?
    Mr Speaker, the conduct of the examination could rest on the appointment of a competent institution. So, this is also a different issue that we should isolate and address. Mr Speaker, so, we could say that for subclause (1)(b), “the Examination Committee may --
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:51 p.m.
    No, it should read “The Board may” and not the Examination Committee.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 6:51 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, it is a committee of the Board.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:51 p.m.
    You want the committee to take responsibility for that?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 6:51 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, no. I was crafting a formulation where they would be required to confer with the Board. However, we can craft it to read “The Board may appoint a competent institution to be responsible for the conduct of the examination”.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:51 p.m.
    The word should be “engaged” and not “appoint” because it is an institution? It should read “the Board may engage a competent institution to be responsible for the conduct of the required examinations under this Act”
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:51 p.m.
    I direct the draftspersons to look at the numbering of clause 25(1).
    Item numbered (x).
    Mr Iddrisu 7:01 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, it should read “An individual applicant sitting for an examination shall submit satisfactory proof that that applicant has successfully completed courses specified in subsection (3)”.
    When he says “who is to sit”, I do not get that rendition…
    So, it should be “who is sitting for an examination”. When he says “who is to sit”, I do not get the rendition.

    All right, but on clause 27, there is no advertised amendment so I have asked Hon Fuseini to take it on my behalf. It should read: “A licence

    issued under this Act shall not be transferred”. What is preferable is “is not transferable”. So Hon Fuseini has my authority to do that as I take leave.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:01 p.m.
    The formulation is not correct. There is a lot of things wrong with it.
    Mr S. Mahama 7:01 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, having recognised that the formulation is not clear, I am particularly worried and would want to know why we are talking about an individual applicant and not just an applicant simpliciter. Why are we distinguishing between an individual applicant and any other applicant whether it is corporate, and why do we have to distinguish that.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:01 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Member for Tamale Central?
    Alhaji I. A. B. Fuseini 7:01 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, what we are legislating here in clause 25 is entirely within the administrative remit of the real estate agency. It is not a matter of substantive law. By Regulation, they would state requirements for an individual to take the examination. We are not providing the requirements here in law.
    This is because, if an individual has to sit for an examination but the Council decides to waive the
    requirement of showing successful completion of earlier courses, the Council would be caught by this provision through court.
    So this is administrative. We do not legislate matters that are just handled through regulations. The regulation would set out how a person is qualified to take a particular examination.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:01 p.m.
    Well, the Bill submitted that. I am sure they are following the Bill. The phrase “an individual” has been used copiously in the Bill, but they have now added “applicant”.
    Usually, they do not say “an individual applicant”; they say “an individual who” then they proceed.
    Let me listen to the Hon Chairman for the Committee on Constitutional, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs.
    Mr Banda 7:01 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, it is just to distinguish an individual from a corporate body. Obviously, a corporate body cannot sit an examination. It is an individual who would then sit for the examination. That explains why the phrase “an individual applicant”.
    Probably, we could take away “an applicant” and maintain “an individual who is to sit for an examination shall submit satisfactory proof that the individual has successfully completed courses specified in subsection (3)”.
    The phrase “an individual” must appear because a corporate body cannot sit an examination. It is the individual who sits the examination. This is why that phrase is used.
    Mr Agbodza 7:01 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I agree with my colleague, the Hon Chairman of the Committee on Constitutional, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs.
    The subheading is on examinations. It is individuals that would write the examination. It is the individual's conduct that would be used to set up the corporate entity. Even with lawyers, not anybody can open a law firm. Hon Kwame Agbodza cannot open a law firm because you will need
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:01 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, you have been urged by Hon Members to rather drop this one for Regulations because we are going into the arena of too much details, and the Regulations should be allowed to do that. They would fill in the flesh.
    Yes, Hon Minister?
    Mr Akyea 7:01 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, with such a much specialised area, we would want the substantive law to capture it. I would not call this one even the minutest details which would be part of the Regulations. This is because, if you look at the examinations, which is captured in
    clause 25(3), you could find all the relevant courses that one should go through in relevant details.
    So I am of the view that we should maintain it because it is very clear that this is where we are going. Subsequently, if in the Regulations we should come out with some other details, that would be a bonus, but the substantive law should capture the essence of what should be done. This is my humble proposal.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:01 p.m.
    You are sponsoring the Bill, and so your voice carries a lot of weight. I do not know why you are bringing this physiology of who is to sit for an examination. We have been using “write an examination” throughout the Bill, but now you are talking about sitting for an examination.
