Hon Speaker, hon members, section 12 of our Constitution, which entrenches the right to freedom and security of the person, provides for the inclusion of the right not to be tortured in any way; and not to be treated or punished in a cruel, inhumane or degrading way. By ratifying the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, South Africa has become a state party to this convention. The convention obliges our Republic to take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.
The aim of the Bill that is before us is to provide for a legislative framework for South Africa to comply with the requirements of the convention, and also to enhance the constitutional protection of the right not to be tortured in any way.
The ratification information contained in the convention states that the obligation of states under the Charter of the United Nations in particular article 55, is to promote universal respect and the observance of rights and fundamental freedoms. Both article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights provide that no one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment. I wish to briefly reflect on some of the pertinent aspects of this Bill.
Firstly, in the preamble, we draw attention to the following: We are mindful of the fact that the Republic of South Africa has a shameful history of gross human rights abuses that include the torture of many of its citizens and inhabitants; since 1994 we became an integral and accepted member of the community of nations; we are committed to the prevention and the combating of torture of persons, amongst others, by bringing persons who carry out these acts of torture to justice, as required by international law; and also that we are committed to carrying out our obligations in terms of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhumane or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
This Bill would establish, for the first time, the offence of torture as a separate offence under our law. As the law currently stands, any act of torture would be unlawful and the alleged perpetrator would be persecuted in respect of an act that amounts to torture. The particular act would in most instances amount to an offence of assault, including assault with the intent to inflict grievous bodily harm or even attempted murder. However, the mere fact that the offence in question is not recorded as torture, and that complaints with regard to alleged instances of torture are not recorded as such, makes it very difficult to obtain an accurate picture of the prevalence, whether real or perceived, of the scourge of torture. In the absence of such reliable information, it is also difficult to develop strategies that are aimed at addressing the problem and assessing the plight of victims.
Furthermore regarding this Bill, it stands to reason that the establishment of torture as a stand-alone offence, is clearly viewed by the legislator as an exceptionally serious offence in that the perpetrator would, on conviction, be sentenced to a term of imprisonment.
The last aspect that I would wish to draw your attention to on this Bill is that the state has a duty to promote an awareness of the prohibition of torture that is aimed at preventing and combating torture. This awareness would include the development of programmes that are aimed at the following: Firstly, conducting education and information campaigns about the prohibition of torture that are aimed at the prevention and combating of torture; secondly, ensuring that all public officials who may be involved in the custody, interrogation or treatment of a person who is subjected to any form of arrest, detention or imprisonment, are educated and informed about the prohibition against torture; thirdly, providing assistance and advice to any person who wants to lodge a complaint of torture; and lastly, training public officials on the prohibition, prevention and combating of torture.
Lastly, I wish to convey my sincerest appreciation to the hon members of the Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional Development who, under the capable chairing of the hon Landers, dealt with the consideration and improvement of this Bill in their usual dedicated and informed manner. I so move for the adoption of this Bill. I thank you. [Applause.]
Mr Speaker, it is a privilege to follow the hon Minister, but I must bring to your attention the fact that the Bill that has been agreed to unanimously by the Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional Development is not exactly the same as the Bill that is before us.
The Bill agreed to by the Portfolio Committee has the words at the end of the preamble, and I quote:
Parliament of the Republic of South Africa enacts as follows ...
Whereas the Bill found in the Announcements, Tablings and Committee report, ATC report, has the words, and I quote:
Be it therefore enacted by the Parliament of the Republic of South Africa as follows ...
The latter draft was rejected by the portfolio committee. Given Mr Speaker's admonition that Members of Parliament must ensure that our legislation must meet the requirements of our Constitution and that it must be of a high standard, we ask that Parliament's officials be reminded that it is the draft agreed to by the relevant committee that must appear on our ATCs. Any proposed changes must first be taken back to the relevant committee for its approval. I am informed that this was merely a mistake. If so, it can easily be remedied.
We also want to question the fact that the portfolio committee agreed to this Bill last Wednesday. Yet, it only appeared on Monday's ATC despite the three-day rule. This too we question, Mr Speaker!
