Mr. Speaker, when this debate was interrupted last night, I was dealing with the more specific points raised by the hon. member for Green Point, those which I did not deal with in the general survey I gave. I had discussed the question of quantity surveyors, and I think I disposed of this matter completely. Other hon. members also referred to certain aspects of the matter. I shall discuss the matter further when I come to those hon. members. I think that disposes of the points raised by the hon. member for Green Point.

I now want to deal with the hon. member for Walmer. Last night I told the hon. member for Walmer that he had let the cat out of the bag during his Second Reading speech when he warned the hon. member for Boksburg that he would have to report back to his voters. I linked this to the circular which was sent to all hon. members. I said that it was the wrong approach to legislation altogether to allow our conduct to be determined by who the minority and who the majority is. I said that minorities also had rights.

Quite right.

Yes. I am turning specifically to the Progressive Party because I believe that I will find support for such a standpoint from that quarter! The hon. member for Walmer went further, and what he actually did was to attack my colleague, the hon. the Minister of Planning and the Environment. He laid the housing shortage at the door of group areas. I indicated in this House last year what the actual position in regard to group areas and housing is. I indicated that 90% of the people who are removed in terms of the proclamation of group areas, are people who are removed from slum areas. With that I leave that point. He also advocated tax concessions. The hon. member for Green Point did not want to tell me this last night, and I do not see the hon. member for Walmer here, therefore I cannot ask him.

He apologized for his absence.

Yes, the hon. member offered his apology. I would have liked to have known from him whether he wanted rent control in respect of all dwelling units in South Africa, and whether this was the only way in which this could be applied in practice.

There he comes.

The hon. member for Walmer heard my argument last night on the consequences of tax concessions. I want to put this question to him: Is he in favour of rent control in respect of all dwelling units in South Africa up to the present, and in the days to come? [Interjections.] I am frequently charged with not speaking loudly enough, but that hon. member must not expect me to hear what he is saying now. [Interjections.] Apart from that, that hon. member commented unfavourably on this legislation in general. He wanted to know from me where the quantity surveyors are to be found. I indicated last night that it is not compulsory or if one cannot find a quantity surveyor this year, one can find one next year. This does not apply only to the lessor, but to the lessee as well. The lessee may also find that it suits him to go to the Rent Board with a computation made by the quantity surveyor. If he cannot find one this year, he will find one next year.

A computation for a similar building, the same size, the same everything.

If the hon. member is interested in this, I can tell him specifically what the quantity surveyor looks for, but I think he ought to know. The hon. member for Walmer also asked for guidelines in respect of deproclamation, and these I furnished last night.

The hon. member for Hercules asked whether 2½% for maintenance costs was not too low. The hon. member for Sea Point said that we should keep it at 2½%. I shall come to that.

I asked for the reason why it should remain at 2½%.

I shall come to that. In view of the experience which has already been gained, when it was set at 2%, we now have a 25% increase, and this is regarded as being reasonable. I think we must accept that no owner is going to spend the same percentage on maintenance every year. We shall find, for example, that he will spend 7%, 8% or 10% on maintenance this year, and far less—perhaps 1 % —for the next two or three years. Here one actually works on averages, and I think that a 25% increase at this stage is an adequate concession. The point which the hon. member for Sea Point made, is not entirely valid. He thought that this 0,5% means so much more as regards the increase in the rent which has to be paid. It is not only 0,5% more which the lessee pays.

The hon. member for Hercules suggested that consideration be given to the consolidation of the Act. I can tell the hon. member that this is a matter to which the Johannes Committee gave attention, and that the consolidation will be dealt with after we have given this matter further attention.

This brings me then to the hon. member for Houghton. She raised the question of the Johannes Committee report again, and I should like to refer to this again briefly when I come to her amendment. I also dealt with it last night. The hon. member put a question to me in regard to Silver Oaks. I established that the regional representative here in Cape Town received a request on 9 December last year. The matter has been investigated and it will in due course be submitted to me. That is all comment I can make on that matter at this stage. The hon. member for Houghton expressed the opinion that the penal provisions which may be imposed should also include the alternative of imprisonment. Perhaps I should just remind her of what was said not so long ago in this House by the hon. member for Johannesburg North. It does not appear in the record, but I remember saying it he complained that our prisons were too full; that we were too inclined to put people in prison. [Interjection.] The hon. member for Houghton must give me a chance to speak. Sir, if I can be convinced that this malpractice, this intimidation, is really assuming such serious proportions, then I am prepared to consider the suggestion, but not at this stage. In this Bill certain concessions are being made to the lessor. There are certain provisions which make it easier for him to prove his case, and I would at least want to ascertain first what the effect of this is going to be. I want to tell the hon. member that in the interests of the lessee I am afraid of one thing, and that is that we are going to drive people away from this industry through having measures which are too drastic. The hon. member for Sea Point was not here last night, but he can look up my speech to see what I said about rent control; what my candid feelings about that matter are. I do not want to take steps which are going to drive people away from this industry which provides residential accommodation. I said yesterday that it cannot be expected of any Government to be solely responsible for meeting the housing needs of the population. Therefore I am not prepared at this stage to accept an amendment to the effect that imprisonment may also be imposed.

The hon. member asked what guide-lines I adopt in respect of deproclamation. I think that I elucidated this in detail last night. The hon. member complained about Mr. Mouton and Mr. Wainer. I do not know Mr. Wainer, but I know Mr. Mouton—I am quite candid about this—very well; I know him very well personally. Mr. Mouton has so far, as far as I can remember —my memory may be playing tricks on me—made four applications for deproclamation. One of these was approved—the hon. member knows about that—and three were refused. I think that the hon. member for Houghton accepts that the application which was approved was justified. As I have said, I do not know Mr. Wainer personally; I have merely read the reports about him in the newspapers.

You said that four applications had been made and one had been approved. Did the four include Silver Oaks?

No. It has not been before me yet. I said that I was speaking from memory. As far as I can recollect, there were four applications and I approved of one.

*I do not know Mr. Wainer. I read the newspaper reports and frequently heard his name mentioned in this House. Sir, I want to say this to the owners, the lessors: They have an association and they also have a code. I think they should see whether they cannot improve that code in such a manner that action can be taken against members who might perhaps act in such a way that a stigma is going to attach to this industry. Sir, this is a very important industry in our country; it is an industry which has to play a very important role, and I think it is the task of the members of that association—I cannot condemn Mouton or Wainer—to ensure that respectability, if I may put it in that way, is maintained in their industry.

The hon. member for Houghton inquired about servants’ rooms. I am quite satisfied that as the legal position stands at present, servants’ rooms are in fact covered. Not a single complaint has reached me from anyone complaining that the rent from a servant’s room had been terminated. Not a single complaint has reached my department either. Our view is that servants’ rooms are covered, and unless there is a court ruling to the effect that servants’ rooms are not covered, we shall continue as at present. We are not aware of any complaints, but if there were to be a court ruling to the effect that servants’ rooms are not included under the lease or under rent control, we shall have to consider this matter very positively in order to effect the necessary amendments because this can in fact be a method of intimidation.

Then I want to refer briefly to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Houghton. She urged that the Second Reading be declined because the Government had refused to make known the findings of the Johannes Committee. Sir, is that a sound reason? After all, she is being asked whether she agrees with this Bill. She is very intelligent; she is, after all, able to judge the amendments which are being effected in this Bill on their merits. I indicated here last night that virtually all the drastic amendments originated with the Johannes Committee. The hon. member then maintains that the Second Reading should be declined, because the Government has failed to create conditions in which sufficient accommodation at reasonable rentals will be available for persons of the lower and middle income groups living in the cities.

Sir, this Bill, for all practical purposes applies to Whites, it applies to Indians to a very limited extent and Coloureds to a minimal extent; for the rest, it applies to Whites. My department is now spending in the region of, say, R80 million per annum on housing for these three population groups. The biggest slice of that R80 million is going to the Coloureds today because their position is the most critical, and what remains goes to the Whites and to the Indians. I want to tell the hon. member that if national circumstances allow the Minister of Finance to give me more money, I shall spend that money. The department is in a position to do so, but I think R80 million per annum is a considerable amount.

You ought to encourage private enterprise.

I explained to the hon. member for Green Point last night, and I was unable to receive any reply from them. I do not know whether the hon. member for Houghton has received any reply yet. But I shall come to his speech. The amendment moved by the hon. member then states—

I want to tell the hon. member that when we amended this Bill by removing the words “with the object” (of inducing that person to vacate), we took a very drastic step. The object need no longer be proved. That was the difficulty. All that need be proved now is that that person’s peaceful enjoyment of what he is letting, is being interfered with in an improper manner. In that case it is possible to intervene. We have already gone very far, and I want to remind the hon. member once again of what I said a moment ago, namely that we could go too far, and the day we go too far, we will be driving people away from this industry, and that is a dangerous thing. That is all I want to say about the hon. member’s amendment.

This brings me now to the hon. member for Wynberg. He told us that that side of the House gives more specific consideration to the lessee who suffers. In the same context I can refer to the speech made by the hon. member for Durban Point, who became emotional about the lessees who are suffering. Those hon. members cannot come to me today and say that my department and I have no sympathy for the lessee.

I admitted that.

That hon. member alleged that we were not giving consideration to the lessee who is suffering. I want to tell hon. members on the opposite side that there are two sides to every case. Now we do not for one moment accept that all the lessees are little angels. There is another side to that matter as well. I could invite the hon. member for Wynberg to examine in my office a letter which I received a few days ago from a small lessor, a woman who inherited a property which now has to provide her with her principal means of subsistence. She complained that the Rent Board had treated her unfairly and had determined such a low rent that she was unable to make a living. Then there is the story she told me of how the lessee had treated her, the damage which he had caused to her property. Consequently the lessors could also have tales of human suffering to tell. I can tell hon. members on the opposite side that there are two sides to this matter as well, and that there are ogres among the lessees as well. But then there is also the case of a lessor who went to look at a flat one day to find that the lessee had moved and had held a farewell party in the form of a barbecue, a barbecue in the middle of the lounge.

That is an exception.

Hon. members on the opposite side, and especially the hon. member for Umbilo, quoted the exceptions. This person gave a farewell barbecue in the middle of the lounge. He needed firewood, and then decided that the place had far too many doors in any case. So he took down a door and used it to make a barbeque fire. I could tell him about another case, a case which can be substantiated. An owner who went to a flat one day to carry out an inspection there, found that all that was left in that flat— the person was still there—was a mattress. He had sold all the furniture. But it did not end there. Everything which could be detached from the walls, the doors and the ceilings, had been removed and apparently had also been sold. What redress does that lessor have? He has no redress. He can lay a criminal charge, but what redress does he have from a person who owns only a mattress? So, Sir, there are two sides to this matter as well, and it is my task and the task of my department to try to look after both sides.

I also want to tell the hon. member for Wynberg that his reaction to the hon. member for Durbanville was very unfair, and I want to leave it at that.

The hon. member also said that he thought that very few people who had been owners prior to 1966 were still owners today. With that he destroyed his own argument. Would a person sell such a remunerative business? Surely one does not sell such a remunerative business; surely one keeps it for one’s heirs to carry on. This point I shall subsequently link up to the argument advanced by another hon. member.

The hon. member also said that an amendment is being effected in respect of rent value, and he linked uncontrolled flats to that. The hon. member should look at the Act. If he does so, he will find that a series of instruments are mentioned which are taken into consideration by the Rent Board.

I quoted it.

The hon. member did not quote all of it. There is a series of instruments, but the Rent Board is not bound to all of them. Nor is the Rent Board bound to any specific one. I believe that these two provisions, namely that the Rent Board may take into consideration, if it finds this necessary and if this is available to it, the replacement value, as well as the price of an uncontrolled flat, enables the Rent Board to give precisely that balanced judgment which one should like to have, for complaints were voiced here of capricious rulings by Rent Boards. The hon. member also complained that Rent Boards would be inundated. I doubt whether that will be the case. The cases will simply be placed on the roll of the Rent Boards. It cannot be done in any other way. There is provision in the Act to the effect that a rent determination cannot be made with retrospective effect for longer than six months. I shall probably come to that as well later on. The hon. member also referred to applications for deproclamation. I have already dealt with that.

The hon. member for Langlaagte asked whether attention could not be given to the question of less affluent people, and controlled flats. I think I indicated last night what problems could arise here, and that means tests would then have to be applied. Means tests will then have to be applied, and when a person no longer meets the requirements of the means test, he will have to vacate the flat. This is the kind of problem which could be created here. It would entail an encroachment on the rights of the private entrepreneur, and I am disinclined to accept that.

The hon. member for Sandton said the Bill prejudices the middle and lower income groups. But the hon. member did not tell me that 8½% is too high. Is it too high? Or is it not too high?

He says it is not enough. [Interjections.]

As I interpreted the speech made by the hon. member for Sandton, he was implying that all dwelling units fall under rent control. If he was under that impression, he knows now that is not the case. Here I made a note: “Lessors receive too little, and lessees are staring increases in the face.” The hon. member for Sandton criticized the provision we made in this Bill in respect of the supply of electricity. I want to tell him that this is a protective measure for the lessee of a building who will, under given circumstances, have to pay a little extra. Now he can, however, keep a check on what he is paying—he can read his meter. At the end of the month he can read his meter and say to the lessor: “Here is my electricity account.” At present the position is that he has to accept the amount which the lessor places in front of him because he has no control over it. He has to accept that amount and he has to wait to ascertain what the amount is which the lessor worked out and which he can collect from each lessee after he has submitted it to them.

Now the benefits apply to both sides. It makes it easier for the lessor as far as his calculations are concerned, and it makes it easier for the lessee because he is able to determine precisely how much he owes. He now knows exactly what he saved, and this amount goes into his pocket.

Why do you allow the lessor in certain circumstances to make a profit on such things as electricity which has been passed on to the lessee? Surely this is a wrong principle.

The amount involved is very small. It is not as important as the fact that the lessee now has control over what he has to pay, namely that he can read the meter himself and can determine himself what amount is owing.

May I make myself clear? Why is it not possible for the lessor to sell the electricity or pass it on to the lessee at exactly the same price that he pays for it? Why has he got to charge a higher rate?

I do not know what more I can say to explain to the hon. member for Sandton that, under the present system, the lessee has no control over the amount which he pays. He cannot calculate the amount. He has to accept the amount which the lessor submits to him, and he has to pay it. What is involved here are lesser amounts.

For the most part I have already dealt with other matters which the hon. member raised. As far as ejectments with the view to renovation are concerned, I just want to say this strengthens the position of the lessee. But now he wants to complain about this.

The hon. member for Johannesburg North is, as I said yesterday, one of the few members who tried to go into the provisions of this measure in depth. It is not that I have a specific affinity to the hon. member for Johannesburg North, but it is true that he went into these provisions. He investigated and discussed them and arrived at the conclusion that the rate for which provision is being made in respect of the lessor, is still too low. I want to acknowledge that the hon. member for Johannesburg North is right on that score —this rate of 8½% is low in contrast to the profit margin which the manufacturer, for example, is allowed when there is price control.

Does the hon. the Minister refer to a profit of 8½% on an investment amount or on an arbitrary valuation which rises with the cost of building on the building cost index?

I am including capital appreciation to which every man in this country is entitled. The capital appreciation to which I referred last night is not a new principle. I have told hon. members how this principle has been followed by Rent Boards over the years and how they have been trying to apply it in a rather more arbitrary way. That is exactly what it amounts to.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister a question? If the hon. the Minister agrees that they should have 8½% on an appreciating value, what does he regard as a reasonable return on a depreciating asset such as the investment of cash?

I have been referring to factories and the profits allowed to such people. They also have their difficulties.

*The hon. member for Johannesburg North referred to the risk that the Minister may proclaim and that this may keep people out of the industry. That is true; it is a real danger. I am aware that this may keep people out of the industry. This is why I am trying, with this legislation, to find a reasonable principle so that it will not deter people to that extent. The hon. member referred to intimidation. I have already disposed of that. In principle the hon. member advocated the lifting of rent control, and if the hon. member refers to the speech I made last night, he will find the standpoint in this respect. The hon. member also advocated a subsidy, but to whom? Is it to the lessee or to the lessor?

†A subsidy to the lessor or the lessee? Which one?