    Mr Akyea 7:01 p.m.
    Yes, Mr Speaker. It is sitting or writing an examination.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:01 p.m.
    In the Bill we are considering, we have been using those term “an applicant to write an examination”, but this time, you are opting to say “who is to sit for an examination”.
    Mr Akyea 7:11 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, you are saying in other words that they wanted to import Standard 4 sitting of

    Mr Speaker, the amendment says, “sit” so it was changed to “who is sitting”. So now it should read: “who intends to write”, which is more elegant than to sit.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:11 p.m.
    If we could say “an individual who applies to write an examination shall submit satisfactory proof that the applicant has successfully completed …”
    This is a new terminology but the Bill has been talking about “write” so I would prefer that we say: “an individual who applies to write an examination shall submit successful proof that the applicant has successfully completed courses specified in subsection (3)”.
    Hon Chairman, are you with me?
    Mr Amoakoh 7:11 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think we would go along with your rendition.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 7:11 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, because of what follows thereafter and to respond to the issue raised by Hon Colleague, the Hon Member for Adaklu, we could insert in line 3 of the proposed amendment, after “completed”, “any of the”. So that would flow into the subsequent provisions.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:11 p.m.
    “Any” would be one but maybe you need more than one to qualify. That is why the Board should be given that power to decide.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 7:11 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I withdraw.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:11 p.m.
    Thank you.
    I would go over it again:
    “An individual who applies to write an examination shall submit satisfactory proof that the applicant has successfully completed courses specified in subsection (3).”
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Amoakoh 7:11 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 25, add the following new subclause:
    “The Board may exempt an applicant from the examina- tion in any of the courses specified in subsection (3) considering prior qualification and experience of the applicant.”
    Mr Agbodza 7:11 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I support the Hon Chairman. It is what happens in reality. I know what Hon Inusah Fuseini said should be in the regulation but it is not out of place if it is here. I think it is a good addition.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:11 p.m.
    The use of the word “considering”. Is it “… taking into consideration prior qualification and experience of the applicant”? Or “taking into account…”? Or a better one but “… considering prior…”, unless that is the new way of drafting.
    Mr Amoakoh 7:11 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think “… taking into account prior qualification and experience of the applicant” is better.
    Mr Banda 7:11 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, in view of our earlier amendment of “applicants” to read “individual”, I think that we should do same here so that additional provision would read:
    “The Board may exempt an individual from the examination
    in any of the courses specified in subsection (3), taking into account, the prior qualification and experience of the individual”.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:11 p.m.
    Yes, instead of “applicant”, we insert “individual”.
    Chairman, so you have two things to look at. The deletion of “applicant” and the insertion of “individual”; the deletion of “considering” and the insertion of “taking into account”.
    7. 21 p.m.
    Mr Amoakoh 7:11 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the rendition should read:
    “The Board may exempt an individual from the examination if in any of the courses specified in subsection (3), taken into account prior qualification and experience of the individual.”
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:11 p.m.
    We have deleted the word “applicant” and made it “individual”, but we still ended the rendition with the word “applicant.”
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 7:11 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, for clause 25 (5) the construction there reads: “An individual applicant who intends to…”
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:11 p.m.
    We deleted the word “applicant” there, and said “an individual”.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 7:11 p.m.
    All right, if we deleted the word “applicant”, then for consistency sake, we should use the same terminology.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:11 p.m.
    However, my worry is on how we ended with the phrase “experience of the applicant.” Since we deleted the word “applicant” and inserted the word “individual”, even though we are to end the rendition with the word “applicant”, we should be mindful that there is no “applicant” there again.
    Hon Chairman, are you with us? Once we have deleted the word “applicant” in line 1, the last “applicant” should rather be “individual”.
    Nana Amoakoh 7:11 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, it should be the same thing. It should rather be the word “individual”, which is how I put it when I read the new rendition.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:11 p.m.
    Hon Member, let us go to your concern. You said subclause (4) --
    Mr Codjoe 7:11 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, in section (4) of the Bill, it is the Council's duty to conduct examinations, and not the function of the Board. [Interruption] -- All right, I am told that it has been changed.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:11 p.m.
    It is rather the Board. The Council is the administrative structure.
    Mr Codjoe 7:11 p.m.
    I am sorry. I came in late so --
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 7:11 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think that my Hon Colleague, by his intervention, has drawn the attention to something that we would have to look at. He just went through and indicated that it is the examinations committee that is responsible for the examination required.
