Mr. Speaker, the debate which was conducted last week took up a considerable amount of time as a result—as you put it— of the in-fighting between the parties on the opposite side of the House. I am definitely not going to elaborate on that in my reply to the Third Reading debate of this Bill. However, a few Railway matters were raised, on which I should like to express a few ideas.

The hon. member for Maitland again raised the question of urban traffic and said that the Railways should not shirk its obligations. I should like to bring it to his attention that it is our policy that the present railway system can be extended and improved to create facilities for urban traffic as well, and where economically justified and guaranteed, provide additional services. The hon. member agrees with us. He himself advocated that uneconomic services and socio-economic services should be eliminated. The hon. member went so far as to say that the Railways should not be a tax machine. This squares with our policy that we shall introduce new services only where these are economically justified or guaranteed.

Both the hon. member as well as the hon. member for Durban Point discussed pensions. I want to state at once, that no one has more sympathy for pensioners than I have. Last Thursday I mentioned certain of the problems I am experiencing. The hon. member referred to them. The hon. member said that he had no answer in respect of the person who retired prior to 1 December 1973 and who was not receiving the same pension as the person who retired after that date. That is true, but I think the answer to that is that we are improving pensions from time to time to allow them to keep abreast of inflationary conditions. However, we cannot use the inflationary conditions as reason for transferring a person who falls under one pension fund to another pension fund. A person who retired under the pension conditions of a specific fund must continue to fall under the pension conditions of that specific fund. This does not of course mean that we are not doing anything for that group of pensioners. We know that, owing to inflationary conditions, their pensions are being supplemented from time to time, not because we want them to fall under another pension fund, but because we want to enable them to cope with inflationary conditions more successfully.

The hon. member for Durban Point referred in particular to the pensioner of today who in earlier years made an 8% contribution to the pension fund. I stated on a previous occasion that this was not relevant to the consideration of the matter which I was discussing at the time, namely the change which was introduced in December 1973. The hon. member raised this matter again and said—and this is correct —that an 8% contribution was made until 1971. With effect from 1 April 1971 we reduced that 8% contribution to 4%. We did not do this because we wanted in that way to prejudice the railwayman or the pensioner. We did this because we wanted to benefit the railwayman subsequently, when he became a pensioner. From that stage he contributed less to the pension fund, without his pension being affected by this. The hon. member is apparently inclined to agree with me that with the change at the end of 1973, when we increased the contribution from 4% to 6%, we made a far better scheme available to the pensioner. Since the pensioners who had retired earlier had made a 4% contribution, they were not entitled to the benefits of the new scheme. If what I have just said is correct, then it is also correct to say that although there was an 8% contribution prior to 1971, we cannot argue that that 8% contribution of necessity placed those people in a better position than the one in which they in fact are.

But not in a worse position either.

They were not placed in a worse position. They fall under the scheme which is still valid today, and besides we are making the necessary adjustments from time to time in respect of inflationary conditions. I just want to say that when I furnish this explanation, it does not mean that I have no sympathy for the people with a low income, such as the pensioners. I have all the sympathy in the world for them, but one must after all be reasonable and realistic too.

The hon. member for Maitland again raised the question of overtime and stated that it could be argued that the railwayman was earning so little that he could not exist without overtime. I think that, upon more careful consideration, the hon. member will agree with me that this is most certainly not the consideration. In laying down the salary scales of Railway people no consideration is given to a person having to work overtime in order to earn a livelihood. All the machinery is available to the railwayman to enable him to determine his salary in accordance with the work which he is doing and with his qualifications. The overtime is additional income which the railwayman welcomes. Anyone earning a salary, welcomes being able to earn a little extra money in some way or other.

The hon. member for Kempton Park said some nice things about the Railways. While he was telling us about all these things, the thought occurred to me that it is very easy to criticize. We have been at the receiving end of a great deal of criticism in this debate, but the other conclusion I arrived at was that hon. members who asked for certain things in this House and who stated certain requirements were being extremely idealistic and were expecting almost superhuman things from the Railways. If the Railways were to comply with everything which was asked for here, then the Management and I would have to have a magic wand, so that all we need do would be to chant a spell, wave the wand about, and everything would be there. That is what people here expect. However, this is not the way things happen. Very heavy demands are being made on the Railways.

The hon. member for Kempton Park also referred to air freight. Impressive progress has been made in the sphere of air freight during the past few years. In 1958-’59 we conveyed just over 3 million ton/km air freight; in 1961-’62 this rose to 12 million tons/km air freight. In 1973-’74 there was an increase of 22,73% on the previous year. From April to December 1974, as I said in my Second Reading speech, there was an increase of 25% in ton/km air freight over that of the previous year. Sir, the positive approach of the Railways and the Airways to this matter is clearly demonstrated by the fact that freight depots are at present under construction at Jan Smuts airport, and in Durban, Cape Town and Port Elizabeth. These freight depots are being constructed at a cost of R18 million. Sir, I think this is conclusive proof that we are adopting a positive attitude in respect of this matter.

What about East London?

The hon. member for Orange Grove again discussed the monorail between Johannesburg and Pretoria which he has in mind. I think I have replied sufficiently to that in my explanation here in regard to urban transportation.

The hon. member also referred to cheap transport. This is one of the idealistic things which were requested here. Sir, the fact that the Railways has to be run along business lines and has to be self-supporting, is completely in conflict with an unqualified hypothesis of cheap transport. That is my reply in that regard. In so far as it is necessary for certain goods to be conveyed cheaply, as we are already doing, the loss suffered by the Railways as a result has to be made good from other sources.

The hon. member for Durban Point referred to the turn-round time of trucks. In this regard I just want to mention that the turn-round time in 1965 was 9,28 days. In January 1975 it was 11,70 days. In other words, over this period of ten years there was an increase of 26,08% in the turn-round time of trucks. But I want to tell the hon. member that this in itself furnishes no evidence whatsoever of unproductivity. One must take into consideration that economic circumstances in the country have changed; and as the economic circumstances have changed, so we have introduced changes, which perhaps mean a longer turn-round time for trucks on paper, but which are in fact more economic and more profitable and also more productive than the previous procedure was. Sir, the turn-round time of a truck is calculated by dividing the ton/km per annum by the tonnage conveyed. The special reason for the increase in this turn-round time since is the fact that we are building more special trucks to convey special goods, such as trucks for grain and trucks for ore, and tank trucks. In 1965 there were 10 769 of these special trucks in service; today there are 20 504. Sir, a special truck must inevitably play a major part in extending the turn-round time because it has to return empty. The turn-round time is calculated from the time the truck is loaded until it is loaded again. A special truck runs fully loaded in one direction, usually over a long distance, and then has to return empty over that same distance, but despite this it is advantageous to make use of special trucks.

Mr. Speaker, I did not think it was necessary to say very much about the Saldanha/Sishen scheme. I elaborated on this in detail last year, and I informed this House that the Cabinet had taken certain decisions in regard to the Sishen/Saldanha scheme.

Such as the Aggeneis branch line.

Yes, that is a matter which is under consideration. For example we adopted resolutions in the Cabinet on the circumstances under which appointments should be made by Iscor for that railway line; that the salary scales should be compatible with the scales applicable in the Railway service and that the railwaymen should not be lured away from the Railways. We also decided that the private sector, if it wishes to make use of that railway line, would have to negotiate with the Railways in this regard, and that is in fact what is happening. Certain representations have been received, such as the one to which the hon. member for Parow has just referred, i.e. that branch lines be constructed in the direction of Aggeneis. Those representations are considered very carefully and if the construction of branch lines is justified and if we are able to receive the necessary guarantees, those branch lines will be constructed. Sir, I also want to tell the hon. member for Durban Point with regard to Sishen/Saldanha that the General Manager, Mr. Loubser, and I have already been approached by various other outside bodies in regard to facilities on the Sishen /Saldanha railway line, and that we are in our turn conducting negotiations with Iscor to make those facilities available to these outside bodies, but this is being channelled through the Railways. I think that this matter will still be discussed at length in future.

Sir, the hon. member for Bloemfontein North referred to the Blue Train. He would like the Blue Train to run via Bloemfontein. I just want to point out that the Drakensberg is already running via Bloemfontein. The Free State therefore already has the benefit of the Drakensberg which is running via Bloemfontein. Sir, there are many problems which I could enumerate in regard to this request made by the hon. member. The Blue Train is the fastest train between Cape Town and Pretoria, and if it had to run via Bloemfontein its running time would be two hours fifty minutes longer, and then it would, as far as running time is concerned, be on a par with other ordinary passenger trains. There is another minor but very important factor: It is always arranged that the corridor of the Blue Train faces the sun from Pretoria down to Cape Town and from Cape Town back to Pretoria. If the Blue Train had to turn round at Kimberley, or wherever it may be, it would mean that the corridor, in our opinion, would then be on the wrong side for that portion of the journey. This is a problem which is apparently insurmountable. At present it does not seem justifiable to have the Blue Train running via Bloemfontein. There are many other arguments which one would be able to advance against this suggestion.

Sir, the hon. member for Maitland referred to the Railways as a monopoly. If one simply calls the Railways a monopoly, in such a barefaced manner, then it does not make a very good impression because the Railway system is not completely comparable with that of an unqualified monopoly. A monopoly is an unrestricted power or control over the running of a particular business. I should like to emphasize the word unrestricted. None of us can say that the Railways has unrestricted power over transportation, particularly in view of the fact that Railway matters have just been discussed in this House for more than a week. Although the Railways is a national conveyor in this sense that there are no other conveyors which are comparable with it, it is nevertheless our major aim to ensure that it should be efficient, and as long as the Railways can be run efficiently there is no possibility of monopolistic conditions arising on the Railways. Efficiency is the watchword, the most important factor, and for that reason we should always be geared to expanding the efficiency of the Railways.

Sir, I just want to say that I welcome criticism, particularly if it is criticism which is intended to improve the service of this great Railways organization. The hon. member for Losberg, for example, referred in his speech here the other day to the trunks which are conveyed to the homes of MPs, and he advanced a plea to the effect that these trunks should be handled with a little more respect by the Railways. Sir, it has been said before that if you cannot break something, all you need do is give it to the Railways to convey. I sincerely hope that the few words which I am going to say this afternoon on this subject will reach the ears of every railwayman involved in this matter…

It is uneconomic transport.

… for I believe that we are dependent on our clients, myself and the 230 000 other railwaymen. Sir, I am also speaking now like Till Uilenspiegel who said that there were 1 000 at the meeting and that there were 2 000 when he arrived there. It must at all times be my task and the task of the 230 000 railwaymen to satisfy our clients. The Railways is a business and is dependent for the success of that business not only on the Railways but on every person who is in the service of the Railways. Therefore it is our task to satisfy the clients of the Railways and to treat the goods of our clients with respect. Consequently I am pleased that the hon. member for Losberg has afforded me the opportunity of saying that it is my particular concern that we should look after the goods entrusted to us with scrupulous care.

Mr. Speaker, I know I can rely on the support and loyalty of the 230 000 railwaymen. Without them the Railways cannot operate successfully. Therefore I believe that we will have their support, from the General Manager and the Management down to the humblest of them, and that we will next year be able to present another Budget we will be able to be proud of.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr Speaker, I move—

The Provincial Powers Extension Amendment Bill is not a contentious measure and seeks merely to eliminate technical problems in respect of the making of certain pension ordinances by the provincial councils.

During 1973 the Provincial Councils, with Government approval, passed identical ordinances for the improvement of the pension benefits of members of the various provincial councils and executive committees.

The Government law advisers have indicated that the ordinances concerned were invalid to the extent to which provision had been made in them for an Administrator to direct that a pension or an amount or portion thereof shall, on behalf of the pensionable person or his dependants, be paid to some person other than the pensionable person, since in terms of section 1(1) of the Provincial Powers Extension Act, 1960, the legislative power of the provincial councils to pass ordinances relating to pensions for members concerned is restricted to “pensions for members or the widows (and not the dependants) of members of a provincial council or an executive committee”.

On the recommendation of the Executive Council the State President granted consent to the ordinances, but with deletion of the words “or his dependants” in the ordinances.

With reference to the improved pension benefits granted last year to Members of Parliament and Administrators, the Administrator of the Cape of Good Hope, during November 1974, addressed representations to the Government on behalf of all the provinces for the improvement of the pension benefits of members of provincial councils and executive committees.

These representations were recently considered by the Government and inter alia it was approved, as in the case of members of Parliament, that provision be made for the payment of pensions to dependent children of deceased members of provincial councils and executive committees.

To enable the provinces to give effect to this, it is necessary to amend section 1(1) of the Provincial Powers Extension Act, 1960, as is being envisaged in clause 1 of the Bill, so that the various provincial councils will have the legislative powers (which they do not have at present) to make ordinances relating to the dependants (which include “dependent children’’) of members of a provincial council or an executive committee.

The concept of “dependants” (which is wider than the concept of “dependent children”) has been included in the proposed Bill because the provinces provide, in their various draft amendment ordinances on pensions for provincial council service, inter alia that the Administrator may direct that the pension of a pensionable person (for example if he is an alcoholic or is mentally handicapped) to be paid to one or more of his dependants (which includes his spouse) or to a curator on behalf of himself or his dependants. This provision is mutatis mutandis in accordance with a similar provision in the Parliamentary Service and Administrators’ Pensions Act, 1971, in terms of which the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions may so direct in respect of a pensionable person under the latter Act.

In the provincial pensions legislation concerned, as it is to be amended by the above-mentioned draft amendment ordinances, the payment of pensions will be restricted to the widows and dependent children (not the wider concept of “dependants”). The concept of “child” is defined in the draft amendment ordinances, just as in the Parliamentary Service and Administrators Pensions Act, 1971, as—

The amendment of the long title of the Provincial Powers Extension Act, 1960, by clause 2 of the Bill, is a consequential amendment.

Since the provinces intend introducing the abovementioned draft amendment ordinances in the various provincial councils during their April/May sessions, it is necessary for the Bill to be piloted through Parliament as quickly as possible.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to take this opportunity of congratulating the hon. the Deputy Minister of the Interior on two matters. Firstly, I should like to congratulate him on having presented his first legislation to this House, and for having done so with commendable clarity. Secondly, I should like to congratulate him for having chosen a matter of such an uncontentious nature for his first gallop. We shall support the measure for the reasons which the hon. the Deputy Minister has put forward. I believe it incorporates a necessary amendment to the powers of the provincial councils. May I say, Sir, to encourage the hon. the Deputy Minister even further that, having had this easy canter for the first stage of this legislation, we shall in fact remove all impediments, and if he wants to clear the whole field this afternoon, we shall support him through all stages.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his good wishes and also for the accommodation on the part of the Opposition with regard to the further stages of this Bill.

You will not always find it so easy!

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage taken without debate.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing in the name of the hon. member for Sea Point…

Order! The hon. member cannot move an amendment standing on the Order Paper in someone else’s name. She may only move it in her own name.

I then move the amendment as printed—

Mr. Chairman, during the Second Reading I referred to this amendment. It makes provision for the Minister to act not on his own initiative, but on the initiative of the council. The point I made during the Second Reading debate was that the Minister himself appoints the council, in certain instances on his own initiative and in other instances from a panel of 12 people whose names have been provided by the Council of Architects. The point is that the Minister appoints this council, which should have his confidence. Therefore he should only alter the provisions under which exemptions can be made in respect of the work of architects on the initiative of that council. During the Second Reading debate the hon. the Minister said that this had been accepted by the Council of S.A. Architects. This is correct. It was taken over from the Professional Engineers Act of 1969, where the same provision obtains. I believe that upon reflection the hon. the Minister would prefer, when exempting certain categories from the operation of the Act, not to act on his initiative, but to act on the initiative of the council in which he has confidence and which he himself has appointed. Although there was a correspondence between the council and the Minister at the time when it was sought to amend this Act, I ask him, nevertheless, to go back to the Council of Architects to say that he has reflected upon this point and that in view of all these circumstances he will accept this amendment. It does not alter his power to give exemption but it does mean that in future the exemption he gives will have to be on the initiative of the council, in which he would have to concur. This would be preferable to the clause as it reads at the moment in terms of which he has the right to act without the initiative coming from the council.