To the tenant.

Who is going to control that? Of all the thousands of people in this country who are hiring premises, who is going to control that? In other words, in what circumstances are we going to pay that subsidy? Is there going to be a means test? There has to be a means test. In other words, my department must also check up in respect of all the thousands of people who are living in rent-controlled premises and in uncontrolled premises in this country. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members must enable the hon. the Minister to finish.

Yes, Sir, the hon. members opposite are to blame for my not being able to finish. The member for Tygervallei asked me for two assurances. The one was that the Rent Boards would receive guidance. It is a recommendation of the Johannes Committee that the Rent Boards must be given guidance, and consequently it is the practice in my department that conferences with Rent Boards should take place from time to time. It is the intention that once this new legislation is in operation another conference of Rent Board chairmen will be held to inform Rent Boards about the provisions and what is being envisaged with them. My department cannot deprive the Rent Boards of the discretion of deciding what is reasonable for both sides. After all, Rent Boards are committed to principles. For example it is an integral part of the legislation that Rent Boards should be reasonable to both parties. In its ruling the Rent Board shall have to ask itself the question what is reasonable to the lessor and what is reasonable to the lessee.

The hon. member for Pinetown said that this legislation solves nothing. He said that Rent Boards determine value in a completely arbitrary way, but now that more fundamental instruments are being built into the legislation, he is opposed to them. He invoked assessors, and asked why they had not been included. If the hon. member would look at the relevant clause in the Act, he would see that they have in fact been included. I said last night that it had been our experience that the valuations of sworn appraisers sometimes differed by up to 800%. The hon. member is now suggesting that, as in the USA, buildings should be depreciated by 2½% per annum with a view to write-offs. If buildings had to be depreciated in this way, it would mean that the rent income would decrease every year. Surely that is not what is being envisaged. The hon. member for Durban Point also referred the hon. Chief Whip on this side of the House and the hon. member for Tygervallei to their voters. Why were they being referred to their voters? After all, we are trying to find a fair dispensation in there between people with conflicting interests.

Do the voters not ultimately also have a say in this regard?

The voters are interested when we do the wrong things in this House.

If you are looking for justification, you should go to the voters.

He referred to the voters because this legislation will allegedly result in rent increases. My experience with voters has been that one can confront them with clean hands and look them in the eyes if one has acted fairly. That is my standpoint. What is being done here, is fair in respect of both parties.

†The hon. member complained that the interest rate of 8½% and the replacement value would create a nightmare to thousands. Therefore, I take it that he disapproves of the interest rate of 8½% because it is too high.

The determination on replacement value makes it too high.

In other words, according to the hon. member, this person should not get 8½% interest on his capital.

Replacement is not capital.

It is appreciated capital and nothing else.

*Last night I dealt with this matter step by step in my speech. I mentioned the example of A and B. B receives it, while A is deprived of it because his block of flats was occupied a day later. Is that fair? Should we not also be fair to A? If we must then be unfair to A, we must also be unfair to B, and then we should apply rent control throughout. Is the hon. member in favour of that? If the hon. member had come to me and advocated that these things should not happen, but that rent control should be applied throughout, he would have had a point. But he did not say this to me because he would run into problems from some of his voters. I think that I have now, for the most part, replied to all the other points raised by the hon. member. He referred to people who were being misled into buying shares. Honestly, it is too much to expect of my department to guard against people buying shares which could get them into trouble. When I refer to shares. I am referring to shares in blocks of flats. To keep a watchful eye over individuals throughout the country is surely an impossible task.

The hon. member for Sea Point was not here. He apologized for that. I want to consider a few points which he raised here. He said that 2% on maintenance costs was sufficient.

Based on an increasing valuation.

Yes, based on an increasing valuation. If that argument is a valid one, I must accept that the 8½% should by implication decrease to 8%.

No, the one is an expense, the other is not.

If that argument which the hon. member is advancing is a valid one, what about municipal rates? Surely these also go up as the property appreciates.

Not annually.

They do not go up annually, but they go up nevertheless. They are going up in all the cities, in towns in South Africa. If the hon. member wants to be consistent, he should also say that those increases in rates should not be allowable.

Not in comparison with building costs.

The Cape Provincial Administration bases it on replacement value less depreciation.

But then the rates are reduced by the municipality.

Rates on immovable property are going up in all our towns and cities. Whether it happens annually or not, the fact remains that they are going up. If the 2% argument is a valid one, it also applies in respect of rates. Or should it be pegged at the rates of ten years ago, and remain at that?

No.

But then the hon. member for Sea Point is not being consistent, and surely the Progressive Party is a party which prides itself on being consistent. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, one need only look slightly askance at one of the six chicks of the hon. member for Houghton and she wants to peck at you. The hon. member tried to make the point that it should be possible to establish the cost of construction. The experience of the rent boards has been that it cannot be determined.

It has already been established in respect of all the present premises.

Has the cost of construction been established?

Yes, the cost of construction.

The experience of the rent boards has been that they were unable to determine this. The hon. member for Wynberg told us that very few of the people who originally constructed those controlled flats are still the owners of such flats today. Consequently the present owner informs the rent board that he does not know what the cost of construction was. He says: “I paid R100 000 for it, but do not ask me what it cost to construct”. The rent boards accept that. Now the hon. member for Sea Point is saying that it should be established.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister a question? In relation to the buildings which fall under rent control at the moment, are there any buildings for which the original erection costs have not already been determined?

There may be thousands of them for all I know, but my information is that the rent boards cannot always determine the original erection costs. That is the position and that is one of the reasons why a substitute is being sought.

But surely the costs of A and B were identical.

The hon. member asked me very specifically—and pressed me for an answer—whether I accepted responsibility for the lower and middle income groups in the cities. South Africa is not a socialist state. The Government of South Africa is trying to help as far as it is with in its means to do so. That is my reply in that regard.

The hon. member also stated it as a point that rent controlled flats should only be available to people who require the protection of the Rents Act. Does the hon. member for Sea Point really think that that is realistic? There are thousands of people who are at present living in rent controlled flats and who nevertheless do not require that protection. Should they be evicted and should the flats which fall vacant immediately be reoccupied by people who require the protection of the Rents Act? The day a person receives a salary increase and no longer falls within the category in which he requires the protection of the Act, should he have to vacate the premises in order to make way for the next man?

Is that the Government’s attitude? Should these people also receive protection? [Interjections.]

No, it is the attitude of that side of the House.

No, I am asking whether the Government …

Order! I cannot allow this continuous dialogue and interjecting.

They proposed that the Government should bear the interest on mortgages above 8½%. Should there be a means test?

†Should there be a means test?

In what connection?

A subsidy on bond interest above 8½%. Should there be a means test?

Do you want millionaires to get that money?

That is what the hon. member suggested. I have it written down here.

*The Government should bear the interest on mortgages above 8½%.

In respect of housing which is of importance to that group of people.

They should all be herded together into certain flats, specific flats. Does the hon. member think that that is realistic?

The hon. member also requested that lessees should receive notice of application for deproclamation. No statutory amendment is necessary for that purpose. If that becomes necessary, it can be done administratively. From my experience up to now, and according to hon. members, the lessees know about such an application before my department does. Representations are then made …

It is used as a threat against them.

There is a board for that purpose, and there is a person.

The hon. member for Umbilo mentioned the case of a widow whose rent was increased so drastically. What would his reply be? The rent board finds that that lessor has a reasonable right to a certain increase in rent in respect of that property. What else should the rent board do but determine that it is a reasonable rent? This is typical of the cases in regard to which, accusations are being levelled at me. I have sympathy for these people. My department is trying to make provision for these people in so far as it is within our power to do so. Financing is being provided for old-age homes. Financing is also being provided in other spheres where people are destitute. This is already being done today, and now it is being expected that the lessor should subsidize this person. This is a typical case of picking out the eyes.

The hon. member for Umbilo also requested that rent increases should not be made with retrospective effect. I do not know what the position used to be in respect of this matter of retrospective effect. I think it was for an indefinite period. It was precisely with a view to this that it has been fixed at six months. It has been fixed at six months because the lessor also has a right. When there is a delay of more than six months, perhaps of nine months, and the Rent Control board finds that that person was entitled to a certain rent as from that day, it is nevertheless fixed at six months. A sensible lessee will know that such an application is pending. He will realize that the possibility of an increase does in fact exist, and he will therefore take it into account.

May I ask a question?

If Mr. Speaker has no objection.

If the lessor makes application and asks for an unreasonable amount, something which he knows he will not receive, can the lessee then be expected to put aside that money in case it is made with retrospective effect for six months?

Lessees are not that stupid, Mr. Speaker. They are also able to judge what the case might be. There are provisions in the Act which are aimed at people who approach the rent board simply to harass lessees, and the penal provision in this Bill is being made five times more stringent.

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question? Has the hon. the Minister confirmed since last night that his predecessor undertook to make the Johannes Committee report available; if so, what is the hon. the Minister’s attitude towards his continued refusal to make the report available?

My attitude remains completely unaltered.

May I put a further question to the hon. the Minister?

Is the hon. the Minister prepared to answer more questions?

Yes, Sir.

Is the hon. the Minister aware of the words used by his predecessor? If not, may I draw his attention to those words (column 7343)—

Last night I stated my standpoint in this regard. I said that I would not leave one person—even if it is only one person—who testified before this committee, in the lurch.

The hon. member for Jeppe advocated the appointment of a Minister of Housing. That is the prerogative of the Prime Minister. If a Minister of Housing were able to obtain more money for houses than my department is able to obtain, then I would say that such an appointment would be very sincerely welcomed. But it is a question of money. My department has all the expert knowledge which it should have at its disposal; it is merely a question of money. The hon. member also raised the question of 8½%. He said that interest above 8½% should be borne by the Government. Should there be a means test?

Not a word!

In addition the hon. member said that lessors should receive notice of applications for deproclamation; I have already replied to that.

Mr. Speaker, I want to conclude.

Hear, hear!

We shall come to the “hear, hears” in a moment. The upshot is that the hon. gentlemen on the opposite side want the provision that mortgage interest will not be allowed, to remain. That is the reply which I received last night, that the provision that mortgage interest will not be allowed should remain and that the other concessions should be eliminated. Sir, if that step is taken, then I want to inform those hon. gentlemen that we will be driving the entrepreneur away from this industry; and then we would be heading for a disaster.

But no new entrepreneur is affected even by these amendments. These are all buildings which have already been constructed.

The hon. gentlemen referred to what is now being envisaged; they did not refer to buildings which have already been constructed. They referred to subsidies which have to be paid by the State. Are you going to subsidize only controlled flats in that respect? What about the less affluent people who are living in uncontrolled flats? Sir, the hon. gentlemen on the opposite side tried to set a trap for me with this proposal of a Government subsidy; they have now fallen into that trap and I am now going to see how they are going to get out of it.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

In order to realize in full the objectives of the Architects’ Act, 1970 (Act 35 of 1970), it is necessary to effect amendments to provide for the limited registration of persons as architects and to exempt certain persons from the application of the provisions of the Act.

These amendments are being effected at the request and on the recommendation of the South African Council of Architects, and the reasons and considerations underlying this are as follows:

Clauses 1 and 2

These clauses amend sections 4(l)(b) and 14(l)(b) and relate to the amendment of section 19 (clause 3) in which provision is made for the limited registration of persons as architects. Because it is not beneficial for a person without full architect status to have control over the destiny of full-fledged architects, it is also undesirable for persons who are not registered as full-fledged architects to be appointed as members of the South African Council of Architects or its Education Advisory Committee.

Clause 3(a)

This clause amends section 19 by means of the insertion of a subsection after subsection (3) and is aimed at making concessions in the case of architects (primarily from foreign countries) who have qualifications which it will be possible to recognize, but the holder of which still has to pass an examination in professional practice as applicable in South Africa before being registered as an architect in terms of the Act. The main object is to enable in particular Government departments which desire to do so, to recruit such persons abroad and to employ them pending registration.

Clause 3(b)

This clause amends section 19(10)(b) and is of an administrative nature. The period of six months at present allowed for the payment of annual fees is unnecessarily long and is being reduced to 60 days to bring it into line with the period at present prescribed for the payment of membership fees to the South African Institute of Architects.

In addition there is an anomaly in the Act in the sense that the registration of a person as an architect or an architect-intraining automatically expires if he does not pay the annual fee within the prescribed period and he consequently has to re-register despite any extension of time for payment which the council may subsequently grant.

Clause 3(c)

This clause amends section 19(12) and is necessary’ to enable the council to recover expenditure which it incurs in collecting arrear fees.

Clause 3(d) and 4.

These clauses amend sections 19(13)(a) and (b) and 23(l)(e) and result from the insertion of the new section 19(3A).

Clause 5.

This clause inserts a new section similar to section 31 of the Professional Engineers Act, 1968 (Act 81 of 1968), and provides for the exemption of certain persons from, inter alia, the provisions relating to the demarcation of work in terms of section 7(3) (c) of the Act. In particular it affects architectural draftsmen who are at present performing work of an architectonic nature under a variety of designations. Apart from the fact that it has never been the intention to deprive these people of their livelihood, it is essential that in view of the continuing shortage of architects, their knowledge and services should be fully utilized, just as in the case of foreign architects who do not qualify for registration.

Mr. Speaker, this Bill contains amendments to the Architects’ Act. It is largely of an administrative nature but does contain two important principles. The two important principles are, firstly, that the council will now be able to register as architects those persons who do in fact and can in fact do the work of an architect and allow them under certain circumstances and under certain conditions to do the work of architects. The second important principle is that the hon. the Minister is now being empowered to exempt certain persons from the provisions of the Act and, I presume, also for that purpose.

I know that the hon. the Minister and his department and other departments of State in this country have had trouble with persons whom they have recruited overseas and have brought here to do the work of architects. The same applies to people recruited to do work in other professional capacities. They have found that they run into trouble with, for instance, the Public Service Commission regarding grades and salaries which should be offered to these persons because they do not have the required qualifications and because, for one reason or another, the Council of Architects or none of the Institutes of Architects in the country has agreed to accept them as members. Because of this we believe that this is a measure which is to be supported. The Bill, if enacted, will make available not only to the Government departments but also to the private sector the services of people who are qualified to do this work but who have not done it up to now.

With those few words it is my privilege to support the Bill on behalf of the official Opposition.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to note that the introduction of the Bill flows from a significant amendment that was effected in the Architects’ Act in 1970 as opposed to the original Architects’ and Quantity Surveyors’ Act of 1927. In the original Act the work of an architect was not protected but merely the name of the architect. One could not call oneself an architect but there was no protection to the work. As soon as one moves into the field of protecting the work, one will inevitably run into difficulties because there are people who do not have the formal qualifications and who are not acceptable to the professional associations, but who nevertheless have the ability. The fact that the hon. the Minister has come with the amending legislation is an admission on his part of the extreme difficulty in regulating a situation where you deny people the right to do work even when they have the necessary qualifications or the ability. And so he seeks authority to allow people who have not the necessary formal qualification, but nevertheless the technical competence to do the work which is normally restricted to qualified architects. For this reason we think that it is an anomaly, a problem which has to be met by way of exemption. We will support the measure as far as it permits exemptions to be made to the general blanket ban on people doing the work of architects.

I want to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to clause 5 providing for exemption of persons from the provisions of Act, and put it to him that the initiation for the exemption should not lie with the Minister, “in consultation with the council” as it is stated, but should rather lie with the Council of Architects. He has appointed a Council of Architects—he has the exclusive right to appoint them—selected from 12 persons who shall be nominated by the various architects’ institutes. Two others will be professors and there will be one person selected by the Minister because he is in the service of the State and two other members selected because of their special knowledge either in relation to the architectural profession or to the laws relating to architecture. It is in fact the Minister who appoints these people. I would suggest to the hon. the Minister that he should have sufficient confidence to rely on their advice in this matter and that he should only act when this change or this exemption is sought by them. For this reason we will move an amendment at the Committee Stage, not to deprive the Minister of the right to grant exemptions, but instead of it reading “the Minister may, after consultation with the council” we believe that the Minister should consider rewording it so that it should read “the Minister, upon consideration and approval of any relevant recommendation of the council”, take this action.

