Mr. Speaker, on Monday this House will start the Budget debate, which will last 20 hours. The hon. the Minister of Finance will reply to the debate after the Easter recess only, which means that from 2½ to 3 hours will be available next Friday for dealing with legislation on the Order Paper. After the hon. the Minister has replied to the Budget debate, the Votes will be dealt with immediately.

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

1. (1) On page 5, in line 47, to omit “codes of practice and” and to substitute:

1. (2) on page 5, in line 58, to omit “code of practice or”.

In the Second Reading of this Bill the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs motivated this clause as follows, and I quote from his Hansard (col. 4373)—

This matter was very fully debated at the Second Reading stage between the hon. member for Johannesburg North and myself and the hon. the Minister. I thank the hon. the Minister for his courtesy in replying as fully as he did at that stage. He did, however, indicate that in his opinion the amendment as it now appears on the Order Paper, would not give effect to the desire as expressed by the Natal Chamber of Industries, for whom we as an Opposition party are making representations at this stage at their specific request. The problem of the Natal Chamber of Industries is basically that they have an objection to the hon. the Minister, through this amendment, allowing the council to delegate its powers to either the chairman of the council or the director-general of the council in the absence of the chairman. They believe that this is bad in principle because in the event of there being an aggrieved party under this amendment, any right of recourse back to the council would be virtually impossible because it would involve the council then repudiating in effect either the chairman of the council or its director-general. They believe that certain sections of industry could be embarrassed and prejudiced under those circumstances. The hon. the Minister has his viewpoint, and I have given very close consideration to the arguments that he adduced, but we on this side of the House, with our legal advice, still believe that the amendment has its merits and I move accordingly.

Mr. Chairman, unfortunately I cannot agree with the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens for the following reasons. The proposed delegation of powers by the board in terms of the proposed section 11(2)(a) to the chairman and, in his absence, to the director-general, may only take place in respect of codes of practice and standard specifications—these are both voluntary schemes—and not in respect of compulsory standard specifications. A standard specification is a binding specification where a manufacturer wants to manufacture a product under an approved mark of the bureau and according to specification. However, he is free to cease manufacturing according to the specification and mark at any time. Secondly as a result of technological development and changes as far as the provision of raw materials is concerned, it is necessary that amendments have to be effected before the next board meeting as a matter of urgency. An example which I may mention here is the recent petroleum crisis when certain manufacturers had to execute binding contracts for products which had to be delivered according to standard specifications. The manufacturers then approached the bureau to adapt the standard specification as a matter of urgency in order to make provision for substitute raw material. It is therefore essential that it has to be done in great haste and therefore the chairman or the director-general has been able to effect such a change. The amendment of hon. member for Cape Town Gardens is not feasible because the committee which he referred to is not a statutory committee. Committees for specifications do exist, but the representatives serving on these committees, are invited administratively by the bureau to serve on the committees. The hon. member therefore suggests in his amendment a committee which does not exist anywhere in the legislation. If it were accepted, a whole number of legal consequences which would flow from this would have to be covered by the legislation, for example, who the members of such a committee should be, what their term of office should be, whether they should give advice or make recommendations, whether their recommendations were binding, and so on. The fact of the matter is that the chairman of the board and the director-general will be advised in the same manner and by the same people in respect of adjustments to codes of practice and standard specifications as when the board is requested to consider and approve adjustments. Clause 5 of the Bill proposes a new section 11(2)(b) which provides that the board maintains its power to repeal any change made by the chairman or director-general. The hon. member for Cape Town Gardens said that it would not be possible to amend such a specification, but the board maintains its power and may repeal or amend any amendment effected by the chairman and the director-general at any time, if necessary. I am therefore not in a position to agree with the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Germiston District has given very much the same reply as the hon. the Minister in his reply to the Second Reading debate on this Bill. It was quite obvious from the way in which the hon. member read what he had to say that the statement was prepared for him.

Surely, that is unnecessarily bitter.

I do not know why the hon. the Minister is so sensitive; perhaps I touched a raw spot. I do not believe that hon. member is capable of doing what he did. Did the hon. the Minister write it for him? Is that why he is so sensitive?

Order! The hon. member must proceed with his speech.

There is no need for the hon. the Minister to react in the way he did. The hon. member made exactly the same two points which the hon. the Minister made the day before yesterday in his Second Reading speech. The first one is that these are voluntary specifications which are, as he put it, asked for by the industry concerned and then applied by them. I must draw the attention of the hon. the Minister to section 15 of the principal Act which provides that he may, under certain circumstances, make these specifications compulsory specifications, which would then have to be adhered to. If the hon. the Minister is going to reject this amendment on the basis that we are here dealing with standards and specifications which are voluntarily accepted by the industry concerned, then I want to ask him why we have this Bill and why we have the Act. If these are voluntary specifications which the parties concerned are going to apply voluntarily, why do we have an Act? Why do we waste the time of this Committee in even considering it? I believe that although these specifications are voluntarily instituted at the request of the industry concerned, there still is a degree of compulsion which pertains to them. How do we arrive at these specifications? These specifications are accepted and published by the bureau after they had been considered by the council or after they had been considered by a committee established by the council.

Let us come to the second point the hon. member made, namely that there is no provision anywhere in the Act for a committee. The hon. member for Germiston District made the point that it was not a statutory committee, and I accept that. However, I do not believe it has to be a statutory committee for this to have force and effect. If we look at the rubric of section 11, which is being amended here, we find that it is for the—

When we go back to section 3 of the Act, we read that—

1. (a) to promote standardization in industry and commerce;
2. (b) to prepare, frame, modify or amend specifications and codes of practice.

Then, Sir, when you look at section 10 of the Act, you read that—

1. (1) the functions of the council shall be—

1. (a) to formulate, on broad national lines, the policy which, subject to the approval of the Minister, shall be adopted by it with a view to achieving the objects of the bureau.

Then we come to section 11 of the Act, in terms of which—

Sir, I believe that its functions are the formulation of these standards, and committees have in fact been established by the council for the precise purpose of formulating these standards and these specifications. I do not believe that it is unreasonable to ask that before one person—the director-general or the chairman—is given the power, on his own, on an application made by possibly one concern, not by the industry as a whole—it could be on an application by one concern—to amend these regulations which will affect the whole industry and not only one concern or one factory, the matter should at least be referred to the committee which in fact is concerned with that particular aspect. I know that the hon. the Minister is going to say to us that there is not a committee in respect of every industry. I accept that but, Sir, if there is something wrong in the drafting of this amendment then I ask the hon. the Minister if he will not assist us, if he can see our point of view that, where the specifications are made compulsory or can be made compulsory and, secondly, where they are made with the voluntary consent of the industry as a whole and only after the recommendation of the committee or consideration by the council as a whole, a committee or the council as a whole should have some say in the amendment of these regulations and that it is wrong in principle to allow them to be made simply on the authority of one person without referring the matter to any other body.

Mr. Chairman, the amendment moved by the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens, contains two basic elements. In the first place he wants the term “code of practice” to be deleted from the section and in respect of the amendment of any standard specification, he wants, in the second place, only the chairman and the director-general to have the power to amend the standard specifications at the recommendation of a committee. Sir, here we have to consider the definitions in the principal Act. In this connection the principal Act deals with three things; it deals with standard specifications which are compulsory for a whole industry. This proposed amendment does not affect the position concerning compulsory standard specifications. In other words, the clause is not meant to assign delegated powers to the chairman of the board or to the director-general in respect of compulsory specifications. Then, by means of the definition, there are also standard specifications with which this clause deals. Then there is also a definition of codes of practice which this clause is also dealing with. The hon. member for Germiston is quite correct, in spite of the vicious remarks of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South. This is voluntary, and should any particular enterprise feel itself aggrieved as a result of this, there is no need for it to comply with it. In other words, I maintain that there is nothing onerous in this particular connection, but in any event these amendments are actually effected at the request of the people in the industry themselves, and often as a result of technological developments. Sir, we have to be practical. This council is composed of people who are quite familiar with the objects of the Act, and the director-general himself is a science expert in terms of the requirements of the Act.