    The second one was that the Board may engage a competent institution to conduct the examinations. So, when we come to subclause (4) and say that “the Board shall conduct examinations”, it becomes a problem.
    So, maybe, we could say that “the Board shall cause to be conducted examinations at least once in each year”, which I think is better.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:11 p.m.
    Yes, because it deals with conduct, and we said that the Board should engage an institution to do so. So, the Hon Majority Leader is right. We would need to amend subclause (4).
    Hon Chairman, did you get what he said?
    Nana Amoakoh 7:11 p.m.
    Yes, Mr Speaker.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:11 p.m.
    Can you therefore give us the rendition so that we capture that?
    It shall read: “The Board shall cause to be conducted examinations, at least once in each year”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Agbodza 7:11 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, in line with the use of “an individual”, instead of “individual applicant”, if we look at clause 25 (5), will the Hon Chairman consider the use of the phrase “an individual”, instead of the
    use of “an individual applicant for license?” This is because we had previously used “an individual”.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:11 p.m.
    We deleted clause 25 (5) and inserted a new -- [Interruption] -- So, it is not relevant again.
    Clause 25 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 26 -- Grant of license
    Nana Amoakoh 7:11 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 26 subclause (2), line 1, delete “ninety” and insert “sixty”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Nana Amoakoh 7:11 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, subclause (3), paragraph (f), line 1, delete “two years” and insert “one year” and in line 2, at end, add “annually”.
    Mr S. Mahama 7:11 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, it would look elegant to rather bring the word “annual” before the word “renewal”, so, it would be captured as “…Subject to annual renewal…” [Pause]
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:11 p.m.
    You need to look at the whole rendition. Subclasue (3) reads: “A
    Mr Agbodza 7:31 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we can say “be valid for a year, from the date of issue and it is renewable…” This is because it cannot be renewed within the same year. It can only be renewed after that year. So, we are saying “valid for one year, from the date of issue, and it is renewable…” It is not subject for renewal within the same year, and it is not compulsory that if the person decides not to trade again the following year, he cannot go and renew it so; it is renewable upon another application.
    Mr Speaker, my further amendment is 7:31 p.m.
    “be valid for one year from the date of issue and is renewable”.
    Mr S. Mahama 7:31 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we might further improve it by deleting “but be” to read “be valid for one year from the date of issue and subject to annual renewal”.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:31 p.m.
    I think what Hon Agbodza said is better - “and is subject to…”. We do not need “subject to”, is renewable. So, it should be:
    “be valid for a year from the date of issue and is renewable”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 26 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 27 -- Non-transferability of licence
    Alhaji I. A. B. Fuseini 7:31 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I have the permission of the Hon Minority Leader to move this amendment on his behalf -- [Interruption]--
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:31 p.m.
    There is no amendment advertised.
    Alhaji I. A. B. Fuseini 7:31 p.m.
    Yes, but before the Hon Minority Leader left the House, he whispered to me that we need to amend clause 27.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:31 p.m.
    Now, you want to say that you have the authority of the Hon Minority Leader to seek the leave of the House to propose an amendment in his name. Right.
    Alhaji I. A. B. Fuseini 7:31 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 27, delete “shall not be transferred” and insert “is not transferable” so that it would read:
    “A licence issued under this Act is not transferable”.
    Mr Agbodza 7:31 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, just to get a sense of this from the lawyers. Assuming company ‘A' got a licence to do this, and the company gets taken over by another company. In this case, is this going to be considered as a transfer? They have fulfilled all the requirements; in fact, they have carried over personnel who are duly qualified by writing the examination. Can this be regarded as transfer?
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:31 p.m.
    They carried over the assets and liabilities?
    Mr Agbodza 7:31 p.m.
    Yes, and all the conditions attached to the licence.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:31 p.m.
    It would not be transferred but let us listen the Hon Majority Leader.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 7:31 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, what is non-transferable, is non-transferable. There cannot be any two ways about this.
    Mr Speaker, if we look at clause 26(1) -- the grant of a licence; the Board would carry out background checks including investigation of criminal history, inspection of facilities and so on. They may have taken over but the location might be different and the people who are coming in -- even if they are the same people; the same shareholders in the company, what might have caused the death of the original company? All these would have to be investigated. Mr Speaker, so, it is non-transferable; as simple as that.
    Mr S. Mahama 7:31 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the licence would have carried the name anyway. Under mergers and acquisitions in business, when one acquires or merges with another company, they now assume one name so; if they merge and take one name of the licence under which it was issued, then, it is not even considered transferable, it is assumed that the assets and liabilities having that name and the name written on the licence is basically moved to the new one.
