Yes. This isa different thing that they are proposing.It could stand on its own. It cannot comein place of subclause (2). So, they shouldplease consider that. It could be a differentamendment or an addendum that theywould want us to consider. But it cannotbe in place of subclause (2). Second, on the amendment itself, MrSpeaker, with your permission, I beg toread:
“Where an applicant, after thepayment of a deposit, fails to payfor the full cost of the provision ofthe information…” The applicant pays for the provisionof the information. The amount that he orshe pays is for the provision of theinformation. I am talking about theconstruction. It should be:
“Where the applicant after thepayment of a deposit, fails to paythe full cost of provision of theinformation…” We do not need the “for” there in line2 of clause 27 (2). This is because theapplicant pays for the provision of theinformation. That payment that he or she
makes is in respect of the cost. The word“for” is not needed there. It should read: “Where the applicant, after thepayment of deposit, fails to pay thefull cost of the provision of theinformation, the applicant shall notbe given access to the informationand is not entitled to a refund of thedeposit.”
Mr Speaker, the reason for the failureshould be investigated. For example, Imay not be the only person looking forsome pieces of information. I put in anapplication but unknown to me, anotherperson has sought the same informationwhich has been availed to him. Then alongthe line, I get to know that the informationthat I seek has been supplied to thatperson, so, I am able to access thatinformation instead of coming through anagency. I was asked to pay a deposit, Ihave done it, but the information that Iseek is already in the custody of a personthat I know, so, I do not need to continue. I would then go to the agency toinform them that unknown to me, theyhave already given the information tosomebody I know, so, I have been ableto collect it. They do not need to gofurther, so, can they make a refund to me,just like the original subclause (2) says?The agency covers the cost at processingat where it got to and make a refund tothe person. [Interruption.] Then the agency does not make it. Orperhaps, the agency says that -- This isbecause the cost of processing will befactored into the deposit. It cannot behigher. The agency cannot get midwayand say that they have spent more thanthe deposit they asked the applicant topay. If it is possible, then we are looking atsome subversion in the process ofprocurement of the information, if that iswhat you are doing, but I am not too sure.
Be that as it may, if the cost is about thesame, then you will tell the person thateven where the agency has gotten to, theentire advance has been exhausted, sothey cannot pay him. That should bereasonable. I am saying that it should be possibleto make some refund, assuming that thecost of processing up to that stage isinsignificant. A person makes a depositof GH¢1,000.00, but the agency spentGH¢200.00. The applicant then gives theagency this reason or explanation, thatunknown to him, the information he waslooking for has been procured by, forexample, the Hon Majority Leader. I amthe Hon Minority Leader looking for theinformation and they know that. He has availed the information to me,so, they do not need to continue. Thenthe agency tells me that they have alreadyspent GH¢500.00, so, in that case, theywill make a refund to me. I did not knowyou could access the information fromthis man. I did not know he is your friend.So, please, have GH¢500.What is wrongwith it? Than to say that the agency willnot give him anything. I think that isunreasonable. So, we can borrow a leaf from theconstruction in subclause (2), and let itapply to the new amendment. First, I am suggesting to the HonChairman that he does not need to deletethe original subclause (2). This one thathe has proposed could stand alone. I thinkthat it is good, but let us further qualify it. Alhaji Muntaka --rose --