We do feel that, where the Minister has appointed a council and where he trusts that council, he should act on their initiative rather than on his own in consultation with the council. Subject to the Minister giving serious consideration to this amendment which we move, we have pleasure in supporting this amending legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I would, in the first place, like to express my appreciation for the support—apparently qualified support—of the Progressive Party and the complete support of the United Party.

In connection with the amendment suggested by the hon. member for Sea Point, I would like to make it clear to him why I won’t be in a position to accept that amendment. In the first place this legislation is as proposed by the Board of Architects, as I stated in my Second Reading speech. The second and very important reason is that is a factor of conflicting interests between these building designers and the registered architects who constitute this board. There are, as I have said, conflicting interests. That is the reason why I think the final discretion should rest with the Minister and not with the board.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

In the application of any Act, necessary amendments present themselves from time to time. Circumstances, or the requirements for the effective implementation of the Act change, and consequently the necessary adjustments have to be made. The Bill before you represents such essential adjustments to the Community Development Act. I shall deal with each of the adjustments separately.

Clause 1

Section 16(l)(a) of the aforesaid Act in its present form provides that when the Community Development Board required all the lots or erven within any township or portion of a township, all the public places in that township or portion thereof rests in the board, and these are deemed to have been closed, etc.

It is happening now in the urban renewal areas that the board has tackled in various cities, that when all the lots in an area have been acquired, the streets have been deemed to have been closed and the board, as the owner of the land, is then responsible for what happens there. However, it frequently happens that the board replans and redevelops the properties on both sides of the street and the street is retained in its original form. In those cases it is therefore not necessary for the streets to be closed and for the board to bear the responsibility as owner. Consequently it is deemed necessary that the board should be able to determine which streets are to be regarded as closed and when they are to be regarded as closed.

Clause 2

Under section 43A of the Act no licence referred to in Part 1 of the Second Schedule of the Licences Act, 1962 (Act No. 44 of 1962) with the exception of a licence referred to in items 5, 12, 16 or 19 of said Part 1 may be issued for the first time to an unauthorized person unless a certificate is issued by me or someone authorized thereto by me. The aim of this section is to prevent traders from infiltrating into areas in which they are unauthorized persons. It is also the object to effect a resettlement by means of licence control and to ensure that licences are issued to a variety of dealers in group areas so that unauthorized traders must also play their part in their own group areas.

With reference to the report of the Commission of Inquiry into Trade Licensing and Relating Matters, 1964, an inter-provincial committee was appointed to implement the recommendations. The result of this inter-provincial committee was the identifying of business concerns which have to be licensed and ordinances which make provision for the necessary licensing. The four provincial councils passed ordinances accordingly and each of these ordinances provides that the Licences Act 1962 be repealed in respect of the application thereof to the province concerned. The authorization thereto is granted to the provinces by Act No. 69 of 1968.

It appears from the above that section 43A of the Community Development Act, 1966, is now based on an Act which, has been repealed by the respective ordinances, and the section concerned will therefore have to be amended. The existing section 43A excludes certain licences. However, it appears that the various ordinances do not incorporate the description of businesses and professions as contained in Act 44 of 1962. The businesses and professions have been redescribed as well as regrouped in the ordinances. Furthermore the ordinances described businesses which, are not mentioned in the Act. Apart from that businesses are being excluded in section 43A which according to the ordinances do not exist as a business which has to be licensed. Some licences fall away in certain provinces while they are retained in others. For the purposes of uniformity, therefore, it is advisable that none of the licenses mentioned in the ordinances should be excluded from the operation of the contemplated amendment of section 43A. The ordinances in question have already come into operation on various dates for the various provinces, and consequently it is necessary for the amendment as envisaged in clause 2(2) to be made applicable.

Clause 3

In terms of section 32(10)(a) of the Community Development Act, 1966, no changes or extensions or additions to a building may be effected or any new building erected on land, the owner of which is an unauthorized person or company, without the prior approval of the board. Unauthorized extensions to buildings create serious resettlement problems and notwithstanding the penalty for a contravention of this provision as prescribed in section 50(1), contravention of section 32(10)(a) have recently occurred more and more frequently.

A similar provision to that contained in section 32(10)(a) appears in section 15(2) (e) in respect of “frozen areas”, where urban renewal is taking place. In respect of the latter section the penal provision for a contravention is contained in section 50 (2) which is very effective since a contravention of the prohibition seldom if ever occurs in this respect. The proposed amendment in this clause therefore merely brings the penal provision in respect of section 32(2)(a) cases into line with the penal provision in respect of section 15(2)(e) cases, as contained in section 50(2) of the Act.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister has introduced this Bill with brevity. He introduced it in the same manner in the Other Place. Nevertheless, I think it is necessary to examine this measure in a little more detail to realize what its implications are, particularly having regard to the declared intent of the Government, supported by all sides of this House, to eliminate unnecessary discrimination on the grounds of colour. The hon. the Minister has presented this measure as being purely an administrative one because of the fact that section 43A of the Act is no longer of effect as the result of certain provincial enactments that have been promulgated and of the transfer of licensing powers to the provincial authorities. However, the implications of the Bill are not quite as simple as that.

To turn to the Bill itself, we have no objections to the provisions of clause 1. The hon. the Minister has referred to the question of roads. He said that roads should remain open when the board has acquired the total area of a township. This is a valid reason for this amendment. I think there is another reason which also justifies this amendment. When one has regard to what is done in the laying out of townships, one frequently finds that there are waterways, ravines, etc., which form open areas within the townships. I see no reason why such open areas should be taken over by the board and why they should be closed to the general public. But one welcomes the provision of clause 1 that enables the board to look at the open areas which fall within a township to decide which of those ought to be closed to the public.

Clause 2, on the other hand, contains provisions to which we have basic objections. Our objections to this clause are indeed so deep-seated that we cannot support the Second Reading of this Bill. I believe I should detail to the hon. the Minister why we adopt this attitude. In 1968, when the existing section 43A of the Act was enacted, we had a fairly lengthy discussion in this House concerning the extent to which the Minister should be able to control licensing in areas which normally fall under local or provincial authority. I do not propose to repeat the views that were expressed at the time, but since then developments that have taken place in regard to the licensing of trades and occupations were of such a nature that I believe section 43A should not be amended but should be repealed, i.e. removed entirely from the Community Development Act. We cannot do that in the Bill that is before us; we can only reject the amendment. I believe therefore that the hon. the Minister would have acted more wisely had he taken steps summarily to repeal the whole of section 43A in the principal Act. We cannot move that section 43A be omitted from the Act. We can only reject the amendment. If we do reject the amendment as it appears in the Bill before us then section 43A will become meaningless and will have no legal effect. In fact, our rejection of this amendment will have the effect of repealing section 43A entirely.

I have said that there are reasons why I believe this should be done. The first is that the commission of inquiry to which the hon. the Minister referred, the Commission of Inquiry into Trade Licensing and Allied Problems reported in 1964. I do not think that this measure was before the House when we debated the amendments in 1968. It was stated by the hon. the Minister that the recommendations of that 1964 commission were referred to an interprovincial committee which was required to give effect to the commission’s recommendations. That has now been done and by law, by ordinances that have been adopted in the various provinces and because of the lapsing of the 1962 Act in so far as trade and occupation licences are concerned, licensing is firmly in the hands of the provinces. The responsibility for licensing and the control of the issue of licences rests with the provinces. Therefore the retention of section 43A as it stands is meaningless because the proposed amendment is contrary to the principles which the provinces themselves were asked to adopt and to take over from the 1964 commission’s report. We believe then that as far as the measure before us is concerned it is running foul of what has in effect been accepted by the Government, viz. that licensing should be taken over by the provincial authorities and conducted by them. There is therefore no reason for this provision to remain in the Community Development Act.

The second point that I want to refer to is also a development since 1968. That is that the powers and functions of the Coloured Representative Council and of the Indian Council have been substantially extended since the original Community Development Act was introduced in 1966 and since the amendments of 1968 were adopted. However, we have before us today, in 1975, a suggested amendment of statutory provisions which now apply in which there is not one word of an obligation being placed upon the hon. the Minister of Community Development to consult with either the CRC or the Indian Council when members of those communities are directly affected by the powers which the hon. the Minister is to exercise. Without that provision that in itself serves to make the amendment which is before us to section 43A totally unacceptable.

The hon. the Minister also told us in his remarks to us today that the powers to control licensing were required so as to make resettlement effective. In other words, the hon. the Minister wants to use what is purely a taxation provision—that is all that licensing is—which under the laws of the central Government was the responsibility of the Department of Inland Revenue and is regarded as a taxation measure and not as anything else, as a lever to effect resettlement. As far as this position is concerned, I think I must refer to the answer which the hon. the Minister gave me in a written reply to question No. 96 a day or two ago. As far as the position of Indian traders is concerned, I asked the hon. the Minister how many Indian traders had become disqualified to remain in their previous premises and the latest date for which figures were available; in respect of what dates those figures were and how many of these traders remained to be resettled in new premises. The reply was that 5 058 Indian traders became disqualified. This figure is given as at 31 December 1974. Of the 5 058, 4 074 are still to be resettled in the areas for which they qualify. Surely it is wrong that a taxation measure such as licensing should be in the hands of the Minister of Community Development without any consultation whatsoever with the Indian Council—there is no obligation upon him to consult the council—to see to the resettlement of 4 074 Indian traders who are at present disqualified. I believe, Sir, that it is an undesirable approach that taxation measures should be used to implement a socio-economic measure such as the resettlement of disqualified persons. These powers are being asked for to ensure that unqualified or inexperienced traders get fair treatment in their group area. I think the words used by the hon. the Minister in his speech this afternoon were—

Is that a motive, Sir? Who better can decide which of these persons should be given these opportunities than the local authorities in consultation with, in the case of the Coloureds, the Coloured Representative Council, or, in the case of the Indians, the Indian Council? They will have personal knowledge; they will have local knowledge which is certainly not available to the Minister to enable him to decide whether A, B or C should get a permit to obtain a licence for a particular trade or occupation. Sir, I asked the hon. the Prime Minister earlier this session whether it was the intention of the Government to allow representation of the non-Whites on the various boards which determine matters which affect them in common with the other groups, and he assured me that the matter was receiving some attention and that probably there would be such appointments. Sir, we meet here this afternoon and we are asked to give this power to the Minister of Community Development when no such appointments have been made to the boards concerned, but section 43A is to be amended to vest the power in the hands of the Minister of Community Development. Sir, subsection (3) of section 43A, which is not in the Bill before us but which was introduced at the request of this side of the House when we debated this matter in 1968, provides that the Minister may by notice in the Gazette apply the provisions of section 43(1). It is his right to control the issue of permits, and those powers would apply to areas which he might specifically designate by notice in the Gazette. But, Sir, there is no say for the persons affected, Coloureds or Indians, as to whether or not certain areas should be so designated under that section.

Although the hon. the Minister explained in his introductory speech that it was merely to meet a situation which had changed in regard to licensing authorities, the Bill in fact extends the control that the Minister had under the 1968 amendment. Part 1 of the 1962 Licensing Act had reference only to trade licences; part 2 of that Act, which was not brought under the Community Development Act, was the section which deals with occupational licences, like brokers, appraisers, and licences of that nature. Now in the Bill before us the words are “to deal with licences in respect of any trade or occupation”. It is a further extension of the powers previously vested in the hon. the Minister. Now, this action, the introduction of this Bill, is contrary to the recommendations of the commission which sat to deal with trade licences. It is contrary to the recommendations of the commission which were passed on by this Government to the provincial authorities for implementation, because if one turns to the report, to page 88, paragraph 718(i) one finds that the commission stated that full and effective power should be granted to provincial councils to legislate in regard to the licensing of trades and occupations and the existing power to collect and retain revenues from the licensing of trades and occupations listed in the first schedule and parts 1 and 2 of the second schedule of the Licences Act of 1962 should be transferred from the central Government to urban and rural local authorities and to the provincial administrations in those White areas not falling within the jurisdiction of such local authorities or within the Bantu homelands. Now, that was the recommendation. Now the Minister, in terms of the amendment before us, is to retain one of the fundamental rights of licensing, i.e. the veto right on the individual as to whether he should get a licence or not. Those are the recommendations made by the commission. But what is involved is that this Bill will give the Minister the inherent right to control the necessity of whether a business should or should not be established, and also to say what his view is on the qualification or otherwise of the applicant to obtain a licence. But here again the commission dealt with this matter very fully. I do not want to take up your time, Sir, by dealing with a lot of these recommendations, but I would like to refer to paragraph 718, subparagraph (17). (18) and (19). What does the commission say? It says that the commission cannot recommend the criterion embodying necessity or public need which restricts competition by limiting the number of licences, and it has come to the conclusion that although substantial discretionary powers should be granted to the licensing authorities, they should not be authorized to refuse licence applications on the ground of necessity, sufficiency of business or over-trading. Special business qualifications as a prerequisite to the issue of a licence are not recommended. That is what the Minister referred to, that the unqualified, the inexperienced man should have an opportunity of operating within his own territory. That is the very recommendation of this commission and is the operative directive to the Provincial Administrations. It goes on in subparagraph (19) to say that hearings of licensing boards should be held in public subject to a discretionary power vested in the chairman to exclude the public should he consider it not necessary. In other words, Sir, this should not be an administrative matter executed at the discretion of a Minister. The issuing of licences should be a matter which is open for everyone to see and hear what is taking place. The commission went further and ensured in its recommendations that the licensing authority should give reasons for its decision and that there should be appeals to a statutory tribunal. Sir, in the matter before us, and the procedures which are inherent in the Bill before us, none of that is there. It is purely an administrative right vested in the Minister. Now, the necessity for permits for persons disqualified in terms of the Group Areas Act, or in terms of any other legislation, was considered by this commission. After all, the licensing authority is subservient to legislation of this House. This House has, in fact, passed legislation in regard to the rights of use and occupation. It is very interesting to read what the commission said in regard to this particular aspect of the matter. I should like to quote from page 48 of the report, paragraphs 364, 365 and 366. This makes very interesting reading, when one realizes that this report was published in 1964. I quote—

This is a recognition of the overriding authority of the Government, empowered by an Act of this House. I continue—

This finding makes interesting reading today, when we are ad idem on both sides of the House that discrimination on the grounds of colour only must be removed. We find that this was the attitude which was adopted in 1964 by this commission. May I mention, Sir, that this report had not been published when the House discussed the 1968 amendment to the Act. It seems to me that, until this House sees fit to amend the Group Areas Act, the licensing authorities are bound by the laws in regard to use and occupation in terms of the Group Areas Act.

That is the whole point.

Yes, but who must exercise the discretion as to whether or not a permit should be granted? I come back to the point that if the Government has divested itself of the right to control licensing, which it did in terms of this commission’s report …

That is a different matter altogether.

It is not, Mr. Speaker. It is all very well for the hon. member to try to evade and escape the consequences, but if you vest the power in a certain authority to control licensing, then that body must control licensing in every respect. Let me say that I am a very reasonable person when it comes to these matters. I want to suggest to the hon. member that if he really wants to be reasonable in this matter—and he knows this from his experience at local authority level—the best people to determine whether A or B or C should be allowed to trade in a particular area, if he or she is disqualified, are the local authorities. They know the people, they know the background and they know the situation. Sir, I shall certainly support the hon. member in the Committee Stage if he is prepared to move an amendment to this clause whereby the permits to be granted to comply with the Group Areas Act are granted by the hon. the Minister on the recommendation of the statutory licensing authority. Sir, the hon. member looks puzzled. I want to say that the Licensing Act in fact provides for a form of taxation. The whole concept in this report is that licensing is a form of taxation. Suggestions in this report that that revenue should go directly to the provinces and local authorities instead of to the central Government were accepted by the Government. The hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs helped to pass the legislation through the Cape Provincial Council. He was very happy as an MEC to say that the legislation was desirable because the provincial administration would like to control licensing. Having done that, he must now in his present capacity be consequential and say that the provincial authorities should do the licensing and should have the right to recommend the extension of permits to disqualified persons when they should like to obtain trade licences. It is a quite reasonable request. I should like to go even further and say that in the case of Coloureds, the Coloured Representative Council should be consulted. I believe that that council should make the necessary recommendations if a Coloured group area is involved. It is, after all, inherent in the whole policy of having a Coloured Representative Council that it should look after the affairs of the Coloured community, more especially after the local affairs of the Coloured community. I believe that when it comes to licensing even this Government will in due time pass licensing authority for Coloured group areas, whether they be business or residential areas, over to the Coloured Representative Council. If that is a reasonable approach, why should the Coloured Representative Council not decide on the issue of licences for trading within a Coloured group area or the Indian Council in so far as Indian group areas are concerned?