    If a company acquires or merges and the name changes, and therefore, the licence name written on the licence changes, it means that it is non- transferable. The company has now

    acquired a new name and any movement from where the company is to the new one means that the company is transferring, and this law will prohibit. It is non-transferable.

    But where a normal acquisition or a merger is done and they still have the original name as the dominant company, and that is the name the licence is issued on, it follows through the same way that it is transferable because it is still the same name that has been used from one acquisition to the other.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:31 p.m.
    Actually, it not transferred, it is still the same. So, when there is a change -- that is why I answered initially that assets and liabilities. If it is the same, it is the same but if the name changes, then, it would now be transferred. The new company would have to apply for its own licence.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 27 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 28 -- Use of licence by a designated officer or partner
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 7:31 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, clause 28(2), I would like to draw the attention of the Hon Member for Offinso South of the possessive pronoun in line 2 and for him to cause his usual surgery.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:41 p.m.
    Clause 28 (2);
    “A person specified in subsection (1) shall not act as a real estate broker on that person's own behalf for as long as that person remains a designated officer or partner of the company, society, association or partnership.”
    The Hon Majority Leader is raising an issue of the possessive - “person's own behalf”. I think that it should not be “that person's”, but “the person”.
    Alhaji I. A. B. Fuseini 7:41 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, they used the possessive and we have said that where possessive can lead to making the meaning opaque, we will express it in its intended form. Recently, the Hon Majority Leader allowed “its” in a provision in some circumstances because it made it quite clearer. This is also one of such, so I crave your indulgence to drop it so that we go on. We might not achieve the “One D, One B”.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:41 p.m.
    Yes, but let us get the things right. I thought that the word “that” should rather be “the” -- “the person” and not “that person”. So it says;
    “A person specified in subsection (1) shall not act as a real estate broker on the person's own behalf for as long as that person remains a designated officer or partner of the company, society, associa- tion or partnership.”
    I accept the second “that person”.
    Mr Banda 7:41 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, for clause 28 (2), it appears to me that subject to your proposal it will be difficult to do away with the possessive and we may run into problems. So, we have to maintain it, except to subject it to a rendition, that is the first “that” should be maintained and the second one, too, but I have a fundamental one which can be conveniently amended in clause 28 (1) -- [Interruption] -- Has it been amended? All right, then that is all.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:41 p.m.
    Which one has been amended?
    Mr Banda 7:41 p.m.
    Clause 28 (1), line 2.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:41 p.m.
    Was it a consequential amendment where a directive was given?
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:41 p.m.
    So, that has been dealt with already?
    Alhaji I. A. B. Fuseini 7:41 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the practice is not peculiar to this Bill but we have said that where the possessive can be expressed in full, we should express it in full; Mr Speaker always gives the directive. This is not in particular reference to this provision.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:41 p.m.
    No, I want to get the rendition of clause 28 (1).
    Mr Banda 7:41 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, clause 29 (1) would read:
    “A person who is designated as an officer or a partner for the purpose of obtaining the licence of a real estate broker is entitled to perform the functions of the real estate broker, as a broker or officer of the company, society, association or partnership to which that person is a designated officer or partner.”

    I hope that the Table Office has got the rendition, if not, I would go over it.

    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Agbodza 7:41 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, can the Hon Minister or Hon Chairman explain to us why a person who is an officer under this licence cannot conduct or shall not act as a real estate broker or agent when it comes to his own transactions? A doctor can treat himself, a lawyer can represent himself in court and an architect can design his own house.
    Are you saying that if I have to purchase or rent a property, and I am an agent, I should go and get another agency or look for somebody else in the company to do it and I cannot do it by myself? I do not know what we are trying to cure with this, unless the Hon Minister can explain to us. I find it difficult to understand what we want to cure with this.
    Alhaji I. A. B. Fuseini 7:41 p.m.
    This is principal-agent relationship we are creating. I do not know how a principal can be an agent of himself. You cannot be an agent for yourself. It is just like having your money and stealing it because you cannot steal your own money. [Laughter]
    Mr Agbodza 7:41 p.m.
    I am an agent or broker who wants to rent a new house -- That is why I am asking the Hon Minister if it is the case that you cannot use your company to rent -- [Interruption]. They are saying you cannot and I am asking, to what extent am I prohibited from doing that? I just want an understanding. Maybe, my Hon Colleague wants to help.