The Prevention and Combating of Torture of Persons Bill was unanimously agreed to ... [Interjections]
Hon members in the House, can you please reduce the noise level? We want to hear the speaker.
... at the end of deliberations by the portfolio committee.
As the hon Minister has already pointed out, the Preamble to the Bill reminds us that South Africa has a shameful history of gross human rights violations. That included the torture of many of its citizens and inhabitants - dare I say, many of whom sit in this honourable House, having experienced such torture!
Section 12 of our Constitution provides, and I quote:
Everyone has the right to freedom and security of the person, which includes the right -
(d) not to be tortured in any way; and
(e) not to be treated or punished in a cruel, inhuman or degrading way.
It is also common cause that the prohibition against torture in international law is absolute and that torture is impermissible under any circumstances, including war, public emergencies, state of emergencies, and terrorist threats. This prohibition is so strong and universally accepted that it is now a fundamental principle of international law.
Hence, we find the provision in clause 4 (4) of our Bill, which reads as follows, and I quote:
No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, including but not limited to a state of war, threat of war, internal political instability, national security or any state of emergency may be invoked as a justification for torture.
To further strengthen the latter provision clause 4(5) provides, and I quote:
No one shall be punished for disobeying an order to commit torture.
Even at this late stage, it is appropriate for our constitutional democracy to have this law on our statute books, given the shameful history we have referred to. In terms of this law torture is now an offence that is punishable by imprisonment for up to life.
Its implications are that police officers who assault people held in their cells can now be charged and prosecuted for torture. It means that prison warders who allow inmates in their care to be abused, raped or sodomised could be charged and prosecuted for the crime of torture. It also means that Home Affairs officials at our border posts, and at Lindela, who abuse illegal immigrants by assaulting them, may be charged and prosecuted for the crime of torture.
It is somewhat ironic that we should be debating this legal instrument after this weekend's media reports about a certain Stephan Steve Whitehead, who has been exposed as allegedly being instrumental in the late Dr Neil Aggett's suicide. In the Mail & Guardian of 9-15 November 2012, it is reported, and I quote:
The apartheid security police officer whose interrogation methods - including electric shocks, assault and 62 hours of non-stop questioning - led to the suicide of trade unionist Neil Aggett, has reinvented himself as a business counterintelligence consultant whose clients include government departments and major corporations.
The Mail & Guardian report refers to the TCR report, which, and I quote:
... found that the intensive interrogation of Dr Aggett by Major A Cronwright and Lieutenant Whitehead and the treatment he received while in detention for more than 70 days were directly responsible for the mental and physical condition of Dr Aggett, which led him to take his own life.
Leaving aside for now the fact that Steve Whitehead is happily doing business with our government, we want to say that if what is reported in the Mail & Guardian is true, every effort must be undertaken by the National Prosecuting Authority's Priority Crimes Litigation Unit, NPA-PCLU, to bring Lieutenant Steve Whitehead before our courts to answer for his deeds. Hon Minister, we appeal to you to use your influence on our National Prosecuting Authority, NPA, mindful of the autonomy they enjoy, to bring about this prosecution of Lieutenant Steve Whitehead. With those words, I thank you for listening to me. [Applause.]
Speaker, in the Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional Development, we regularly call this the "Torture Bill". However, it is important to note that it is, in fact, the Prevention and Combating of Torture of Persons Bill that we are dealing with here.
This Bill has been coming a very long time. South Africa signed the UN convention against torture on 29 January 1993 and ratified it on 10 December 1998. The fact that it has taken 14 years after ratification to enact into our legislation in terms of our international obligations is most unfortunate. Probably the most important feature of this Bill, as the Minister has said, is that it creates the offence of torture, which until now has not existed in our law as an offence on its own. It includes severe pain or suffering, both mental and physical, committed by, or at the instigation of, or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official. Torture, attempt to torture, and incitement or instigation to torture are punishable by imprisonment only. The same applies to conspiring with a public official to aid or procure the commission of torture, and no exceptional circumstances whatsoever, as has been said, may be used as a justification to commit torture.