Mr. Chairman, as far as the official Opposition is concerned, we regret that we cannot support the amendment of the hon. member for Houghton although it stands in the name of the hon. member for Sea Point on the Order Paper.

The hon. member for Sea Point makes out a case that inasmuch as the Minister may, as is provided for in this clause, exempt certain persons from the operation of this measure either indefinitely or for such period as he may specify, the amendment seeks to bind the Minister’s discretion to a recommendation of the Council of Architects. I think one must appreciate that what one is dealing with here are vested rights of people who, for many years, have in fact performed certain work relating to architecture, to building, the drawing up of plans, etc., which before the advent of the 1970 Act they would have been allowed to continue to perform. The normal procedure in dealing with the vested rights of people, especially where their earning capacity is concerned, is to allow those who were entitled at the time of the change of the law to practise a certain profession or to do certain acts, to continue to do so for the rest of their lives. But provision was made in the original act of 1970 for the Minister, after considering recommendations made by the architects themselves, to reserve certain jobs for architects. What is provided here is far better than the reservation of work only for architects specified by the hon. the Minister. Herein he is exempting certain people with vested rights, people who have no other means of livelihood, from the operation of the Act. I think it is a far better accentuation.

Quite apart from the vested rights of people, I think one should appreciate what the hon. the Minister is also required to do here, namely to give protection to the public. Architects would probably recommend that all work be done by architects, except work of a very paltry nature. As a result of this the public suffers. Professional fees are very high. Furthermore, if you wish to alter your kitchen or build a car port or do something of that nature, it is quite unnecessary to go to all the trouble of employing an architect to do a job like that. Apart from the cost factor there are other considerations. As far as this is concerned, we have had experience of the attitude which the architects have adopted in this regard. In the Act as it now stands, provision is made for the architects to recommend to the hon. the Minister the kind of a work of an architectural nature —projects and other similar things—which are to be reserved for architects. In terms of the Act the hon. the Minister, before he does anything about this, is obliged to publish those recommendation in the Government Gazette. This was in fact done a little while ago. The recommendations of the architects which were published were, with respect, out of all proportion to the nature of the architect’s profession and out of proportion as regards the type of burden it would place on the public. I am pleased to say that the hon. the Minister has also appeared to have had the same view that the recommendations made by the architects for certain work to be for their sole pleasure, were out of proportion.

If that is the experience that we have already had in respect of architects’ recommendations, then it seems to us that in the interests, not only of the persons who have vested rights and whose livelihood is affected, but also of the public, especially the man in the street who cannot afford professional services of this nature for simple plans, the discretion should remain with the Minister to exempt such persons from the provisions of the Act. For this reason we cannot support the amendment of the hon. member for Houghton.

Mr. Speaker, during the previous debate on the same issue, I have already indicated that I am not in a position to accept this amendment, whether moved by the hon. member for Houghton or by the hon. member for Sea Point. On that occasion I already stated my reasons very comprehensively. I could perhaps add to what the hon. member for Durban North has said. I find myself in this strange situation that, during the consideration of this matter in the Other Place, there was an endeavour to put the Minister in a straitjacket, although in the opposite direction. This was done by one of the hon. Senators of the Opposition. There it was suggested that the word “may” should be replaced by the word “shall”. Now this hon. member comes along and also tries to put the Minister in a straitjacket but in another direction that is more in favour of the architects. What the hon. member is proposing is that the clause reads as follows—

The Minister can go along to do all kinds of things—make amendments, etc. What the hon. member is now suggesting is that I must approve of the recommendations; I cannot only consider them but must also approve of the recommendations. If I cannot approve of the recommendations there is hardly anything i can do as far as I can see. I cannot amend the recommendation; I can only approve it. I think I must make it clear that what is intended to be achieved here will make the situation entirely futile. The council is appointed by the Minister, that is so, but I cannot see how my decision needs the approval of the board which I have appointed. It seems to me to be a rather strange attitude to adopt and, what is more, the amendment which is proposed by the hon. member does not even coincide with the rest of this clause. If one looks at subsection (2) one will see a contradiction. Subsection (2) of the new section 31A reads as follows—

*It is quite inconsistent with the amendment of hon. member which requires the Minister to give his approval to it. It would then be a compulsory consideration. Therefore I cannot accept the amendment.

Mr Chairman, this clause makes it possible for the hon. the Minister to exempt persons such as draughtsmen who through experience and practice have qualifications to do certain work. Whilst we support this clause, I should also like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he intends giving effect to the unanimous recommendation of the Select Committee to the effect that consideration be given to providing a special code to cover persons such as draughtsmen who would then not come under the Architects Act. I should like to know from the hon. the Minister whether he intends giving effect to this unanimous recommendation of the Select Committee and, if so, when steps will be taken to this effect.

Mr. Chairman, in reply to the question of the hon. member for Musgrave, I must say that there have been discussions between these people and my department. As a matter of fact, I had a discussion this morning with the representative of a draughtsmen’s organization, or whatever they call themselves. The position at the present time is that there are different organizations. A solution will have to be found, but it mainly rests with them to get their house in order. If that is done, we can see what can be done. In any event, there have been discussions already.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Mr. Chairman, during the Second Reading of this Bill, I raised certain matters with the hon. the Minister in respect of this clause and I had a reply from him as to why he felt it was necessary to enact the amendment which appears in the Bill now before us. Obviously I cannot discuss the merits of the Act as it stands at present; I can only deal with the amendments proposed in the Bill before the Committee. What in fact the hon. the Minister is asking the House to do, is to amend the provisions of the Act so as to restore to it the effectiveness that was contemplated when the Act was originally passed. In other words, in terms of the relevant section of the original Act as passed by this House in 1968 the hon. the Minister was enabled to deal with or have an overriding say in the granting of licences of a certain category in areas which were proclaimed group areas. The hon. the Minister will recall that in 1968 there was an endeavour to limit the scope of the powers the hon. the Minister could exercise in regard to licences under Part I of the Second Schedule to the Licences Act of 1962. The Minister’s powers were to be limited to areas which were proclaimed group areas. According to the hon. the Minister it was not the intention at that stage to apply these powers in White group areas. However, a lot of water has flown under the bridge since 1968 and a lot of proclamations have appeared in the Government Gazette in terms of the Group Areas Act. The relevant section is now to be amended in order to enable the hon. the Minister to have the power to grantpermits where people may otherwise be disqualified under the Group Areas Act, and this applies in respect of all licences, whether they be trade licences or occupational licences. Let me remind the hon. the Minister what this is going to entail. In reply to a question I put to the hon. the Minister’s colleague, the Minister of Planning and the Environment, on 10 February this year (Hansard; Question No. 72; col. 62), that hon. Minister indicated that we now have 780 proclaimed group areas for Whites, 442 for Coloureds, 191 for Indians and four for Chinese. If the amendment proposed in this Bill is passed, what we are going to do in effect is to extend to the hon. the Minister powers to control the licensing in all those group areas through, the need of the applicant to obtain a permit or certificate entitling him to trade in a particular area. However, if the proposal contained in clause 2 of this Bill is not adopted by the House, we will in effect be writing off this provision in the principal Act because the 1962 Act has been repealed. The hon. the Minister made that clear when he replied to the debate on the Second Reading of this Bill. He said (Hansard, 6 March 1975, col. 2027):

That is in connection with the control of licences.

I agree with the hon. the Minister that that is the situation which we are considering today.

When we come to the question of permits or licences under the Group Areas Act, the hon. the Minister knows full well that the provisions of the Group Areas Act will apply to all applicants. Who is to decide first of all whether or not the licence should be granted? In this case the hon. the Minister has the final say. He is the final arbiter. If there is a disqualified person—a Coloured person who wishes to trade in a White area or a White person who wishes to trade in a Coloured area— who applies for a permit, it is the hon. the Minister who will decide. The hon. the Minister told us during his reply to the Second Reading debate that the tendency of the law was to review the whole question of the granting of licences to allow the provinces their own control of those licences. As he correctly pointed out there are different approaches on the part of different provinces. I believe that we will be wrong if we accept this amending Bill which in effect—that is what is before us— will transfer back to the hon. the Minister the present powers which have lapsed because of the repeal of the Act of 1962, in respect of the provincial ordinances which have now been enacted.

The second point which I believe is wrong is that if there is the question of licensing that has to be done now that there is decentralized control of licensing because of the ordinances, it is wrong for that to be vested in a Minister of this Parliament without the body concerned in the particular group area being given the opportunity to comment or to advise in regard to this matter. In other words, when it comes to the White group areas, it is a matter for the province and the local authority. In regard to the Coloured group areas, it is the Coloured Representative Council. In regard to Indian group areas, it is their own Indian Council that should be consulted.

I have an amendment on the Order Paper which indicates my feelings on this matter. The amendment is to the effect that instead of amending it, the relevant section of the principal Act should be repealed. I realize that this is a procedure that may be tidy from a legislative point of view, that is, merely to remove this section from the principal Act completely, but that it may not now be procedurally correct. However, the position I wish to achieve is that we either repeal this section entirely so that we can tidy up the matter and leave it in the hands of the provinces subject to the general provisions of the Group Areas Act or else we vote against the clause as it stands in the Bill which will have the effect of completely emasculating the relevant section of the principal Act if the clause is negatived.

I wish formally to move the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

Order! In accordance with Standing Order No. 58 I am unable to put the amendment, as it is not relevant to the subject matter of the Bill.

Mr. Chairman, I agree with everything that was said by the hon. member for Green Point. Perhaps you will allow me to move an amendment that the clause be negatived?

Order! The hon. member may vote against the clause. He cannot move that the clause be negatived.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

After the damage to historic buildings in Tulbagh by the earth tremor of 1969, the KWV bought one of these buildings in Church Street and restored it. This building which is known as “Paddagang”, was a so-called taphouse in earlier years, according to historians, where wine was sold in small quantities. It is alleged that this taphouse was open even on Sundays after church for such sales.

The building has now been restored to its former status and fitted up by the KWV as an attraction where visitors can enjoy a meal at the same time. The idea of restoring the old taphouse to its former glory arose, also as far as wine sales are concerned, but it requires the issuing of a special wine licence in terms of the Liquor Act. The Liquor Act was consequently amended during the previous session of Parliament to make provision for the issuing of a “wine house licence”.

However, a technical problem in the issuing of such a wine house licence to the KWV has arisen, in that the KWV is prohibited in terms of the Wine and Spirit Control Act. 1970, from selling products of wine in Africa, south of the equator, in competition with the retail sector. This prohibition is phrased in such absolute terms in the Act that it is impossible for the KWV to run Paddagang as has been envisaged.

Therefore it is being proposed to amend the Wine and Spirit Control Act so as to authorize the KWV to sell wine by virtue of a wine house licence issued to it in terms of the Liquor Act. In terms of the Liquor Act only wine produced by wine farmers and co-operatives may be sold in terms of a wine house licence.

At the same time the Bill seeks to make provision for sales of liquor by the KWV to its staff and directors. It is not envisaged that such sales will be excise free.

Mr Speaker, we on this side of the House support the Second Reading of this Bill. The hon. the Deputy Minister mentioned the interesting fact that in earlier years this old taphouse, “Paddagang”, was open even on Sundays after church, so that people could buy wine there in small quantities. When an historical building of that nature is taken over and restored by the KWV I think that it is no more than right that such a place should indeed obtain such a licence. Especially when the idea is that meals will be served there, one expects that a visitor will be able to obtain a glass of wine. But, Sir, what is not entirely clear to us, is whether it will be possible for that establishment, in terms of clause 2, to sell wine for consumption off the premises as well. I shall be glad if the hon. the Deputy Minister will just tell us what the position will be in this connection. It is not that I have any objection to this, but I should like to know what the real position is. If it used to be the position in the case of the old taphouse that people could buy wine in small quantities, I think that it is no more than right, if we want to restore the establishment to its former status, and possibly also want to have it open on Sundays after church, that a visitor should be able to buy 12 or more bottles of wine. I should like to know from the hon. gentleman what is being envisaged in this connection. Will this concession only apply in respect of mealtimes, or will it also be taken a step further?

It is also interesting to note, while it has always been the practice that the KWV’s employees and directors could buy liquor from the KWV, that provision is being made in this Bill for them to buy liquor for private purposes. While the hon. gentleman envisages that excise duties will be paid, we expect directors and employees, who are after all in the service of such an enterprise, at least to have that legal right. But at the same time, we feel that when liquor is sold to directors and employees of the KWV for private purposes, we are entitled to ask whether there will be any form of control over such sales and whether such sales will be limited to certain quantities. Of course, I want to add to that that when directors and employees of an establishment such as the KWV do buy liquor for private purposes, it is often done with the intention of advertising that establishment. Therefore one does not want to restrict that practice, because it certainly is beneficial to promote the product of the wine farmer in this way. Nevertheless, I should like to know from the hon. the Deputy Minister whether anything is being envisaged so as to ensure that there will be control and that this will not be abused.

For the rest this Bill only makes provision for the continuation of the position which existed in the past, of members of the KWV being able to obtain certain quantities of liquor annually in terms of the quota system Consequently we have no objection to this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the fact that the hon. member for Newton Park supports this legislation is obviously proof of the fact that this is a good Bill. In the second place it is proof of the fact that the Minister and the Deputy Minister are carrying realism into agriculture. In the third place it is proof of the sound cooperation between the KWV and the Department of Agriculture. I think this is an example to the world of co-operation between organized agriculture, in this case the KWV, and bodies of authority. When this happens, one always has productive and sound legislation.

The hon. member for Newton Park spoke of Paddagang. I think I am correct in saying the idea here is to serve wine with meals only. Actually, I shall be sorry if Paddagang is to become a place where people can buy liquor. We as wine farmers are worried about the abuse of liquor. We are often charged with promoting the abuse of liquor. We feel very strongly that liquor should be used correctly. When we speak of the correct use of liquor, we mean that it should be consumed with meals. As I see it, Paddagang will not exactly be a tap-house, as we had in the old days, where people could go to buy liquor, but will be a place where a person can enjoy a meal in pleasant circumstances, drinking and appreciating the wine from the Boland at the same time. I think that the KWV plays a very important role in educating, if I might put it this way, our people in the matter of how and when one is to consume wine. Therefore I see this development at Paddagang as another attempt of the KWV to give our people the opportunity to drink a glass of wine in pleasant and favourable circumstances May I also express the hope that this will not be the last Paddagang, but that the KWV will perhaps open a Paddagang in the Transvaal, where the mutton chops taste so good, so that our people in the interior may also enjoy this privilege.

