Hon Chairperson, this Bill is essentially aimed at improving South Africa's immigration regime by addressing problems that the department has encountered through practical experience. It is not aimed at overhauling the entire immigration system. It is disingenuous to suggest that it is flawed because it does not attempt to redesign the immigration dispensation as a whole.
The hon Lovemore tells us that there is no coherent policy. Unfortunately, she does not indicate to us what is wrong with the present one. She suggests that the Bill may be detrimental to our economy, but once again, unfortunately, she does not motivate this. [Interjections.]
It has become clear to the department that certain provisions of the Immigration Act are being abused. Currently, foreign children are allowed to travel on the basis of an endorsement on their parent's passport. This means that the details of the child, which are endorsed on the passport of the adult person, cannot be matched against the child. This poses serious challenges in relation to the fight against human trafficking. We are therefore amending the Act to require minors to be in possession of a valid passport when accompanying adults, including their parents.
When asylumseekers arrive at one of our ports of entry, they are issued with an asylum transit visa for the purposes of applying for asylum in South Africa. As the law now stands, everyone claiming asylum has to be granted an asylum transit visa, which is valid for 14 days. This visa is abused by many people who are not bona fide refugees. We are therefore amending the legislation to subject the granting of this visa to a prescribed procedure and to make it valid not for 14 days but for five days only. This would enable the asylum seeker to travel to the nearest refugee reception office in order to apply for asylum.
The prescribed procedure will allow for a limited measure of so-called pre- screening to enable immigration officers to, for example, establish whether the asylumseeker is a prohibited person in South Africa or a criminal suspect in another country, and so on.
Originally, clause 15 of the Bill allowed the director-general, DG, to withhold an asylum transit visa from a person. This happens if it has been established at the port of entry that the person does not qualify to apply for asylum. The committee agrees that this is problematic, as the immigration officers at the ports of entry would not have the necessary training to make this critical determination.
We concluded that the pre-screening should be limited to matters of fact that can easily be established at the port of entry. An example would be whether someone is a prohibited person within South Africa, and we have provided the Minister with the authority to prescribe these limited matters.
Instead of supporting this substantial amendment, the opposition found new reasons to oppose the new provision. They are unhappy that Parliament will not decide on the content of the regulations, as the hon Lovemore has pointed out. She also pointed out that the validity period of five days is not long enough, as Home Affairs might delay the processing of applications, and that it is problematic to require asylumseekers to report to the nearest refugee office and not to any office of choice.
All three these objections are invalid. We do not want refugees to dwell in the Republic. They must go straight to the refugee reception office to report there, and five days is indeed long enough for that. The Bill does not say their applications have to be processed within five days; they only have to report to the relevant office within five days. And why should we not tell them to go to the nearest office? I suppose they will even be told at the port of entry where that office is and how to get there.
The term "permit", as opposed to "visa", has led the courts to problematic interpretations, as they seem to regard all permits as instruments that do not necessarily only allow a temporary stay in our country. Therefore, to clarify the position, we are now making a clear distinction between temporary instruments, all of which are being called "visas" and the only remaining permanent instrument, the permanent residence permit.
We really do not understand how it can be suggested that the Bill was bulldozed through Parliament. For three days, our committee listened to public submissions. Indicating quite clearly how seriously we took cognisance of the public submissions we received, we have made some very substantial amendments to the Bill.
Originally, the Bill prescribed that business visas may only be issued to foreign businesses prescribed to be in the national interest. We found this formulation to be too restrictive and feared that it might inhibit business activity. Foreign businesses are required to make a substantial capital investment in South Africa and will be pushed out by the market if they are not viable. Rather than having lists of foreign businesses that are allowed, which lists may not be accurate or may be out of date, we opted to list those businesses that are undesirable. We went further, in line with our job creation drive, and expect these foreign businesses to employ a prescribed percentage or number of South African citizens or permanent residents.
The Bill originally proposed the deletion of section 22(b) of the Act. This section makes provision for exchange visas for foreigners who are under 25 years of age and have received an offer to work for no longer than a year. The committee retained this visa, but excluded offers for undesirable work, as this visa allows young people from other parts of the world to be exposed to South Africa. It also allows young South Africans to be exposed to different cultures.
Clause 21 introduces mandatory advance passenger processing and the submission of passenger name record information by owners or persons in charge of conveyances. Concerns that have been expressed relate to the protection of private information, that international standards may not be met, and that this system will also apply to domestic flights.
Data protection measures should not be a concern, as Parliament is currently considering the Protection of Personal Information Bill. Our advance passenger processing system is also in full compliance with the International Civil Aviation Organisation's standards and it has been used successfully, also on domestic flights, during the Soccer World Cup. It is not correct to suggest that it will necessarily apply to taxis and the like, hon Mnqasela, as the Bill refers to "prescribed conveyances" and taxis have not been prescribed, as nothing can be prescribed prior to the Bill becoming law. The system will go a long way towards apprehending people who have entered the country illegally, are wanted for crimes committed, are prohibited, etc.
The repeal of section 46 of the Act does not mean that immigration practitioners are banned. No issue with unconstitutionality therefore arises, hon Swart and Mnqasela, and no stifling of economic growth. Their clients will continue to consult them and they will continue to advise their clients. However, the department will introduce a new risk-based method in dealing with applications for visas, and this procedure will require direct interaction with clients. This applies to South Africans, so why not to foreigners?
The Minister dealt with the sentences. There were concerns that the increases are too harsh, disproportional, and so on. Once again we listened to public submissions over three days, and we have reduced the sentences. Concerns have come to our attention that the sentences are not necessarily a deterrent, but the length of sentences is still obviously one of the deterrents available to the state, as recognised by our common law.
The Department of Home Affairs has also assured us that no one who has made an application to the department will be guilty of an offence if there are delays on the side of the Department of Home Affairs.
In the last instance, I want to deal with this matter of the blank cheque that has allegedly been given to the Minister. Obviously, in any Bill, as members would know, there are substantive provisions. As far as some of the provisions are concerned, it is left to the Minister to make regulations. I would like to suggest that none of the matters where we allow the Minister to make regulations are very substantial matters. Our committee and Parliament are not there to micromanage the Department of Home Affairs - or any other department, for that matter. So, it is quite obvious that in certain circumstances we allow the Minister to make regulations and, as a committee and as the ANC we really do not have any problems with the matters that have been left to the Minister to make regulations on.
This Bill improves our immigration regime and we can therefore support it. I thank you. [Applause.]