The second point in this connection is that the board meets four times per annum and in practice this means that it is not always possible to effect amendments initiated by the private sector before the next meeting of the board, with detrimental effects for the industry itself. With respect to the second point I made, I want to say further that the board has its own committees of experts and also asks experts from outside to advise it on certain subjects. The board often takes decisions according to the advice of these committees, and the director-general and the chairman’s decisions—in terms of the powers granted them by this clause—will likewise be in accordance with the advice furnished by the abovementioned advisory committees.

If we were to effect this amendment to the clause it would mean that the director-general would be compelled to act only in accordance with the advice of an informal committee of specialists. Legally something like this is not possible because neither in the Bill nor in the principal Act is provision being made for a committee or committees of this nature. One cannot exercise powers in conjunction with a committee for which no provision has been made. It would therefore not mean a thing and could just as well be non scripto. For that reason I cannot accept this amendment. I want to ask the hon. member for Cape Town-Gardens please to be content with this.

I received a telegram on this same subject from the Natal Chamber of Industries. However, I want to make it clear that should the objections raised by the Natal Chamber of Industries were to become a reality and the rights of people were to be affected detrimentally, I promise to take action.

Amendment (1) negatived and amendment (2) dropped (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

Mr. Speaker, I move, subject to Standing Order No. 56—

Mr. Speaker, the good that will be seen to have arisen from the passing of this Bill is that, in the first instance, it has been handled on an entirely non-political basis. Secondly, it has highlighted the importance to South Africa of the SABS and it has further highlighted the close collaboration which is taking place at all stages between commerce and industry on the one hand and the Government on the other hand.

I would like to thank the hon. the Minister for the undertaking he gave me during the discussion of the amendments moved by myself on clause 5 of the Bill. I feel certain that with the record of this discussion in Hansard and the undertaking that the hon. the Minister has given, the members of the Natal Chamber of Industries will be satisfied.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, this Bill has taken a long time to reach its last stage in this House. It is a Bill to which those who have been involved in it, have given a great deal of attention over a prolonged period. To my recollection, it was first drafted several years ago. It was sent by the department to bodies in the private sector. They then considered it and gave their views on it. I believe that it went back and forth with ideas and revisions suggested by the private sector as many as four times, until the private sector indicated that they were satisfied with it. I should like to compliment the department on the very close co-operation which was initiated by them on this legislation with bodies in the private sector. I think this is the way in which legislation of this nature should be dealt with. But I am afraid I cannot pass the same bouquets to the private sector in this instance, and it is with great regret that I have to say so.

I believe that this was an occasion which called for the fullest co-operation by bodies in the private sector. An opportunity for them to give that co-operation was provided, but to my mind—and I think from what I will say it will become clear—the private sector did not grasp this opportunity to the full and did not apply their minds to the needs of business so far as this legislation was concerned. I am sorry that I have to say this in regard to bodies in the private sector, but I do so with the intention of bringing this matter pertinently to the attention of the private sector in the hope that when an opportunity for co-operation of this nature is presented in the future, they will grasp that opportunity to the full.

I make this criticism, Sir, because when this Bill first came to Parliament a matter of two years ago—in 1974—it contained two glaring defects. The first of those defects was that on account of the incorporation of the provisions of the Trade Coupons Act into this legislation and the fact that those provisions were subjected in this Bill to a new definition of “sell”—which now includes advertising— unintended effects would have come to light if this legislation had been passed in that form. These effects, i.e. the subjection of the trade coupons provisions to advertising, were never intended and would have the effect of prohibiting some quite innocent and quite desirable trade practices.

The second defect that the Bill contained when it first came to Parliament was that clause 16, which defines the powers of the Trade Practices Advisory Committee, was framed in such a way that the Minister would have been able to act without the concurrence of the Trade Practices Advisory Committee. This was never intended, but was in the Bill as originally presented to Parliament and had been approved of by the organization in the private sector. I think, Mr. Speaker, we of the Opposition must claim quite a substantial part of the credit for remedying these defects. But I would like to say that when this Bill came to the House at Second Reading it still contained one of those defects, namely the subjection of the provisions of the Trade Coupons Act to the new definition of selling, with all the harmful effects which that would have had. Accordingly, we at Second Reading felt obliged to oppose the Bill at that stage for that reason. We have, however, never queried the desirability of giving consumers added protection in certain areas. We consistently supported that principle. Many other Western countries—and I am familiar with the position in the United Kingdom, Canada and Australia—have found the need for this type of legislation—in fact, they found a need for going further than this Bill actually does. I therefore welcome this measure. It provides a long-felt need in regard to the protection of the consumers, particularly against false and misleading advertising and selling methods and against various injurious trade practices which may be thought up by ingenious people from time to time.

Having said that, Sir, I certainly do not think that the Bill in its present form is perfect. If we had thought so, we would certainly not have moved as many amendments as we did in the Committee Stage. All the amendments which we moved were aimed at one thing and one thing only, and that was to improve the effectiveness of this legislation and the smooth working of it. I should like to say to the hon. the Minister that we on this side of the House are pleased about the number of amendments that were accepted in the Committee Stage, including some important amendments which were moved by this side of the House. For that we express our appreciation. But I do believe that there is one important further amendment that the hon. the Minister should consider when this Bill is discussed in the Other Place. He will recollect the discussion we had in the Committee Stage on clause 9. I believe that this clause would be very greatly improved if the discussions which we had were implemented, namely that in addition to the three general provisions defining the offences of false and misleading advertising and selling methods, there were also to be included in that clause the specific offences which were contained in the amendment which I proposed in the Committee Stage. I believe that if the hon. the Minister were prepared to redraft this clause—and it is, after all, the essence of the Bill, being the clause that is going to cover most of the offences that this Bill is designed to stop—this clause would be much more effective. It would then be easier to lay charges and to secure convictions. Above all, however, if the specific offences were included in this clause, it would act as a very much stronger deterrent than it would in its present form. I hope the hon. the Minister will keep an eye on the working of this Bill in practice. This is new legislation that is breaking new ground, and I hope that if amendments become clearly necessary and desirable, the hon. the Minister will not hesitate to introduce them in future sessions. I believe that some of the amendments we moved in the Committee Stage may well have to be adopted by him when he sees how the legislation works in future.

I believe, too, that the hon. the Minister must carefully watch the working of clauses 10 and 11 which cover the trade coupon provisions. These provisions basically go back to the old Trade Coupons Act of 1935. We on this side of the House believe that the original purpose of the Trade Coupons Act is still valid, in the sense that it is still desirable to prevent the supply of coupons of so great a value that the value of the goods themselves becomes insignificant by comparison. We do not want to go back to the chaotic conditions that existed in the late 1920s when coupons of so great a value were offered with cigarettes and breakfast foods that the value of the cigarettes and breakfast foods was of secondary importance in the making of a purchase. However, all the changes that have occurred in trading practices since the Trade Coupons Act was passed in 1935, do require that certain adjustments should be made to these provisions and that there should be more flexibility in the application of exemptions than is provided for in the legislation at present before us.