The hon. member also raised the question of the provision of liquor to the directors and the staff of the KWV. It is an old practice, of course, that the producer of grapes can obtain a certain amount of liquor in exchange for his product. I wonder whether our other farmers in the interior cannot possibly do something similar. For example, can the maize farmers not say that they want a slaughter-ox or two for a certain quantity of maize supplied? Or can the Karakul-farmers not arrange for their wives to get fur coats in exchange for a certain number of furs supplied? I mention this only as a joke, but I just want to say that this understanding which we have had over the years with the KWV, in terms of which the producer can obtain a certain quantity of liquor in exchange for grapes supplied, has never yet caused the producer himself to abuse this privilege. I have no doubt that the KWV’s officials who have obtained liquor in the past, but obtained it in a circuitous way, will not abuse this privilege. The officials of the KWV are people who know this stipulation, because they work with it all day. They are also people who often come into contact with foreigners, as well as visitors from the interior. It will be a good idea if we were to give the KWV the opportunity to make the product known to friends and visitors of the KWV’s officials, by their obtaining the KWV’s product. It is an irrefutable fact—I have said so already in previous speeches here—that the wines, liqueurs, and the brandy which South Africa produces are not inferior in quality to the best products produced elsewhere in the world. As far as the directors are concerned, they are, of course, all bona fide members of the KWV. Nobody can become a member of the board of directors if he is not active in the industry, does not have a quota and it is not a member of the KWV. They also have the concession that they may get a certain quantity of liquor in exchange for their product. These people have the task of presenting the image of the KWV and the wine-farmer to the outside world. By virtue of their office, these people often have to hold receptions as people come from overseas and have to be entertained, be they farmers, businessmen or tourists, and then the directors of the KWV not only have to see them, take them through the Boland and show them what is happening and what is being done on the farms, but also entertain them. Therefore, it is a good thing that this matter is being rectified in that the hon. the Minister is making provision by means of the amendment contained in the Bill for the directors to obtain a larger quantity of liquor. However, this must not be abused, because there is one thing—and this I want to state very strongly—against which every producer of wine guards and that is that liquor should cause the community harm, that this product of his should undermine the community’s soul, its ethical norms. The hon. the Minister of Labour is sitting here. He and I both come from a village in the Boland—we are distant relatives—and he can testify together with me today that in the part of the world from which we come, the wine-farmers are of the most conservative people. They are people true, in spite of the fact that they produce this product and have produced it through the years. They are people who insist not only on respect for their product, but also who do not forsake their religion and culon reverence. Therefore they will see to it that this product is not abused in any way in their houses or in the houses of their family. I think the wine-farmer can say with pride that he is a conservative consumer of his product. That is all we ask, i.e. that we shall all do this and therefore I welcome this legislation and also the fact that the hon. member for Newton Park, on behalf of his party, gave their support to it.

I want to conclude by saying—I know that it is not on the agenda or part of the Bill—that I am a strong advocate of the point of view that the KWV should have greater powers as far as internal marketing is concerned. I think that the hon. the Minister could well look into this, because it can also keep prices more fully under control in this connection.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to associate myself with the hon. member for Worcester, who has presented us here with a very clear argument, also as far as the abuse of liquor is concerned. He has once agin drawn our attention to the fact that our wine-farmers are actually conservative people and that we shall never condone the abuse of liquor in any way whatsoever. What we should like, is for liquor to be consumed normally and in moderation. This legislation is to my mind a praiseworthy step forward. You know that we use every opportunity which presents itself to advocate the freer distribution of wine because we believe that this promotes the normal and moderate consumption of wine. I believe that we have taken a leap in the right direction as far as Paddagang is concerned. It is true that people could enjoy meals at Paddagang up to now, but then they had to arrive with a bottle of wine under the arm if they wanted to enjoy a little wine. If there is one thing which is humiliating to me, then it is to walk to the place where I want to eat with a bottle of wine under the arm. Therefore, I should like to associate myself with the hon. member for Worcester in his plea for a freer distribution and for the KWV to be given, if possible, even greater privileges so as to be allowed to market south of the equator as well—where it may not market at the moment.

I should like to mention a particular point in connection with the distribution of wine to employees. It is true that the people are certainly entitled to enjoying the product with which they work throughout the year. It is true that in most businesses, be they textile factories or factories where oranges are processed, the employee is at least entitled in every case to enjoy some of the products of the enterprise and then usually at a fair price. In this case as well. I believe that it is no less than right that the employees of the KWV should also be given the right to enjoy occasionally the products they work with with so much love. I should also very much like to see another group of people who are very good advertising agents for our industry, being included with the said employees. I should very much like to see members of the House of Assembly and members of the Senate also being able to share in these privileges.

Hear, hear!

Mr. Speaker, it is certainly not necessary to comment any further on this, because you heard the “hear, hears”.

There is another small matter which troubles me and which I should very much like to raise here. Several years ago it was my privilege to receive a group of veterinary surgeons from abroad who paid this country a visit. After they had tasted some of the best products of the KWV that afternoon, many of them asked me. “Where can we buy it?” I had to tell them: “I am sorry, my friends, this wine is unobtainable commercially.”

Only overseas.

It can only be obtained overseas. I believe that it is a task for the future to which we must devote ourselves, viz. to see that the KWV products will also be available in South Africa in due course.

I should like to support this legislation and I believe that it will perhaps lead to further legislation in this direction.

Mr. Speaker, allow me in the first place, to thank all the hon. members who supported this legislation. I certainly think that all of us are glad that the KWV went to the trouble, and also spent money on it, of buying and restoring this beautiful place at Tulbagh and trying to make it pleasant for people who visit Tulbagh. Those who want to call there can eat there, and now they can also enjoy the product of the vine.

The hon. member for Newton Park asked me whether wine would be sold there on an off-sales basis. The position, is in fact, that wine will not only be served with meals, but that it will also be made available on a small scale to visitors who call there. To a certain extent that also answers the questions and the ideas which were raised here by other hon. members. We hope that other places like this one, Paddagang, will be established because the wines of origin which will be for sale there will come from those regions of production only. We should like to develop this idea and we should like there to be more of them. It is a way in which the wines from the particular region can be made known. Therefore I do not believe that there is any idea of this business developing into an off-sales; in fact, it is the explicit idea of the KWV that something of that sort should not be allowed. Therefore there will not really be trade, but there will be good publicity for the wines of that vicinity.

As far as the control of the sale of liquor to directors and employees is concerned and the question as to whether there will be control in the future as well, since this is now being legalized, I just want to say that it is already the practice to supply liquor legally to directors and employees of the KWV. This is done in a cumbersome way in that the employees and the directors obtain the liquor via the wholesaler. This practice, which was cumbersome, is simply being legalized. After all, that is what we envisage with this legislation. In other words, there will be the same control as there was in the past. I can also tell the hon. gentleman that, as far as my experience goes, there is always control where liquor is concerned. Apparently someone always knows about it.

The hon. member for Worcester said that this Bill was good legislation. I agree with him and I want to thank him for those words. We are also grateful that he pointed out that there was good co-operation between the KWV and other co-operatives and the department. I do want to point out to him that there is good co-operation between the department and the commercial sector as well. The commercial sector has been referred to by implication, and I just want to say that our wine-farmers in general and especially the KWV are very determined to have good relations between the co-operatives, the producers and the wine trade because we are dependent on the commercial sector to such a large extent for the effective distribution of our liquor. As far as that is concerned, I believe that what is said here must serve to encourage that good attitude.

I want to agree completely with what the hon. member for Worcester said about the abuse of liquor. I do not believe that there is any part of the country where the farmer as well as the person who works in the liquor trade, is so insistent that liquor should not be abused. This is really a fact which we encounter throughout. To move among our Boland farmers and especially our wine-farmers and to see with what attitude they drink wine is really something to experience. In fact, the word “love” is often used and in what a lovely spirit that is done! Liquor is approached almost in a religious sense, if I might put it that way. The people uphold the point of view that if Christ ever showed Himself to be a farmer here on earth, He did it on the day that He made wine. Most of our farmers approach it in this light. Complaints are often made here about the tot system. It might be disgraceful, as the hon. member said, if people abuse it, but in fact it amounts to the labourer being worthy of his wage and being allowed to make use of that with which he works. This is the actual spirit in which this matter is approached, but it is indeed true that there are some abuses. If there is one person who suffers from this abuse, it is precisely the farmer himself. Therefore, when we speak about the tot system, I certainly think that we can at least be sympathetic towards the farmer because he is in fact the one who suffers.

We are also grateful to the hon. member for Malmesbury for what he said here in the same spirit. We welcome the idea which was expressed here about the freer distribution of wine. The wine house licences made provision for that to a large extent and I am sure that the present Minister of Justice is also very sympathetic towards the restaurants which can distribute wine on a wider basis. I hope that it will soon be a thing of the past that we have to experience the humiliation of taking a bottle of wine to a good restaurant to enjoy with a good meal. I hope that each of the restaurants who do provide a good meal will be able to serve wine with the meal and will also make use of this opportunity.

I think that I have covered more or less everything which was raised here. There is only one more point which I want to raise. Where liquor is to be supplied legally to the employees and directors of the KWV, we hope that the members of Parliament will be included in that. I am convinced that the KWV is hearing this whisper very clearly,

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage taken without debate.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

An announcement I made in the Other Place on 27 February this year, and the reply I furnished to a question in this House on 11 March, have acquainted hon. members with the composition of the National Education Council with effect from 1 March. I trust they have remarked the fact that this composition does not only take into account expert knowledge, diversity and experience, but that this Council also draws eight of its 21 members from the Transvaal, five from the Cape, four from Natal, three from the Orange Free State and one from South West Africa. Fourteen members are largely Afrikaans-speaking and seven are English-speaking. Two ladies serve on the Council. Leaving aside the six heads of education who serve ex officio on the Council, eight of the mentioned members are Afrikaans-speaking and seven are English-speaking. Lecturers from no fewer than seven of the ten residential universities for Whites are included in the Council.

However, hon. members will note that no vice-chairman has been designated and they are naturally entitled to know, firstly, why the provision of the principal Act in question is not being carried out and, secondly, the considerations on which this Bill before us is based.

Section 4 of the principal Act puts it beyond question that the heads of education of the various education departments are not eligible for nomination as chairman or vice-chairman of the Council and the executive committee. Since the heads of education are very much concerned with the implementation of the education policy, it is clear that at least one of them should serve on the executive committee. If two of the five places in the executive committee are taken up by the chairman and the vice-chairman, and a third is taken up by a head of education, the remaining two places are insufficient to enable the Minister to take proper account of important considerations, such as the organized teaching profession, language groups, geographic distribution of the members, specific aspects of export knowledge, etc. By doing away with the post of vice-chairman, and authorizing the Council and the executive committee to elect an acting chairman from among themselves in the absence of the chairman, the problem is solved. This, too, is the aim of the amendment. The other amendments in the Bill are merely consequential in nature and derive from the deletion of the word “vice-chairman”.

Mr. Speaker, I must admit that I am pleased that the hon. member is once again doing some adjusting of the Education Council. You will remember that last year’s session ended with a discussion of the National Education Policy Amendment Bill. You will also remember that we opposed the amendment Bill at that stage and that we had serious reservations about two aspects of it in particular. The one, of course, concerned the composition of the Council, and the other concerned the powers being given to the Minister. We felt that too many powers were being given him. In particular, we felt that the chairman and the vice-chairman should have been elected from the ranks of the Council so that all members of the Council could be eligible for these posts. We felt very strongly that all members of the Council should be eligible for the posts and that of course means that the heads of education, too, should be eligible for these posts. Today, Sir, we are dealing here with an amendment Bill that displays interesting tendencies. In the first place we note that the Minister has given up his right to appoint a vice-chairman. As he explained, he is, in point of fact, abolishing this post. But in the second place, he is also making it possible, in terms of this Bill, to give members of the Council the right, in cases of emergency, to elect a chairman. This, of course, means that all members of the Council will be eligible for the post on that occasion and that even a head of education will be able to give specific guidance as chairman. We therefore support the amendment the hon. the Minister wants to introduce here, although we do of course feel that it does not go far enough. As I have said, we should have liked to see all people, including heads of education, being eligible for the post of chairman. The hon. the Minister furnished the reasons for his being unable to appoint heads of education in terms of the provisions of article 4. We felt that perhaps this was the very aspect which should be amended. It is, of course, a good principle to give the members of a Council the opportunity to elect their own chairman themselves, because if they elect him themselves, they will have more confidence in him. The hon. the Minister explained to us the problems experienced with regard to the appointment of both a chairman and a vice-chairman. I just want to repeat that the hon. the Minister could perhaps have eliminated those problems if he had effected the necessary amendments to other sections of the Act.

Sir, I now come to another matter in respect of which we on this side of the House are to a certain extent disappointed and even indignant about the hon. the Minister’s actions. This is in respect of the announcement of the names of the members of the Education Council and the executive. I believe—perhaps it was done unwittingly— that the hon. the Minister was guilty of actions which will not, I hope, set a precedent, because they can only lead to a degree of contempt of Parliament as an institution. When the hon. the Minister announced the names in the Other Place on 27 February, he definitely did not do so in terms of the existing legislation, but in terms of legislation that had still to be passed by the Other Place and subsequently by this House, too. I just want to remind the hon. the Minister that if he looks at section 1, dealing with the executive, he will find that the existing Act very clearly states that it will be “the chairman, the vice-chairman and three other members of the Council”. Then at that stage, when the Second Reading was being moved on 11 March 1975, the hon. the Minister announced the executive committee, and we note that he announced them as the chairman and four other members. There may perhaps have been practical considerations causing the Minister to do this. He may have had reasons for not having wanted to wait any longer. But the fact remains that this was not done—and I warn to repeat this—in accordance with the provisions of the existing Act, but in accordance with the provisions of the amendment Bill. On 11 March I asked the Minister about this, and I just want to quote the question I put after the Minister had announced the names—

The hon. the Minister’s reply was—

This, therefore, was an announcement, but in fact the hon. the Minister did not provide us with the reasons why he could not wait until Parliament had first completed its proceedings in this regard. The hon. member for Green Point put a further question—

The Minister’s reply to that was “No”. Now, I want to put this to the hon. the Minister in the spirit that I really feel that we should be careful not to create a precedent concerning a matter which could perhaps affect Parliament as an institution. Consequently I should appreciate it if the hon. the Minister, in replying, were to give us a further explanation of this. The fact that the hon. the Minister had perhaps considered that the legislation would be supported on both sides of the House is not, I believe, a sufficient justification for his action in this regard.

In conclusion, I just want to say a few words about the composition of the Council. The Minister’s announcement of the names of the members of the Council did, of course, take place in terms of the composition as it must be now in terms of the Bill, and for that reason I can only tell the hon. the Minister, and the other members of this House, too, that although we should perhaps have preferred a different composition of the Council, and in addition would perhaps have liked to see other organizations with representation on it, we nevertheless want to wish the Council every success for the future.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Durban Central for his support of this Bill. In point of fact this is not a contentious matter and consequently I did not expect him to oppose it. However, he referred to the fact that I had already announced the composition of the Council in the Other Place, and am only now piloting the necessary statutory amendment through the House. In fact this is the point which the hon. member for Green Point also raised in a supplementary question. I want to put it very clearly to the hon. member that each member of the Education Council was appointed in accordance with the provisions of the principal Act. I did not circumvent or disregard the provision in the principal Act in any way. There is no provision in the principal Act stating that I have to announce the vice-chairman at the same time as the Council was constituted. I therefore want to deny that I have circumvented any statutory provision in constituting this new Council.

Since the hon. member asked a few questions in order to obtain a little more information, I should like to reply to them. The hon. member wants to know why I was unable to delay constituting the Council until such time as the amendment Bill had been passed by Parliament. My reply to that is that it was urgently necessary for the Education Council to commence its activities because the term of service of the previous Education Council had already expired on 31 December 1974. At that stage I was not at all certain when this legislation would be passed by Parliament. Consequently it was essential for the sake of the orderly passage of events for me to reappoint the Council to enable it to commence its activities. This is the only explanation for this. I repeat that I have set no precedent by means of this method I have adopted. I have acted entirely within the provisions of the Act. I could have designated as vice-chairman any one of the other persons whom I appointed to the Council from outside and then there would have been no hue and cry. That is all I want to say about this.

Is it the opinion of the executive committee, too, that this took place in terms of the existing legislation?

As I have already said, the existing legislation requires that I appoint an executive committee comprising five persons. The qualifications with which they have to comply are also prescribed. However, there is no provision stating that when I announce the members, I have to designate one of them as vice-chairman. Consequently I can designate any of the remaining four members of the present executive under the existing Act as vice-chairman, with the exclusion of the Director of Education for Natal.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Clause 1:

Mr. Chairman, I just want to come back for a moment to clause 1A(2) and I trust that the hon. the Minister will accept this in the spirit in which I have done. In the past, the position was that the executive committee had to comprise the following: The chairman, the vice-chairman and three members of the Council designated by the Minister. They comprise the executive committee of the Council and perform the functions. The hon. the Minister said that provision has been made for the appointment by the Minister of five members to the executive committee. However, in the principal Act it is clearly stated that the committee will comprise the chairman, the vice-chairman and three other members. This, too, is why the hon. member for Green Point raised his objection, because this definitely did not take place in terms of the existing Act.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member is correct when he states that I did not indicate who the vice-chairman would be when I designated the members of the executive committee. However, that does not necessarily render the nomination of those persons irregular. They have in fact been duly nominated in terms of the Act. The only omission is the appointment of the vice-chairman. According to the legal advisers this does not constitute a circumvention or a negation of the Act and because I wanted a start to be made with the activities of the committee, I did it in this way.