    Mr Banda 7:41 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, my understanding of this provision is that if you are a real estate agent working for a company, society, association or partnership you cannot work on your own as a real estate agent for yourself because you belong to a company or association. You can only work for the company as a real estate broker but not for yourself as a real estate broker. That is why it says;
    “A person specified in subsection (1) shall not act as a real estate broker on that person's own behalf for as long as that person remains a designated officer or partner of the company, society, association or partnership.”
    It is the company or association that has employed you and you can only work for the company and cannot work for yourself.
    Alhaji I. A. B. Fuseini 7:51 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I like the Hon Member's explanation. His examples are quite revealing and challenges you. One is saying that on one hand, you can establish a company after you leave Parliament and then you meet the qualification of being given a licence as a real estate broker. That licence entitles the person within the company to perform the functions of a real estate broker. However, subclause (2) says that having been registered as a real estate broker in subsection (1), the person cannot perform the functions for him or herself.
    Mr Akyea 7:51 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I wanted to know if he has repented from his previous position because I wanted to add something.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:51 p.m.
    Yes, kindly add it because I can see he is still not convinced.
    Mr Akyea 7:51 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I enjoyed the analogy of my Hon Colleague but to make it very banal and pedestrian, he said that by reason of the fact that a person is a dentist he or she wants to extract his or her own tooth --[Laughter] -- but the person is not permitted to do that - he or she should submit it to a professional to do it for him or her.
    This is the analogy that I want to add but what the Hon Member for Offinso South, Mr Banda said and the submission by the Hon Colleague, should settle the controversy.
    However, if he still wants to -- [Interruption] -- if he has abandoned it, we give God the praise.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:51 p.m.
    You know as a professional man when they give you that opportunity, there may be a lot of conflict of interest, insider trading and all those things. Instead of you working for the company or society or partnership, you could use those things to work for yourself and that is what they want to avoid. That is my understanding. I hope you are convinced?
    Mr Codjoe 7:51 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I still have a little difficulty with the subclause (2), which says:
    “A person specified in subsection (1) shall not act as a real estate broker on that person's own behalf as long as that person remains a designated officer or partner or the company, society, association or partnership''.
    Mr Speaker, my problem is when the person moves the company. Why do we not say “a company, society or association''?
    Mr Codjoe 7:51 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, there is no proposed amendment to clause 29 but I do not see the value of clause 29 (a) (i), which says:
    “(a) the application for renewal
    (i) is made not later than thirty days before the licence expires.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:51 p.m.
    So, that they could process it for you and there would be continuity. If you wait until it expires before you apply, you are likely to get --
    Mr Codjoe 7:51 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, in reality, in the working world, some of these things are very difficult to
    operate. That is why it was said earlier that some of these should be left to the -- I am in the Ministry of Fisheries and Aquaculture and we issue licence and sometimes, the people who operate on high seas come to renew their licence a day before it expires and we have to do it for them.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:51 p.m.
    So, your proposal is that clause 29 should be left to the Regulations and not by an enabling Act. Let us take it that maybe, the Regulations would amplify it but the worry would be that we would be specific -- “not later than thirty days''. So, the regulations cannot differ.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 7:51 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, in clause 26, the Council has 60 days after the receipt of an application to grant the applicant the license but clause 29 says that the application for renewal should be made not later than 30 days. If we made 30 day, the expiry of the licence and they would seal it but they have 60 days.
    If they stay for 60 days, they have not committed any breach but then the licence would have expired and may be for about 30 days, the person does not know his or her fate. That is the little difficulty that I have. I thought
    because of the 60 days, they should also have 60 days and because it also renewable every year, if it is for 12 weeks --
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:51 p.m.
    Could the procedure for renewal be the same as for the initial application? This is because clause 26 deals with initial grant and clause 29 deals with the renewal.
    Mr Codjoe 7:51 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I do not see any provision for, if a person fails to submit it 30 days before the expiration of the licence. It means that if it is submitted on the 29th day, the licence cannot be renewed and that is why these provisions are difficult. If the person has to pay penalty, all those things have to come in.
    So, this provision should be in the regulation so that they could set the rules and if it comes after 30 days, a particular amount could be paid. We cannot say that because the person failed to submit it 30 days before expiration, it would not be renewed. That would be too harsh a law to make.
    Mr S. Mahama 7:51 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, if the substantive law does not state the time period, regulation cannot cure it so, we may still need to state that it
    has to be done within a certain period and then if we have to use regulations to flesh it out, that is a different thing.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 8:01 p.m.