Although I do not regard this Bill as being perfect, I nevertheless think it is a good one, one which is going to afford consumers protection in areas where that protection is at present lacking. When this Bill becomes law there will be a remedy against firms who exploit the less sophisticated members of society by making misleading statements in mail order catalogues, etc., against exaggerated claims by patent medicine manufacturers, against half-truths on the part of second-hand motor-car salesmen and, what is somewhat more important, there will be a remedy against advertisers who encourage, even by implication, harmful and dangerous practices. I have in mind, in particular, the advertising of cigarettes …

I have given them up long ago.

The hon. the Minister must have anticipated the budget!

… without any warning in regard to the danger of smoking, and some of the advertising in connection with tyres which, by implication, encourages dangerous driving and speeding. This Bill must not be put into a drawer and forgotten like the Trade Coupons Act was. The hon. the Minister must ensure that he has an adequate administration to deal with it once the Bill becomes law. In my view he should expect a lot of complaints to investigate, and he must be in a position to do so when those complaints are received. In practice this is how the Bill is going to work. Members of the public are going to lay complaints with his department. He is not going to have to conduct general inspections, as is provided for in the legislation. He is going to have to deal with a large volume of complaints, and I hope that his department is going to be in a position to deal with the situation.

The hon. the Minister may well find that he will have to go further than the provisions of this legislation if consumers are to enjoy adequate protection from all the harmful practices that ingenious members of the private sector think up from time to time. There are certain unconscionable acts which may or may not be covered by this Bill. I have in mind, for instance, undue pressure brought to bear by salesmen in consumer transactions, for example when door-to-door salesmen sell encyclopaedias and insurance. I have in mind taking advantage of people’s inability or incapacity to protect their own interests due to physical or mental infirmity, ignorance, illiteracy, age or the inability to understand the nature or the language of a transaction. This is important in a country like ours where such a large proportion of the consumer public is unsophisticated and uneducated and, in many cases, illiterate. I have in mind the charging of prices grossly in excess of what is normally charged for a particular item. This happens on a fairly wide scale, particularly where retailers enjoy special privileges to trade at certain hours when their competitors are not open for business, for example those who trade on Sundays.

It also applies to imported goods.

No, not necessarily imported goods. I have in mind also the selling of an article on credit when there is no reasonable probability that the purchaser is going to be able to pay, and finally I have in mind selling on terms that are so harsh that they are inequitable to the consumer. Some of these practices may well be covered by clauses 9 and 15 of the Bill under consideration at the moment, clause 9 dealing with false and misleading statements and clause 15 dealing with injurious trade practices. Others, however, may require additional measures.

In conclusion, I hope the hon. the Minister will give all these matters I have mentioned this morning his attention as soon as this Bill becomes law. We on this side of the House support this measure at Third Reading.

Mr. Speaker, the Bill deals of course with three separate matters. It deals, firstly, with falsity in advertising, secondly with trade practices and, thirdly, with trade coupons. I think it is necessary to deal with all three in turn, to analyse what has happened during the Second Reading and the Committee Stage and to set forth what one’s attitude is towards the three aspects.

As far as trade coupons are concerned, I want to say relatively little because the hon. the Minister has indicated that he is going to examine the matter during the recess. He has given that undertaking and I think he has given that undertaking with a view to try to shorten the debate on this subject. I want to respect that. However, I hope that he will give the opportunity to people of putting forward their cases on the matter because there are very different opinions on the subject. May I just give an example to the hon. the Minister? The hon. member for Constantia talked about the laxity of the private sector, but I can tell of one organization which has not been lax in regard to this. I refer to the National Management and Development Foundation, which has not only had seminars on it, but intends to have further seminars. There have been considerable expressions of opinion at those seminars which I think would be of assistance to the hon. the Minister. I would appeal to him to make sure that he does hear the representations of the people who are concerned with this type of business and who I think make them in quite a bona fide and reasonable fashion. I do not want to carry the subject of trade coupons any further.

When it comes to falsity in advertising and trade practices, I think we are in a different field. I think the first thing that needs to be said is that we are entering an age in which the consumer is going to expect from the people who represent him, action to protect him. This is not a question of taking consumerism to extremes, but it is a question that a section of the population which for a very long period of time has had inadequate protection, now wants its voice to be heard. I think it is correct that we should say that this is not the only piece of legislation in regard to consumer protection which either has been passed or will be passed, because such pieces of legislation as the Price Control Act, the Rents Act, the monopolies legislation and the Limitation and Disclosure of Finance Charges Act are all consumer legislation in the true sense of the word. I am sure that there is further legislation pending in regard to credit which, if it does not reach us this session, I hope will certainly be able to be on the Statute Book by next year. I wonder whether we should not have in South Africa a code of consumer practice.

I have been pleading for that all along.

Well, then we are on the same wave-length because a code of consumer practice and of consumer protection is what I believe the South African public needs. One of the remarkable things which I think is forgotten in this House, is that we are actually elected by consumers. We are actually supposed to be the watchdogs of the consumers and therefore it is my view that we need to devote far more time in this House to debating the measures which are designed to protect the consumer. The concept of a code of consumer protection is one which I am sure will, particularly in the light of what the hon. the Minister has now said, find universal acceptance.

I want to go one further in this matter: I want to deal with the concept of rooting out exploitation in South Africa. One of the difficulties that exist in our country is that the exploitation is here not merely an economic matter. Exploitation where a businessman exploits a consumer, is not something which has purely economic consequences in the sense that the person who is exploited becomes poorer and the exploiter becomes richer; it has in fact far wider consequences from a social point of view, from a political point of view and, unfortunately, from a race relations point of view. One of the dangers which we face is, as I have indicated before, that it will be said that the face of the exploiter is White. We will therefore have consequences in regard to this matter from a race relations point of view which we cannot afford. The fact that the isolated White person in South Africa exploits people of a different colour for economic gain, is something which South Africa cannot tolerate. I do not say that Whites are exploiters and Blacks never are, but what I am saying is that in the times we are living today, in the whole context of the society in which we are living, we as White people cannot allow this kind of situation to take place. That is why we have to take strong action against exploitation, not only for economic reasons, but, in fact, for reasons of politics and for reasons of good relations.

Then we have the argument which is repeatedly used, namely that we have a free enterprise system, a capitalist system, and that in a free enterprise system, you must allow people virtually to do what they like, and people must look after themselves. This is a concept to which I do not subscribe. As far as we are concerned, we support the concept of free enterprise, but it is the duty of the legislature to restore the balance in bargaining power between the different sections of the community. If we want free enterprise to survive in South Africa, then we must make sure that people are on the same level in respect of bargaining. We can only have free enterprise survive if we take the steps to make sure that this equality is achieved. If we do not do that, then the people who are exploited, the people who are at the wrong end of the free enterprise system, will look for a different system in order to allow their equal economic development to take place. Those who believe in free enterprise must accept that free enterprise, in order to survive, must adapt itself to the conditions of today, must make changes to it and must offer the protection to restore the balance between the privileged and the underprivileged when it comes to the question of economic bargaining.

I should also like to talk about exploitation in a very immediate sense. Every time we have had a budget in South Africa and every time that there are changes in prices or duties or anything of a similar nature, somebody in the country seeks to take advantage of it. Immediately, within hours of the last budget speech, one heard the reports of exploitation and advantage being taken in this regard. I want to say to the hon. the Minister that it is bad enough having a tough budget, but it is worse when people seek to take advantage of it at the expense of underprivileged and sometimes poorer people. I should like to appeal to the hon. the Minister to ask the Price Controller to take immediate steps and to let us have a few examples set in South Africa in cases where this kind of thing is being done, at a time when many people in South Africa are feeling it and feeling it pretty hard. This is the first opportunity that I have to make this appeal to the hon. the Minister to stamp out the exploitation that takes place immediately one has a budget speech. One inevitably seems to have exploitation when higher prices or duties are announced. When such announcements are made it inevitably happens that one person takes advantage of another.