Clause agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Chairman, when the debate was adjourned the hon. member for Durban Point had moved an amendment which reflects the real basis of the anxiety we feel about and objection we have to this clause. I refer to the introduction of this new aspect of valuation, namely the removal of erection costs and substituting the replacement value less depreciation in respect of certain premises. I think the hon. the Minister has had an opportunity of getting a reaction from the public at large to this matter and also an opportunity of viewing the difficulties which will arise if this particular provision is retained. I am speaking about the problem of determining what the replacement costs will be because of changed circumstances, particularly in regard to old buildings. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister would not, so as to limit further discussion, react to this particular amendment, namely to omit paragraph (i) which provides for this onerous basis of determining valuation for rent purposes.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Green Point said that I had probably had reactions from members of the public since this measure was last discussed. I know of only one newspaper cutting which contained rather tasteless remarks. The letter was not signed, so I could not reply to it. That is all I have received up to now. I can only repeat what I have already said, namely that I have considered all the amendments very carefully in consultation with my department. I am going to accept certain amendments, but that is not relevant now. However, as far as the four amendments to clause 1 are concerned, I regret that I am unable to oblige the Opposition members. If I were to oblige them here—and I have said this during a previous discussion in the Committee Stage—I should have to bring back the recovery of interest, a very sensitive aspect which is built into the Rents Act at the moment. Without going into principles in more detail, I want to say that that is a very drastic measure. Only last Saturday I received complaints about that provision. Someone almost assaulted me because I was not going to allow interest on bonds. If I were to make any concessions in regard to these other measures, not to speak of the 7½% mentioned by the hon. member for Green Point, I should have to return to the original position, and then we would just be back to that very definite form of exploitation which existed at that time. The example I mentioned a moment ago did not refer to an imaginary person. An owner came to see me and even he admitted to me that exploitation took place. I know that I have not confined myself strictly to the amendments that have been proposed, but I want to make it quite clear why I cannot accept these amendments. I cannot place the owner or landlord in a position which is going to drive people out of this business.

Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the hon. the Minister understands the full implications of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Green Point. If he is prepared to omit the replacement value, we would not insist on the present percentage. Our opposition to the 8½% is based on valuation.

†I do not think the hon. the Minister has clarity on this. He is saying that if he removes the replacement value as proposed, we might as well go back to square one. However, that is not the case. We are saying that if one does not have the replacement value as one of the tests, we are prepared to accept the 8½%. In other words, then the hon. member for Green Point would withdraw his amendment to omit the 8½%. We would then support the hon. the Minister. Then one would have the 8½% which would then be based on a valuation which takes into account all the other features upon which a valuation is calculated, i.e. municipal value, other buildings, including this new addition of uncontrolled buildings of the same type. There would be all these other tests against which the Board could test its valuation. You will then have the 8½%, but it would simply eliminate what will become—and the hon. the Minister must know it, he must realize it—the only ground on which any application for rent increase will be based in future, namely the replacement value.

Let us look at this aspect. No building which is replaced today is replaced in its original form. Therefore you are not really getting a replacement value. That is not a true description. It is not going to be the replacement value of the building but a theoretic calculation and a purely academic exercise. Nobody will knock down a 20, 30 or 40-year-old building today and replace it with an identical sort of building. When a building is demolished a multi-storeyed 20 or 30 floor building is usually built in its place with shops and offices on the bottom floors. Big modern projects are usually built in the place of such buildings and they are completely different from the building which has been demolished. For that reason you will never ever get a replacement in practice which is in any way related to what it is replacing. Is it then logical to argue that one of the tests of the valuation of a building should be its replacement value when one knows that no one is going to replace the building? That has nothing to do with the value of the building. The replacement of a building is a completely different thing which is based on speculation and on what is going to take its place in a completely different form. So it is not even as though we are taking a realistic value.

All we are pleading for and all my amendment seeks to do is to remove what is an illogical, unrealistic and unrelated norm from the numerous tests which must be applied by the board. It leaves all the other tests untouched. It leaves the test by which the value is determined today untouched. If you like we can remove “original cost” as well, because you will then have neither the original cost nor the replacement value. A simple amendment will do that and you will still have all the realistic tests—namely sworn appraisers’ valuation, municipal valuation, comparison with other controlled buildings, comparison with uncontrolled buildings plus the full discretion of the Rent Board. If the hon. the Minister does that he will have our full support for his granting of an annual return of 8½% because it will then be based on the value of the building. It is this issue of the replacement value which makes an 8½% yield a problem. I agree with the hon. the Minister that it is a good thing that the interest rate should not count. That is being abused tremendously. This must go, and going there must be some quid pro quo. The quid pro quo can be the 8½% but then let it be based on a sound valuation and not on some theory of what it might cost or would cost if the building were to be replaced or what that particular building with, say, 30 flats would cost to have it built today as 300 flats. The building would not cost that because it would not be built in that form. It would not be built with the same sized rooms. Many of the old blocks of flats have large rooms and high ceilings and they are much more gracious than the modern cardboard-box affairs which one has to squeeze into.

Therefore one would in any case not build to the same size because one would not have the same wide passages, for instance, that many of the old blocks of flats have. The modern concept of squeezing everything into the minimum possible square footage would be followed. Therefore, on what are you going to calculate your replacement? Will it be on the basis of two bedrooms of 12 ft. x 10 ft. will replace two bedrooms of 18 ft. x 14 ft? On what are you going to calculate the replacement? Will it be the present cost of flats the same size as the old ones? What will be the height of the ceilings in such flats? Will they be what they were in the old flats or will they be according to the modern norm? Whichever way you look at it, the replacement value is not realistic but it is going to be the basis on which every application is made. Obviously it is going to be completely out of proportion to the real value of the building as it exists at present.

I do hope the hon. the Minister will look further at this. Is he not perhaps prepared to hold this clause over until the end of the Committee Stage so that he can think about it some more? If we can come to an agreement on this measure, the flat-owner, the landlord and the tenant will know that an effort has been made to seek justice and fairness in this regard. If the hon. the Minister will hold it over, it will give him time to think some more about it. I do plead with him not to force this through now because I do not believe that this Committee has really worked out for itself the implications of what the new definition could mean. We are prepared to support the hon. the Minister as a quid pro quo if he will withdraw paragraph (i).

Mr. Chairman, I am afraid that I cannot satisfy the hon. member for Durban Point. I understood the motivation of the hon. member for Green Point quite well. I should not like to repeat what I said in my Second Reading speech, but let me say that I am trying to incorporate something here which can be scientifically calculated. It is not a new principle for the Rent Board to take capital appreciation into consideration. I have read to you from a memorandum submitted by the Rent Control Board that they consider “valuation of property, decrease in money value, other increases, etc.”. However, it was calculated on a rather arbitrary basis, one may say. What is meant, for example, by “original cost of erection”, which is the first of the items to be considered? If the Rent Board is able to determine the original cost of erection, it will make its own calculations on that basis, which it has in fact done in the past. This is the very first item which is mentioned. Others are building society valuations and municipal valuations, which may vary, as is the case in Cape Town. Then there are sworn valuations which the Rent Board may take into consideration, but as I have indicated, the sworn valuations may differ by as much as 800%. Finally there is the rent value of controlled premises. This was what the position used to be. Those are more or less the items as they are arranged in the present Act. The Johannes Committee tried to introduce something more scientific into this and I agreed with that. What would a costing-clerk do if he were to be called in? He would ask for the plans of the building and would then base his calculations on those. Then he would take into consideration what it would cost to erect such a building today.

Would he take into consideration what it would cost today to erect exactly the same building?

He would base his calculations on the plans of the building concerned. The hon. member for Sea Point advanced the argument that different building methods are used today. That is correct. That building is standing there and it is in a certain condition. If its rooms are bigger than those that are built today, the tenant has the pleasure of using those bigger rooms. If the ceilings are higher than they are today, the tenant enjoys the benefit of this. The quantity surveyor takes certain items into consideration in determining depreciation. Depreciation must be calculated over a period of years since the building was erected He takes into consideration the standards applied to the building, the quality of the materials that were built in, i.e. poor or fine materials, the wear and tear on the building, the extent to which the design and facilities have become obsolete, and even the deterioration of the neighbourhood. These are the items which the quantity surveyor has to take into consideration when he wants to recommend a depreciation rate. Hon. members must remember that we are concerned here with buildings that are at least nine years old. These are buildings that have been standing for nine years or more. There are exceptions here and there. There are buildings which were placed under control at a later stage. Generally speaking, however, we are concerned with buildings which are nine years, 20 years or 30 years old. This is what that depreciation has to be calculated on. Normally it is at a rate of 1% or 1½%. Property owners have pleaded with me to insert this into the legislation, but I have refused. It may be that a building has been so badly neglected that a different depreciation factor has been assigned to it. The way the Act reads at the moment, the only real fact we have in this formula is the cost of erection. This is not readily available. This is the only real fact which is not an estimate subject to human arbitrariness. In the place of this, because it has proved to be impractical, we are trying to get as close as possible to something scientific. I said during the Second Reading debate that quantity surveyors never differed by more than 10% and that on the average they differed by approximately 5%. This is what we may call something factual, so to sneak. We now have the position that in considering this new formula, this general concept remains in the Rents Act—fairness to the owner and to the tenant. In other words, rent boards will have to take account of this. We have to be fair to both parties.

Mr. Chairman, I feel that the hon. the Minister is placing far to much emphasis on the merits of the cost of replacement as a formula for determining rental. I want to draw his attention once again to paragraph (b) of the original clause which relates to any municipal or divisional council valuation. As the hon. member for Green Point pointed out, this states quite clearly that it shall be estimated cost of erection at the time of valuation less such allowances as may be considered on account of structural depreciation, etc. If the hon. the Minister is therefore concerned about making the cost of replacement the determining factor then to an extent he already has this because the cost of erection at the time of valuation, less depreciation, is covered by the provisions of paragraph (b). Therefore he already has the cost of replacement as one of the factors. We believe that by introducing this in place of paragraph (a) he is placing undue emphasis on the cost of replacement. He has a municipal or divisional council valuation which is cost of replacement. Previously, he had to take into account the actual cost of erection. The hon. the Minister shakes his head. Does the hon. the Minister not accept that the municipal or divisional valuation is related to the cost of replacement less depreciation? Does the Minister not accept that?

It is not always the case. It is the case in Cape Town, but it is not always the case.

It is in the whole of the Cape Province.

This applies in the whole of the Cape Province. As far as the Cape Province is concerned, therefore, you already have the cost of replacement as a built-in factor, but what the Minister is seeking to do is to delete any reference to the actual cost of erection. The Minister said in his Second Reading speech: “Die werklike boukoste is weliswaar ’n presiese bedrag.” It was not the cost of replacement which was a precise figure; it was the original cost of erection which was a precise figure. So, on his own admission he is now deleting what he said was a “presiese bedrag” in order to put in a new estimated amount which he says might vary from 5% to 10%. I want to ask the hon. the Minister why he wants to ignore entirely the original cost of erection. Surely it is a factor. Why does he want to eliminate it? He has not given us any reason. I can understand his saying that the cost of replacement should be a factor and that the sworn appraisement should be a factor, but surely the cost of the erection of a building should also be a factor. I think the cost of erecting a building should perhaps be the most important factor, because this is the only figure which is not an estimate. It is the only figure which is actually determinable. But the hon. the Minister says that we must delete the one thing which he said was a “presiese bedrag”, and in place of that “presiese bedrag”, he says that we should take the valuation of the building by a professional man. I believe that far too much emphasis is going to be placed on the cost of replacement and that not sufficient attention will be paid to the one figure which cannot be argued about, and that is the original cost of erection. I must ask the hon. the Minister to look at this again and to explain why he does not want to take the cost of erection into account. Why not? We believe that it is a factor.

The second point that I must raise with the hon. the Minister, and to which he did not reply last week, is the effect of increasing the amount which can be earned on the land from 6% to 8½%. While it may be correct for the Minister to argue that 8½% is a fairer return on land in terms of today’s interest rates than 6, has he taken into account the effect that this is going to have on the value of land?

Yes.

He is allowing an increase of 42% in the return on the land, from 6% to 8½%, and this must of necessity have an effect on the value of the land. Sir, we are not only going to have this increase from 6% to 8½, but within a very short space of time there is going to be a revaluation of the land because land is now going to give a 42% higher return. This in turn is going to have a spiralling impact on sworn appraisements which are given for land values in the urban areas. Sir, I would like the hon. the Minister to come back to us with a more convincing argument, first of all as to why the actual cost of erection should be ignored, because that is what the hon. the Minister is saying; he is saying: “Ignore the cost of the erection of the building; think only in terms of the cost of replacement.” Secondly, will he tell us how he is going to keep land prices in check when he is allowing the return on land to be increased from 6% to 8½%, in other words by 42%?

Sir, I am afraid that I cannot agree with the arguments of the hon. member for Sea Point. The return of 8½% is intended to try to achieve a reasonable balance. His argument, his objection is that one is doing away with the entire cost of erection concept. Sir, the Act provides expressly that are five factors which have to be taken into consideration. The first factor is cost of erection. We are dealing here with flats which are 30. 40 and 50 years old The first concept, namely that of cost of erection, is therefore a concept which is 40 to 50 years old, and the problem is that one cannot work on an old concept of valuation, namely the building costs of 40 to 50 years ago, if one then has to compare this with a municipal and divisional council valuation which is revised every five or eight years, and with a sworn appraisal which is made from time to time. One has to take the present purpose for which the building is being used into consideration. That is the whole idea. One cannot proceed to take into consideration the cost of erection of 30, 40 years ago, which one is in any case no longer able to determine now. But even if one were able to determine it, how can one take the concept which is 40 years old and compare it with four concepts which are modern? That is where the problem lies. Therefore one cannot, out of one old concept and four modern concepts, establish a reasonable value as a basis for a reasonable rent which has to apply at the present time. In the second place the argument of the hon. member for Sea Point was wrong. He cannot say that the increase in the return of 6% to 84% is an increase of 42%. After all he must agree that one cannot expect a person to be satisfied with a return of 6% on land in an investment today. That land one has had in that use for 30 or 40 years, and its inherent value has increased. Nevertheless you have received recognition for only 6% for all those years. In other words, you have received no recognition whatsoever for the capital appreciation, and even when it came to the sale of that property during the past 30 years, one could hardly have included capital appreciation in the calculation because the sale of controlled flats is based on the rent income. Sir, I should like to associate myself further with this. I think the hon. member for Green Point made this very clear last Friday (column 2075 of Hansard) when he said that he was satisfied with the principle and he repeated this today—that 8½%, be ing a higher interest rate on the old concept, is acceptable to him. On the other hand he is also satisfied with the 7% concept on the new increased replacement value. In other words, he is satisfied with, the one, or he is satisfied with the other. But then what happened last Friday? Regardless of the fact that the hon. member for Green Point had proposed that this be increased, that we should work with a 7% return on replacement value, the hon. member for Durban Point, who has just walked out, suggested that we should now do away with the concept of replacement value and return once again to the concept of cost of erection. In other words, when this side of the House points to their argument the Opposition …

That is the choice between the two.

You have now had two amendments on the Order Paper. The one is the reduction of 8½% to 7%, and the other is the substitution of replacement value by cost of erection. And when this side of the House points out to you that your argument is now that you want to reduce the value and reduce the interest rate, and that in the process you agree to doing away with rent interest, the reply of the hon. member for Durban Point is that he has never in his life heard such a stupid argument. Put now, during the past week, the hon. member for Durban Point has had time for sober reflection on this matter, and for that reason I am grateful that the argument of the hon. member for Durban Point today is different to what it was last Friday.

It is exactly the same as the previous time.