A number of aggravating circumstances are specified in the Bill, which must be taken into account when sentencing, including discrimination against the victim, whether the victim was under the age of 18 or also the victim of a sexual act. We have also provided for extraterritorial jurisdiction and the protection of people from being extradited or returned to a country where there are substantial grounds for believing that the individual would be in danger of being tortured. A number of submissions were made to the portfolio committee, and we believe that all valid concerns have been addressed. Several submissions wanted us to also criminalise acts by private individuals, but that is not the purpose of this Bill, nor is it in line with the convention. Any offences by private individuals can be dealt with under the common law.
The subject of torture is not a simple matter. In this Bill, we are criminalising it under any circumstance. When considering that torture involves the intentional infliction of severe pain, it appears obvious that this is what we should be doing. However, when one considers issues such as the terrorist and the ticking time bomb, or a car thief who has abandoned a vehicle with a child in it and will not disclose its whereabouts, one may start to think that perhaps, just sometimes, it may be justifiable. Should we not perhaps legalise it in certain extreme circumstances? An article from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy sets out very well the moral dilemmas that can be faced in this regard. It is also very persuasive that in a constitutional democracy the concept of torture is anathema, that legalisation thereof cannot be reconciled with constitutional democratic principles, and that it will damage democratic institutions.
That is not to say that there can never be any individual situation in which it could arguably be regarded as being morally preferable to commit torture than to survive the alternative. In that situation, the person committing the torture would have to be found guilty of torture and any possible moral justification could be taken into account in respect of mitigation of sentence. Even though the sentence of imprisonment is compulsory, a court could, if satisfied that the circumstances justified it, impose a very short sentence. One would also think that in a suitably justifiable case a presidential pardon may be in order. The Stanford article highlights the fact that the military police and correctional institutions are very receptive to the practice of torture and that once it is a part of these institutions, it is very difficult to remove it. It is argued further that should torture be legalised, even if only in extreme circumstances, it would have a major impact on the direction, culture and practices of these institutions and a torture culture would be created. One point which the article makes that is of particular concern is that these institutions are particularly prone to torture, even when it is not legal.
One would have hoped that such a Bill would not be necessary in this day and age. Unfortunately, despite South Africa's specific horrific history of torture by public officials during apartheid, this scourge has not been eliminated from our country. It certainly has not been eliminated from other countries, and we know the horror stories that have emerged from Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib, for example. The South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission stated that torture was used systematically by the security branch, both as a means of obtaining information and of terrorising detainees and activists. Well, have things changed that much?
We have seen the Tatane matter. In October this year, a group of police officers in Steenberg, Cape Town, were reportedly being investigated for allegedly using apartheid-style assault methods, such as stripping people naked, smothering them in plastic bags and hitting them with baseball bats and hockey sticks. In September, it was reported that Lebogang Legodi was allegedly tortured on the West Rand at the Chamdor police station and died as a result. In August this year in the Marikana matter, the Independent Police Investigative Directorate, IPID, took 194 affidavits from miners who alleged that they were beaten up in the police cells. On 25 October, at Wonderkop, Marikana, Tholakele Dlunga was reportedly assaulted and choked with a black bag over his head by police in his home. He was then taken to Phokeng police station where he was again tortured, reportedly for information related to the location of others involved in the Lonmin strike.
On 23 October, Anele Zonke, 26 years old, was reportedly also arrested by plain-clothes policemen, beaten and suffocated. The effect of this torture is vividly described in an article in the Daily Maverick:
The torture he suffered has left him ashamed and withdrawn. Torture shames the victim. Shames him because he is rendered powerless, at the mercy of his tormentors; ashamed that he undoubtedly gave the police many of the answers they sought.
The preamble to this Bill reminds us of our shameful history of human rights abuses. The events that I have highlighted are no doubt just some of those that are actually still taking place today. We must not allow our country to revert to these horrific practices as part of daily life. We must not create any space for a torture culture to develop or thrive. Torture must be criminalised and the penalties enforced. The DA supports this Bill. [Applause.]