What about the White areas?

The White areas remain under the control of the White authority, viz. the provincial administration of the province concerned.

And if a Coloured person wants to trade in a White area?

It is for the White provincial administration to decide whether he should get a licence or not. It is quite a simple matter. Surely the whole basis of this is local autonomy. A decision should be taken by the local authority as to what ought to be done. I believe that is an approach with which nobody can find fault. Here is an opportunity to move in the direction which we in this House all agree we must do, i.e. in a direction away from keeping the rights within the hands of the White authorities to dictate who, Coloured or Indian, can trade whether it is in a Coloured or White area. I think we are losing an opportunity by enacting this amendment as it reads now. We are losing an opportunity of moving along that road. For those reasons I do not need to elaborate further on our attitude. I am sure that the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs will enter this debate. He has studied this 1964 report and he presented it with his usual forcefulness to the Cape Provincial Council for acceptance as a highly desirable development flowing from the Licensing Act of 1962. I am sure that he will support me in saying that we cannot accept the Bill as it stands now. We could have accepted it if there were adequate recognition of the rights of the Coloured Representative Council and of the Indian Council but there is not. For that reason we cannot support the Second Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I really could not make out what the hon. member for Green Point was talking about. I shall tell you why not. This amending legislation has absolutely nothing to do with the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council or with group areas as such.

It has to do with Coloureds and Indians.

All the necessary provisions are already incorporated in the principal Act and all the amendment envisages is bringing about uniformity. After the authority to deal with these matters had been placed in the hands of the provincial administration, the provincial councils promulgated the necessary ordinances in order to make the necessary arrangements. All the amendment envisages is bringing about uniformity in the implementation of the Act. That is all that is being done. No new principle is involved. It seems to me that the hon. the Opposition are only too keen to play a little politics when they get the chance.

But you are playing politics with this legislation.

The Opposition quoted certain extracts concerning discrimination from the report. It seems to me that this has become so fashionable, that we should concern ourselves with, discrimination all day. Once again I point out that this legislation incorporates no new principle. It has been introduced with the sole and exclusive aim of bringing about uniformity and laying down guidelines in accordance with which the provincial administrations issue and control licences in cases where altered situations have developed since the legislative power was transferred to the provincial councils. These altered situations also gave rise to many changes in respect of new licences that had to be issued, other licences that lapsed, and so on. All that this amendment envisages is establishing guidelines so as to bring about uniformity and co-ordinate the four provinces, each of which has its own authority over this matter. Consequently I do not see why group areas should be brought into it. Group areas were discussed when the Act was discussed originally and I am therefore unable to follow what the hon. Opposition has in mind in again discussing, through the hon. member for Green Point, the whole question of group areas. I therefore want to support the amendment as proposed by the hon. the Minister.

Mr. Speaker, the Bill contains three provisions which deal with three separate matters and in so far as clause 1 is concerned, from a purely technical point of view and as it introduces no new principles, I think one can find no fault with it.

As far as clause 3 is concerned, there a new remedy is provided and we have some difficulty with part of that remedy particularly in so far as it now refers to the fact that in addition to imposing a fine or imprisonment, it may also, if the court convicts an individual, cause such person to demolish an alteration, extension or addition, in fact order that the person concerned be rejected from the portion of the building which has been altered, extended or added to. From a purely practical point of view, one of the difficulties that arises is that an alteration may be of such a nature that it is quite clear that as a result of a minor alteration, you may find the man completely ejected either from a room in a building or possibly even from the whole building itself. This seems to be an illogical step to take in connection with what may be a minor alteration. The word “alteration” is not defined. Let me give you a simple example. If you have a bathroom, but you have not had a shower in the bathroom and you then provide a shower in the bathroom, that is an alteration as a result of which you may be allowed to occupy the rest of the house, but you are ejected from the bathroom. It is obviously an illogical thing to seek to do. I think that the problem with this provision is that while it seeks to effect a remedy, it casts its net so wide that it may become an absurdity in the end if applied in that particular fashion. I think that that could be regarded as a relatively minor matter and clauses 1 and 3 fall into that particular category.

When we come to clause 2, we are in quite a different field. Here we are not dealing with pure technicalities but with the lives of individuals, with their ability to work and their ability to prosper. The hon. member for Green Point has made very valid points, which I do not want to repeat, in regard to the concept of the delegation of powers and in regard to the fact that one should decentralize to the maximum extent possible and I hold that view. When it comes to licensing, the commission made it very clear that this was a power which should be exercised on a decentralized basis. The present provision which is before us goes much, further than the existing Act because it now specifically includes in it occupations and trades which were not previously covered by the provisions of section 43A. Consequently, it widens the whole ambit of this issue. It then raises the issue of the freedom of the individual to trade where he wants. One of the matters which seems to us to be of importance in relation to what is happening on the South African scene, is that it is perfectly proper for Black, Coloured and Indian people to buy in White shops while it is not regarded in the same light that they sell to White individuals. Let me take a simple example. The commercial community would be hit by a disaster if for example the Coloured people were not allowed to shop in the White stropping centres of the Cape Peninsula and it would be a disaster to the commercial community if the Black people were no longer allowed to shop in Eloff Street in Johannesburg. There is no doubt that it would be a calamity or a disaster from a business point of view if this should happen. What to our mind is completely lacking in this approach is that it is perfectly proper to have Black, Coloured or Indian people working in Adderley Street or Eloff Street and to have Black, Coloured and Indian people buying goods and being in a shop in a so-called White area in Adderley Street, Eloff Street or in any part of South Africa while it is wrong in the eyes of the governing party of this House that Blacks, Coloureds or Indian people should own shops in the same place.

It is also wrong in the eyes of the electorate.

It is an illogicality, and as far as we are concerned, we regard it as utterly illogical to restrict trading in the recognized business, commercial and industrial areas to a particular racial group. If hon. members want to talk about discrimination and the removal of discrimination in South Africa, this is one of the most glaring examples.

You are talking nonsense!

It is not only discrimination. If we are not prepared to give the Coloured, Black or Indian people the opportunity of being in the main business centres of South Africa, we shall have great difficulty in resisting a charge of exploitation …

You are talking absolute nonsense.

Order!

That hon. gentleman is somewhat excited at the truth. With great respect, this is a fundamental principle, and what is happening at the present moment is that we are passing another piece of legislation which is discriminatory, which can only bring us into disrepute and which we do not accept. The hon. the Minister said himself that the object of this legislation was to prevent, and I use his own words: “Handelaars wat onbevoeg is om in te sypel.” Those are the words that he used. I do not regard … [Interjections.] What is the problem?

*I quoted the words he used. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members are now being unreasonable with their interjections.

Let us talk about it in English. The hon. the Minister alleges that there are traders who are unqualified but who seek to infiltrate. I think it is utterly wrong to speak of people in that way. I say that the major trading areas in our commercial centres, in our industrial centres and in our business areas should be open to all races where they can trade. Not only should all races be allowed to buy there, but they should also be allowed to trade, to sell and to carry on ordinary business activities there.

Mr. Speaker, like previous hon. speakers I should like to deal with clause 2 of this Bill before us this afternoon. I was horrified to hear the hon. member for Hercules saying that no new principle was embodied in the proposed amendments which are before us. I have never heard such utter nonsense in all my life. Here we have a complete amendment to existing legislation, yet he suggests that no new principle is being introduced.

I would like to localize this problem and bring it down to a level where we can understand what this type of legislation can do in a particular field of business operations. Although this clause will no doubt be dealt with at greater length in the Committee Stage, I am sure you will permit me, Sir, to highlight an aspect of this clause and to illustrate one of the many reasons for our objecting to the proposals before us. I would ask that we look closely at the effects of clause 2 on one particular type of licence, a licence, incidentally, that is enumerated here as being item 12 of Act No. 44 of 1962. This licence is granted to people of all the race groups which make up our complex South African society, but in particular it is granted in Natal to members of one race group enabling a large proportion of this group to make an honest and decent living …

A useful living.

… and a useful living, as the hon. member for Mooi River says, in that these people render a service to all other race groups within the areas that are set aside for the various race groups. I am speaking of the hawker. The hawker’s licence is the licence in question. The race group to wh,ich I am referring is, as I have intimated, the Indian. The Indian is traditionally the man who plies this trade in Natal, certainly in Durban.

He will not be affected.

Mr. Speaker, I ask you! The hon. member says: “He will not be affected.” Yet here we are dealing with the very legislation that can affect him. I do not accept that he will not be affected. We have heard it said too often that nothing will happen, that we should not worry but simply pass the Bill and all be friends. No, Sir, I am not prepared to settle for that.

The next person who is affected, is the housewife. I think the housewife of South Africa has just about had enough, and I am not only referring to White housewives.

Vause is much better at that than you are.

Hon. members on the other side can say: “Here we go; you are now introducing a racialistic slant.” I am not doing that. I am talking of housewives in general, housewives of all races, colours and creeds who make up the clientele that supports the Indian hawker.

They are woman-haters.

Yes, by producing this Bill in the year of the women! As I say, I am referring to housewives of all races who live in their respective areas— they live there legally, I may add, because they are in the areas demarcated in terms of the Groups Areas Act. These housewives actually expect the Indian hawker to call regularly plying his ware, because they have come to rely on him for their supplies of fruit and vegetables. This is the situation in Durban. Indeed in Durban this hawker is universally known as the “Vegetable Sammy.” I do not say this in a disrespectful tone at all. He is simply known as the “Vegetable Sammy.” He is known as such by the Indian housewife and by the White housewife. He calls on Indian-owned homes in places such as Chatsworth; he calls on Coloured-owned homes in Sparks Estate; and he calls on White-owned homes on the Bluff, in Durban North and in all the other White suburbs of Durban. Incidentally, he is also seen with his truck doing business in the Bantu areas such as Kwa Mashu and Cleremont.

What is the current situation as regards the control and licensing of hawkers in Natal, more specifically in Durban?

“Verligte” Natal.

Firstly, when he makes application for his licence and he wants to ply his trade as a fruit and vegetable hawker using a vehicle, he has to specify the type of vehicle in his application. The vehicle has to be such that it is acceptable to the licensing officer. It may be inspected prior to the licence being granted, and he has to make it available for inspections at any time he may be called upon to do so, certainly at the times of the renewal of such licence. Secondly, he has to provide a store-room or storerooms, storage facilities which are examined prior to the granting of the licence and also prior to renewal. These storerooms are subject to inspection by the health department of the local authority concerned and, I might add, at any time. They are also subject to snap inspections by officials of the licensing department if they should want to make them. The storeroom is situated in the area in which the applicant lives and usually forms part and parcel of his home. In that respect, therefore, there is no transgression of the terms of the Group Areas Act. I think it will be agreed that every precuation is taken.

The licence is granted in respect of either a magisterial district or of a particular demarcated area within the boundaries of a borough or township such is allowed or prescribed by the licensing officer. That can be a White, a Coloured, an Indian or even a Black area. Where do we go from there? [Interjection.] My hon. friend opposite says they will not be affected. What are we going to do? In the White areas are we going to declare every little road verge which an Indian hawker happens to stop on, the road verge outside my home, suitable for Indian occupation just while he is there as a hawker every Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday morning?

But he is not occupying the ground.

He is trading there. He is trading in a White area.

On a public street.

It does not matter whether it is in a public street or not. He is trading there. What happens when his “little Sammy” brings in the vegetables that have been sold? That is not a public street. Nonsense, man! You do not know what you are talking about.

Who is this “Sammy”?

I said earlier that I referred with no disrespect to the “Vegetable Sammy”.

Order! The hon. member must address the Chair.

I am sorry, Sir, but if the hon. gentleman had been in the House when I started my speech he would have heard what I said in this regard. However, he drifts in and out like they do all the time. They do not know whether they are coming or going.

You are just going one way.

I believe that the existing measures are effective in ensuring control and are also fairest to all, the trader and the client. The interests of the housewife are safeguarded as regards the fairness of prices paid because sufficient licences are granted in order to maintain healthy competition, and the interests of the hawker are safeguarded in that the number of licences granted does not in any way create a situation where overtrading precludes him from making a living. I am sure that the House will be interested to know that in Durban alone as of yesterday, there were 1 595 licensed hawkers of whom 338 were licensed to trade in Indian areas specifically, like Chatsworth, 919 in the city of Durban —this would include flatland and suburbia— and, coincidentally, again 338 in other areas, that is to say, in areas other than Indian or White areas. These could be Coloured or Bantu areas. We must ask now what is wrong with this existing system and method of control and why must a ministerial permit now be obtained in respect of any new application? Surely, Sir, it would be far more desirable to maintain the status quo and to leave it to the people who know what they are doing in this connection, that is to say, the local authorities and their licensing officials, to determine what is needed and what will best serve the local interests and demand.

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon hon. members of the Opposition have been conducting an absolutely unnecessary and meaningless debate. They are advancing arguments of absolutely no substance whatever.

How would you know?

Listening to them, one might think that we were dealing here with a very drastic measure with far-reaching consequences and that South Africa’s whole future was at stake. However, Sir, when we read the Bill and consider what it involves, we find that it involves nothing more and nothing less than a mere adjustment of the existing Act to allow for altered circumstances. Actually, it is merely an administrative measure. But the hon. member for Green Point has well and truly let the cat out of the bag for us. Hon. members opposite are not really opposed to the amendments that are now being moved here. What they are really opposed to is the principal Act. Because they were unable to have their way in 1968 when the principal Act was placed on the Statute Book, they want to try and unman that Act in its present form by opposing this amendment bill now. The hon. member said so in so many words: that he could not ask for the repeal of section 43A and that consequently they opposed the amendment and tried to get their way by that means, because the mentioned section would then be null and void. Actually they want to get around the Standing Rules and Orders in this way, as it were.

They come here peddling all kinds of arguments and say that these are supposedly far-reaching extensions of the Minister’s powers, and that it is in conflict with stated policy that licensing should now be the prerogative of the provincial authorities. Surely, Mr. Speaker, that is not true. If we consider what is implied in the amendment Bill, then we find that the extension of powers is only in respect of four types of licence, namely a peddler’s licence, a hawker’s licence, an ostrich feather buyer’s licence and a buchu buyer’s licence.

You are quite wrong.

That is what this applies to and these are the inordinately extended powers which this Bill supposedly gives the Minister.

You must read the Bill.

Sir, if the hon. gentlemen will only give me a chance I shall come to those other specious arguments of theirs. Before doing so I just want to refer to the extension of the Minister’s powers in that the exceptions in terms of the old Act are now being done away with. To that extent the Minister’s powers are now being extended. But surely, Sir, this does not constitute an interference with the authority or the prerogative of provincial authorities in regard to licensing in general. It only concerns the implementation and application of the Community Development Act; that is what is involved here.

The hon. member for Green Point advanced a whole long argument about the implications of licensing and the question of whether licensing is solely a tax measure. I want to differ from him. Licensing is by no means a question of taxation only; it is also a control measure. We had the same principle in respect of the Liquor Act. After all, licensing in terms of the Liquor Act is certainly not concerned solely with the aspect of revenue; it is also concerned with the aspect of control. It is therefore in itself a specious argument that licensing is only a question of taxation. It is in fact also a control measure.

This Bill does not provide for an interference in the powers of provincial authorities with regard to licensing. It only has regard to licensing in as far as the Community Development Act is concerned with the matter. But, of course, it does not suit the hon. member for Green Point to put the matter so clearly. Now he is confusing the issue and simply talking about licensing in general so as to be able to drag in this argument, an argument that really has nothing to do with the measure at present before the House. Sir, I say that this is definitely not a case of extension of the Minister’s powers. It is merely a question of the rectification or the adjustment of the existing Act so as to allow for the circumstances that have arisen in that the Licences Act of 1962, Act No. 44 of 1962, has been repealed by the Act of 1968. As the hon. member for Green Point himself said, if this adjustment or amendment is not effected, the existing measure is deprived of all force and effect.