I am returning to this fact that we need either the one or the other, as the hon. member for Green Point correctly argued. But now we are returning to the obsolete idea of cost of erection. One cannot work on that basis anymore. The hon. member for Green Point then said that no provision was being made for a method—this is in column 2070 of Hansard—of determining the replacement cost or a method of determining the depreciation. Sir, my submission is that one cannot lay down such a method or formula in black and white. Naturally, when one has the municipal valuation, when one has the divisional council valuation, when one has a sworn appraiser, a building society inspector, a mortgagee, a seller of a property, one does not adopt a black-and-white formula to determine what the value is. One takes all the factors into consideration, and this is basically what replacement value less depreciation is, and with, depreciation one makes provision for factors such as where the place is situated, how replaceable it is, whether the materials are available, whether it can be repaired, and so on. In other words, one is now working with a relative concept, with a realistic concept, with, a concept which is applicable at present and with a concept which enables one to work with the reality and with the present. Eventually one then arrives at a figure which is the replacement value. In this respect the legislation is very reasonable, for it goes on to provide that one need not take only the replacement value into consideration, for this is only one of five factors. In the past more attention was perhaps given to the cost of erection aspect because it differed so fundamentally from the four other requirements mentioned in the Act. There are now five requirements and they indicate the present position. If those five requirements are read in conjunction with one another, it brings one to a concept which is applicable to the present value.

The legislation is very reasonable, for it goes on to provide that the rent should be calculated with consideration of all the circumstances of the case. It is therefore not a case of necessarily having to take only paragraph (a), the replacement value, into consideration. If all these factors are taken into consideration, one eventually arrives at a “reasonable rent value”, in the words of the existing legislation. The legislation also provides that that reasonable rent value may or may not correspond to the market value. Departures from the market value are therefore permissible, and consequently adjustments may be made. It is also being provided that one or all of the methods may be used in order to arrive at a conclusion. The Rent Board which makes an inspection in loco, therefore takes all the circumstances into consideration, and after having done so it arrives at a reasonable conclusion, namely a reasonable value. The Rent Board therefore has a wide discretion in this regard. This is in fact the measure of reasonableness which the legislation wishes to effect.

The provision which provides that a quantity surveyor be consulted means that we will be ensuring that the opinion of an expert has to be called in. The quantity surveyor is conversant with the most modern price tendencies. He has the necessary price indexes at his disposal, and he also has the price bulletins of building costs in the various regions at his disposal. He therefore knows to what extent building costs have risen during the years proceeding that stage. By making use of the quantity surveyor we are making use of an expert dealing with present concepts who is able to make adjustments if necessary.

There is another point which I also want to pause at. I am referring to the speech made by the hon. member for Durban Point on Friday, 7 March, from which it appears that he did not read the legislation. The hon. member did not observe that the Bill, in respect of maintenance, states “not exceeding 2½%”. What was his argument? He suggested that the lessor should produce evidence. That is precisely what is happening at present. In column 2085 of Hansard of 7 March this year he stated very clearly that 2½% is added to the return in the case of the person who does not spend anything on repairs, and he suggests that the present 8½% becomes 11% as a result of that. Surely this is not the case. The person who spends nothing will only receive 0,5% or 1%. The 24% is the maximum limit for the person who takes the trouble of maintaining his block of flats well and keeping it in a good condition. We must remember that in the inflationary situation we have today, this is not easy to do.

I already dealt with the arguments in regard to electricity supply and profit-taking in that regard when I spoke on a previous occasion and advanced reasons as to why the lessor ought to have the right to charge a small additional amount. After all, the lessor has to incur special administrative costs. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I should like to come back to paragraph (h) of clause 1 and ask the hon. the Minister whether he will not reconsider this matter. When he dealt with this question in his Second Reading speech he advanced only one reason for removing what was previously an allowance in so far as the landlord was concerned. He said that existing provision could be circumvented and explained that if a person had R250 000 with which to construct a block of flats, it would have been possible for him to lend that amount to a corporate body which was also under that person’s control and that that body would then pay him the appropriate rate of interest. The hon. the Minister said that such a course of action would circumvent the provisions of the Rents Act. He also said that this obviously did not apply to new buildings, so we are only concerned with buildings which are subject to the Rents Act as it now reads; in other words, we are only concerned with elderly buildings.

There are a large number of buildings in Johannesburg which have been financed with three to five-year money. Previously they had the advantage of the proportion of mortgage finance to total finance built in by this formula, in terms of which some recognition was given to the fact that the rate of the mortgage loan might be above that permitted by the Rent Board, and on which it based its rent. This is now being taken away. I want to give an example and the hon. the Minister can correct me if I am wrong. Previously, if you had a block of flats which cost R6 million and R2 million of that had been borrowed by the owner of the block at, say, 10% interest, the Rent Board would then by way of a formula allow one-third of the cost at 10% to be balanced against the other two-thirds, on which they would now allow 8½%. The rent would then be determined after taking that into consideration. This is now being removed and obviously when some of these buildings come to be refinanced, their owners are going to face an extremely difficult situation. At present long-term rates of interest and even medium-term rates of interest are substantially above the rate they will be able to earn by way of rentals. If my understanding is correct—I hope the hon. the Minister will tell me if I am wrong—to allow one to have this built into the formula on which rent was based it previously had to be a bona fide loan and also had to be in terms of the Finance Charges Act. It also had to be approved by the Rent Board. I would have thought that, in all equity, this should not simply be removed from people who have already acquired buildings and have raised money on the basis of this allowance. To get around the hon. the Minister’s problem when he talks about abuse, where an individual can simply lend money to himself through a company, there could be an insistence that this should only be obtained from a third party, so that one would have a bona fide loan within the Finance Charges Act, which would have to be approved of by the Rent Board. I would have thought that that would have met his problem and would also avoid the inequity which will arise by removing this from people who own buildings because of the fact that this was allowed in the past.

Mr. Chairman, I want to return to the hon. member for Sea Point. He complained again about the original cost of erection which is no longer a factor now. Apparently the hon. member does not want to accept the two problems which I have sketched very clearly, in my Second Reading speech as well. The one is that it has been the experience of rent boards and the Rent Control Board that they cannot determine this amount. However, the hon. member states that it is determinable. What happens if a person states that he bought the building for, example, R500 000, but did not know what the building originally cost? Perhaps he does not know where the person from whom he bought the building is. What else can the Rent Board then do but to try to establish this itself? It was even their experience that applicants refused to furnish the original cost of erection. Many did so to their disadvantage perhaps, for the rent board lays down that if a person refuses to furnish the original cost of erection, the procedure adopted is simply to go according to other formulae, and that person is deprived of the advantage which he may have derived from disclosing the original cost of erection. This the hon. member does not want to accept. The hon. member does not want to accept the second problem which we have in this regard either. When the original cost of erection was in fact been established rent boards had to make calculations in a relatively arbitrary manner, as I quoted from the report of the Rent Control Board. We are now trying to eliminate these cases. The hon. member raised a reasonably valid argument in regard to the increase in the interest rate on land. I do not know whether the hon. member considered this aspect. When the interest was set at 6%, the interest which one could, for example, earn on a fixed investment was in fact less than 6%. Today the current interest is 1½% above the 8½% which is being allowed. In this regard as well an element of reasonableness has to be built in. I think it was the 1950 Act which determined it to be 6%, at a time when an investor was unable to obtain 6% on affixed deposit. Now an investor obtain 10%.

†This provision being introduced here in respect of the elimination of interest rates is specifically because Rent Boards, and even the Rent Control Board, found it impossible to always ensure that bona fide mortgages were being registered. They could find no formula to ascertain this with absolute certainty. That is one of the reasons why this recommendation was made.

Amendments moved by Mr. L. G. Murray, Mr. R. G. L. Hourquebie and Mr. G. B. D. McIntosh negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

On amendment moved by Mr. W. V. Raw,

Question put: That the paragraph stand part of the Clause,

Upon which the Committee divided:

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment as printed in my name on the Order Paper, i.e.—

This is an improvement, and if I am allowed to do so, I want to give the hon. member for Sandton credit for it. I accepted his amendment in principle, but I found that I had legal problems with the legal draughtsmen and as a result of those problems, they formulated it in a different way and reconstruction was omitted. The question of reconstruction was omitted because it creates actual practical problems.

Mr. Chairman, I welcome the amendment moved by the hon. the Minister. I would like to clarify one aspect, however, and that is that a person who would resume the right of the lease after such repairs or restoration, would I assume do so at a new rental which is to be determined by the board. Or would it be the old rental, until a new application and determination have been made? Obviously if there has been a restoration and major repairs, the value and most probably the rental will go up. I think we should have it made clear so that those who think that they can go back to the original rental, will not be misled and then find that they have to pay higher rentals because of the reconstruction costs.

Mr. Chairman, it will be suspended for the period of repairs, but the landlord will have to go to the Rent Board, because the premises are controlled premises. He will have to go to the Rent Board to ask for an increase.

Mr. Chairman, I welcome the amendment which was proposed by the hon. the Minister. It covers roughly the same ground as the amendment which I have proposed. As we can see, this clause relates to the grounds for ejectment of a lessee from premises. The main portion of the amendment aims at introducing matters which are less traumatic to a building than construction or rebuilding, namely matters such as repairs and restoration. A safeguard has been built into the section by allowing of ejectment of persons only in a case where the vacation of such premises is essential and in the circumstances we do not object to the principle of the amendment at all. It was my feeling that there were certain circumstances where this clause could have been abused. On the other hand, because of the quality of the clause which now allows a landlord to improve his premises and to maintain a high standard, it is to be supported. For instance, in a case where a new flooring, or ceiling, or windows have to be put in, I can see that this provision is required. On the other hand, I did feel that a lessee, because of a lesser type of reconstruction being performed on a building, should not be deprived of his occupation and thus my amendment. As I have said, the hon. the Minister has taken the principle of the point and has introduced an amendment which he informs us is perhaps more helpful in achieving the principle which I have enunciated. Consequently I withdraw my amendment and thank the hon. the Minister and accept his amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I meant to raise another matter when I spoke on the clause, namely the question of garages or parking spaces. I would like to raise the question regarding those tenants who are at present in rent controlled premises but who—as part of the victimization campaign to try to get rid of them—have had their garages taken away from them. I know of a dozen such cases, and can name them, where lessors were not able to evict their tenants and simply to make life difficult for them took away their garages or parking spaces. The result was that the tenants had to park their cars in the street while those tenants were still in the building as legitimate tenants protected by rent control. All that happened was that they lost the use of a garage to which they were entitled as a part of the lease. Is it possible for those tenants who have been deprived of that privilege and who are now being protected by this amendment, to regain their right to those garages? Can they now insist that their garages be restored in terms of this amendment? The garages have been taken away from them without pretext; they were simply given notice. It does, therefore, not conform with the law as it now stands. I hope the hon. the Minister will be able to say that they can now demand the return of those garages or parking spaces, that it should be restored to tenants who have been intimidated in this manner. The position will otherwise be that those whose parking facilities have been taken from them but who are still in the building have no protection for their cars whilst the garages are standing empty because the owners are trying to empty the building so that they can sell it. Garages have been let only where the owners have succeeded in selling a flat. It seems stupid to have empty garages whilst there are tenants able to use them. I hope the hon. the Minister will say that the law will now enable these people to regain an amenity which has been taken away from them, particularly as part of a victimization campaign.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to move the amendment as printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

This intends going to the heart of a number of cases which we have heard about primarily in connection with a large block of flats in Johannesburg. The hon. the Minister is proposing to give some added safeguards to the tenants against the minority of unscrupulous landlords who have subjected tenants who live in these buildings to harassment and intimidation and have tried in every possible way to persuade them to vacate the premises.

As I understand subsection (5), it means that this unscrupulous minority have to be successful before they can be charged and penalized as is laid down here and on which the hon. member for Houghton will no doubt speak later. The point I want to make is that it is not the actual fact of the crime but the attempt to induce tenants in this way to vacate a building. This is the rationale which underlines my amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to move the amendment as printed in my name—

I want to talk about one or two other things in connection with this clause before I come to the actual amendment. During the Second Reading debate the hon. the Minister stated that he was satisfied that the word “dwelling” also covered the servants’ quarters attached to a flat that is being let. Is he sure that that is the legal position, or is that just his own personal conviction? Because, as the hon. member for Sea Point has stated, people are finding themselves being deprived of their garage or parking place at the block of flats in which they live. In places like Sea Point and elsewhere, a tenant who is deprived of his car park or garage at a block of flats simply has nowhere else to park the car. Equally, Sir, there are very many people who simply cannot go on living where they are if they are unable to have their staff living on the premises. I refer particularly to elderly people and people with small children who have to go out for professional or business reasons and so on. I know that this has been another weapon in the hands of the unscrupulous landlord in attempting to get tenants out of rent-controlled flats so that he can offer those flats for sale at highly inflated prices. I would, therefore, like some assurance on the legal aspect as to whether “dwelling” includes servants’ quarters, otherwise I would have liked to insert the term “servants’ quarters” throughout this clause in order to cover the tenants in that respect. Then, Sir, I wonder if the hon. the Minister is aware of the various methods which are used by unscrupulous landlords to harass tenants if they wish to get rid of them. I hasten to add that unscrupulous landlords are, of course, in the minority, but I must say that they are controlling quite a large number of blocks of flats in the various metropolitan centres in South Africa. One form of harassment that I described during the Second Reading debate is that the landlord informs the tenant that his block of rent-controlled flats is about to be decontrolled—this happened even in the case of the one block which I mentioned, Seven Oaks, where no application had been received by the hon. the Minister—and that as soon as the block is decontrolled, the tenants will be given a month’s notice to clear out of flats which many of them have occupied for many years. The second form of harassment, as I told the hon. the Minister, is to insist on the right to enter the flat at all hours of the day and night in order that a prospective buyer can view the flat. The third is to prevent African deliverymen delivering parcels from neighbouring shops, etc., from using the lift. Added to these forms of harassment, there is another one that has come to my attention, and that is that the landlord’s agents refuse to accept cheques which are sent in by tenants within the seven days laid down by the Act. These cheques are simply put in a drawer and the agents pretend that they have not received them at all. I have an affidavit here, which I will hand to the hon. the Minister, if he has not already received a copy, with regard to an incident where the rent was tendered by cheque and the agents refused to accept the cheque. What protection does a tenant have from that sort of behaviour? Sir, I should like to move the following additional amendment to this clause—

This is a further protection for the tenant. I will hand my amendment to the hon. the Minister. Perhaps he can ponder on it for a moment or two. It has just occurred to me now, otherwise I would have put it on the Order Paper. Sir, my original amendment, of course, is to increase the sentence against landlords for harassing tenants. In reply to the Second Reading debate, the hon. the Minister stated that this sort of drastic measure, i.e. a sentence of imprisonment as part of the penalty, would drive people out of this particular business. But, Sir, this is not intended to apply to the ordinary landlord who treats his tenants in a decent way. This is only intended to apply to people who do this sort of thing with the specific intention of harassing tenants in order to get them out of rent-controlled buildings and then to use the Sectional Titles Act, which was never intended for that purpose, to make large capital gains. The idea behind this amendment is to have a sentence of a fine of up to R1 000 or a sentence of imprisonment up to a year, or both. Sir, as I mentioned during the Second Reading debate, R1 000 is nothing to men who are making profits of millions out of the sale of flats, either under the share block system or under the Sectional Titles Act. They could pay a fine of R1 000 without turning a hair, but it would be a very different story if you added the danger of being sent to prison. I think you might find that the Moutons and the Wainers would think twice before they continued with their policy of harassing tenants. I hope the hon. the Minister will reconsider this matter and that he will not worry about driving people out of this business. Honest landlords are not going to be driven out of the business, and if the threat of a sentence of imprisonment drives people like Mouton and Wainer out of the business, I for one will not shed a tear. I think it is high time that tenants got some protection.

Then it will be the other way around.

Mrs. H. SUZMAN; If the Minister means that the Moutons and the Wainers will shed the tears then I could not care less. I move these amendments and I hope the hon. the Minister will consider them favourably.