    Hon Members, we would need to reconsider clause 29 critically. There are a number of things that we would have to amend.
    Yes, Hon Member for Tamale Central?
    Alhaji I. A. B. Fuseini 8:01 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, he is right but it does not matter because the provision says that one needs to apply one month to the expiration of the licence. So, that is the condition set by the Statute. If a person applies with the time left being less than one month, he or she has breached the conditions of the Statute but that does not mean that the licence would not be registered.
    So, the regulations can then determine if the fee prescribed for compliance with this Act would be smaller than the violation of the Act depending on the time that the person applies, because it is important to state in the law that the certificate should be renewed at a certain point.
    If the person fails to renew at that point, the door should not be shut on that person. That person should still
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 8:01 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Chairman of the Committee?
    Mr Banda 8:01 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I was just looking at the memorandum dealing with the clause 29 (a). The Memorandum which is captured at the third paragraph states:
    “The application for renewal is among others required to be made within thirty days after the licence has expired.”
    Mr Speaker, I thought that in view of the concern raised by the Hon Colleague, we can amend clause 29 (a) (i) to read:
    “The application for renewal
    (i) is made within thirty days before the licence expires.”
    It appears that is the intendment of the provision.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 8:01 p.m.
    Hon Members, let us read clause 29 carefully:
    “(29) A licence granted under section 26 may be renewed after the licence has expired, if (a) --
    Mr Codjoe 8:01 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, so the renewal and application are different.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 8:01 p.m.
    I am continuing with the clause 29 (a). It says that:
    “(29) A licence granted under section 26 may be renewed after the licence has expired, if
    (a) the application for renewal
    (i) is made within thirty days before the licence expires;”.
    I do not agree with the House. You may need to look at it. The “if” conveys something differently. It is not saying “unless”; it says “if”. So, it is after the licence has expired that one may apply for renewal. [Interruption] --
    It says:
    “(29) A licence granted under section 26 may be renewed after the licence has expired,”.
    So, when it expires then one may apply for a renewal.
    Alhaji I. A. B. Fuseini 8:01 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the provision is only setting the principle. One can only renew a licence when it is expired. But the paragraph (a) now gives us the procedure and so it is expressed in a conditional tense. It is only when the licence expires that one can renew it. How does one go about renewing a licence? Thirty days to the expiration of the licence, one starts the procedure and accompany it with all those things in subparagraphs (ii) and (iii). But if the licence is expired, one has no licence to renew.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 8:01 p.m.
    That is the concern I am raising because at least my understanding is that the licence must expire unless we change “if” to “provided that”.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 8:11 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, one cannot renew licence which is in currency.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 8:11 p.m.
    Yes, but one can submit an application before the expiration.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 8:11 p.m.
    Precisely, and that is what I drew our attention to when I made the point. I think the Hon Shaibu Mahama was saying that it relates to the grant of a new licence. No, not necessarily.
    Mr Speaker, even the renewal of the licence in clause 29, it says 8:11 p.m.
    “(29) A licence granted under section 26 may be renewed after the licence has expired, where
    (a) the application is for renewal
    (i) it is made within thirty days before the licence expires;”.
    So, to the extent that one does it before the licence expires, one is home and dry. It may not be given to the person immediately, say, just the following day but then he or she has declared his or her intent to have his or her licence renewed.
    So, it expires and may be a week after it expires, or within a very reasonable time, the licence is renewed.
    Mr Speaker, so, I believe that, that is really the sense contained in clause 29. I was thinking that what was
    Mr S. Mahama 8:11 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, since we all agree that we cannot renew a licence if it is not expired, we may comfortably as well take out; ‘after the licence has expired' and have it as: “a licence granted under section 26 may be renewed if -- There is no point in repeating: “after the licence has expired”.
    So, we may have a new rendition that read: “a licence granted under section 26 may be renewed if … “then paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) follow. So we take out: “after the licence has expired”.
    Mr Akyea 8:11 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think I support the position of my Hon Colleague. This is because when he raised this issue, I was tempted to agree with you for the simple reason
    that it makes sense to say that one can only renew a licence after it has expired and one can never renew a licence if it is unexpired. What will be the purpose for it?
    So, an unexpired licence does not need a renewal and therefore, if we go ahead to say that if the licence was licenced within 30 days when it was unexpired, does it then give us a new licence?