In conclusion I also want to refer to the argument advanced by the hon. member for Yeoville. I want to tell him that he used this measure as a peg on which to hang an attack on the Government’s whole approach, viz. the Government’s approach in regard to separate group areas. He states that the Government is wrong, but I want to remind him that the Government’s approach is in accordance with the repeated verdicts of the electorate of this country, which wishes this Government to implement these measures, and until such time as he and his party acknowledge this fact …

May I ask a question? Did the electorate also vote for mixed sports teams in April 1974?

In 1974 the electorate of this country once again put their confidence in this Government. They did not tell this Government that every time a situation developed, it should first come back to them to ask them what to do. They put their confidence in the Government and the Government will deal with the situation as it sees fit. [Interjections.] Sir, I am prepared at any time to give my hon. friends opposite a hearing with regard to this matter, but I do not think it is at all relevant now.

I just want to tell the hon. member for Yeoville once again that he and his party— and the official Opposition might as well also take note of this—will achieve nothing by attacking the Government with regard to these basic standpoints, in regard to which the voters have expressed themselves repeatedly. This Government has the courage of its convictions and it will carry out its policy, and if they do not like it, Sir, they will simply have to stay in opposition and they might as well continue to advance specious arguments, as they have done in this instance, too. They will get nowhere in this way.

Mr. Speaker, I expected this reaction today because I had to listen to precisely the same argument in the Other Place when the measure was discussed there. Consequently nothing new has, in fact, been added, except for the fact that the hon. member for Green Point quoted from the report of the Commission of Enquiry that investigated this matter. I am also going to quote from the report; I have the same right as he does. In the first place I want to stress that, as hon. members on this side of the House have also said, I am not coming to this House with a new principle. I am not asking for an extension of the powers vested in my department. My department had no need specially to involve these new bodies and persons that are being involved and to which reference has been made, namely the hawkers, the ostrich feather buyers, the buchu sellers and the Part 2 people. We did not need to do so before these measures were taken, but now the situation has arisen where, as a result of the recommendations that have been made and the legislation that has been passed here, the provinces have promulgated their own ordinances in this connection. They were, of course, entitled to do so. Those ordinances were not precisely uniform. Nor could one expect this to be the case with the various provinces and executive committees. Nor did they follow the guidelines laid down by the original Act; otherwise we could have dealt with the matter easily. For that reason it became necessary for a uniform provision to be laid down through this Bill to ensure that the objectives of the Community Development Act are not frustrated. The objectives of the Community Development Act do not concern the interests of the Whites only, but also concern the interests of the Coloureds and the Indians. Under given circumstances, all three of these groups are in precisely the same position as disqualified persons. Consequently all three are treated alike in terms of this legislation.

In the Other Place, Indians, in particular, were referred to as the people who would be affected. But the Indians themselves insist that there should be no infiltration—they have made prepresentations and have held discussions with me. The day those people are re-settled, my department has to provide them with accommodation equal, in terms of floor area, to what they had before and for which they had possessed a permit. That accommodation must be provided at a subsidized rent in order to enable them to be re-settled. That is why my department is involved when new licences are issued. This provision only deals with first licences. The hon. member for Green Point adopts the standpoint that the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council and the Indian Council should have been consulted. I said in the Other Place, and I say it again: No new principle is involved here; no new powers are sought. I said it there, and I say it again here, that I am not prepared to use those councils merely as rubber stamps. No significant new measures of any kind are being effected. My department would not have been interested in this matter if it were not for the circumstances that have arisen. My department and I cannot allow the aims of the Community Development Act to be frustrated. The hon. member for Green Point is quite wrong when he states that licence control is purely a tax measure. That is not true. Taxation is only a secondary aim of licence control.

But if falls under the Treasury.

It is primarily a control measure and in the second place it is a tax measure when it provides revenue. That is why there are licensing authorities and why one cannot simply purchase a licence over the counter.

The hon. member for Green Point invoked the report of the commission. I want to refer him to paragraph 364 of the report which reads as follows—

I myself quoted that paragraph.

But you did not quote further. The Commission’s recommendation No. 40 reads as follows—

The implementation of that policy was assigned to the Department of Community Development by the Community Development Act. After a group area is declared, the Community Development Act comes into operation. The hon. member’s appeal to that commission’s recommendation is, therefore, totally invalid. What was, in fact, an oversight is now being rectified by means of this legislation.

The hon. member dealt with the extension of powers and said that provincial authorities can decide on licences. However, provincial authorities do not have the power to decide in respect of control over group areas. That power rests in my department.

The hon. member for Yeoville has difficulties with the penal provision in clause 3. He is of the opinion that all kinds of illogicalities and absurdities could result from it. However, these penal provisions have been taken over in an unaltered form from the penal provisions in respect of frozen areas, where such absurdities are not being found. What has been found, as I said in my Second Reading speech, is that they are more effective. That is why they were taken over.

As far as clause 2 is concerned, I do not have much more to add except to say that I do not know what the hon. member had in mind when he made a fuss about purchases made in Eloff Street or in Adderley Street. No one is prohibited from buying where they want to and from whom they want to.

The hon. member for Umhlanga was very concerned about the hawkers. However, my department is not interested in hawkers unless they occupy or use land. The hon. member’s interpretation, namely that if the hawker does business in the street, he is using land, is not something my department is interested in. My department will not re-settle such a hawker. My department is only involved when a person uses or occupies land in an affected area and is taken away from there, because if such a person is resettled in his own group area, my department is obliged to give him something of equal value. That is all that my department is interested in.

The hon. member’s difficulty as regards housewives has nothing whatever to do with the functions of my department.

Question put,

Upon which the House divided:

Mr. Speaker, I move—

It is known that a comprehensive investigation of our criminal procedure and law of evidence by a commission of inquiry, the Botha Commission, was completed in 1971. The report of the commission and a Bill in which a new Criminal Procedure Act was recommended were published in December 1971. During the 1973 session of Parliament a Criminal Procedure Bill was introduced and taken as far as the Committee Stage, but lack of time prevented the discussion from proceeding beyond clause 55. The intention was to re-introduce the Bill during this session. However, because of the appointment of the commission of inquiry into the penal system of the Republic, the Viljoen Commission, the matter was reconsidered and it was decided to refrain from introducing the Bill for the time being. The terms of reference of the Viljoen Commission cover almost the entire penal sphere. Far-reaching changes in our penal system may therefore result from the recommendations of this commission, which may necessitate drastic amendments to legal provisions relating to punishment. In addition, changes in the approach to punishment often have an effect on criminal procedure. All this may mean that the Criminal Procedure Bill will have to be drastically changed. The Bill contains quite a number of innovations and their acceptance will mean that new procedures will have to be acquired by everyone who is concerned with a criminal court, in whatever capacity. It appears to be unwise to initiate this process in the knowledge that other drastic changes may be imminent. As soon as a new Criminal Procedure Act has been enacted, new text-books or revised editions of existing text-books on this Act will be published. The State and legal practitioners will be obliged to purchase such text-books. When the Act has been amended in terms of the recommendations of the Vijoen Commission, the text-books will probably have to be revised again and reprinted, and the new editions will have to be purchased. This will involve considerable unnecessary expense.

However, the Criminal Procedure Bill contains certain provisions which have become urgently necessary for reasons such as the manpower shortage in the South African Police and the Department of Justice, and with a view to the efficient implementation of traffic legislation. These provisions have been lifted from the Bill and included in the Criminal Procedure Amendment Bill which is now before the House.

The proposed clause 1 contains an amendment to section 5(3A) of the Criminal Procedure Act, 1955, which provides that when an Attorney-General is for some reason unable to perform his official duties, the State President may appoint any competent officer in the public service to act in his place. Unforeseen circumstances often make it necessary for Attorneys-General to take leave at short notice, sometimes for fairly short periods. I believe hon. members will agree that it is unnecessary to trouble the State President with acting appointments, particularly in the circumstances already mentioned. The amendment provides for acting appointments to be made by the Minister.

†Clauses 2 and 3 of the amendment Bill replace the chapter in the Criminal Procedure Act relating to search warrants, the entering of premises and the seizure, forfeiture and disposal of property connected with offences. The procedure in the existing chapter creates a considerable number of problems, especially in the larger magistrates’ offices, in connection with the handling of articles which may afford evidence of the commission of offences. Many manhours are expended in the constant handling of these exhibits and considerable losses are sustained as a result of exhibits which are lost primarily because of the continual handling thereof.

In broad outline, most of the principles presently contained in sections 42 to 50, inclusive, and in section 360 of the Criminal Procedure Act, 1955, are reflected, with the necessary adjustments, in clause 3. There are, however, also new provisions in the clause such as—and for the sake of convenience I refer to them as sections—sections 42; to a certain extent 43; 45(a) and (b)(i); 50(2); 50A(2); 50C(a) and (b): 50D(2); 50E; and 50F. The clause is self explanatory and I merely elucidate the various provisions in broad outline.

As the provisions of the Act read at present, articles which are seized with a view to their being produced as proof of the commission of offences, are brought before magistrates who must in the course of time make orders as to their disposal. From the time of seizure of an article until the final disposal thereof, it is handled by various persons. Those of us who are acquinted with court procedure know that exhibits go from the police official to the exhibits clerk at the magistrate’s court, and from the exhibits clerk to the court orderly or other responsible official who must ensure that they are available before the commencement of the sitting of the court concerned. In the court the exhibits are also handled by various persons. In the afternoon when the court adjourns all the exhibits must be returned from hand to hand back to the exhibits room. In lengthy trials the procedure is repeated at every hearing of the particular case. With the rapid interchange of staff it is not always possible, when the control of exhibits passes from one official to another, to keep a constant check whether all exhibits are on hand.

Experience has shown, Mr. Speaker, and this has been confirmed in discussions with magistrates in the larger centres, that articles which are seized with a view to being tendered as proof in criminal cases do not necessarily always have real value as a means of proof. In fact it appears that neary 50% of the articles which are seized, do not have evidential value. This illustrates how much unnecessary time is spent on the handling of these articles.

I have already referred to certain provisions, but in particular I wish to direct attention to sections 50C, 50D and 50E in clause 3 which provide respectively for the disposal of perishable articles; of articles where no criminal proceedings are instituted but an admission-of-guilt fine is paid In all these instances it would be possible to dispose of articles without the necessity of removing them from police control. It is trusted that this procedure will eliminate most of the problems to which I have referred.

It is anticipated that by the application of clause 3, the provisions of which correspond in principle with chapter 2 of the Bill recommended by the Botha Commission, exhibits will be more efficiently controlled resulting in better utilization of staff; furthermore that the storage space in exhibit rooms, which more often than not are overcrowded, can be used more effectively and that the losses which are invariably experienced where large quantities of goods are handled, will diminish.

*In clause 4, Mr. Speaker, provisions have been embodied similar to those in clause 212(10) and (11) of the Criminal Procedure Bill. These provisions are the result of representations received from the National Road Safety Council. The Council believes that in order to combat loss of life in road accidents, the law must be much more strictly enforced than it is at the moment. Scientific development has provided instruments, apparatus and equipment which can be utilized to good effect. However, because of the requirements laid down in regard to evidence, many problems are experienced and many anomalies arise in the courts. In this way a speed reading by means of stop-watches is readily accepted, but the functioning of a highly developed apparatus, specially designed for this purpose, is questioned. Scientists consider speed measurement by means of stopwatches to be unreliable and believe that the only reliable way to measure speed is by means of apparatus specially developed for this purpose.

Consequently the object of the proposed subsection (5A) is that the Minister of Justice will be able, after consultation with scientists from bodies such as the S.A. Bureau of Standards and the CSIR, to prescribe the conditions and requirements to be complied with, before a reading by an instrument which has been designed, to measure speed or the alcohol content of a person’s blood, for example, may be accepted as proof of the fact which it purports to prove. The conditions and requirements will have to be announced in the Gazette, which will ensure uniformity and will also satisfy the public that all traffic departments are subject to strict rules and cannot act arbitrarily. Upon proof that such conditions and requirements have been complied with, the accuracy of readings will have to be accepted by the courts unless the contrary is proved. As far as speed measurement is concerned, the provisions will also be of great value in implementing the fuel saving measures.

In the proposed subsection (5B), provision is made for a simplified method of proving that a syringe or receptacle to be used for analysing a person’s blood for purposes of criminal proceedings is clean and properly sealed. With a similar end in view, all the provinces, with the exception of Natal, have already made provision for presumptions in their traffic ordinances. However, the proposed provisions are deemed necessary for the sake of uniformity and more efficient action. In this respect, too, the Minister will prescribe the conditions and requirements to be complied with.

Clause 5 contains the provisions of clause 37 of the Criminal Procedure Bill. In broad outline this clause corresponds to section 289 of the Criminal Procedure Act, 1955, but it also contains new principles which have been included at the request of the National Road Safety Council. At the moment the law only allows the fingerprinting of persons who have been arrested. However, the proposed section 289(1) extends this power of police officers to other categories of accused. The purpose of this is to include certain offences on the part of drivers in a central register of licensed motor vehicle drivers. The proposed sub section (2) extends the power of certain medical practitioners to take blood tests of persons to any medical practitioner or nurse, provided that he or she is requested to do so by a police officer. However, in terms of subsection (2)(b) a medical practitioner who is attached to a hospital will be able to make such tests on his own initiative. The purpose of subsection (2) is to enable more people to make blood tests and also to facilitate the making of blood tests of drivers who have been injured and admitted to hospital.

Clauses 6, 7, 8 and 9 contain amendments to the Criminal Procedure Ordinance of the territory of South West Africa and are merely a repetition of clauses 2, 3, 4 and 5, with the necessary adjustments.

By the proposed clause 10 a provision corresponding to section 333ter of the Criminal Procedure Act, 1955, is being inserted into the Criminal Procedure Ordinance, 1963, of the territory of South West Africa. That section provides for the antedating of a sentence imposed after the original sentence has been set aside by a competent court.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister has outlined the background to this Bill and has reminded the House of the Botha Commission which sat to inquire into the revision of the criminal procedure, as a matter of principle, relating to pretrial procedures and relating especially to pre-trial interrogations by magistrates. Sir, the Bill that was introduced here, as the hon. the Minister has mentioned, in 1973 as a result of the findings of that commission was opposed by this side of the House. I hope the Bill that will be introduced, probably, as the Minister says, after the Viljoen Commission has reported, will be in a different form from the one which we received two years ago and will have regard to the suggestions that were then made. I think the hon. the Minister has shown wisdom in postponing the introduction of the new consolidated and amended Criminal Procedure Bill until after the Viljoen Commission has in fact reported. I may say, just in passing, in respect of the hon. the Minister’s remarks about the province of Natal and its attitude towards the question of onus and the requisites of proof insofar as syringes are concerned when blood samples are taken, that it was the attitude of the province of Natal that it was not prepared to acknowledge that the onus should rest on the accused in this regard, in other words, that there should be a presumption that everything was properly and correctly done when blood was taken for the purpose of analysis in cases of drunken driving and driving with more than the specified maximum of alcohol in the blood, because a conviction for the statutory offence of driving with more than a certain content of alcohol in the blood carried with it a compulsory sentence, namely that one’s licence had to be suspended. The provincial council in Natal conceded that this presumption that everything had been properly done by the district surgeon could in fact exist in respect of a syringe, provided that the court had a discretion in respect of the sentence for driving with more than the specified limit of alcohol in the blood. That, Sir, is the position in Natal today and in that regard Natal is, of course, unique and, of course, we are very grateful and very pleased that the discretion of the court is retained in cases where people are convicted of driving with more alcohol in the blood than is statutorily allowed where they are not under the influence of alcohol, and the Courts in Natal properly exercising their discretion.

Sir, I would like to say this about this Bill. It falls, as the hon. the Minister has said, into three parts. First of all it deals with the question of search and seizure of articles in one clause or in some 16 sections of the new Act as it will be; it deals with the question of fingerprinting and it deals with the question of measuring instruments and syringes in respect of evidence in court. Sir, there is one other aspect which I am very pleased to see, and that is in South West Africa the existing provisions of our Code are being introduced, namely that if on appeal or review the court finds that the person who is appealing has already served part of his sentence of imprisonment, that may be taken into account when reviewing the sentence. The fact that that power was not transferred before was obviously an oversight.