I should now like to deal specifically with the aspect of the legislation which deals with falsity in advertising. This legislation does not create a new offence in our law, but what it does do, is to make it easier to prosecute. The remedies have always been there, but now we have better weapons with which to act.

I should again like to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to something connected with advertising, and to ask him whether he approves of it. We are at present engaged in an anti-inflation campaign, as the hon. the Minister knows; he himself is playing a part in that campaign. Is it in the interest of the anti-inflation campaign for businessmen to advertise that to buy is anti-inflationary and for them to use the anti-inflation campaign to get people to spend their money? Is this a form of advertising of which he approves? Is it desirable that such advertising should take place, particularly as in many cases it can be shown that it means no saving to anybody who buys the products advertised in this fashion? To me this seems to be an abuse of the whole concept of fighting inflation and of reflecting the truth in advertisements. With respect, this again is a matter to which I ask the hon. the Minister to pay attention.

There is perhaps one other matter concerned with trade practices to which I should turn. The hon. the Minister has tremendously wide powers in respect of trade practices. There can be no doubt about that. He can change the law of contract and he can do many things and do them in a very dramatic way if he so wishes. I should like to appeal to him to use these wide powers …

With circumspection, as I usually do.

That is it: with circumspection. I ask him to bear in mind that, in view of the wide powers Parliament has entrusted to him, the public look to him to ensure that these powers are very carefully used. I think it is also important that the hon. the Minister has accepted amendments to the composition of the board which plays a very real part in this whole matter. The appeal I should like to make to the hon. the Minister in this connection is that he must ensure that the personnel of the board will create the image that is required to make a success of this. I think that the success of this will to a large extent depend on the type of people who will actually serve on this board. Therefore I appeal to him to bear this in mind because much will hinge on this particular aspect of the matter.

When we consider trade practices, it is actually the standards of the community that have to be taken into account. I previously referred to the German legislation on this. In Germany, in fact, this is accepted by the courts and it is the courts who take the actual decisions in regard to the norms that are to apply. These norms change from time to time. In exactly the same way trade practices will have to change from time to time. There are examples I can give of how the norms of the community in Germany have changed. In 1955 the Bundesgerichtshof of Germany declared that door-to-door solicitation by an undertaker seeking to sell future burial contracts was contrary to the practices they regarded as being desirable. They also regarded it as an undesirable practice that, when someone died, the next-of-kin were immediately telephoned in order to sell them a tombstone—funeral people and monumental masons seem to adopt such practices quickly. This goes to show that a society applies certain values.

One can telephone them to read the will.

The hon. the Minister might do so, but I am out of that game. I quote this to illustrate that a community has certain concepts of what they regard as right and wrong. These norms change from time to time. I think the hon. the Minister has a great responsibility in that he must make sure that he stays in tune with what the opinions of the community are as they change from time to time.

Lastly, I should like to deal with the powers given to inspectors and to the secretary in terms of this legislation. These powers, again, are very wide. We have asked for safeguards, some of which we did not get. There are presumptions in this legislation, some of which we do not agree with. There is vicarious liability of a sort with which we do not agree in its complete form. There is the question of the power to search and to seize. These are all very wide powers. Again, I ask that, in view of the fact that these powers are being given by Parliament, they be used very carefully, and that the principles one holds dear are borne in mind.

We opposed the Second Reading of this Bill. We opposed it because of the particularly wide powers that were provided for at that stage. We have subsequently had amendments accepted; there have been changes made. I want to make it quite clear that we are not entirely satisfied with this matter. However, we believe that this matter is so important to the public at large at this particular time that we cannot vote against the Third Reading of the Bill on these grounds. We entrust these powers to the hon. the Minister and to his department and hope that these powers will be used carefully. If they are abused, he will hear all about it from us. What is important at the present moment is that we introduce in the business life of South Africa a little more morality, not for the whole broad spectrum of businessmen, but for that section of them who bring business, free enterprise and the community as a whole into disrepute. That is why we support the Third Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, we have come to the end of a debate on a measure the Second Reading of which was taken as far back as last year. In my opinion the principles in this legislation have been fully discussed. I do not believe there is a great deal about which to pick an argument with the members of the Opposition as regards the broad principles of this legislation. It is only that I cannot understand why the hon. members opposite are so concerned about the coupon system. In fact this is the only aspect of this legislation which they have really attacked. Surely it is true that in the past the coupon system has repeatedly shown that it causes difficulties. Since we know that it causes difficulties, why should we again make the provisions in regard to this coupon system so wide as to cause us further difficulties in future?

The hon. member for Yeoville intimated that they, too, objected to that aspect of the legislation. He added that they were in favour of a code of consumer protection. I do not think that anyone will have any fault to find with that. We should just note that there is already a degree of consumer protection in practice owing to various organizations which are already active in commerce. However, I have no fault to find with the idea that we should take another look at this aspect in future in order to overhaul the code of consumer protection and create other machinery to effect its actual implementation.

However, we ask ourselves whether the hon. member for Yeoville was in earnest when he referred to exploitation. As usual—this is something one has from that party from time to time—they always want to employ any issue they possibly can to cultivate a feeling of guilt among Whites. In his speech the hon. member said: “We want to specially mention the exploitation of Blacks by Whites.” In general I want to agree with him in this connection, but after all, the traders in South Africa are not exclusively White. In the non-White areas such as Madadeni in the vicinity of Newcastle, the consumers are exploited by non-White traders for the most part.

What are you doing about it?

It is not Indian traders only, but Bantu, too, who are guilty of this. I think it is unfair for the hon. member to direct this accusation at Whites only.

That is not what I said.

That is how I understood it. I think the hon. member is so used to continually seeking an opportunity to accuse the Whites of …

I did not say that.

I want to agree with the hon. member at once that the solution as regards consumer protection is in fact to be found in the upliftment of people so that eventually they are able to judge for themselves. [Interjections.] This, too, is a reason for this Bill, because we realize that many South African consumers will not always have that judgment.

Order! Did the hon. member for Yeoville say that the hon. member for Newcastle had twisted his words?

I did, Sir.

Then the hon. member must withdraw that.

I withdraw it, Sir.

I say that the answer as regards the future of a sound relationship between the consumer and the distributor or the trader is to be found in our causing the consumer public to be increasingly informed and providing them with the necessary knowledge as to how to buy judiciously. The hon. member for Constantia who spoke before me complained about the fact that the private sector had not given sufficient assistance with regard to the drafting of this Bill. I want to agree with him that this is so, because in fact, this legislation is primarily there to protect the interests of the private sector. He added inter alia, that there were certain “glaring defects” in the original legislation at the Second Reading stage. Now I really want to object to a remark made by the hon. member, claiming for that side of the House all the honour for the amendments and the rewriting of this Bill as it eventually came before this House. I think that this is really unfair. The hon. member is saying by implication that the members of the Select Committee who represented the Government did nothing whatsoever about the matter. We are prepared to give recognition to the hon. member if he made a contribution. However, I think that the hon. member made a remark which could not be allowed to pass unheeded. What I find strange with regard to the United Party’s standpoint on this Bill is that although they accept the principles with regard to the issue of trade coupons, for example, they are constantly trying to find a means of getting away from these principles by way of the amendments they move.

How many amendments have been agreed to in this House?

