Mr Speaker, I was justdrawing my Leader's attention to the factthat, apart from clause 23 (1), he talkedabout, we have sub clauses (3) and (4)flowing, because we have not gonethrough the whole clause, that is why thereis confusion. This is because once a person takesthe decision to give or not to give, thensubclause (3) comes in to tell us that, if hetakes the decision, this is what happens;then subclause (4) would also tell us that,if he does not take the decision, that iswhat happens. They did not just stop there, they wentforward to subclause (5), which says thatif one fails to determine it within a certainperiod, then he must give reasons. Theydid not just end there, they went on tosubclause (6), to say that, if section 5 doesnot apply in certain areas-- So, if we finish reading the wholeclause, we would understand. I believethat the context in which it is now is allright. This is because for the first one, the
Information Officer must make a decisionon the application and send it in a writtenform to the person within twenty oneworking days. Mr Speaker, then subclause (3) will tellyou that if he takes that decision to grantit, then this is what it should entail.Subclause (4) tells us that, if he does nottake that decision, then this is what itwould entail. Subclause (5) says that, ifhe fails to do that, within a certain period,then he must give reasons within a certainperiod, why he has not done that, andsince it is exempting the subclause (5) fromwhere it is transferred to another agency-- Mr Speaker, in my view, if we leave itlike this, it makes a lot of sense. I do notthink that it infringes on the clause. Inany case, if we want to take a decision, wewould not take it intoto, we would take itin conjunction with the whole Act, andwe are bound by the provisions of theAct. Other provisions of the Act wouldthen guide us on what to do or what notto do. I do not think we should worryourselves. The way it is, unless there isanother issue, it is all right.