Sir, before I say anything about the contents of this Bill, I would like to indicate that to place in one clause, i.e. clause 3 this Bill, what amounts to the replacement and the insertion of 16 new sections in the Criminal Procedure Act is not the way in which the law should be amended and it is not the way in which this House should have legislation presented to it. I want to say that these provisions, the 16 new sections of the Act—there are in fact 17, but there are 16 substantive ones—were all in the Criminal Procedure Bill introduced in 1973, and every one of them was obviously a separate clause because each was to be a new section of the Act. In debating matters of this kind in the Committee Stage, where one has to deal with matters of detail and some clauses are related to others, hon. members are entitled to speak only three times, normally three times each in respect of one clause. But now, in the way this is presented, it is three times each in respect of 16 clauses. Now, I think it is not good enough that the Bill should be introduced in this form. I have no doubt that the hon. the Minister will reply that all these provisions in clause 3 came before the House in 1973 in almost exactly the same form, and indeed, Sir, from no one on this side of the House was any serious objection offered to these particular clauses. But this is a new Parliament and the House is differently constituted, although I do not anticipate that there will be any difference in so far as the attitude of this side of the House to these provisions is concerned.

Now, to deal with the many proposed new sections of the Act which are in clause 3, it is quite clear that they are the same, or slightly improved, versions of those clauses we dealt with in 1973. The safeguards are there. There are a few minor amendments which we shall deal with in the Committee Stage. We believe, for example, that the circumstances under which articles may be seized without search warrants should be restricted to the more serious offences such as those mentioned in the First Schedule of the Code. Further, we believe, and with great authority, if I may say so, inasmuch as the Supreme Court has often said that this should be the position, that a search warrant should not only authorize the policeman to search any person identified in the warrant, identify the premises and identify the persons, but it should also identify the crime or the offence in respect of which the search is to be made. That, I think, is fair and I think the reasons for it are obvious, but that is a matter of detail with which we can deal in the Committee Stage.

In so far as fingerprinting is concerned, the provisions of the Bill in this regard are practically identical with the existing law. Protection is still there that the fingerprints all have to be destroyed if the person concerned is found not guilty and is discharged, or if the prosecution is not proceeded with, against him. That is a matter which the public is pleased about for reasons which very often escape me, because one wonders why everybody in the country should not be fingerprinted. But there is a feeling that this is undesirable and in the result I suppose it springs from a feeling that you are being tainted with crime when you are innocent. But be that as it may, public opinion and public feeling in this regard certainly require that these provisions be maintained.

Now, the last aspect of the Bill is the question of the measuring instruments and syringes. The measuring instruments which come to mind immediately, and which the hon. the Minister has indicated, are those with which this Bill is concerned, those instruments known as gatsometers and velometers and all sorts of things for measuring the speed of motor-cars on public roads. The hon. the Minister has made the case that it saves a lot of time if one can produce an affidavit to say that certain requirements have been met. Well, I quite agree that this position he sets out is desirable. The question, however, is: What conditions is he going to lay down? The Minister has to prescribe the conditions and requirements for such a machine. If you prove that those requirements and conditions are being complied with, by affidavit before the court, then that is to be accepted as proving the fact recorded by that machine, in other words, your speed, unless the contrary is proved.

When it comes to syringes, the Bill provides also that certain conditions should be laid down. If you produce an affidavit to the effect that those conditions were observed, then again the affidavit is sufficient proof that the syringe was in the condition prescribed. The big difference, however, between the two is that when we come to syringes it is provided that the affidavit must say that immediately before the syringe was used, it was in the condition prescribed. There is no such provision, however, in relation to the measuring device, the gatsometer, or whatever instrument is used for measuring the speed of a motor car. I think this is a defect in the Bill as its stands, and we shall seek to amend this clause at the Committee Stage. It seems to us that proof that an instrument complies with the requirements laid down by the Minister is not proof that at the time of the measurement, the time of the trap, the instrument did in fact comply with those requirements. There is indeed much evidence in the law reports to support the view that merely to say that it at one time complied with the requirements of, say, the S.A. Bureau of Standards, is certainly no evidence that at the time of the alleged offence it so complied.

The other aspect we shall deal with in the Committee Stage relates to all the other parts of the existing section 239, where all sorts of things are dealt with. For instance, affidavits can be produced to show that a consignment note on the S.A. Railways was correct, to show that certain medical facts are correct, to show all sorts of things. Throughout all of this there is a pattern. The one golden thread that runs through all these various presumptions and this proof by affidavit is that it is to be subject to subsection (6), which provides that the court may, in its discretion, call to give evidence the person who made the affidavit. We shall seek in the Committee Stage to amend the provisions which are here being inserted into section 239, to provide also that the court should have the right to call upon that person to give viva voce evidence. I think the reason for this being in the law already is obvious. It is obvious in respect of all the other matters in respect of which there are presumptions. But, a fortiori, it should apply in cases such as this, because if one goes through a speed trap today, one starts with a minimum of R50 if one is one kilometer over whatever limit is allowed above 80 km per hour. Then the fine increases by R5 per kilometer thereafter. I think the hon. the Minister will concede that the court ought to have the discretion in this case, if it has the discretion to call the person concerned in other cases.

Mr. Speaker, these are all matters of detail which we shall deal with in the Committee Stage. I mention them here to give the hon. the Minister notice of our intention to do so. We find ourselves then in the position that the majority of the clauses in this Bill we in fact approved of two years ago. They do not change the law that much. They in fact improve the statement of the law. We shall therefore support this Bill at Second Reading, and hope to have a fruitful discussion in the Committee Stage on the matters I have mentioned.

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have heard from the hon. member who has just resumed his seat that the official Opposition supports this Bill in principle. Having said that the Bill has their support, the hon. member then complained about the fact that a great many sections are being grouped together in clause 3. His main objection was that these will constitute approximately 16 or 17 sections in the new Act and that hon. members of the Opposition will supposedly not have sufficient opportunity to discuss these in the Committee Stage. However, it seems to me that an hon. member, who is allowed to make three ten minute speeches to raise objections or put his case as far as each clause is concerned, is really being afforded enough of an opportunity of making what he has to say quite clear.

As has been explained by the hon. the Minister, the Bill contains a great many important provisions. I think these provisions deserve the support of each one of us. We would do well to have a closer look at some of these provisions. Clause 3 amends, among others, section 50(2) in terms of which powers are granted to the Police, in cases where the Police have to confiscate articles which they suspect are present on any premises or in a room of a binding in order to prove an offence, to open the door and enter without first having to announce their presence audibly. This is a measure which has become absolutely necessary in our present circumstances. One does not give drug pedlars and people in gambling houses a chance by having the Police knock on the door first and announce their presence. Neither do these people simply hand over to the Police the pills, the powders and other articles they have been peddling with. Quick action must be taken and these people must be caught red-handed, otherwise it will be impossible to prove the case in court. A similar measure has been in existence in America for a long time, and I believe that we shall be strengthening the hands of our Police considerably by introducing this measure in South Africa as well.

The hon. the Minister gave a detailed explanation of the proposed sections 50C, 50D, 50E and 50F, and so on. These sections deal with an amended procedure with regard to the handling of exhibits. Those of us who have had experience of the handling of exhibits, will know that these really pose a major and extensive problem in magistrates’ courts. The procedure is being tightened up by means of the proposed amendments and it will be far easier to handle exhibits in an efficient way. In future the Police are going to handle exhibits themselves until such time that these exhibits have to be used in the court. The advantages this will have are obvious, and I quote only a few of them. The handling of the exhibits will be reduced and storage space will be saved. In the past the Police had to retain these exhibits in safekeeping and from them it had to go to the court, where it had remained in safekeeping as well. This duplication will be eliminated to a large extent in future. This amendment therefore entails major advantages for all the people concerned with the matter.

Clause 4 amends section 239 which, as was quite rightly pointed out by the hon. the Minister and the hon. member for Durban North, sets out the requirements and conditions measuring instruments which are used in criminal cases have to comply with. In terms of the present position numerous instruments and types of instruments are being used by local authorities in order to prove their case in our courts. At present no requirements exist with which such instruments have to comply. This places the public in an unfavourable position, because a person who is caught in a speed trap does not know whether the instrument was set correctly. He does not know whether the instalment was reliable. He does not know which requirements the instrument has to comply with either. In terms of the present position he has to call in experts to be able to question the reliability of the instrument. However, the State is in an unfavourable position too, because neither do any requirements exist with which the instruments have to comply as far as the State is concerned. The State therefore does not know when an instrument can be regarded as being reliable. In actual fact, nobody knows and consequently there is considerable confusion on the part of both the State and the public in regard to this matter. On account of this confusion considerable legal uncertainty prevails, and in practice we find that people are found guilty and are acquitted on mere technical points. The situation has deteriorated to such an extent that one can with justification say that the application of measures pertaining to the speed limit have become a farce. I do not think we can allow this state of affairs to continue.

The advantages of the legislation are obvious. It would bring about certainty in the minds of the public, who will now know precisely with which requirements these instruments have to comply. As a matter of fact, it protects the public because a local authority which uses an instrument which does not comply with the requirements laid down in terms of the legislation, will still have to make use of the old procedural evidence—the procedure which is applicable at present. Such a local authority will therefore not have the privilege of making use of the new, easier procedure. I admit and I concede at once that it will facilitate the task of the State in court of proving that an offence has been committed. Surely this is the right thing to do and we can find no fault with that. The carnage on our roads can in many cases be attributed to high speed and people who drive recklessly and we simply cannot allow this to continue.

The hon. the Minister also referred to the fuel conservation measures which, for this same reason, are equally difficult to enforce effectively. After all we cannot allow this state of affairs to continue with out people who violate the measures being brought to book or, if they are, in fact, brought to book, being acquitted on technical grounds. I do not think we can allow this state of affairs to continue. We in this House have a duty to protect the general public in this regard, and we have to fulfil this duty. At the same time, it is also our duty to uphold the authority of the State. A person who has transgressed or has committed an offence, has to be punished. All we have to do is to satisfy ourselves that people caught in these speed traps, for example, do not suffer an injustice. I am convinced that, in view of these requirements and requirements which are going to be laid down, we are definitely not going to act unjustly towards anyone caught in these speed traps.

I now want to deal with section 289 of the principal Act, which is being amended by clause 5. This section deals for the most part with fingerprints and blood tests and, as has been indicated by the hon. the Minister, does not contain many new provisions. One of these provisions, however, justifies further attention, i.e. the question of blood tests which may be made by a medical practitioner at a hospital if and when a person is admitted and the medical practitioner has reason to believe that these may be relevant to subsequent criminal proceedings. At present a medical practitioner is unable to do so at the hospital. He has to receive instructions from either the court or a policeman first. This is unfair as far as the State and also the public are concerned, because this may lead to important evidence being lost, evidence which might otherwise have proved that the person is guilty but, at the same time, might have proved that the person is not guilty in-particular cases.

As far as fingerprints are concerned, I agree with the hon. member for Durban Point that it is important that we should emphasize that there need not be any fear on the part of the public that fingerprints would be kept after they had been taken and the person concerned is found not guilty, or the case against the person is withdrawn. Subsection (5) contains a provision to the effect that the fingerprints should be destroyed in that case.

I could continue in this vein, but at this stage I shall leave the matter at that, and I should like to congratulate the hon. the Minister on the positive legislation he is introducing in connection with these matters. The registration is of a positive nature and essential under the circumstances prevailing in South Africa at present, both from the viewpoint of the State, as I have indicated, as well as from the viewpoint of the public. I have great pleasure in supporting it.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. Minister will know that when his predecessor introduced the Criminal Procedure Amendment Bill in 1973, I moved that the Bill be read this day six months. Therefore I am very glad to see that the Bill which the hon. the Minister is introducing today, is a very different cup of tea. We on these benches have no objection to the Second Reading of this Bill. It does not affect the major principles of our Criminal Procedure, unlike the original Bill which was subjected to considerable criticism both from the Bar and the Side-bar in South Africa. I am no lawyer, as is well known, and because this is a lawyer’s Bill, I am simply going to say that we do not wish to oppose the Second Reading. I have several amendments, however, which on legal advice I shall be moving at the Committee Stage. I have already submitted them to the hon. the Minister’s department for their consideration.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House are very interested to know for how long the Progressive Party is still going to be without a person in their ranks who has had no legal training.

It won’t take long.

The hon. member for Durban North has created one impression in his speech which we should quite clearly reject, if it is possible for one to make such a deduction from what he has said. I do not think it was his intention to do so, but he nevertheless created the impression that the provisions in the Bill relating to measuring instruments and the determination of the alcohol content in the blood would be—to use his own words— sufficient proof if the provisions of the Bill are complied with. A thorough analysis of the clause concerned indicates that it is for the most part a question of prima facie evidence. Prima facie evidence is a totally different concept to sufficient proof. Scoble, the well-known authority, has the following to say about prima facie evidence in his Law of Evidence—

As against this, “conclusive evidence”, which may be compared with the concept of “sufficient proof” used by the hon. member for Durban North, is, according to Scoble—

What I therefore want to do is to eliminate the impression created by this speech completely and point out quite specifically that the affidavit which may be submitted, is solely prima facie evidence and all the accused has to do in such a case is to give evidence. If the witness proves to be a reliable witness, it would be the end of the case and reasonable measure of doubt would exist.

And then you cross-examine the machine?

On the one hand it is a fact that it would be impossible to cross-examine the machine, but it is a fact that it would be impossible for the presiding officer in such a case, after he has heard the evidence of the accused and the accused has created a good impression in his evidence, to accept an affidavit in preference to the evidence of the accused and would have to give him the benefit of the doubt. I want to refer the hon. member to the appeal case of Ainsbury v. Ainsbury of the year 1929. On page 119 of the report the following was said by the hon. Judge—

Therefore, there is no question about this. As soon as a prosecutor has taken cognizance of this fact during the cross-examination, the State should lead evidence to the effect that an offence has been committed. An instrument for the measuring of speed is usually handled by a traffic constable. Therefore, the traffic constable has to be called. He would then give evidence with regard to the alleged speeding offence. He would be cross-examined by the accused who would question, during his cross-examination, the manner in which the machine was set up. From this it might appear that the accused is not happy about the manner in which the machine was used and that he believes that the conditions the hon. the Minister is going to prescribe in terms of this provision, have not been complied with. Any sensible prosecutor would immediately put away his affidavit in his drawer and call for oral evidence because he would know that his evidence was being questioned. Therefore, it presents no problems to me in practice, and I think this is something we should state quite clearly here.

This is procedural law and as such it has to comply with the requirements of procedural law. On this occasion I should like to refer to the debate conducted on this matter in 1973. On that occasion we were desperately looking for a test for sound procedural law. In this process reference was made to a very learned author, Dr. G. B. Paton, who wrote A textbook of Jurisprudence. Dr. Paton is a well-known legal philosopher and legal practitioner, a person who was awarded two honorary doctor’s degrees. Dr. Paton prescribed the following test as:

Therefore, this is a threefold test, i.e. in the first place, that the procedural rules should ensure the speedy settlement of the case; in the second place, that it should be done at a reasonable cost and, in the third place, that it should be based on a basis which ensures justice. I am satisfied that this Bill will pass this test with flying colours on all three points. I believe that the application of this Bill will ensure justice, the elimination of unnecessary delays in respect of the matters covered by it and, through the elimination of delays, also ensure a saving in costs. The other provisions simply serve to streamline the existing provisions and the objection raised by the hon. member to the effect that all these provisions are grouped together in one clause and that he is allowed to speak on them only three times, was merely lodged for the purpose of playing for time. Since there are no real drastic differences between the existing measures and this Bill, and since this has been argued repeatedly in the discussion on a previous Bill which never became law. I really think it would not be necessary to divide this into separate clauses and that, as I have said, the hon. member only used this argument to play for time.

In conclusion, I should like to say that I believe that, with this Bill, we succeed in promoting the efficiency of the Police and, in doing so, also the efficiency of the protection enjoyed by the public, and, in the second place, to alleviate the administrative pressure on our courts and on everyone concerned with this matter as far as exhibits are concerned. Consequently there would be a saving in costs. I therefore feel myself quite at liberty to support this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, we on these benches will support the Second Reading of this Bill.