It is a fact that we are prepared to look at any reasonable suggestion. The hon. the Minister has repeatedly stated very clearly that if some of the amendments moved by that side had been accepted at the Committee Stage, this legislation would have been totally ineffectual and emasculated. This is the aspect which, in my opinion, is of importance. It is true that the hon. Opposition did express its satisfaction with regard to the number of amendments accepted, but they are now complaining about certain amendments which were not accepted, and they are doing this in spite of the fact that we agree about the Bill, that the Opposition is going to support the Third Reading and that the hon. the Minister has already given the House the assurance that he will have another look at certain aspects of this legislation during the recess, particularly with regard to the trade coupon system.

What is important is that we should first have a look at how this legislation works in practice. After that we shall be in a far better position to amend this legislation to adapt it to the practical situation, because that is the real test for any legislation which functions in this country. I did not take part in the discussion of this Bill before the Third Reading, nor was I a member of the Select Committee which examined this legislation, but I should like to say that by means of this legislation the hon. the Minister and his department are doing the consumer public of South Africa a valuable service. In my opinion this Bill meets a need which has been felt for many years. The South African public expects the protection which the Government and this Parliament must afford them, in spite of what we have just said in connection with the task of education to be carried out in respect of the general public.

Now we repeatedly come across the other aspect of the matter and that is that the public also expects the State to protect it against price increases, which is also something which, to a degree, forms part of the background of this Bill. It is true that inflation or price increases have always been a powerful political weapon in the hands of an Opposition and the Opposition Press. This aspect is constantly cast in the teeth of the Government. Owing to the development of the economic systems of the world and the more sophisticated methods of manipulating economies by fiscal and monetary measures, it is indeed sometimes possible for a Government to handle certain tendencies in regard to price increases. We can never make this concession, unless we say in the same breath that the public, too, has a definite responsibility in this connection. That is why I think that the most important thing that has been done here this morning is that we have expressed our disappointment that the private sector has not played a greater part in the drafting of this legislation. Looking at the debates which are past, one gets the impression that the United Party, and to the same extent, the Progressive Reform Party, too, wanted to create the impression that for the most part it was they who wanted to protect the interests of the consumer. Looking at the amendments moved, and in view of the fact that the Opposition tried to circumvent certain principles by way of their amendments, one gets back to this aspect of the matter: viz., that the protection which the Opposition tried to afford in this debate was really to be found in the protection of the trader and the distribution market. This Government is not insensitive to the interests of the distributor and the manufacturing industry in South Africa in general. We have the principle of a free trade economy in South Africa which has applied for a very long time. The interests of the traders are equally important. But when we are dealing with legislation which is chiefly aimed at protecting the consumer, then we necessarily emphasize that aspect of the matter.

The hon. member for Constantia readily conceded that this was a good Bill. He added that in the future we should have to go further, and I want to concede at once that we shall have to go a great deal further in the future. Mr. Speaker, you will allow me to say something more about this. We must also take into account the fact that there are already various other Acts in this country which protect the consumer. To mention only a few, there are the Price Control Act, the Weights and Measures Act, the Sale of Land on Instalments Act, the Merchandise Marks Act and the Regulation of Monopolistic Conditions Act. Besides these we have the S.A. Co-ordinating Consumer Council which is subsidized by the Government. I think that this organization plays an extremely important role which cannot be replaced by this legislation. We must take into account that last year this organization was already playing a major role in the legal proceedings instituted in regard to the various cases in which the maximum prices of goods had been exceeded. I believe that we shall have to expand this S.A. Co-ordinating Consumer Council substantially in the future to enable it to play a more effective role. I feel that legislation of this nature can only function effectively if the interests of the general public are protected by means of an organization. I want to agree with the hon. member for Yeoville that the existing legislation we have just mentioned must be supplemented to a substantial extent and that this Bill only serves as an interim phase to deal with certain glaring difficulties in this connection.

The legislation we have just been discussing deals with various matters and I think it would be as well if we were just to draw attention once again to the kind of practice which must be restricted by means of this legislation. Looking at advertising—and this applies to the whole world, it is indeed a difficult matter to know exactly where the line is to be drawn. I believe that any trader would go out of his way to describe and present his product to the public in the best way possible by means of advertisement, because after all, that is the aim of advertisements. In so doing he might very easily infringe the provisions of this legislation. It will therefore be very difficult to know where to draw the line and that is why I think that when this legislation is implemented in practice, it should be done with great circumspect in certain circumstances.

There is another aspect, too, relating to the quality of the goods, viz. the issue of the price factor. The advertising of prices constitutes one of the biggest gaps in the trade practices of the entire country. I think that it is the advertising of prices that causes the most mistaken impressions among the public, and exactly how the legislation is going to restrict this in practice, we do not know. We shall have to see how it works. There is no doubt that the growth of chain stores in South Africa is based entirely on the advertising of prices.

I should like to ask the hon. member whether he is referring particularly to loss leader advertisements or to advertisements in general.

I was specifically referring to loss leader advertisements, and I am particularly perturbed about the fact that one often finds a full-page advertisement in the Press where only selected prices are advertised. To my mind this conveys a completely wrong impression of the true state of affairs.

*Another aspect of misrepresentations which we must take account of is the fact that certain people advertise goods of which they have no stocks whatsoever, merely to attract certain people. I think it is very often the case that certain prices are advertised at a sale and that there are only a few articles available at that price. When the public arrives at the dealer to buy these articles, they have supposedly been sold out.

The second malpractice which I should like to mention in this regard is the fact that in many cases people advertise certain services when they have no authorization to do so. I think there was a specific case of an estate agent advertising that he had the sole agency for the sale of a certain State property. On investigation it transpired that there was no such State property for sale in that area. His aim was merely to attract the public in order by so doing perhaps to offer them something else.

Another malpractice in this connection which I myself have come across is the sending of an account for some article by post. When one takes a closer look at the account, one finds that it is in fact an account for something which is offered for sale. It is possible that many people might react to such an account and then find that the goods are not what they hoped they would be. We also find the practice that people place advertisements for goods which supposedly no deposit is required. The fact is that in many of these cases a deposit is in fact required under the hire-purchase system, and that is why I think that in the future we shall have to investigate this aspect again, because I am not quite sure that it will be possible to restrict all these practices in terms of the provisions of the legislation as they stand at present.

For a number of years there has been another phenomenon, in South Africa too, that of certain foreign companies recruiting agents within the Republic of South Africa who then have to pay a certain amount for the right to obtain articles at a so-called discount price, which they in turn have then to sell to the public. This practice has already cost prospective agents literally thousands upon thousands of rands. Quite often, when enough of these agents have been recruited, the company disappears and the agents are then unable to obtain new stocks or are unable to sell the articles they have offered for sale. As now amended, this Act will make it possible to restrict these undesirable practices.

Sir, I think that the establishment of the Trade Practices Advisory Committee is indeed a major step in the whole structure of our trade relations in South Africa, but I think that the success of the operation of this advisory committee will depend largely on whether the people serving on this committee are in fact inspired and whether they have the skill to advise the Minister properly. If the Minister finds that this committee is not functioning properly, then in my opinion, irrespective of what the Opposition may have to say about this matter, he should take certain of the powers of this committee into his own hands. It is important that this problem be solved, and if we do not act forcibly we are certainly not going to solve this problem, because we cannot escape the fact that the imaginativeness of the traders in South Africa and throughout the world really knows no bounds. Every day they come up with new methods and new gimmicks.