    Mr Speaker, I am of the humble view that as the Hon Member has rightly said, we should take out the expression: ‘expired' and show how we can renew our licence and it will achieve the same substantial purpose that we are looking at. So, we should not bring the issue of its expiration and if someone goes ahead to do so and so, does it make it unexpired? This would make it easier.
    Mr Codjoe 8:11 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, in that sense and as we are all trying to come to the agreement that we can only renew a licence when it has expired, I also believe that the memorandum which says that; ‘The application for the renewal, is among others, required to be made within 30 days after the licence has expired and it should be signed by the applicant'.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 8:11 p.m.
    Hon Member, we said: “within thirty days before expiration”.
    Mr Codjoe 8:11 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am saying that the applicant is given room to apply for renewal, 30 days after the expiration of their licence.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 8:11 p.m.
    The Hon Minister would need to take this into consideration when drafting the Regulations because if we still want to use; ‘within thirty days' then there are implications. How long do we think that they could process an application for a new one so that it is done before the expiration of the licence?
    Now, if we say; ‘within thirty days' and the person does not submit it within the thirty days but upon expiration of the licence, what should apply? Should it be a sanction and what sanction? All these things would have to be taken into consideration in drafting the Regulations.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 8:11 p.m.
    Hon Members, any further proposed amendments to clause 29?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 8:11 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would suggest to the Hon Chairman that there should be a sub- paragraph to clause 29 which will impose an obligation on the licensor to renew the application for renewal within the shortest time possible; let us say, seven days provided the -
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 8:11 p.m.
    Hon Majority Leader, you mean; ‘On receipt of the application'?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 8:11 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, it should be; ‘Upon receipt of the application'.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 8:11 p.m.
    So, the Board should, within seven days - we need some clarity on that.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 8:11 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, yes, we need something like that. We could say that; ‘within seven days or not later than 14 days, whatever is deemed -
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 8:11 p.m.
    Do we defer clause 29 so that we can craft it better?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 8:11 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, yes. I am just looking at the sense -
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 8:11 p.m.
    We will also need a provision on the failure to submit within the 30 days.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 8:11 p.m.
    Yes. So, if the person --
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 8:11 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we have to make provision for those things.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 8:11 p.m.
    Let us defer putting the Question.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 8:11 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, all right. However, to suggest to the Hon Chairman that he and his Committee would have to think through that.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 8:11 p.m.
    Is the Hon Chairman with us? He is lost somewhere.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 8:11 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am suggesting that we look at providing a subsection in clause 29 to deal with the period within which the licensor will have to renew the licence of the applicant. That is, if the applicant satisfies all the conditions.
    Secondly, if the person fails to apply for the renewal within the prescribed time but comes up as a late application, what happens? These are subsections that we have to craft by way of improving.
    Mr Codjoe 8:11 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I have to be on my feet once again because I think this thing keeps coming back.
    Today, at the Ministry of Fisheries and Aquaculture, we are re-writing our law - Fisheries Act, 2002 (Act 625) and this is the reason for that. We are removing some of these provisions made in the Act to re-put them in the Regulations.
    So, I still insist on asking why we should do that to those specific details. Maybe, later on, we will see -- because the thing changes every time and so, if we want to put those things there, when these things change, what are we going to do?
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 8:21 p.m.
    Well, it depends on the drafting style of the country. I have read laws from many countries that are very detailed. The enabling legislations are very detailed but in Ghana, we have adopted the two-pronged approach. We do a skeletal enabling Act and flesh it up with Regulations.
    There seemed to be a mixed system where we add some of the Regulations to the enabling Acts or legislation. That is why we are having this stalemate. We all need to go through it and maybe the next
    Parliament should take it upon themselves to undertake some courses on drafting so that we would get the new ways of drafting legislations.
    Hon Members, I would defer the Question on clause 29 and if we are able to take clause 30, then we would call it a day. The One Day-One Bill would not have been fulfilled -- [Laughter] -- but it is good for us to do our work well.
    Clause 3 -- Suspension or revocation of a licence
    Nana Amoakoh 8:21 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, New Clause Add the following new clause after clause 29:
    “Suspension of a license
    30. (1) The Council may suspend the licence of a real estate broker or agent, where the Council determines that the real estate broker or agent in the performance of a function authorised by the licence
    (a) fails to use the real estate forms required for the transaction;
    (b) accepts cash in pay- ment for the transaction;
    (c) fails, within reason-able time which shall not exceed one month, to pay out money received into a client account, to the client;
    (d) pays a commission or fees, or divided commi- ssion or fees to a person who is not a licensed real estate broker or agent; or
    (e) fails to give a copy of the sale and purchase agreement to both the seller and purchaser of real estate.