Which benches?

If I may interpose for a moment in the argument between the hon. member for Vereeniging and the hon. member for Durban North, I want to say that I listened carefully to the arguments put forward by both hon. members and that I think that judgment with costs should in this case be granted to the hon. member for Vereeniging, because I think that he was quite clearly correct in interpreting the law. However, this is merely a small point. We welcome the provisions of this Bill which give greater amplification and clarity to the powers and duties of policemen in regard to search, seizure and forfeiture of property. I do not wish to cover any of the points which the hon. member for Durban North covered so very well, but I would like to mention a trend which I see in this Bill, one which, I think, we see in a lot of legislation, and that is that in many cases where amending Bills come before us, one finds the wording of the relevant Act is being changed, although only very slightly. As far as these slight changes are concerned, our experience from time to time has been that the new wording always seems to favour the State rather than the individual. One finds these little changes creeping in. If one does not look carefully for them, one sometimes doesn’t even notice them. For instance, if one looks at the proposed new section 50(1) and compares it with the old section 44(4), which it replaces, one sees that under the old section a policeman could force his way into premises—

In the new provision it reads just slightly differently. It states—

However, it does not say anything about previously having failed to get in. I suppose this is just to make life a little easier for the Policeman and ensures that his actions are correct. However, I think that in changing wording like this, there is the tendency to favour the State at the expense of the individual.

There is another example of this in the Bill. We welcome the safeguards that have been inserted in the Bill relating to the seizure of property and the investigation of certain matters relating to the safety of the State. There are these safeguards and judicial officers who abuse them will in fact be dealt with under the safeguards contained in this Bill. However, over the years that Bills have come before this Parliament— certainly during the very short period that I have been a member of this House— fines have always been increased two, three, four and five times. The situation is that where a fine of one hundred pounds or fifty pounds was imposed in a law about 10 or 15 years ago, the Minister will now stand up and say that circumstances are different today, that the value of money has been eroded and that now the fine should be doubled or trebled or whatever the case may be, that it should be considerably higher in view of the length of time that has elapsed. However, in regard to the penalties provided for in this Bill, which penalties relate largely to actions by judicial officers and employees of the State, where the fines were one hundred pounds in 1955, they are R200 in 1975. All of a sudden in regard to matters which affect the State the fines are not altered whereas in regard to matters where individuals may do wrong, the fines are doubled and trebled. [Interjections]. I think that if we look at the one proposed new section that I am referring to particularly,—I think it is section 50A—we will find that we are back to the old R200.

I should also like to mention another small point. In trying to cast the net wider as far as persons to whom finger-printing will apply, are concerned, I think that the wording in this regard tends to overlap. For instance, on page 20 of the Bill— this is something with which we will deal with in more detail at the Committee Stage —we find that the proposed new section 289 now brings in any person arrested upon a charge and any person released on bail. I do think that when one wishes to widen the net in this regard the wording of the various provisions tends to overlap considerably.

We support this Bill and will deal with some of the minor matters which I have mentioned during the Committee Stage.

Mr. Speaker, first of all I should like to thank all hon. members who have taken part in this debate for their participation. I think it is obvious that everyone has studied this Bill and one may therefore look forward to a discussion in this connection in the Committee Stage. I also want to thank the various gentlemen for the fact that they support the Second Reading. At this stage I do not want to reply to everything that was raised here.

What about the lady?

I referred to the various persons. Apparently the hon. member from Houghton does not regard herself as a person. [Interjections.] I shall include the lady and I say so with gratitude towards the hon. lady from Houghton. I thank her for her support of the Second Reading. I told her one or two evenings ago that it was the first time I agreed with her, and I believe this is the first time the hon. member agreed with me.

I just want to refer to two aspects raised by the hon. member for Durban North. The first question he asked me was why all the proposed sections were grouped together in clause 3. He said it would limit the discussion. I want to tell the hon. member that this was not done deliberately. We accepted that the majority of these old sections would be taken over virtually as they stand. These are old principles which have been in existence in our law for a long time. During my Second Reading speech I pointed out a few minor differences and I did not think, in all honesty, that these few minor differences would evoke so much discussion that it justified separate clauses.

†The hon. member indicated that he would seek an amendment to clause 4 and that he would request in his amendment that a magistrate be allowed to call for viva voce evidence, if I understood his argument correctly. Sir, I do not want to start shooting down the amendment of the hon. member for Durban North at this stage already, but since he has indicated that he is going to move an amendment, I may as well indicate what my argument is going to be. The hon. member will notice that this is an amendment to section 239 of the Criminal Procedure Act. Section 239 deals with the proof of certain facts by affidavit. There were five types of affidavit that this section dealt with, so it was quite proper, when we came to affidavits with regard to syringes and that type of thing, to add subsection (5A). This subsection was inserted as (5A) because there is a subsection 6, which of course is still in the Act and is still part of the whole procedure. Subsection 6 reads as follows—

And that applies to all the affidavits referred to in subsections (1) to (5) and (5A) …

Are you sure of that?

Yes. The subsection reads—

Mr. Speaker, in my respectful view, what the hon. member has indicated that he will seek by way of amendment is already in the Act and will apply to this particular Bill in any case when it becomes law.

Why is there special reference to subsection (6) and all the other subsections if your argument is correct?

This is just part of it. We have subsections (1), (2), (3), (4) and (5) and now we have added (5A).

But the others specifically mention subsection (6). Why?

Subsection (6) applies to all the previous subsections.

Why then is it specially applied to all the other subsections? That is my point.

For the very simple reason that it gives a magistrate the right to ask for viva voce evidence; subsection (5A) is therefore added there; it also applies to (5A). That is why (5A) came before subsection (6) so that subsection (6) can apply to all of them. However, we will come back to this argument tomorrow. Sir, I thank hon. members for their support of the Bill.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

In recent years there has been an increasing direct interest on the part of Governments in various countries in the whole concept of consumer protection. This interest has been stimulated in general by the idea that the State is to accept responsibility to a certain extent for the protection of the consumer against forms of action by private enterprise which expose him to unjustified methods of exploitation and other sorts of personal prejudicing. This particular approach is stimulated further by the fact that in times of inflation and price increases, the general impression exists in the private sector that the State is actually responsible for taking steps to combat inflation and price increases; because the allegation is also made in general that the State has at its disposal the instruments of policy for combating this evil, it is important that we realize in our own country, too, that there is a general expectation among consumers themselves that the State, too, has a responsibility to shoulder in respect of the exploitation of the public in various forms and by means of various practices. Apart from what the responsibility of the State might be in this specific connection, it is also a fact that in the business community itself the idea has taken root that industrialists and businessmen must make attempts on their own initiative to prevent undesirable practices which prejudice the consumer in an unjust way; in other words that the private sector, too, ought to establish a particular code of conduct in terms of its actions also as far as marketing is concerned. For example, various trade organizations in foreign countries drafted so-called codes of conduct which they may enforce on their members and which are enforceable in terms of their own rules.

Here in South Africa the idea of State protection for the consumer against unjustified trade practices which may prejudice him, has already found expression in certain legislation such as the Price Control Act, the Weights and Measures Act, the Sale of Land on Instalments Act, the Merchandise Marks Act and the Regulation of Monopolistic Conditions Act. At the same time the Government gave financial support to the establishment of the South African Co-ordinating Consumers Board, as a representative body whose aim is to protect the interests of the consumer, and the Government is still giving financial support and assistance to that body. At the same time certain trade organizations proceeded to drafting their own codes of conduct and propagating the application thereof among their members in an attempt to curb certain sorts of malpractices, especially in the distributive trade.

All these steps, I believe, have in fact contributed to the protection of the consumer against possible exploitation or malpractices. But none the less this Government and my department receive a continuous stream of complaints from consumers throughout the country about allegedly or reputedly undesirable practices in the distributive trade against which they want protection from the State.

Although in some other countries there are Government departments which are exclusively organized, from the point of view of consumer protection, for identifying practices and investigating complaints from the public about these practices in order to recommend possible action against these to their respective Governments, we in South Africa do not have at our disposal any exclusive Government machinery of this nature. Up to now the Department of Commerce remains the only Government body which has entered the field of the protection of the consumer, and consequently the legislation which the Government has already passed, and to which I have referred, in an attempt to protect the consumer against undesirable practices, is chiefly administrated by the Department of Commerce.

However, the Government felt, and I believe that hon. members in general will agree with me, that the time has arrived for the existing legislation to be supplemented and for special machinery to be established under the wing of the Department of Commerce in order to identify reputedly undesirable trade practices which do not fall within the scope of the existing legislation as yet, and to recommend action against these to the Government.

The sort of alleged malpractices in respect of which the department continually receives complaints from the public and against which it has now been found necessary to make Government action operative for the protection of the consumer, are, inter alia, the following:

1. (i) Advertisements

In the first place I refer to an issue which has already been a subject of discussion in this House, viz. advertisements which appear in catalogues and pamphlets and in respect of which the complainants allege that the descriptions of goods which are offered for sale, are exaggerated. It is also alleged that the claims in respect of the description of goods go much further than what may be regarded as a normal extolling of merchandise. Even when such a transaction can be set aside on grounds of fraud in our civil courts, the amount which the buyer can recover from the seller in terms of his civil remedy, is so small that the cost of the action exceeds by far the amount which can be recovered.

Posters and labels which are used by dealers contain, according to complaints which have been received, descriptions by means of which the dealers try to bring prospective buyers under the impression that the price at which a specific item is offered for sale, is in fact much lower than the price for which the buyer can eventually buy the item.

Often a dealer advertises that he is going to sell a specific item at a very cheap price. Complaints are then submitted to the department that the dealers concerned in fact had no such item in stock and that the advertisement was nothing but a trick to attract prospective buyers to their shops so that they may be offered for sale other items in which such buyers were not all interested. In this connection I may just mention that an hon. member showed me an advertisement last week in which a firm of property agents advertised that they acted as the sole agents for the sale and the lease of State-owned property. When I asked him to check this, the reaction was that there was no property available at that moment. The fact is that the firm who placed the advertisement had no mandate whatsoever from any Government department to offer land for sale or for lease. The obvious motive for the placing of such an advertisement was to bring interested people into contact with the firm in the first place in order that they could then offer them other property for sale.

Various complaints have been submitted about the invoices or so-called invoices mailed to people demanding an amount of money from the addressee. At the first glance the impression is created that the addressee already owes the amount concerned, but when these so-called invoices are scrutinized it appears that the amount supposedly owed concerns some asset which is offered for sale to the addressee.

A further complaint which has been lodged with the Department of Commerce is that dealers mislead prospective buyers in connection with the conditions on which credit may be obtained from them. It is alleged that dealers bring prospective buyers under the impression that they may buy certain goods without a deposit although deposits are in fact required in terms of existing legislation.

(ii) Undesirable trade practices

Let me say at once that when I refer to these complaints, I do not want to generalize at all It is purely in order to give you examples of which practices we believe must be combatted. I believe that all hon. members would like to have them combatted. Nor do I want to intimate that the examples are representative of our total trade and of the private sector.

Foreign organizations have introduced a system of distribution into the Republic in terms of which people are recruited and given the right to recruit further agents for such an organization. For the right to recruit such agents, the persons concerned must pay an amount of money to the foreign organization. Although the organizations give out that they want to distribute a specific product on the local market, they are more interested in receiving the remuneration which is paid for the agencies. When the so-called agents discover that there is no demand for the products of the organization, they are normally unable to demand their agency fees back and, although the organizations give out that they will supply the products to the agents, the latter are hesitant to take delivery of the products because they can do nothing with them on the market.

There are dealers who make a business of mailing goods to consumers with the request that if they do not want to buy the goods within a specified period, they are to return the goods to the sender. Such dealers rely on the consumers concerned not returning the goods within the specified period. The amount demanded for the goods is usually excessive in such cases.

Some dealers employ the practice in terms of which their clients receive a discount on their purchases if they succeed in obtaining orders for the dealers from other buyers. To qualify for the offered discount, clients must obtain a specific number of orders. For example, if they have to obtain five orders to qualify for the discount, the total number of orders which must be obtained, increases so rapidly that it becomes impossible for the last clients to obtain that number of orders.

I want to say that the ingenuity of certain people in this particular connection is apparently unlimited in making use of such methods.

A final complaint which has been received and to which I want to refer as an example, is that door to door salesmen visit consumers at their homes and harass them to buy goods of a dubious nature, or goods which they can afford, at excessive prices on instalments. Let me say at once that the people who are caught by these advertising or sales methods in the first place, are the lower income groups who need the largest measure of protection. Although we can differ from one another about the methods which we can employ to cope with these specific practices, I do not believe that we can differ from one another about the principle, viz. that we owe it to the consumer public to take steps against these practices.

In order to make it possible for the Government to act against practices of this kind, it is desirable that it has the necessary legal powers at its disposal, and the Bill now before this House, is the result of protracted negotiations conducted with interested organizations in an attempt to formulate a Bill which will afford the consumer public the necessary protection without, however, putting unnecessary burdens on the private sector; in other words, the distributive trade in particular. In this specific connection, I believe, you will allow me to tell you that I had the opportunity to speak to a representative who has particular knowledge of this specific subject. He is on the staff of the American department in charge of these matters and he made the general statement to me that the legislation which we are considering at the moment is, in general terms, of the best in the world.

I now want to deal briefly with the most important principles of the proposed legislation.

Clause 1 contains a number of definitions which seek to define certain terms which, occur in the proposed legislation.

Because advertisements play such an important role in commerce, the word “advertisement” is defined as widely as possible to cover all means of advertising which are used by businesses to attract clients.

The definitions of the concepts “benefit” and “trade coupon” correspond with the definitions which are given to these concepts by the existing Trade Coupons Act, 1935. The reason for this is that the existing provisions of the Trade Coupons Act, 1935, are included in the proposed legislation with certain adjustments, to which I shall refer later.

Although virtually all the remaining definitions are self-explanatory. I just want to mention that the concept “trade practice” is defined in such, a way that a monopolistic condition, as referred to in section 2(1) of the Regulation of Monopolistic Conditions Act, 1955, is not included in the concept under discussion. Since investigations into monopolistic conditions are undertaken by the Board of Trade and Industries on the instructions of the Minister concerned, and steps in connection with such conditions, which are not justified in the public interest, are taken by the Minister on the recommendation of the board, measures in respect of such conditions cannot be taken appropriately in terms of the proposed legislation now under consideration. Therefore it has also been considered advisable to put the position in this regard beyond any doubt.

Furthermore, I must also point out that the usual meaning of the word “sell” will be extended by the proposed legislation. At this stage I want to thank the hon. member for Constantia for informing me that he has problems with this specific provision, since, as he maintains, it extends the Trade Coupons Act as a result of an extended definition of the word “sell”. This extension is necessary because it is considered desirable that, for the purposes of the proposed legislation, the concept “goods” will include incorporeal things such as rights, because the application of the proposed legislation would be made considerably more difficult if action in terms thereof were limited only to actual selling and buying transactions.

Clause 2 of the Bill makes provision for the establishment by the Minister of a Trade Practices Advisory Committee, consisting of not fewer than seven and not more than 13 members. One of the members is designated chairman and one vice chairman by the Minister. In terms of clause 2(2) the members of the committee are to be appointed by the Minister on grounds of their particular knowledge and experience in certain fields. Since no decision in connection with the appointment of the members of the committee has been taken as yet, I want to make use of this opportunity to assure the interested parties and interested bodies concerned, that they will be approached in due course to submit nominees to me from whom the members will be selected. I want to give the assurance that I intend appointing a committee as broadly representative as possible in which all the sectors will enjoy representation. The composition of the committee will be such that it will be able to advise the Minister on advertising, commerce, industry and consumer affairs.

The Trade Practices Advisory Committee will fulfil a cardinal function in the application of the proposed legislation because, as I shall indicate later, it will not be possible to take formal steps in connection with certain trade practices in terms of the legislation before a recommendation relating to such steps has been obtained from the committee. The procedure which will be followed at meetings of the committee, as well as the allowances and costs which will be paid to members of the committee in connection with the activities of the committee, are regulated by clauses 3 and 4 of the Bill, respectively.