Mr. Speaker, we have now discussed certain aspects of this legislation which, in our opinion, will eliminate certain practices which give rise to concern, but there is another aspect we may look at with a view to this legislation and also with a view to the future revision of this legislation, and this is the issue I have just mentioned, viz. the psychological onslaught on man. Sir, since Pavlov demonstrated the conditioned reflex, the world, science and commerce has seized on it to launch an onslaught of increasing scope on the spirit and mind of man, and trade practice in advertising in the world is nothing but an extremely sophisticated attempt to condition the reflex of the individual. Therefore, Sir, we should also consider another aspect of trade, and that is the issue of salesmen. I want to ask whether South Africa can continue to afford having almost 17 000 of those salesmen working in this country. When I say this I do not want to make out that we can carry on our trade without salesmen, but is it really necessary, for example, for a specific furniture business to employ, on a commission basis, four or five salesmen who are simply forced to adapt their whole impact on the public in such a way that members of the public are forced to buy things they do not need. If they do not do this, they are unable to make a living. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, in the initial stages of the speech of the hon. member for Newcastle he seemed to generate more heat than he shed light on the Third Reading, but he settled down and I think he put forward some constructive ideas and highlighted certain aspects of promotion which could well do with closer investigation, and I feel quite sure that when this council is constituted it will be able to deal with some of the abuses which the hon. member suggested were taking place. He also, I think quite rightly, pointed to the fact that while there was a need for consumer protection there was also a need for consumer responsibility. I think that this is an important aspect.

Then, Sir, I want to refer to a particular portion of the speech made by the hon. member for Yeoville. The hon. member referred to the question of funeral expenses and the possible exploitation of the public by salesmen selling funeral policies from door to door. I would just like to remind the House that in the early sixties, as a result of information which came to me, I tabled a private member’s motion. You may remember, Mr. Speaker, that at that time you took part in that particular debate. As a result of that motion various steps were taken by the hon. the Minister’s predecessor, but unfortunately, although I was able to provide absolute evidence of cases where there had been a flagrant abuse of the terms of funeral contracts, it did not seem at that stage that it was possible to take positive action against the perpetrators of these breaches. I feel that under this Bill it will be possible in future to deal with this matter if it can be established that some of these undesirable practices are still being carried on.

I want to come back to another aspect dealing mainly with advertisements and I want to refer the hon. the Minister to what he said last year when he replied to the debate. He said—

At that time reference was made to an announcement made by the hon. the Minister of Justice in the debate on his Vote in 1974 when he said that he had instructed the National Liquor Board to investigate certain aspects of advertising. He drew attention to the fact that the board, after delivering for virtually three or four years, had suggested that there were three kinds of liquor advertisements. They were defined as primary, image-building or direct-action advertisements. Sir, I would like to refer very briefly to the third type, the direct-action advertisements and I want to quote what the Minister of Justice said on that occasion. He said—

My reaction to that statement by the hon. the Minister is that the whole object of the exercise as far as the producers are concerned is to encourage consumption, and I believe that the figures which show increased consumption together with the fact that the advertisements are designed to encourage new consumers, indicates that the emphasis has been directed towards that particular motive and that it has been directed particularly at our youth. Here I believe that the Minister in charge of this Bill will have a very serious and great responsibility to see that there is no abuse. The Minister of Justice said at the time that if there were any abuses and if liquor advertisements still appeared “depicting scantily clad females or extolling the consumption of liquor or containing obvious untruths”—

Mr. Speaker, my plea to the hon. the Minister in this connection is that, in view of the explicit statement made by his colleague, he should see to it that there is full collaboration and liaison between the two departments because it would be a waste of manpower and effort if there should be overlapping and duplication of effort with regard to this particular aspect.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to refer to a matter which was brought to my attention by a constituent who wrote to me saying—

What is that?

“Wrangler”. It is a make of jeans and modem clothes.

I thought you said “bungler”.

No, they were not advertising the Nationalist Party. They were talking about “Wranglers”—

Mr. Speaker, I want to send the advertisement over to the hon. the Minister. I would like him to have a look at it. It is not so much the offensiveness of the advertisement itself, but what it says. It says: “There is a movement taking place; not belligerent, just slightly insurgent. Wrangler—the quiet take-over”. Sir, “insurgent”, according to my dictionary, is defined as “rising in opposition to lawful authority; rebellious; one in revolt; a rebel.” I believe that the fact that these advertisements are still allowed to appear—this one appeared in The Natal Mercury on 26 March this year—is an indication that the Advertising Standards Authority and the Newspaper Press Union either lack the motivation or they do not have the teeth in their code of ethics to control such advertising which, I believe, is offensive.

I want to quote from the code of the Advertising Standards Authority, their code of advertising practice. They have a specific section in the code for liquor advertising, which says—

There are four conditions laid down, but this is the one to which I draw the attention of the hon. the Minister and I think he might even agree that I have a point, because it refers to—

Mr. Speaker, I believe that that advertisement falls very near to that particular category. According to the Advertising Standards Authority’s code for liquor advertising, such advertisements are not permitted to be published. It seems to me that although these voluntary prohibitions have existed through voluntary codes, they have not been implemented and I believe in many instances they cannot be implemented, because there is no legal power to back it up. As I see this particular Bill, I believe that clause 9, which deals with particulars in respect of certain advertisements, and clause 14, which also deals with what the hon. the Minister may prescribe in connection with advertisements, will place a strong weapon in the hands of the hon. the Minister if he chooses to use it. I believe that he has a responsibility, as far as the consumers are concerned, and as soon as this Bill has been signed by the State President and has been put into effect, to use the authority it gives him. I believe that we will be able to overcome some of the flagrant breaches of the advertising code which have occurred because there are strong penalties. The contraventions are accompanied by very heavy penalties and high fines, even possibly imprisonment. So I ask the hon. the Minister whether he will give particularly careful attention to this aspect of the Bill at Third Reading.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Berea who has just resumed his seat is known in this House as a person who is very concerned about the moral standards of our people. In his contribution this morning which, in my opinion, was a very constructive one, he again spoke along these lines. I think he can expect the hon. the Minister to react about a matter which really deserves consideration. The hon. member for Yeoville spoke earlier and I want to acknowledge at once that he said a great deal with which we can agree. He referred to the necessity to eliminate the exploitation of the consumer public and in principle we agree wholeheartedly with that idea. But now he has also referred in particular to the exploitation of the non-Whites. I want to say that the statement he made is not an unfair one because it is indisputably true and it is the responsibility of the Government to give constant attention to this. But I do not think that the picture is quite as sombre as the hon. member made out here, because I read in the annual report of the Consumer Council that steady progress is being made in respect of the non-Whites—I want to refer to this, Sir, because it links up, to a certain extent, with the plea made by the hon. member for Yeoville—as regards the extension of contact with the non-Whites. It is put as follows—

And that is the point I really want to emphasize—

Now I just want to dwell on this for a moment and draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to the fact that in my opinion, as far as exploitation as such is concerned—under the Act as well—one must try to obtain the employers’ co-operation to a greater extent to assist in this regard, and I do not think there is any doubt that one will never be able to eliminate all the irregularities that occur, through legislation alone. A very important task lies ahead, particularly as far as education is concerned, and I want to suggest that the employer can make a very important contribution in this connection. Here is a very interesting contribution by the Consumer Council in connection with the combating of exploitation of the non-Whites in this country, and I want to say that one should have the greatest appreciation for the contribution made by the Consumer Council and in particular to eliminate these problems. I think the hon. member for Yeoville can rest assured that constant attention is being given to this problem.

This legislation, which is now before the House in its final stage, is one of the most important pieces of legislation in many years, because this legislation protects the consumer community and the business community. As far as I am concerned, it protects the business community, which is for the most part a very responsible community, against exploiters within its own ranks. These exploiters derogate from the high standards which the business community as a whole strives to maintain. In this connection I want to refer to the contribution made by the business community. There is an association known as the Direct Sales and Service Association of Southern Africa, and they have a code of honour which they uphold. Unfortunately I cannot quote the whole code of honour, but that code provides, inter alia, for the quality of the product or the service rendered; for a guarantee which must be given to the purchaser of that product; for the provisions relating to the sale, in other words, the agreement which must be concluded; even for a period for consideration by the purchaser or the person making use of the service; for the responsibility to the purchaser which is accepted; and for advertisements and the elimination of misrepresentations.