Speaker and Members of Parliament, this debate calls to mind the memory of Ahmed Timol, Mapetla Mohapi, Looksmart Ngudle, and Neil Aggett, great South African freedom fighters that were tortured and died in the course of the struggle for the democracy that we enjoy today. These are individuals that paid the supreme price - that of giving their lives for our freedom in this country.
Other than the people who died in the course of torture one way or another, without exception all political prisoners went through a form of torture at the hands of the police. This debate is also a tribute to their endurance and abiding commitment to justice and freedom. We must acknowledge that many South Africans are roaming the streets with the scars of torture still etched on their bodies and in their minds. To those ones, Cope is saying: Never, and never again will torture be condoned in South Africa.
The torture of persons in the custody of government officials did not automatically stop at the dawn of our democracy. Just a few weeks ago, two young men walked into police stations, only to be carried out as corpses after a few hours. In the one case, the police claimed that the then deceased had slit his wrists, but after the family members of the deceased pointed out that there were no wounds on the deceased's wrists, the police changed their version to that of the deceased hanging himself. In the other case, the accused walked into the police station, only for his family to be told hours later that, in fact, the accused never walked into the police station but that he had drowned in water before he walked into the police station. If there is one thing that we need to agree on, it is that just like during the apartheid times, individuals would not report themselves to police stations for their own suicide attempts. Torture at the hands of government officials today is still as alive as torture during the time of Steve Biko. The only difference now is that the governments have changed, but the torture practices still exist to some extent.
We continuously hear of criminally accused people who were assaulted in order to make incriminating statements. The known words of the former National Commissioner of Police, Mr Bheki Cele, that the police...
... sal skiet, bliksem ... [will shoot, hit ...]
... and use the "d-word" that my mother never allowed me to use still ring in my ears. From today onwards, we would be able to call those assaults torture.
South Africa's ratification of the UN convention against torture 14 years ago already showed political commitment to criminalise torture. It is a pity that as a result of African time, the Bill will only be passed today. Nevertheless, with the passing of this Bill, South Africa will be one step closer to listing torture as a criminal offence. With this House's approval, South Africa will now become the ninth country out of 54 countries on the African continent that has shown the political will to tackle this problem. Cope supports this Bill today so that citizens will never again be exposed to the dehumanising experience of torture. Thank you. [Applause.]
Madam Deputy Speaker, what had to be said about this Bill has mainly been said, and not much would be added by my echoing and repeating it. So, I shall limit my contribution to two points.
The first is that I would like to remark on clause 8 of this Bill, which is perhaps the noblest aspect of this piece of legislation, compared to the existing legislation. The other clauses do not create new crimes; they merely create a new framework for those crimes, a new characterisation and more severe sanctions. However, clause 8 makes it a crime and creates an obligation for the state not to expel, return or extradite people to where they could be facing the threat of torture. This seems to be a remote possibility for the activities of the South African government, but I urge you, Madam Deputy Speaker, not to consider it so.
There are rumours - and I do not attest to the validity of those rumours, I only attest to the existence of those rumours - that in co-operation between the SA Police Service and the Department of Home Affairs, only people from specific regions of the Congo are being deported, and there is a programme of renditions between the South African government and the Congolese government, in terms of which the Congolese government provides planes to bring back these people who are in the country illegally, who, however, are from areas in which there is political dissent and opposition to the government. Those reports suggest that those who return to the Congo are being tortured and surely, imprisoned.
Therefore, democratic vigilance is extremely important. It is not sufficient for us all just to pass a Bill in respect of something that we all agree is wrong, horrendous and horrifying. We need to commit ourselves to supporting that legislative action with democratic vigilance, to see what happens on the ground in respect of the most vulnerable segments of our population today, which are the undocumented, illegal immigrants.
The second point I wish to make flows from what the hon Landers said, and offers me the opportunity of placing on record what has been one of my pet battles. It is in respect of the redrafting of the preamble. In our committee, great effort has been made to what has been called "modernise the language", by eliminating words such as "whereas", and to substitute them with the word "since"; and to resist my echoing call to back in our legislation the word "shall" instead of "must".
We are doing a disservice by eliminating the difference between "shall" and "must" in our legislation, because it will soon be eliminated from the rest of the country. This will not enable future generations to understand the difference between a duty from within and a duty from without, possibly reducing their appreciation of the difference between Kant and Schopenhauer or Beethoven and Brahms, for instance.