    (2)The Council shall only suspend or revoke the licence, if the Council
    (a) gives at least ten days' notice to the real estate broker or agent whose licence the Council intends to suspend;
    (b) states in the notice the grounds of the suspension or revocation;
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 8:21 p.m.
    The original provision in the Bill has five subclauses but your proposed amendment has only three subclauses.
    Mr Banda 8:21 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I support the proposed amendment. The headnote of the original provision reads “Suspension or revocation of a
    license” but we thought that conditions for suspension and conditions for revocation should not be the same because suspension is not the same as revocation. This explains why there is a separate provision for suspension and another provision for revocation.
    However, having said so I have a few further amendments to propose that clause 30(1), line 2, should read ‘the Council may suspend the licence of a real estate broker or a real estate agent'. So, the further amendment is to insert after “or” in line 2, ‘a real estate agent'. This amendment is consequential to line 3 and also in paragraph (d).
    Secondly, under subclause (2), delete “or revoke” because it is about suspension and not revocation. Similarly, under subclause 2(b) delete “or revocation”. Also, subclause 2(c), line 1, before “agent” insert “real estate” and further delete “charges” and insert “charge”.
    Last but not least, subclause (3), line 1, before “broker” insert “real estate” and after “or” delete “an” and insert “a real estate”. In line 2 of subclause (3), before “specified” delete “the” and insert “a”.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 8:21 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, I am sure you have noted all the proposed amendments. Do you agree with him?
    Nana Amoakoh 8:21 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, yes.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 8:21 p.m.
    Very well.
    Hon Majority Leader?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 8:21 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we need to be clear in our minds about what is being done here. The Hon Chairman has proposed the addition of this new clause which would be between clause 29 and clause 30. Mr Speaker, but it is clause 30 that the Hon Chairman is dealing with.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 8:21 p.m.
    What I see now is dealing with clause 30 and that is what I am taking.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 8:21 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, it is just a rearrangement. Clause 30 is on the suspension or revocation of a license and clause 30(1) deals with the revocation of the license. Subclause (4) deals with suspension and subclause (5) deals with the procedure for the suspension and revocation. So, what the Hon
    Chairman is proposing for us to do, is to bring subclause (4) ahead of subclauses (1), (2) and (3). We can do this improvement.
    Is it the case that we need to have clause 30 in respect of what the Hon Chairman has done and then go to other places and insert them as 30(1). That is not what it is supposed to be but if we want it that way then we should be clear about what we are intending to do. Mr Speaker, the first one is on the suspension of a license and that is in subclause (4).
    To quote Dr Afari Gyan “interposi- tional change”. It precedes clause 31(1), and the caption then, to make a distinction, is “a suspension of a licence”. Thereafter, we would deal with the revocation of the licence and the procedure which then would be reflective of what is captured at clause 5. This is how we should understand it and then we can proceed.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 8:31 p.m.
    Hon Majority Leader, it is why I did not give him the opportunity to move the amendment captured in item (xiv). I realised there was no new clause that is being proposed. What he is actually dealing with is clause 30. Then they just decided as you observed to break
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 8:31 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would plead that maybe we suspend and get this whole thing cleaned up. For instance, the provision “fails to use the real estate forms required for the transaction”. What transaction are we talking about here? It is real estate transaction which is being interpreted. So we should have the full complement of it. Otherwise, we might have to define ``transaction`` to mean the real estate transaction. And real estate transaction is what has been defined.
    The Hon Chairman would have to conform to what obtains in the Bill.
    Otherwise, he might be introducing new terms, which might not be understood. It is real estate transaction. Let him go through everything and some of the clean-up proposed by the Hon Member for Offinso South.
    There has to be further improvement in what he has done. We understand that we are only breaking up clause 30 into three categories; suspension, revocation and the process involved in suspension or revocation of licence.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 8:31 p.m.
    All right. I would proceed to adjourn the House. The Hon Chairman and the Committee would have to go and put their House in order so that tomorrow we could continue with further consideration of the Bill.
    At this stage, the Consideration of the Real Estate Agency Bill, 2020 has come to an end for the day.
    Hon Members, I now proceed to adjourn the House.
    ADJOURNMENT 8:31 p.m.
  • The House was adjourned at 8.35 p.m. till Friday, 23rd October, 2020 at 10.00 a.m.