Furthermore, it provides that when equipment is purchased, free training is provided for the people who have to operate the equipment in question, and in conclusion, it provides for the control and discipline of the members themselves, and this brings in the Trade Practices Act. The example being set here is one well worth following, because if the entire business community were to adapt themselves to the upholding of a code of honour, a better relationship would develop between the consumer and the seller or the business community as a whole. If this legislation at present before us can prompt the business community to eliminate that which is undesirable in their ranks, we should, in general, be able to live in a far better and healthier community. As I have said, we acknowledge that it is only a small section of the business community which is guilty of offences of the kind for which the legislation is now providing. It is as well, too, that the honest members of that community feel that they are protected by this legislation.

However, it protects the consumers as well. In the first place, it protects the consumers against themselves, to prevent them becoming the victims of the emotions incited by exploiters. The fact that this is so cannot be disputed either. We all agree that the consumer public needs protection. I have a very good example in this connection drawn from the experience of the Consumer Council, which proves how essential it is for the consumers to be protected against themselves. The Consumer Council deemed it necessary to publish a brochure dealing with the behaviour of salesmen, etc. In the introduction to this brochure the standpoint of the Consumer Council is stated as follows—

And then there is a whole series of “don’ts” for the consumer, “don’ts” which really demonstrate to us how essential it has become for the consumer to be protected against himself. They put these “don’ts” as follows—

In the Second Reading debate and, to a certain extent, in the Committee Stage as well—this morning, too—quite a lot has been said by the Opposition about the issue of trade coupons, trade samples and so on. It is true—this has been found in practical experience—that the coupons and trade samples are extolled to such an extent that the public become the victims of their own emotions and spend their money on goods which they could have done without or of which the quality is questionable and the price quite out of proportion to the value. The consumer council adds—

I need not even mention the fact that over and over again, what in fact happens is that suggestion takes place. As a result the consumer is subjected to a process of psychological brainwashing in order to persuade him to make himself available for demonstrations. There are innumerable examples of the practices against which the consumers should be protected. Members of the public are invited on a friendly basis to have tea with someone but when they get there, they are subjected to high pressure techniques. It is as well that the Bill is to be placed on the Statute Book, because where necessary, action should be taken against this kind of thing as well. The following is also stated—

This gets back once again to the well-known hospitality shown in South Africa. When someone knocks on the door one is only too willing to invite the person in for the sake of friendliness, but once he has his foot in the door, he really has his foot in that door and it is not easy to get him out again. One often sees in cartoons that such a salesman does not go before he has sold something to the householder. The consumer council has ample experience of the type of practice which is undesirable and against which the public should be protected. I could go on quoting the “don’ts” because there are about twenty of them here. I do not want to quote all of them, but there is one against which very strict action can, I hope, be taken in terms of the Bill—

This, too, is referred to in the code of honour which I put before the House. It is true that people just decide on the spur of the moment to sign for what they have been offered.

I really hope that if, in implementing the legislation, methods are discovered which appear to conflict with the principles of the legislation, it will be possible to take action. I said at the start—I want to emphasize it now—that legislation alone is not enough to eliminate these undesirable methods. It will still be necessary to continue with an education process to educate the consumer public and warn them to take care, because there will always be loopholes. In this regard I want to refer to the outstanding work done by the Consumer Council in South Africa. This is an organization which was established by the Government and it serves under a board which only acts in the interests of the consumer. I believe that when the Bill is placed on the Statute Book, the board will be in an even more favourable position to carry on its work in the educational sphere, because I see the Bill and the educational work done by the board as two elements which are essential as regards putting right what is wrong in our community at the moment. Under those circumstances it is a pleasure for me to support the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, both the hon. member for Springs and the hon. member for Yeoville mentioned the question of consumer participation in the implementing of the Bill. The hon. member for Yeoville mentioned that what we need is a code of consumer protection while the hon. member for Springs mentioned the good work which is being done by the Consumer Council. We on these benches are all in support of that council, but we believe—we have said it repeatedly—that the work of that council could be extended and that the council could be given some real powers. As we have put it in the past, it could be given some teeth. With the implementing of the Bill, the hon. the Minister is in a position to give the council some teeth. However, more important than giving the council some teeth, is the education on consumers in this country. Consumers must be educated not only along the lines mentioned by various hon. members, including the hon. member for Newcastle, but they must be educated to participate in the control of malpractices. My information from overseas countries and particularly from Europe and North America is that it is the active participation of consumers which has done away with much of the malpractices which existed there in previous years. The malpractices have not been done away with by means of legislation, but through the consumers themselves participating.

I believe that we must now get to the stage where we will persuade our consumers to take active steps against exploitation and against what amounts in many cases to cheating. I do not think that I need go too far on that, but I do want to mention in particular what has happened in the past in the furniture industry and in the motor industry where most of the sales are contracted under the Hire Purchase Act. I must say to the hon. the Minister that I appreciate the fact that in December last year he announced the code of conduct which was to be followed by the association of furniture traders. I believe that came directly as a result of the introduction of this Bill. I believe that until this Bill was introduced, those things were hidden away—they were under the blanket. It was only with the introduction of this Bill that those things were brought to light notwithstanding the fact that they were mentioned in this House before. I say that it is as a result of that that we now have this code of conduct.

I also want to mention the question of Christmas clubs. As far as I can see, their activities have dwindled. I do not believe, however, that they have been completely exterminated. They were a tremendous source of frustration to the public, and more particularly to our non-White public. The gullible ones were easily persuaded to buy a certain amount of stamps every week which would allow them to participate in a Christmas hamper or to receive a Christmas hamper or something of that kind. There is also the question of burial societies mentioned by other hon. members. Unfortunately it is nearly always the illiterate, underprivilege Black masses of people who are affected by this.

The hon. member for Yeoville mentioned the question of inspectors and I want to repeat what I said to the hon. the Minister during the Committee Stage regarding inspectors. I sincerely hope he will employ the right type of person and that people who are employed will have specific instructions to carry out their duties in such a way as to gain the confidence of the people with whom they are going to work, the people who are most directly affected by the legislation, viz. the traders and retailers.

The hon. member for Newcastle spoke of the Trade Coupons Act of 1935 which now, 40 years later, is being withdrawn.

[Inaudible.]

Sir, that hon. Whip “broms” all the time. If it was a pleasant noise he was making, we could put up with it, but it is most unpleasant. He knows nothing of what he is talking about. He is simply “bromming” and nobody can hear a word of what he is saying. The hon. member for Newcastle spoke of an Act which has existed for 40 years and has been applied more in the breach than in the observance thereof. In those 40 years certain trade practices have developed in this country. For instance, there is the issuing of coupons. If the Act had been strictly applied, that would have constituted an offence. However, today it has become an accepted trade practice. Coupons are issued whereby certain benefits are given to the public—not selected benefits to selected members of the public, but selected benefits to the public at large. I believe that in the implementation of this measure when it becomes law, what we are going to need is a rational approach. I believe there will have to be circumspection in the application of this measure.

I have referred certain trade coupons to the hon. the Minister and I believe that such coupons do not really constitute a moral offence, although they may be technically considered as such in terms of this legislation. I have here a voucher which resembles a cheque. It has printed on it—

It cannot be argued that the shirts, ties and socks are made by the same manufacturer. Nor can it be argued that they are proportionate to the price that is being paid. Indeed, none of the exemptions contained in clause 11 of the Bill apply. However, I really and truly do not believe that this is a malpractice as such. It is an advertisement, an offer to someone to purchase a suit. It is an advertisement saying: “If you purchase a suit, we will allow you a discount of R25.” However, as the Bill is worded, this would constitute an offence. I ask the hon. the Minister, when he looks into these matters, to consider this aspect before this practice is outlawed. I know that a lot of these matters will be referred to the committee and I know too, that the members of that committee will look into this particular aspect.