The same goes for "since". We are dumbing down our legislation with the risk of dumbing down our English language, and with the further risk of bringing the entire discourse within our country down to the common denominator. I have objected strenuously in this respect in the committee - I do not see the hon John Jeffery, who has been the champion of this process, here. [Interjections.] Oh, there you are! You are hiding! [Laughter.] He has been the champion of dumbing down legislation, eliminating Latin expressions, making us sound as we should not, and getting us out of step with international trends as well as legal practice in the private sector. Thank you. [Time expired.]
Deputy Speaker, torture dates back many centuries, and was, at one stage, considered a legitimate and necessary method of obtaining information; for example, during the Spanish Inquisition. Fourteen years ago, South Africa ratified the UN Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, promising to criminalise it. This Bill is a result of our international obligations under that UN convention, which was passed in 1984, largely as a result of the torture and subsequent death of Mr Steve Biko.
The question can rightfully be asked as to why we need this legislation in post-apartheid South Africa. Is torture not something we have left in the past? Regrettably, torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment still takes place in South Africa. The hon Schfer pointed out a number of such incidents, including the Marikana tragedy, where many allegations were made of torture being used by police officials.
Whilst the debate in Europe, North America and the Middle East has focused on the War on Terror, the situation in South Africa is different. Here, the focus has been on the treatment of prisoners, detainees in police custody, undocumented foreigners, children in secure care facilities and patients in psychiatric hospitals. According to Lukas Muntingh:
In post-1994 South Africa, it has become evident that transformation is far more demanding than writing new laws, and that many attitudes, practices and habits from the previous regime have survived, especially in places where people are deprived of their liberty.
The extent of torture in South Africa is largely unknown, mainly due to a lack of reporting and the lack of a definition of the crime. Cases of torture have, up to now, been classified as assault or attempted murder. We trust that the Bill will help this situation where we now have a clear definition of torture.
The Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation has said:
The sad reality is that such acts of torture and cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment are regular occurrences in our society and are perpetuated by those responsible for our safety and security.
This, the ACDP believes, is reprehensible and must be addressed.
The Open Society Foundation has stated:
Pre-trial detainees are entirely in the power of detaining authorities, who often perceive torture and other forms of ill treatment as the easiest and fastest road to obtain information or extract a confession.
We had the Marikana incident. Another incident that deserves further mention is the torture of 231 inmates at the St Albans Maximum Correctional Facility in 2005. The case was heard by the UN Human Rights Committee after authorities ignored the pleas of one of the victims to investigate. In October 2010, the UN found South Africa guilty of transgressing the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and only in September last year did the government begin investigating it. To date, the victims are still awaiting justice. So, clearly, we need this Bill, and the ACDP is fully in support thereof. I thank you.
Deputy Speaker, hon Ministers and Members of Parliament, because there are no diverse or opposing views, the speakers here have been unanimous in the debate and thus they have made my job as the last speaker easy.
I dedicate my speech to the victims of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. The people's poet, Mzwakhe Mbuli, has a poem with a stanza that says:
I am no stranger to torture; I am no stranger to detention without trial.
I stand here before this august House as one of the surviving victims of torture and detention without trial or solitary confinement. Some of those victims who have been mentioned here are no more. May their souls rest in peace.
When addressing our South African Parliament last week on Tuesday, 6 November 2012, the President of Namibia, hon Hifikepunye Pohamba among other things uttered the following words:
During the dark days of the past, we never imagined that we would ever be addressing this Parliament that passed legislation that was aimed at oppressing some people.
President Pohamba further said:
We expected that the beneficiaries of the fruits of our struggle would be the children of our children.
Today we have a democratic country that has a Constitution that guarantees that everyone has the right to freedom and security, which includes the right not to be tortured in any way. I emphasise the right not to be tortured in any way. It is commendable that all the parties of the Justice Portfolio Committee are supportive of the United Nations, UN, Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, as well as this Bill on the Prevention and Combating of Torture of Persons.