Sir, in the first place I come to the question put by the hon. member for Durban Point. I cannot give legal advice just like that; what is more, I charge a relative high fee for legal advice. I just want to tell the hon. member for Durban Point that my honest opinion is that it will not be possible to take those premises back if what had been done had been done legally. Furthermore, I do not see my way clear to having this made of retrospective effect, because that may create situations which we cannot foresee at this stage, for example, where a new legal lease was entered into after the person had been deprived of the privilege he used to have. I think we must content ourselves with trying to remedy this anomaly in this way.

†To come to the amendment of the hon. member for Johannesburg North, I want to thank him for applying his mind to this matter. I can tell him that I accept his amendment. I thank him for that.

Now, with regard to the hon. member for Houghton, she raised the question of the servants’ quarters. I have done what is possible thus far to establish the legal situation. I have consulted my department and they have consulted the legal advisers, and all are of the opinion that servants’ quarters are covered by the Rents Act as it is at present, and we have no knowledge of any court case where there was a decision to the contrary. So I think we ought to abide by that.

Order! I cannot hear clearly if the hon. the Minister speaks so softly.

I am sorry, Mr. Chairman. As far as the hon. member’s amendment is concerned, I have already given her the assurance that I prefer to see in what way the new measures will develop before considering such a drastic measure as imprisonment. In other words, I shall first give these new measures which make intimidation an offence which is punishable by more severe penalties and which define indimidation more clearly, an opportunity to develop. If this does not work, I am prepared to consider imprisonment at a future stage. I think these words may also serve as a timely warning against reckless intimidation.

†In connection with the amendment which the hon. member has just moved, I want to tell her that I have not yet had an opportunity of studying it, but I promise that I shall consider it later and if I find it acceptable, I shall take steps in the Other Place to have it embodied in the Bill.

Mr. Chairman, I want to say to the hon. the Minister that I am very glad that he has undertaken to have a look at the question of the non-acceptance of rent tendered. I wonder whether he would not, before going to the Other Place with this Bill, also consider another matter of a similar nature. I am referring to a case where the landlord frequently changes the office of a block of flats and in order to inconvenience the tenants he stipulates some place in the middle of the city where rents should be paid. He may also stipulate that the rent must be paid in cash. All these stipulations are intended to harass the tenants. I do not think that these things are covered by the terms of the other amendments which we have to section 21, because those amendments deal mainly with harassing the tenants with changes in the terms of occupation and not with changes in the terms of tenancy.

I should also like to suggest to the hon. the Minister that some endeavour should be made to give wide publicity to the amended provisions of the new subsection (2) of section 21, i.e. that a breach of a condition of a lease which is really trivial and does not affect the interests of the landlord, shall not be used as a cause for ejectment. There are many cases in Cape Town that I know of where people are being harassed in this way. I know of several old ladies who live in a block of flats and who have kept a budgie in a cage or a cat for years and years in conflict with the terms of the lease. When a new owner buys the block, he sues them for ejectment because they are contravening a clause of the original lease. I think this sort of action is now being covered, but I suggest that considerable publicity be given to this so that those people who do have these pets which they have kept over long periods of time will not be frightened out of their wits or out of their flats by landlords who attempt to use that as an excuse.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to take this opportunity of expressing to the hon. the Minister my appreciation …

You may thank him.

Yes, and thank him, like other hon. members have done, for the tightening up in particular of subsection (2) which deals with the ejectment of lessees. This has become a very serious matter. It is one about which I have had many discussions with the hon. the Minister and I think it would be no less than courtesy— I certainly do it with pleasure—to express my thanks to him for having reacted and and for having introduced this amendment which many of us have suggested in the past during debates and also privately.

Like the hon. member for Green Point I hope that this will now become known amongst tenants. At this moment I know of three cases—I have letters on my desk in this connection—where notice of ejectment has been given: one for washing underclothes, one for having a flower pot outside the door of the flat, and another for knocking a nail into the wall. This has become an absolute racket and this legislation is indeed a step forward in protecting the rights of tenants. I express my appreciation for it.

Amendment moved by the Minister of Community Development agreed to.

Amendment moved by Mr. G. H. Waddell agreed to.

Amendment (1) moved by Mrs. H. Suzman negatived (Official Opposition and Progressive Party dissenting).

Amendment (2) moved by Mrs. H. Suzman negatived (Official Opposition, Progressive Party and Reform Party dissenting).

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 21:

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment as printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

“Provided further that the rights of occupation of the lessee at the time of the notice of exemption shall be protected for a minimum period of one year.”.

The idea behind my amendment is to give the unfortunate tenant who is in fact now going to be evicted from a building which was under control but which is now going to be decontrolled according to the criteria used by the hon. the Minister, more than the one month’s notice that is required in terms of the Act. It is virtually impossible for people to find alternative accommodation within a month. If one takes into consideration the fact that many people have lived in these rent-controlled flats for numbers of years, have put in a good deal of capital in improving these premises and are going to get no compensation for that at all from the landlord who, in turn, is going to sell that flat and again from the improvements the tenant had effected, the least I think that can be done is to give some protection to tenants of some years’ standing. I do ask the hon. the Minister to consider this, because it will set at ease many elderly people who are particularly affected by these people who are attempting to get flats decontrolled and then sell them over their heads. They are in a state of considerable panic. I have had many deputations from flat-dwellers from my constituency. They are very worried about the situation. They are constantly being informed by the agents of the property developing companies that the building has been bought and that decontrol has been applied for or is about to be obtained. There is always the hint that they have ways of getting this done and they then warn the tenants that they must either get ready to buy these flats, paying 14% interest on the money asked, which is a highly inflated capital sum I might add and which usually quadruples the rent which they have been paying, or that they must get out. I admit that by buying they may own an asset eventually but old people do not want assets. They simply want to live on their fixed income, with a roof over their heads. They want security and want to stay where they have been staying for many years. I admit that in some cases the rents are low but I see no reason why rent increases should not be granted in those cases. I am not saying that a landlord should not get a fair return on his property, because obviously he should. I am also not saying that there are not people living in flats who can pay more, but there are large numbers of people living in flats who have worked out what they can afford, have based it on what the rent-controlled amount is that they are expected to pay, and who are then suddenly given one month’s notice when decontrol comes about. They then have to go and live elsewhere. I am asking that these people have their right of occupation protected for a minimum period of 12 months. I do not think that it is unreasonable in view of the fact that many of these people have been living in thee flats for a number of years.

I wish to support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Houghton. The hon. the Minister will be aware of my correspondence with him and the Secretary of his department in regard to this aspect of the protection of the tenancy rights of tenants in a block of flats that is released and also in regard to another aspect, viz. whether it is not possible to introduce some requirement whereby the tenants should be given notice of an application to have a block of flats decontrolled so that they could have an opportunity to make representation in some way. I do not expect a public hearing or a long drawn out one. It would be desirable, I think, if the tenant could be given notice that an application had been submitted and was given an opportunity to make representations to the Minister in writing on whether or not the application should be granted.

There is one other matter which is a great problem, at the moment, as far as landlords and tenants are concerned. How is one to know what is a luxury flat and what is a luxury block of flats? What are the tests which are to be applied? The hon. Minister, of course, has the answer because the Johannes Commission was asked to determine specifically how this should be decided. I am sure the hon. the Minister would dispose of a great deal of uncertainty if he could let one know how the criterion of luxury is determined, that is if the Johannes Commission has managed to furnish him with a definition of the concept. It seems to me, however, that even the Johannes Commission could not find a satisfactory definition. It is a cause of irritation and anxiety to people who are uncertain about which flats are to be classified as “luxury”. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister could not, in dealing with this matter, give some indication to the public. It could be specified, for example, that if a flat has more than a certain number of bedrooms, one bedroom must have an en suite bathroom and there must be a separate bathroom for the other bedroom, or something of that nature.

A swimming pool on every terrace.

No, I am not suggesting swimming pools on the terraces. One wants adequate ablution facilities, not necessarily bathing facilities. The general public has no clarity on the subject, neither do individual owners of blocks of flats who may be justified in applying for an exemption. They may not even know whether they are in a category which could be considered. I feel that that should be cleared up and that such clarification would be of considerable help both to landlords and to tenants. My purpose in standing up here was to support the amendment which was moved by the hon. member for Houghton.

Mr. Chairman, in my Second Reading speech I put the matter as clearly as possible. I indicated under which circumstances the lifting of rent control was refused and under which circumstances it was granted. I also indicated the standards in respect of flats where the tenants would normally require the protection of the Rents Act. As from 1 April, an income of R7 200 per annum qualifies as economical. On that basis it will be decided whether or not the protection of the Rents Act is necessary. There are flats in Sea Point in respect of which applications have been made to me twice. I am thinking of one particular block of flats. A part of that block of flats is absolutely luxurious, while there is another part where the people do need the protection of the Rents Act. On both occasions I rejected the applications. I think this is the closest I can get to giving an indication of luxury or not.

As regards the amendment of the hon. member for Houghton, she must trust me to some small extent for once. What she wants to have laid down in legislation in this regard, is precisely the new powers I am asking for, so that I may lay down conditions in the light of all the circumstances.

†Thus far I have not been able to lay down any conditions. Now I can lay down conditions and I can take all the circumstances of the case into consideration. To provide for this one-year period in law may create some hardship in the case of the landlord and perhaps even in the case of the tenant. Now that I have these powers I think the hon. member for Houghton should trust me that I shall look after these persons.

I trust you but I shall also watch you.

I know that the hon. member watches me but now I want her to trust me.

Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. the Minister has partly answered the request from the hon. members for Houghton and Green Point, but not completely and adequately. I think the hon. the Minister should be aware of the fact that the question of security of tenure is one which worries the older retired people most. What worries them is whether accommodation will be available for them or not. While the hon. the Minister has said that he could take this into account, I want him to say to this House and to the public that he is going to take into account and that he is going to give security of tenure and not that we must trust him because he has the right to do it. He must say that it is his intention and he must say without any ambiguity that he is going to consider the security of tenure of people who have had lengthy leases as a condition for decontrol should he agree to it. I do not think it is good enough to say that we must trust him. He must give us a definitive statement on this issue.

The second point is that when it comes to the fixing of the rental there is a procedure laid down. People know that if such a case is going to the Rent Board they can appear before the board; they can brief people on either side and they can argue the case. But when it comes to the question as to whether the block is going to be decontrolled, in other words, whether the roof is going to be removed over individuals’ heads or not, there is no procedure whatsoever. The hon. the Minister is aware of the fact that if he sends around inspectors, it immediately causes a flutter of concern amongst the older people. They are concerned about it and they are not quite sure what it is all about. I believe it is important that the hon. the Minister should by regulation, if necessary, lay down a procedure whereby decontrol can take place so that individuals do not have to rely on rumours and that they do not have to rely on an unknown official who comes to them and asks them about their circumstances, the duration of their lease, etc. There should be a formal procedure whereby the tenants can know that there is an application for decontrol and whereby they can make formal representations to the hon. the Minister. I think it is important because the hon. the Minister knows that with rumours of decontrol, Wainer, Mouton and others try to con people into buying the flats on the basis of possible decontrol. There is a considerable degree of agitation amongst older tenants in the city areas. I therefore ask the hon. the Minister to consider seriously laying down a procedure whereby he will consider decontrol and whereby individual tenants can put their side of the story, rather than having to rely on informal information or rumours, not having any right to know of the application, and having no right to put their side of the case to the hon. the Minister.

Mr. Chairman, I said in my Second Reading speech that we would see to that aspect and that this could be done administratively. Therefore it is not necessary to introduce amendments to this effect to the Act. We shall see to it. Not many complaints have been lodged with me as yet, but if this proves to be a real problem, it can be dealt with administratively. The hon. member for Sea Point wants me to take up a very definite standpoint. I want to tell the hon. member that I have at least 25 years’ experience of public administration. There are always cases where one must have special regard to circumstances. I want to mention an example to the hon. member. I mention the example of a deproclamation being made because an employer, such as a local authority, has purchased a building to house its staff and has assisted the old tenants, to find other accommodation. I am speaking from actual experience. I have deproclaimed in cases where a body which needed a particular building for the accommodation of its own staff, offered alternative accommodation of the tenants in the building, and they refused to accept it because they were protected by the Rents Act. One may therefore also come across obstinacy. Therefore hon. members must please have some faith in me in exercising my discretion. I do not think that I have let them down yet.

Amendment negatived (Official Opposition and Progressive Party dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments.

Mr. Speaker, when the debate on the Second Reading of the Bill was adjourned some days ago, I had advised this House that we on this side of the House were having certain difficulties with this measure. We are having difficulties with it because while it contains measures which we regard as being good and which we would like to see on the Statute Book, it also contains provisions which we regard as being bad. When I spoke before the adjournment of the debate on this Bill, I indicated that we would like to see a consumers’ protection measure on the Statute Book. Many other countries, particularly Western countries, have consumers’ protection measures and I think that in view of the practices that have evolved in commerce and industry in recent times, it is advisable for the Government to adopt measures such as have been taken in other countries to protect the consumer. I indicated that the features in the Bill that we could support were the powers given to the Minister to prohibit misleading and false advertising and selling methods, which are covered by clauses 9 and 13 of the Bill; to control advertising in certain respects subject to the safeguards that are contained in the Bill, which is covered by clause 14; and to control injurious trade practices, again subject to the safeguards that are contained in the Bill, which is covered by clause 15. However, the inclusion of the provisions of the existing Trade Coupons Act and the subjection of those provisions to the definitions in this Bill which also apply to other measures in the Bill, have so widened the proposed prohibitions under the trade coupons section that it will prohibit practices which are perfectly harmless and will take away advantages that consumers enjoy at present. I indicated that we consider that the consumer, as a result of the inclusion of the trade coupon provisions, will both in the short term and in the long term be prejudiced by the fact that these provisions are so broadened that advantages presently enjoyed will be taken from him. These bad aspects of the proposed legislation in our view outweigh the good that is contained in this measure. For that reason we regret not being able to support it at the Second Reading. This is something which we on this side of the House regret because I believe that the bad effects of including the trade coupon provisions in this measure were not intended by the hon. the Minister. We also regret being unable to support the Bill because we would like to see the consumer protection measures which are contained in this proposed legislation on the Statute Book.

Let me be more specific in regard to the position that arises as a result of the inclusion of the provisions of the Trade Coupons Act. The existing Trade Coupons Act of 1935, prohibits the giving away of trade coupons in connection with a sale. It is limited to prohibiting the giving away of coupons in connection with a sale. There is no definition contained in the existing legislation on trade coupons of what a sale is. It is, therefore, presumed to have the common law usage meaning.