The provisions of clause 5 up to and including clause 8 of the Bill deal chiefly with the functions and powers which the Department of Commerce will fulfil and exercise in connection with the application of the proposed legislation in practice. In clause 5 of the Bill it is provided that the Secretary for Commerce may delegate certain of his powers in terms of the proposed legislation to other officers of his department and that he may designate officers as inspectors for the purposes of the legislation. Although information is normally made available voluntarily by businesses to the Department of Commerce, there are cases nevertheless of people being unwilling to furnish, certain information to the department at its request. Consequently it has been deemed advisable to provide in clause 6 of the Bill that the Secretary for Commerce may by notice in writing request the necessary information if it has not been furnished voluntarily.

The powers of inspectors are prescribed by clause 7 of the Bill. Clause 8 prohibits the disclosure of information which a person obtained in the performance of his duties or functions in terms of the proposed legislation, in any way except in the prescribed circumstances.

An important principle which has been included in the proposed legislation is the provision that no consumer may be misled in respect of the nature, properties or advantages of goods or services, nor in respect of the manner in which conditions on which or prices at which such goods or services may be obtained. Therefore clause 9 of the Bill contains a prohibition on advertisements, statements, communications, descriptions and indications in connection with the sale of goods and the provision of services, which are false or misleading in a material respect.

I have already mentioned that the provisions of the existing Trade Coupons Act of 1935 will be included with certain adjustments in the proposed legislation. Consequently clauses 10 to 12 inclusive, contain the relative provisions in this regard. The existing Trade Coupons Act is only applicable to the supply or giving of benefits and trade coupons in connection with the sale of goods. The proposed legislation will also be applicable to the supply or giving of benefits or trade coupons in connection with the provision of services. Furthermore, I want to point out that there is uncertainty about the question as to whether a manufacturer or dealer may have trade coupons printed to be supplied or issued in connection with the sale of goods. This uncertainty is removed by the provisions of clause 11(d) of the Bill in which it is provided that the supply to, or the acquisition of trade coupons by someone engaged in the sale of goods or the provision of services, is not illegal, provided the supply or giving of such coupons is in agreement with the provisions of the proposed legislation.

The principle relating to the prohibition on the misleading of consumers, to which I have already referred, is dealt with further in clauses 13 and 14 of the Bill. In terms of clause 13 it will be an offence for a person to mislead a consumer in respect of the price which he in fact has to pay for goods or for the utilization of services.

I should like to add that it has come to my attention that the Advertising Standards Authority, under the chairmanship of a former Chief Justice of the Republic, is already doing fruitful work in the field of advertising. However, the Authority unfortunately does not have control over all advertising media. Clause 14 of the Bill now gives the Minister the necessary powers to be able to take the necessary steps in those cases where effective action cannot be taken at the moment against false or misleading advertisements.

I have already mentioned as well that the Trade Practices Advisory Committee will fulfil an important function in the application of the proposed legislation. Although clauses 14 and 15 give the Minister wide powers to act against false or misleading advertisements or undesirable trade practices, clause 16 requires that the Minister may only take the measures concerned in pursuance of the recommendations which the committee has submitted to him. The proposed legislation also provides that any recommendation of the committee to the Minister in respect of any measure which the Minister is to put into operation in terms of the legislation, be published in the Government Gazette for general information before the Minister applies the measure.

The procedure which has to be adopted before the Minister can take any steps in terms of the proposed legislation, will, in all probability, take a great deal of time. On the other hand it is very easy for a resourceful person—and I believe that I have already proved that there is no lack of resourceful people in this specific connection —to make a considerable amount of money from ignorant consumers in a relatively short time in a manner, if I might put it favourably, which is irregular.

To make a quick buck.

That is right. For this reason the Secretary for Commerce will, on the recommendation of the Trade Practices Advisory Committee, be empowered in terms of section 17 of the Bill to place a temporary prohibition, for a period not exceeding six months, on such irregular and undesirable practices.

Furthermore clauses 18 to 25 of the Bill include provisions in connection with a number of miscellaneous matters to which I only want to refer briefly. Clause 18 states clearly that no one shall be convicted of any offence under this Act if he proves that the Act or omission is due to a reasonable mistake by him in respect of the relevant facts. Clause 19 of the Bill contains a penal provision and prescribes the maximum penalties for contraventions of the proposed legislation. In terms of clause 20 the period in which prosecutions for offences in terms of the proposed legislation may be instituted, is limited to two years after the date of the alleged offence. In other words, the term of prescription is being shortened. It happens fairly often that people sign documents in respect of the purchase of goods or the acquisition of services without understanding the contents of much documents. For this reason clause 21(1) provides that the waiver by any consumer of any right which is conferred upon him by this Act or by any provision of any other law, if such waiver will derogate from any provision of this Act, is illegal.

It is therefore invalid.

It refers to the small print which people do not read. I can tell the hon. the Minister that it is not only invalid, but illegal as well.

In terms of clause 22 of the Bill it will be possible to hold any principal or employer criminally liable for a contravention of any provision of the proposed legislation by his manager, agent or employee.

Clause 23 of the Bill provides that the legislation will also apply in the territory of South West Africa. The Trade Coupons Act, 1935, will be repealed by clause 24 of the Bill and the short title and provisions in regard to the commencement of the proposed legislation appear in clause 25 of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, this is a measure that has given us some difficulty on this side of the House. I want to say to the hon. the Minister at the outset that we on this side of the House would like to see a Trade Practices Act on the Statute Book, an Act that protects the consumer. However, this Bill, the Second Reading of which has been introduced here this afternoon, is a Bill which contains a number of good features, a number of features which we regard as being highly desirable, but which also contains some bad features. It is unfortunate that apparently the main bad features contained in this Bill result more from the manner in which the Bill has been drawn up or drafted than from any intention that such features should be embodied in it. I listened very carefully to the hon. the Minister’s Second Reading speech and I could find no intention that these features which have been included were intended to be included.

As far as the good features of this legislation are concerned, they are the features which provide for the protection of the consumer. These are features which we have no difficulty at all in supporting. In fact, we support them wholeheartedly. However, due to the hon. the Minister’s having embodied the provisions of the Trade Coupons Act of 1935 in this measure, which is a measure that has been framed to protect the consumer in areas other than in trade coupon trading areas, due to the fact that it is framed in this manner and contains definitions that are directed towards these provisions providing for consumer protection and to the fact that thereby the provisions regarding trade coupons have been widened to such an extent, in our opinion, the consumer is going to be harmed. The consumer is going to be harmed because of the inclusion of the provisions of the Trade Coupons Act in this measure. As I said, I believe that this is an unintentional result. In fact, however, the potential for harm in this Bill by the inclusion of the provisions of the Trade Coupons Act and subjecting them to the definitions that have been included in this Bill is so great …

Would the hon. member be more specific and indicate them for me?

Mr. Speaker, I shall be specific in the course of what I have to say. As I was saying. I believe that the harm that can be done by the inclusion of these trade coupon provisions in this Bill and subjecting them to the definitions contained in this Bill which are required for other aspects, far outweighs the good in this Bill. The result is that we on this side of the House are unable to support the Bill in its present form. Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that this is something that I regret because without the trade coupons provisions in this Bill, it might well be a model piece of legislation. The hon. the Minister has referred to an opinion given by an overseas expert on this Bill said and that she indicated …

She is beautiful.

And you were unduly impressed.

He is not the only one.

She regarded this legislation as being the best of its type that she had come across anywhere in the world. I had the pleasure of meeting the same charming lady. She qualified that praise of the Bill by saying that it would be amongst the best legislation of this kind in the world if it did not have the trade coupons provisions.

In that case you will concede that that opinion was rather subjective.

I sincerely hope therefore, Sir, that the hon. the Minister will seriously consider excising from this measure the provisions which deal with trade coupons and leave them as they are now in a separate Act. That separate Act can be amended to take up the amendments which are proposed in this legislation, but unless the definitions in this legislation are to be radically amended I can see no other way in which the problem that is facing us can be overcome. If the hon. the Minister is prepared to excise from this Bill the trade coupons provisions, i.e. clauses 10 to 12 and certain other consequential matters, then we would have no difficulty in supporting the Bill and I would certainly withdraw the amendment that I propose to move.

Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to deal with the provisions that we can support and then deal in greater detail with those affecting trade coupons which we cannot support. Apart from the trade coupons provisions in this Bill, the Bill is primarily aimed, as the hon. the Minister has said, at protection for the consumer. We already have measures on the Statute Book, such as the Price Control Act and the Regulation of Monopolies Act and other measures, which are aimed at protecting the consumer, but their aim is to protect him from price exploitation. This Bill is aimed at protection for the consumer in respect of advertising practices, in respect of selling practices, marketing practices and other practices which may be declared undesirable. As far as advertising is concerned, I am very conscious of the fact that the volume and the power of advertising to which people are subjected has increased enormously over the past few years. Advertising is now a very big and a very powerful industry. It covers not only newspapers, direct mail, radio, neon signs, cinemas and possibly, in the not too distant future, TV but also a host of other media which enterprising people are continually thinking up. It has an increasing effect on people’s lives and habits, and I believe therefore that this House would be justified in passing legislation which ensures that ethical standards and standards of accuracy are maintained. I am also very conscious of the fact that in the modern world the public is subjected more and more to high-powered sales techniques, whether it be from insurance salesmen, whether it be from property salesmen, whether it be from salesmen trying to sell your wife a fur coat or whether it be from itinerant encyclopaedia salesmen. I am also aware that bright people are continually introducing new marketing techniques. We now have tea parties selling plastic ware. We have mail orders, a big industry, which tends to direct its efforts more and more to the less sophisticated part of the market, namely the Africans, who are most vulnerable to malpractices. We have Christmas clubs and lay-byes, etc.

Generally speaking, I would regard these practices as desirable. They are part and parcel of the free competitive enterprise system. They represent innovations and initiative. They oil the wheels of the economy and they help by doing so to raise our living standards. Advertising helps to keep the public informed and it whets their appetite for expanded trade. It promotes economic activity in commerce and industry. Good sales techniques are desirable, particularly when complicated and large items are being bought and sold, items such as motor-cars, property, insurance policies and so forth, which are bought only seldom and when bought, require thorough knowledge and investigation. New marketing techniques often result from ingenious innovations and are the very lifeblood of the competitive system. But while I do appreciate that these practices may be desirable in themselves, it has been found, as the hon. the Minister said in his Second Reading speech, that on occasion they are subject to abuse, and when they are abused it is the consumer who is hurt, and it is particularly, in this country, the lower income consumer, the non-White person who is hurt. As the Minister said, many Western countries already have legislation protecting the consumer. I also believe, with the hon. the Minister, that voluntary measures taken by private enterprise itself and by organizations representing private enterprise are very desirable and should be encouraged, but at the same time I think that had it not been for the trade coupon provisions in this Bill, this Bill would have been a timely and advisable measure, timely and advisable because it prohibits misleading and false advertising and selling practices. It provides for the control of advertising in certain respects and it provides for the prohibition of certain injurious trade practices. All these are aims which we on this side of the House can support. As far as misleading and false advertising and selling methods are concerned, which are dealt with in clauses 9 and 13 of the Bill, of course we wholeheartedly support the principle of prohibition. But I must say that except for blatant transgressions in this regard, I believe that these provisions are going to be very difficult to enforce. Salesmen in shops and salesmen selling motorcars and property frequently make inaccurate statements, and it is virtually impossible for the authorities to detect such inaccurate statements and it is certainly virtually impossible for the employers to control those activities and to make sure that such statements are always accurate. In most cases I do not think that the customer is hurt by that inaccuracy. The same problems apply to advertising, where I think it is going to be extremely difficult to detect and interpret what is misleading advertising in many respects. It is certainly going to be difficult to enforce the provisions of this Bill in this regard. For example, is the well known advertisement, “If you want to know how good a Volkswagen is, ask a Volkswagen owner”, misleading or not misleading? A Volkswagen owner who has paid over R2 200 for his Volkswagen is unlikely to say that he has made a bad buy.

Then ask him after he has sold it.

I think, Mr. Speaker, it is important to avoid action as far as minor and unintentional transgressions are concerned. I think it is also important to avoid this legislation becoming the cause of businessmen and customers coming to loggerheads with each other, which could easily happen unless this legislation is sympathetically administered. I regard the provisions dealing with misleading and false advertising and selling methods as being more of a deterrent than anything else, but I still think they serve a good purpose.

The second measure we would support in relation to consumer protection is the measure giving the Minister power to control advertising in certain respects. I refer to clause 14. We already have the Advertising Standards Authority, set up by the advertising industry and the National Press Union, which is doing excellent and effective work in the controlling of advertising. But the Advertising Standards Authority does not control all media. It does not control in-store advertising, it does not control placard advertising, and it does not control mail order advertising. I agree that other powers, as provided in this Bill, are needed, provided that they are subject to very careful safeguards. I hope that in administering this clause of the Bill the Minister and the Trade Practices Advisory Committee, which is provided for in this legislation, will work in close cooperation with the Advertising Standards Authority, which already has a considerable wealth of experience in this field.

The third and last measure included in this Bill to protect consumers is the power to control, restrict and prohibit injurious trade practices, and is contained in clause 15. I think this is a clause that needs looking at very closely because the Minister is taking power to prohibit undefined, unspecified, unforeseen and unforeseeable trade practices, trade practices which may be of a minor nature or of a major nature. In these circumstances, owing to the unforeseeable nature of the practices that are going to be controlled, I regard the safeguards upon the Minister’s actions as being critical. I would suggest that this power to control and prohibit trade practices should not be used to control trade practices which are already known. Trade practices which are already known should be controlled by specific legislation or specific regulations. This provision should not be used to control trade practices which can be controlled by other provisions of the Act or by other legislation. Multi-level trading for instance to which the hon. the Minister referred in his speech, can be controlled as it is already being controlled in terms of the Price Control Act or it could justifiably be controlled by separate legislation. The worst features of itinerant encyclopaedia selling and mail order abuses are already controlled under clause 9. I believe, therefore, that the power being asked for under clause 15 to control undesirable trade practices is one that should be used only on very rare occasions.

I should now like to come to the question of the safeguards that are needed in exercising the very considerable powers which are given to the Minister under this Bill because I regard this as being a key pointer to whether these provisions, which we regard as desirable are framed in an acceptable manner. The Bill provides that the Minister may take action to control advertising practices under clause 12, and to control, restrict and prohibit injurious trade practices under clause 15 by publishing a provisional notice in the Government Gazette followed by a final notice after representations, made to the advisory committee, have been considered by that advisory committee and recommendations have been made by it to the Minister. The Minister may not deviate from the recommendations which the committee makes. It is also provided that where urgent action is necessary, the Secretary may act on the recommendation of the advisory committee for a period not exceeding six months. Very clearly the Trade Practices Advisory Committee occupies a key position in this legislation and in the safeguards contained in it.

In view of the unforeseeable nature of the circumstances in which the Minister may act, and the complex nature of the measures which the Minister may have to take, I consider it absolutely essential that the advisory committee should be a body which is as competent, representative and balanced as possible. It is very important that men of calibre be appointed to it so that it can enjoy the confidence of all the parties who are going to be affected by its recommendations. I believe that the Minister will be well advised to write into the Bill that the persons appointed by him to the Committee should be nominees of the national bodies of the various categories of trade and consumers which are already mentioned in the Bill. I believe that this Committee must be representative of all the categories which are mentioned in the Bill and that there must be a fairy even balance between representatives representing trading interests and those representing consumer interests. To the trade interests which should be represented on this committee I should like to add a representative of the mail order industry, because that is an industry vitally affected by this legislation, and a representative of the property industry because this Bill also covers the sale of property.

Finally I would like this Trade Practices Advisory Committee to have the power to call for evidence, which it does not have at present. It can only receive representations but if it is to reach a balanced judgment and make balanced recommendations, I believe that it should also have the power to call for evidence in addition to receiving representations. I am afraid that I do not have the time to complete the other side of the picture and this is the side of the picture which we find unacceptable in this legislation. I refer to those provisions which embody the provisions of the existing Trade Coupons Act, namely clauses 10, 11 and 12. In view of the fact that the subject is now likely to change from one in which I am in full agreement with the hon. the Minister to one in which I am not in agreement with him, I think that it will be an appropriate time to move—

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.