The Bill recognises that South Africa has a history of gross human rights abuses, including the torture of many of its citizens and inhabitants. Since 1994, it became an integral and accepted member of the community of nations. It is committed to preventing and combating the torture of persons, including bringing persons who carry out acts of torture to justice as required by international law, and it is committed to carrying out its obligations in terms of the convention.
When we were on the receiving end - with due respect - some judges never came to our rescue. For example, in dismissing my own application for release, and interdicting or prohibiting the police from torturing me when I was under detention without trial, a judge who has now retired said that my detention was "in terms of the law". This could be correct, but he continued by saying that it was "just". I still fail to understand how torture and detention without trial can be just. If it was during our days I would have loved to see or hear the judge's philosophical jurisprudence of his view on what is just.
Sinjenjenje, simanxebanxeba zinsizwa zangakithi esakhula nazo. Sanyathelwa zinsizwa zangakithi esakhula nazo! [Even today we still bear the scars of the gross injustices of the past and we were tortured by our own people that we knew well and had grown up with!]
That is why today we are saying never, never and never again should there be torture of persons within or across the borders of the Republic of South Africa. The ANC supports this Bill. Thank you. [Applause.]
Deputy Speaker, all states have a DNA that creates a propensity for the abuse of power, inter alia, through violence. It is therefore significant that South Africa signed the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment in 1993 and subsequently ratified it in 1998.
The convention came into force in 1997, calling on state parties to criminalise torture and other forms of violence. It has taken some time for South Africa to create legislation that mirrors the content of the convention and align itself with international law. This is not a good reflection on how the country deals with its international law duties in general.
Be that as it may, government must take note that case law exists that compels our courts to heed international law, especially treaties, even in the absence of enabling legislation. In this regard it needs to be noted that the prohibition on torture is a peremptory norm of international law and can under no circumstances be deviated from.
Die VF Plus steun volkome die implementering van wetgewing teen marteling. Uiteindelik het ons nou wetgewing wat die verpligtinge in terme van die verdrag kodifiseer. Suid-Afrika het vir te lank nie 'n misdryf spesifiek vir marteling gehad nie.
Dit blyk egter dat die wetgewing tekort skiet op 'n sekere vlak. Die wetsontwerp maak nie voorsiening om ook ander degraderende, onmenslike en wrede gedrag, wat nie heeltemaal marteling daarstel, te kriminaliseer nie. Die konvensie vereis dit dan ook spesifiek. In die afwesigheid van die eksplisiete kriminalisering van laasgenoemde gedrag, is dit egter steeds moontlik om te argumenteer dat di gedrag wel outomaties misdrywe daarstel weens die invloed wat internasionale reg op ons regstelsel uitoefen. Dit is egter gerade dat di wetgewing regsekerheid daaroor moet skep.
Die VF Plus is egter tevrede dat die regering nou uiteindelik die reg in lyn gebring het met ons internasionale verpligtinge. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)
[The FF Plus fully supports the implementation of legislation against torture. At last we now have legislation that codifies the obligations in terms of this convention. For too long, South Africa has had no crime that was linked specifically to torture.
At a certain level it is evident, though, that this legislation falls short. The Bill does not provide for the criminalisation of other degrading, inhuman and cruel acts that torture doesn't quite cover. The convention then also specifically calls for this. Yet in the absence of the explicit criminalisation of the last-mentioned acts it is still possible to argue that, because of the impact of international law on our legal system, such behaviour does automatically establish criminality. It is nevertheless advisable that this legislation should create legal certainty in that regard.
The FF Plus is, however, satisfied that the government is now finally bringing the law into line with our international obligations.]
Thank you, Deputy Speaker.
Madam Deputy Speaker, there being unanimous support for this Bill, I so indicate that we should adopt it. Thank you. [Applause.]
Thank you, hon Minister. Hon members, that concludes the debate, but in view of the concerns raised by the chairperson of the committee with regard to the version of the Bill before the House, I will not put the question on the Second Reading of the Bill at this stage. The decision of the question on the Second Reading will be scheduled for a future date - certainly before we adjourn next week - when the correct version of the Bill is available.