In the proposed legislation before the House we find that in order to cope with the other provisions of this measure, namely clause 9 which deals with misleading advertising and selling methods and clause 13 which deals with misleading information in advertisements in connection with prices, both of which measures we support, this Bill has had to lay down a very wide definition of the word “sell”. So that the House can appreciate this fact, I want actually to quote the definition of “sell” to indicate how wide it is in this measure—

To me that is an extremely wide definition of “sell”, especially because it specifically includes, as part of a sale, advertising in general terms. At present the Trade Coupons Act only prohibits the giving away of coupons in connection with an actual sale in the ordinary sense of the word. Let me make it clear that we regard the present Trade Coupons Act as a good measure. We would like to see it kept on the Statute Book as such. We do not want to go back to the chaotic conditions that prevailed in the late 1920’s and early 1930’s when the value of a packet of cigarettes was judged much more on the value of the coupons that were given away when a person bought it. The same applied to breakfast foods. We do not want to go back to that position. We do, however, appreciate that the Trade Coupons Act could be updated in some minor respects to improve it. One respect in which it could be updated and improved is to include services as is proposed in this measure. If the provisions of the Trade Coupons Act are included in this measure and are subjected to the wide definition of “sell” that I have already quoted, then not only would coupons be prohibited in connection with a sale but the giving away of trade coupons in an advertisement or in an advertising campaign would also be prohibited. This would affect virtually all radio commercial programmes that give away prizes. It would affect a popular programme such as Pick A Box. It would prohibit promotions, which are used quite frequently by supermarkets, where pamphlets are given away to potential customers who can bring them to the supermarket and get some form of benefit, which is not conditional on their making a purchase. It would prohibit the advertising of a trade coupon, which would affect many, if not all, of the newspaper and magazine advertisements which through a competition or some other means offer a prize. It would give the Minister the power to prohibit the giving away of samples, which is something from which the consumer benefits. I believe in fact that the prohibitions that will be introduced in regard to trade coupons will be actually even wider than I have indicated, but other speakers on this side of the House will be able to give other examples of practices that will be affected if this measure goes through in its present form. Mr. Speaker, it is no use, as far as I am concerned, maintaining that the widening of the trade coupons provisions, as will be done if this measure goes through, is not intentional. It is no use maintaining that this measure will be administered in such a way that the consumer will not be affected by its provisions. This is how the law will stand. I think it will assist the House if I quote how the law will stand in regard to the giving away of trade coupons in connection with an advertising campaign if the Bill goes through in its present form. Clause 10 provides that—

“In connection with the sale of any goods” means in connection with an advertising campaign as well under the wider definition. If you follow that through and connect that prohibition in regard to the giving away of coupons to the definition of “trade coupons”, then a trade coupon means “anything whatsoever which either by itself or together with any other thing or act entitles or purports to entitle the holder thereof to receive or to participate in any competition for any benefit”. I feel sure that my interpretation of the effect of including this measure in regard to trade coupons in this Bill is the correct one. I know that this interpretation is also accepted and confirmed by eminent people in the legal profession. I submit to this House that if this measure goes through in its present form, not only will harmless advertising practices be prohibited with the consequent damage that could be done to the advertising industry, but it will also be a direct intrusion upon the private enterprise system and upon the competition which goes hand in glove with that system. If it is an intrusion upon private enterprise and competition, it can only be harmful. I submit, too, that the consumer will be deprived unnecessarily of benefits which at present he is entitled to enjoy. Promoting and advertising and innovation are essential ingredients in the competitive enterprise system, and it is competition which keeps prices down, not price control. Today efficiency and low prices, where we get low prices, depend on volume in the distributive trade and on volume in the manufacturing industry—getting long runs to bring costs down—and volume can only be achieved if you have promotions and advertising to build up turnover. I submit that these are practices which should be encouraged and not prohibited. I would say that provided ethical standards are adhered to in advertising practices—and after all the other measures included in this Bill give the Minister adequate powers to protect the public from unethical forms of advertising—then advertisers should be free to use the methods of advertising which they prefer to use. If they want to give away benefits, let them do so. I believe that the practices which are now going to be prohibited under this measure are in the interests of the consumer, both in the long term because these practices build up volume and lower costs, and in the short term because they give away direct benefits to the consumer. This Bill limits these practices and as such it is in the view of this side of the House against the interests of the consumer in its present form. For this reason I want to move the following amendment—

I hope that the hon. the Minister will give serious consideration to excising the provisions in regard to trade coupons from this Bill; in other words, excising clauses 10, 11 and 12 and certain other consequential parts of this Bill. If he did that, we would support any amendment to the Trade Coupons Act as a separate measure to bring it in line with the intentions which he has in connection with the present Act. If he were to excise these clauses relating to the Trade Coupons Act from this measure, I would have no hesitation in withdrawing my amendment.

In the Committee Stage there will be other amendments of a less important nature, amendments which we believe will improve the proposed legislation.

Mr. Speaker I think the essence of the two speeches made by the hon. member for Constantia, namely the one which he made before the adjournment of the debate, and the other this afternoon, can be summed up in his own words—

I agree with that. However, I find it a pity that, in the second half of the twentieth century, it is being considered necessary to pass legislation to enforce the ethical standards to which the hon. member referred. I suppose one must simply accept that mankind is not perfect, and that in every society there are those who try to find loopholes, who try to circumvent the law. For that reason I want to agree with the hon. member for Constantia that it has become necessary to introduce legislation. Consequently he states as follows in his amendment—

The consumer of course can do a tremendous amount to make legislation of this kind unnecessary, if he would only open his eyes and look what he does before allowing himself to be talked into doing something foolish, for in 95 cases out of 100 the consumer allows this to happen for one reason and one reason only, namely to obtain a benefit for which he does not have to pay. It is precisely this inherent instinct in people always to try to get something for nothing which makes for 95 people out of 100 being taken in by the kind of practice which this legislation prohibits. If consumers would only open their eyes and not always want to get something for nothing, this kind of legislation would not even be necessary.

I want to illustrate what I have just said by means of an example. An estate agent is selling plots on a windswept sandflat. However, he does not sell them close at hand. If the plots are situated near to a beach resort, he sells them in Johannesburg. The agent does have a plan of the area in which the plots are being sold. Together with the plan however, he has the most wonderful photographs of mountains and ocean and beautiful natural surroundings. He does not state that the plots on the plan are situated at that beautiful spot, but he implies that it is in such wonderful surroundings that the plots are being sold. If the person submits only that plan to the prospective buyer, and the buyer than buys a plot in a windswept region, he only has himself to blame. In this regard I think of a case of which I have personal knowledge. There is a place where the wind seeps through a trough in the mountain and simply flattens everything in its path, so that not even a blade of grass can grow there. On that absolutely bare stretch of earth the wind blows for 364 out of the 365 days in a year, and there a person bought a plot without first going to look at it. Such a person has only himself to blame if he should subsequently build there, and the wind blows the roof off his house. However, when such a site plan of the plots is accompanied by beautiful photographs and a person then buys such a plot, we have a telling example of what this legislation is attempting to prohibit. In most cases a person who makes such a purchase has only himself to blame. I therefore want to repeat that I find it a pity that we need legislation to prohibit this kind of practice. Human nature being what it is, however, we will probably have to keep on passing legislation of this kind.

I want to say at once that this is probably among the most difficult legislation to formulate in such a way that, on the one hand, the consumer is protected—in most cases against himself, what is more—while on the other hand you do not want to make lawful and desirable trade practices impossible. This is probably among the most difficult legislation to pass, and for that reason I feel that in spite of this fine testimonial which the hon. the Minister has received from a very pretty woman on the merits of the legislation, I still regard it as incomplete legislation in the sense that adjustments will have to be made as one gradually acquires experience in its application. In particular I want to attach great value to the composition of the Trade Practices Advisory Committee. I expect that the Trade Practices Advisory Committee will in due course make the necessary adjustments to this legislation so that it will be able to function very effectively.

I want to repeat that this is among the most difficult legislation one can have to deal with. It is as difficult as legislation on monopolistic conditions, for on the one hand one has to allow the free market mechanism to function, while on the other one has cases where there is only a limited market. In a country such as ours, with its relatively small economy, one cannot but make exceptions in certain cases. There is, for example, the chemical industry in which one can have only one unit because rationalization is necessary. The legislation which we are dealing with here is just as difficult. For that reason I now want to make an appeal to the hon. the Opposition to give this legislation a chance. They must give this Trade Practices Advisory Committee a chance, for the hon. the Minister can cope with difficult problems by means of its appointment.

It is very clear from the amendment moved by the hon. member for Constantia that they objected to the re-enactment in this legislation of the Trade Coupons Act, 1935. I do not know what the hon. the Minister is going to do with this amendment. I do not want to give him any advice, but I have a feeling that he will not accept it.

Take a chance.

The entire object of the prohibition on trade coupons is the same as that which the hon. member is seeking to achieve, namely the protection of members of the public against themselves. It is in fact the lure of these trade coupons which tempts the less sophisticated member of the consumer public to buy a pig in a poke. If one wants to protect the consumer against himself, it is therefore also necessary to protect him against the evils which have crept in under the principle of trade coupons. I reiterate that I am sorry that we have to introduce legislation of this nature, for trade coupons could fulfil a very useful function, if all people were perfect. However, a commercial organization does not offer a trade coupon because it wants to give the consumer something for nothing. Commercial organizations are not that altruistic. It is wishful thinking to assume that commercial undertakings distribute trade coupons, and the benefits attendant upon these, to consumers because they are eager to benefit the consumer. They only want to benefit themselves. Those trade coupons which are offered, are in most cases simply the lure. When the fish bites, it finds that the hook is lodged firmly in its jaw. That is why legislation which seeks to protect the unsophisticated consumer public has to protect them again themselves. This clause, to which the hon. member for Constantia objects, is one of the clauses which protects the consumer against himself. I therefore want to ask the hon. member very politely to consider withdrawing his amendment. We are seeking to achieve precisely the same object, namely to protect the public, particularly that part of the public which we are all concerned about, against themselves. For that reason it is necessary that this clause, to which the hon. member objects, should be included in this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Paarl evaded the argument of the hon. member for Constantia completely. I want to ask him what evil there is in getting something for nothing, even though it is used as a bait? What is wrong with someone giving something to someone else for nothing? The hon. member for Constantia made it quite clear that he should very much have liked to support this Bill, but we are experiencing problems with some of the clauses. I shall refer to those clauses at a later stage. I also want to say that the explanation of the hon. member for Paarl is quite inadequate to meet our objections. As a matter of fact, having listened to him I should say that our objections are even stronger than they were before. In his introductory speech the hon. the Minister said that he was told by an American expert that this was an excellent Bill. The hon. the Minister was greatly impressed by the arguments advanced by this expert. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether this expert did not tell him that this Bill would have been an even more excellent one had he not included clauses 10, 11 and 12 and had he changed the definition of the word “sell”.

She was not speaking from your caucus.

Actually the hon. the Minister is wrong. This attractive expert also addressed us. When she addressed us, we told her what our opinion was, i.e. that we reject certain clauses, i.e. clauses 10, 11 and 12, and that we do not agree with the definition of “sell”. She said that she fully agreed with us and that this Bill would have been an excellent Bill had those clauses been left out. It is a well-known fact that measures are being planned in Western countries to protect consumers against exploitation and against certain sales methods. It is essential that we in South Africa, too, should take certain measures to protect consumers. I should say that a large section of our population in South Africa needs such protection from the nature of the case. Perhaps our population needs it even more than those of other Western countries. Seen from that point of view, it is a foregone conclusion that a Bill in this connection is essential. There is no doubt either that undesirable trade practices should be removed immediately. I should very much like to know from the hon. the Minister what interested organizations he consulted before presenting this Bill. The Opposition would like to see that the Government and the Opposition are in agreement with one another on such an important matter.

†The ravages of inflation could be slowed down if this Bill were accepted as an instrument to win consumer confidence. This Bill could have protected the interests of the consumer adequately if the Government had not seen it fit to re-enact the provisions of the Trade Coupons Act of 1935. The provisions of the Trade Coupons Act are in conflict with the provisions of the Bill and as such the inclusion of those provisions in clauses 10, 11, 12 and 24 are inconsistent with the general spirit of this legislation. For that reason I believe these clauses should be rejected. The Trade Coupons Act, as the hon. the Minister is aware, was enacted some 40 years ago and because of the lack of use there were more breaches of this Act than the use made of it. I believe that many countries in the world have a Coupons Act, but they have separate consumer legislation. The Trade Coupons Act’s provisions divert attention from their consumer protection policy and that is why they have separate legislation in other countries.

It is undesirable for the definition of “sell” to be incorporated in its present form in this Bill. The hon. the Minister knows that this definition of “sell” has probably been taken from the Price Control Act or some other Act. I feel it is inconsistent with the general provisions of this Bill to incorporate the definition of “sell” in its present form. In our view the definition must be altered and must be of such a nature that it is of meaningful assistance to the people whom this Act is designed to protect; alternatively, the definition of “sell” can be excluded completely in which case the common law meaning can be applied to that word.

In respect of this particular Bill the Government is breaking new ground and I think the hon. the Minister can meet us halfway. I think he can at this stage indicate that he will withdraw clauses 10, 11, 12 and 24 and at the same time alter the definition. He can also indicate that he will refer this aspect of the Bill to a select committee in which case, without a doubt, this Bill will have an easy passage through this House. I wonder if the hon. the Minister can indicate whether he has any intention of referring this Bill to a select committee?

Go on with your argument; I am listening.

He is still making up his mind.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the hon. the Minister is with me at least part of the way. If the offensive clauses are withdrawn, I can assure him that we will support the Bill because we ourselves want a measure of this nature. Surely, after 40 years of the practical disuse of the Trade Coupons Act of 1935, the hon. the Minister cannot be so wedded to it. I believe that in the circumstances our request is a perfectly reasonable one.

The success of the operation of this Bill will to a large extent be dependent on the Trade Practices Advisory Committee. The consumer is entitled to know the precise composition of that committee. He must without any doubt be advised of the complete independence of thought of the committee. He should be assured that whatever decisions they reach will be reached independently. I am not trying to cast aspersions on any future committees, but I want to put it clearly to the hon. the Minister that the members of that committee should if possible not have vested interests and that they should be in such a position that they cannot get any advantages either for themselves or for companies with which they are associated. If it is seen by the public that such members can get any advantages, those members will never win the respect or confidence of the consumers. The impartiality of this committee must be in no doubt whatsoever. There must be no question of a dual or divided loyalty on the part of committee members, except naturally in so far as the benefit is a public benefit when, obviously, if it is a public benefit, the members of this particular committee would themselves benefit. Whilst not pleading that the committee must be consumer dominated, I would like to appeal to the hon. the Minister to ensure that this committee will at least be consumer orientated. As such the consumer organizations should have adequate representation on this particular committee. I wonder if the hon. the Minister could indicate to us who could initiate any inquiry and whether it is his intention when this Bill is eventually put into practice to ensure that complaints are first forwarded to the department after which he will refer them to the committee or whether people will be able to complain direct to this committee.

Both are possible.

The hon. the Minister has indicated that people can complain direct to the committee or to the Minister as they please. I think that it is also obvious that all malpractices should be eliminated at all costs and that the public deserves the utmost protection from unscrupulous people. These matters are provided for to a certain extent in this Bill.

Clauses 10, 11 and 12 which are the reenactment of the Trade Coupons Act of 1935, have been reintroduced in this Bill with some slight differences. I shall deal with those differences as I proceed. The provisions which have been taken over from the Trade Coupons Act had a stormy passage. I do not know whether the hon. the Minister has gone into the history of this Trade Coupons Act. It started in 1926 when a Mr. Alexander tried to introduce a Trade Coupons Bill in the House of Assembly. As the hon. the Minister knows, it was thrown out at the time. In 1934 a draft Trade Coupons Bill was again presented to Parliament. Once again it had a stormy passage and at that stage it was referred to a Select Committee. In 1935 this particular Bill was eventually accepted by Parliament after very strong opposition. If one examines the reasons for the specific provisions of the 1935 Act one finds that many of those reasons are not applicable today.

This legislation was introduced 40 years ago to protect the consumer public and to ensure that quality, advertising and pricing were in the interests of the consumer. The idea was also to eradicate all abuses. Even then, 40 years ago, those facts were disputed. It was argued in 1935 that that particular piece of legislation was not in the interests of the consumer. Now, 40 years later, I think that the hon. the Minister will agree with me that the consumer public is far more sophisticated and does not need the protection of the Trade Coupons Act of 1935.

Are you not being inconsistent now?

I believe that the legislation of 1935 is antiquated. I also believe that it is not in the interests of the consumer public that the hon. the Minister proceed with these clauses he is seeking to re-enact in this Bill before us today. I hope that the hon. the Minister in his reply will indicate to us why he is seeking to reenact these clauses in this Bill. Perhaps other hon. members on that side might do so during the course of this debate.

I want to point out to the hon. the Minister that during the debate on the draft Trade Coupons Bill in 1935, Mr. Blackwell, M.P., dealt with the matter at very great length. During the course of his speech he actually quoted from a commission which had investigated this very matter. At that stage, the British Board of Trade had investigated the matter and had issued a report. Mr. Blackwell quoted from that report. I should like to read to the hon. the Minister and the House a paragraph from the report of the British Board of Trade at the time. This is what they had to say—

Mr. Blackwell then went on to tell Parliament that the commission had found that the principles which Parliament was trying to re-enact in 1935 were not needed and that the British Board which had investigated the matter were against the principles contained in that particular Bill. That was 40 years ago. As I have said, since then our consumer public have become far more sophisticated. The clauses which the hon. the Minister is seeking to re-enact will, for example, forbid people giving away old samples. As the hon. the Minister knows, in most businesses at the end of a particular season there are samples which are no longer of much value to the manufacturer so he gives them away for nothing. In terms of this particular Bill he cannot even give away those free samples as he has done in the past. I presume that the State often accepts admissions of guilt under the Trade Coupons Act because if one examines the law on the matter one finds that there are not many quoted cases. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister would indicate to us whether there have been many cases of this nature over the past five years in which admissions of guilt have been accepted and also the fines that have been imposed in this regard. Perhaps the hon. the Minister would also indicate to us the number of cases involved. There are, for example, two cases by the State against one company, Colgate Palmolive Limited, and Another, in relation to trade coupons. In 1968 the one case was heard before the Appellate Division and the State succeeded.

In the other case in 1971, which was heard before the Transvaal Provincial Division on appeal, the charge against the accused was in essence that they had supplied the public with trade coupons together with goods which were sold by them to the public. The accused sold washing powder in packets to the public. If these packets were sold with certain coupons and there was a printed entry form on the packet itself, they were found guilty of an offence. By the use of the coupons and this form, a purchaser could eventually win a prize. According to the law, in terms of section 2(l)(b) read with section 1 of the Act of 1935, the accused were found guilty of a contravention. As they were found guilty of that serious contravention, I would like to know from the hon. the Minister if he knows what the sentence was. The sentence was that they were cautioned and discharged. If the learned judge thought that it was such a grave offence, he would surely have imposed a sentence on them commensurate with the offence which they had committed. It is obvious that it was considered as a trivial offence and was only made possible by this antiquated law that we are seeking to reincorporate in this draft Bill. It is also obvious that there was a public benefit, because if there was any intention on the part of the accused to act to the public detriment, the learned judge would have taken a far more serious view and attitude and therefore the sentence would have been far more appropriate. I may mention in passing that the maximum fine in terms of that particular section 2 of the 1935 Act was £100. It may well be argued by the hon. the Minister that in those days £100 was a lot of money, but surely by today’s standards and having regard to the size of our corporations and our public companies, £100 is certainly not a lot of money. What I would like to know from the hon. the Minister is this: If over 40 years this matter has been considered to be so serious, why has the Government not previously come to this House and re-enacted these provisions or increased the penalty in relation to the fine in this matter? It is obvious that it was not considered serious either by the hon. the Minister himself or any of his predecessors.

I would like to say that prior to 1968, besides the Colgate Palmolive case, there was only one other reported case, and that was Barnard’s case in 1956. I think that the hon. the Minister must concede that the Trade Coupons Act has been abrogated by disuse over a period of time. If we look at the 1968 case which is reported in the S.A. Law Reports, 1968 (4), we find it was The State versus Colgate Palmolive and Another. This was the first case against this company—I mentioned the 1971 case a while ago—and I would like to give the hon. the Minister an example of what the court found was a trade coupon. I would like to read to him from that particular case at page 429—

It then sets out rules of the competition and eventually it says:

I think that the hon. the Minister might agree with me on this point. Even though the accused were convicted—they were quite correctly convicted in terms of section 2(l)(b) of the Act—I wonder whether in this day and age that type of advertising or type of trade coupon should be the sort of thing on which you convict large companies who are obviously giving things away for nothing. I want to deal with the reasons why they give things away for nothing because the hon. member for Paarl wanted to know why people give things away for nothing. I believe that in this particular case Colgate Palmolive were acting in the interests of the consumer. If the Minister believes that Colgate Palmolive in this particular case were not acting in the interests of the consumer, then obviously he will proceed with this legislation. If he feels, on the other hand, that they were acting in the interests of the consumer, then he cannot proceed with those particular clauses. I have given this example of the Colgate Palmolive case merely to show the hon. the Minister the multitude of sins he is trying to cover by this particular legislation. I feel that if clauses 10, 11 and 12 were eliminated, we would not have the problems I mentioned earlier. They are merely putting the stamp of approval on the antiquated legislation of 1935, i think it is really a question of confidence. The question arises whether the hon. the Minister, his Government and his party have confidence in the consumers, in the manufacturers and in the retailers. We on this side of the House seem to have more confidence in the consumers’ ability and on the manufacturers’ integrity and honesty than have members on that side of the House.

If that is so, why do you support the rest of the Bill?

I dealt with that matter ad nauseam in the first 15 minutes. I stated why we were supporting the first part of the Bill. I also dealt with why we want clauses 10, 11 and 12 excluded. The definition of the word “sell” has been extended and it is obvious that this definition of “sell” cannot be left as it stands in this Bill. The definition of “sell” extends to advertising and I believe it has the effect of preventing free entry into the marketplace, and that surely cannot be allowed. The re-enactment of the Trade Coupons Act, together with the extended definition of the word “sell” will have the effect of militating against the real interests of the consumers, and those are the people we are trying to protect in this Bill.

There are so many commendable aspects in this Bill that I would like to plead with the hon. the Minister. I have known him to be reasonable in the past. [Interjections.] That was in the days before the hon. the Minister came to Parliament, when he was still in the provincial council. I should like to appeal to the hon. the Minister not to water down basically sound legislation with the type of provision he is trying to re-enact in terms of clauses 10, 11 and 12. We welcome the clauses that protect the consumer—the compulsion in respect of accurate advertising, the control of advertising and the prohibition of certain sharp practices. We as a party believe in the utmost protection for the consumers. Consumer protection operates at its best if we encourage healthy competition among manufacturers. Suppliers who mass-produce, sell through retailers and have high turnovers and low profit margins are able to keep their costs down to the benefit of consumers. Suppliers who are prepared to market in a sophisticated manner, like Colgate Palmolive, should be allowed to do so. If suppliers are prepared to invest large sums in the sponsorship of their products and are prepared to cut their profits and perhaps initially show losses, that after all is their business. They know that they are serving the buying public; they know that they are buying goodwill by initially showing losses, but they also know that unless they sell quality articles to the public and unless their prices are competitive, the public will not buy their products. So the only reason, if I may answer the hon. member for Paarl, why manufacturers give samples away for nothing or cut prices is that it is actually a form of advertising and a form of encouraging the public to buy their particular product. I may say that if by that means they can increase their turnover, they will have longer runs in their factories, their production costs will come down and they will be able to sell the goods cheaper. In the end this will be in the interests of the consumer.

I hope the hon. member for Paarl can understand that.

The suppliers know that the secret of their success is that in the end they have to satisfy the consumer both price-wise and quality-wise. Sir, I hope the hon. the Minister did not get a free sample of whatever he is eating so busily! [Laughter.]

Some suppliers and some retailers may well be unscrupulous and try to take the consumers for a ride. I believe that we must legislate against those and that we must not allow sharp practices. Those unscrupulous businessmen can be dealt with in terms of this and other legislation. In other words, the hon. the Minister can chop the businessman who takes the public for a ride as hard as he wants to and we shall back him all the way. However, the people whom the hon. the Minister seems to chop, like Colgate Palmolive, are not taking the public for a ride. This is a most important Bill and we as the official Opposition should like to support the hon. the Minister in this. We would like to believe that he is laying the foundations for a fight against inflation in this very Bill. We believe that this could be an instrument to fight inflation, but we also believe that the hon. the Minister could do so adequately by excluding those clauses which have been mentioned previously.

I have considered the amendment which the hon. member for Constantia has moved very carefully and I must say that I find that it is a very good amendment, an excellent amendment. I believe that if the amendment is accepted, it will improve the quality of the Bill. I believe that the hon. the Minister would like to see the quality of the Bill improved. This is one of the first Bills which he is introducing in his capacity of Minister of Economic Affairs. However, we find that the clauses to which I referred a moment ago are of such a nature that we cannot possibly support the Second Reading of the Bill if those clauses remain in the Bill. I think that the hon. the Minister will be well advised to withdraw the clauses to which we have referred and to refer those clauses to a Select Committee. I cannot see how he can be prejudiced. We have already waited for forty years and we may well wait another six months in order that clauses 10, 11 and 12 may be improved by a Select Committee. If that is done, he will have an easy passage for this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Walmer referred at short intervals to certain clauses and returned time and again in his speech to clauses 10. 11 and 12, which deal primarily with the Trade Coupons Act. It is my opinion that the hon. member for Walmer was not really very concerned in his speech about the position of the consumer in our country. He quoted one clause briefly and said that we should have confidence in the manufacturers, producers and consumers. I do not think it was necessary for the hon. member to tell us that we should have confidence in the consumers, producers and manufacturers of goods. In fact, I think with this legislation it is clear that we are once again reaffirming our confidence in them, for this Bill does not seek to place restrictions of any kind on bona fide sellers. Nor does the legislation seek in any way to eliminate healthy competition. This side of the House is in fact in favour of competition.

The hon. member for Walmer pointed out that the Trade Coupons Act has already been on the Statute Book for 40 years. I think that the Act has made its humble contribution to the proper ordering of that which it was placed on the Statute Book for. The hon. member said that this Act had become virtually obsolescent through disuse, but I do not think that he can really assess the value which that Act had. The hon. member also said that the consumer of today is far more sophisticated. I agree with him that a large percentage of consumers are more sophisticated today, but we also have the situation today that we have far more people whose buying power is growing all the time. It also occurs to me that we not only have Whites today for whom advertisements can be a stumbling block; we also have other peoples who are participating to a greater extent in the commercial world and who are reacting to an increasing extent to advertisements. I think it is absolutely necessary that there should be nothing misleading in so far as these people are concerned …

We are not arguing about that.

I did not say that the hon. member was arguing about that. Suddenly the hon. member for Constantia is angry with me. [Interjections.] I do not know whether I have just touched him on a sore spot. In regard to the question of the inclusion of a large part of the Trade Coupons Act in this Bill I think that the hon. member for Walmer will also concede that the provisions as they have now been included in the Bill, actually define the present Trade Coupons Act in clearer terms. The point was that in the existing legislation no reference was made to the aspect of service; it dealt solely with the sale of goods. This legislation is also being extended inter alia to include services. If the hon. member for Walmer would glance at clause 11(d) again, the problem he is experiencing would perhaps be cleared up considerably.

I think there are few people in our country who can afford to buy rubbish or pay more for a product than the price which they ought to pay for it. I am convinced therefore that this legislation will be welcomed, particularly if one considers how many people have fallen prey to misleading advertisements to which they responded to their own detriment.

I want to say a few words about advertisements in particular. From the definition of “advertisement” in clause 1 it appears that all means applied by a business to attract clients are included in the concept of “advertisement”. This relates to both goods and services. The hon. member for Paarl referred to one example, namely exaggerated forms of presentation. Everyone probably longs to acquire a little place to which they can retire. A person then sees an advertisement of a beautiful seaside plot. He responds to this and when he eventually arrives at the specific place —unfortunately there are many people who have fallen prey to this practice—he finds that he has bought only a hole in the ground, a part of a marsh, or a stone outcrop, which he has to pay off for the rest of his life.

One also finds this in respect of services offered. One need only think of the kind of advertisement in which this question is asked: “Do you spend sleepless nights? Are the summonses piling up against you? Come and see us, and we will help you straight away”. People have discovered to their detriment that they first had to spend a small fortune, even though they were already in financial straits, before they were really assisted. In addition, they never knew what the terms and conditions of that assistance were.

There is nothing in this legislation which will prohibit that.

Perhaps the hon. member for Yeoville should take another look at this legislation again, and then make his speech. As a result of the actions of organizations like this, people find themselves in worse situations and up to now there has been no real control. All of us will probably remember the advertisement in which it was alleged that one could double one’s money in a month. Because people are fortune-seekers at heart, and would all like to become rich overnight, this advertisement met with a wide response. We all know what the result was. One also sees advertisements in which items are advertised at give-away prices, at so many hundreds of rand cheaper, and that one can pay off over three years. Subsequently the consumer discovers that this is not as he thought it would be. This legislation seeks to prohibit such practices.

I am referring to clauses 9, 13 and 14 which, in my humble opinion finalize the matter of advertisements. Clause 9 places a prohibition on advertisements, communications, statements, descriptions or indications used in the running of a business and which are materially false and misleading. Clause 9(a) makes it an offence to publish or display an advertisement which is false or misleading in material respects. Clauses 9(b) and (c) then elaborate on this, and also cover an advertisement which is misleading with regard to goods and the sale of goods, as well as in regard to the question of the rendering of any service. In both cases reference is made inter alia to the nature, properties and advantages of the goods, but also specifically to the prices. Clause 13 elaborates further on the matter of advertisements in so far as the price of goods and the rendering of services is concerned. The clause prohibits specific indications in respect of prices of goods and rendering or provision of services. The importance of this clause lies therein that a person who buys goods or makes use of a service shall not be misled in respect of the price which he is actually paying for those goods or services.

Clause 14 finalizes the question of advertisements as defined in clause 1 and to which clauses 9 and 13 refer in so far as the hon. the Minister is empowered, by way of notice, to prescribe the details which shall or which shall not form part of an advertisement in which any goods or services are being advertised. Unfortunately it sometimes happens that certain particulars which appear or which are omitted in advertisements may prejudice the persons who have to respond to it. For that reason this clause is necessary. It even happens that a business advertises goods or services before it has those goods or services at its disposal. The advertisement is used as a lure to get people to the shop so that other goods may be sold to them. For that reason I think that it is right that particulars which are furnished in advertisements should be applicable to all goods or services which are being sold or rendered on or after the date of publication of the advertisement advertising the sale of goods or the rendering of services.

To the hon. member for Walmer I have said that bona fide sellers of goods or services need fear nothing, for in clause 18 there are special defences. A person therefore does not contravene the provisions of the Bill if he erred on reasonable grounds, in respect of the applicable facts.

This necessary and timeous legislation will meet a great need. It will eliminate all kinds of problems being experienced by the public. I should like to refer here to the following comments by an esteemed property broker some time ago—

I believe that this legislation will achieve that discipline, although we might possibly still have to iron out minor problems in future. However, I believe that this legislation is in the interests of the public, and for that reason it is a privilege for me to support it.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Klerksdorp spent a lot of his time talking about advertising. I am afraid, however, that he has not been a good advertisement neither for his party nor for his profession. All that he has proved is that he has read the Bill, that he has had a look at some of the provisions. The hon. member for Constantia has made our attitude on this Bill quite clear to the House. There are provisions in this Bill which are totally acceptable, viz. those provisions which the hon. the Minister wishes to enact to enable him to take action in regard to undesirable trade practices. We support those provisions entirely.

In the few moments still left before the adjournment, I want to mention but two of these practices which in my opinion are undesirable. I believe the hon. the Minister should take action against these practices. I should like to hear his reaction before we go on to the Committee Stage and the Third Reading of this Bill. I should like to know exactly how he feels. One of the shadiest aspects of business has been and is hire-purchase. This shady aspect has been shown up by surveys and services provided by a national chain of evening newspapers. In the hire-purchase business unsophisticated customers who do not really understand what is going on, are taken for a ride time and again. It is this particular service provided by these newspapers which has I ended to highlight the malpractices which do take place. I hesitate to say this, but this has particularly been brought to the fore in the sale of motor-cars, furniture and other durable goods. I know there is nothing in the Bill which specifically mentions this but I believe that the hon. the Minister with the powers he has asked for and the powers which we are prepared to grant him, will thereby be empowered to restrict any trade practices which he thinks are injuring relations between businesses and consumers. I do not know how widely the hon. the Minister is going to interpret this measure. A supermarket owner has in recent months made certain allegations regarding supermarkets generally. Whether this has helped the relations between the supermarket officials and his customers, or whether it has damaged them, remains to be seen. The hon. the Minister is the person who is assuming the power to decide these matters off his own bat.