I have another coupon here which states—

It rubs off. It is dangerous.

In terms of the Trade Coupons Act it was an offence to issue such a card. Whether one sent such a card through the post, or handed it to the customer, or whatever one did with it, it constituted an offence. However, I wish to make the point that, although this practice has been an offence for 40 years, the Act has never been applied. I sincerely hope that the same attitude will attain in the future.

I must in passing draw the attention of the hon. the Minister to an article I found in The Evening Post of 17 March. I happened to be flying to Durban and, being bored on the aircraft, I bought this newspaper in Port Elizabeth.

Then you were even more bored.

I was bored until I came across this article. The article carries the heading: “Back to card sets”. In 1935 the Trade Coupons Act was introduced, and it achieved its object, which was to break the malpractices that were occurring at that time. For instance, if one smoked enough cigarettes, one could get a free motor-car through the coupons enclosed in the cigarette packets. The same thing applied in the United Kingdom at that stage and there they adopted similar legislation. However, I see in this report that England, for one, is now going right back to the beginning. A tobacco company is now to revive cigarette cards as a collecting incentive for adults. The article states that—

of the particular firm which is now going to start issuing cards with their cigarette packets. I wonder whether we are not going to find that, while we are at present engaged in stopping that practice, the rest of the world is allowing it again.

Business suspended at 12h45 and resumed at 14h15.

Afternoon Sitting

Mr. Speaker, when business was suspended, I had asked the hon. the Minister to be circumspect in his application of this Act because I felt that a lot of good could come of it, but that a lot of what was being accepted today as normal trade practice, could also be affected in terms of the Bill. I come back to a statement which the hon. the Minister made during the Committee Stage when he said that it was his intention to see that the advertisements were not used “om die koper uit te lok”, the phrase he used.

Instigate.

Instigate. I shall accept that too. The point is that everyone of us who uses an advertising media, used it with the intention of persuading somebody to do something, either to make use of a service or to purchase something. When a firm spends the kind of money that is necessary to place an advertisement such as the one I am holding in my hand from a newspaper, a half-page colour advertisement, that firm does it with an object. The object is to persuade people to buy. In this case the object was to persuade people to buy pianos. In this particular advertisement, an advertisement which appeared in Rapport, it is stated—

And then the name of the firm is given, followed by—

This is what is in effect in terms of this Bill a trade coupon. If a person takes this coupon to the particular firm and purchases a piano there, that person will receive a discount of R80. This is a benefit; it is in fact a trade coupon in terms of the definition of this Act. I believe that it is not the intention of the hon. the Minister to deal with this sort of advertisement. I do not believe that this sort of advertisement is covered by the exceptions which are provided for in section 11. When one goes further and looks at the change of the definition of the word “sell”, which now includes “to advertise”, this in fact becomes an offence because it is an advertisement which is construed in terms of the Act as a sale. I think the hon. the Minister has got the message here, but I want to refer to another advertisement, namely one which appeared in Die Burger from a firm which was selling goods made from sheepskin. At the bottom of the advertisement it is stated—

This does not bear a relationship to the price; it is not a discount or anything of that sort. This is in effect a trade coupon. The last point that I want to mention again deals with an advertisement. It is one which appeared in The Natal Mercury and states the following—

Here again it is a competition for a benefit which this Act could preclude. The point that I want to make is that these are practices which have grown up. I do not believe that there is any evil in these practices. There are other practices where there is evil and if the hon. the Minister will use this Act to stamp out those evils, he will have the full support of us on this side of the House. We wish him and his department well in the execution of those duties. That is why I ask him please to use those powers with circumspection.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few words in general regarding what has been said by members here this morning particularly, and what has been said outside this hon. House. The hon. member for Newcastle said that the Opposition had tried to protect only the distributor and the trader and were not interested in the consumer at all. He also spoke about the ingenuity of traders who will find some way of circumventing the provisions of this legislation. I do not believe that those comments were in the best interest of consumers and I do not believe that they were in the best interest of commerce and trade in this country as a whole. I believe that it is important that there should be confidence between the buying public and the distributive trade. If we do not have that confidence, we cannot have an efficient business which will work to the best interest of all the people. In addition to these statements, I refer particularly to statements made by certain supermarkets and discount house bosses, comments and statements which have been made with the express object of obtaining for themselves a benefit and obtaining for themselves free and cheap advertising. They are statements which they have made with the object of creating the impression with the public that they were the only honest traders in the whole world and that any of their competitors were in fact dishonest.

I believe that this sort of publicity only exacerbates public feelings, especially at this time when the public are faced with ever-increasing costs. This sort of statement is to the detriment of consumer relations. The distributive trade in this country is, I believe, the most competitive single aspect of business in the whole country. Each trader relies on the confidence of the public whom he serves. Over the years they have worked on this and I want to put it to the hon. the Minister that for all that we need a Bill like this, for all that we need this sort of legislative provision, the best way of ascertaining that the public will get a square deal is to leave it to the trade, to leave it to business, because the best way is competition. Malpractices cannot develop where there is adequate competition, because the honest trader with an honest price will draw the business every time.

My last words to the hon. the Minister in wishing him and his department well in the execution of this Bill is to say to them, use the honest trader rather than use the sledgehammer.

Mr. Speaker, as we have now come to the end of this debate, I should like to address a few words of thanks to the hon. members who contributed to this debate this morning and this afternoon for their support of the principle of this legislation. At the same time I should also like to thank most heartily those particular members who accentuated and highlighted the facets of the evil that we are trying to combat for their information in this specific connection. I intend to try to reply to the details mentioned by hon. members but before I do so, I want to say at the outset that the legislation we are dealing with at the moment is, firstly, one of many statutory measures which are being placed on the Statute Book to protect the consumer against exploitation. I think that hon. members are aware of the fact—and they emphasized it in their speeches—that during this period of rising inflation, there is increasing pressure and the focus is on rising prices. The belief is also very often generated that it is the function of the State under these specific circumstances to use the instruments which it has at its disposal to protect consumers against exploitation by those undesirable trade practices. In this specific connection we must not lose sight of the fact that the producer and the dealer depend upon the support of the consumer for their livelihood. Just as little must we forget that it is the responsibility of the producer and the dealer to comply with the normal requirements of the consumer at the lowest possible and competitive prices. It is generally true, and specifically now, that there is a clash of interests between the producer, manufacturer and the consumer. In such circumstances the authorities are expected to interfere, to act as arbiter and to pass judgment in regard to the interests of the various groups.

In this connection I want to emphasize one facet because it was not emphasized this morning. I refer to the point that the rights of the consumers do not simply lie in the fact that they must be protected from exploitation. They also lie in the fact that there has to be a proper distribution system on a regular and continual basis to bring the goods, commodities and services which the consumer requires, within his reach at reasonable prices. One important aspect has become very clear from this debate and that is that all members of this House, all the parties represented here, have accepted one important principle and that is that it is the duty and responsibility of the State to intervene when the shortcomings in our economic system are such that they are harmful to the national or general interest. I hope you will permit me, Sir, to put my attitude and that of the Government in this connection for what I hope will be the last time this session.

Persons and organizations in the private sector and also in commerce and industry, as well as certain news media, have recently repeatedly attacked alleged increasing and unfair State interference in the economy of our country. The Government in general and I as the responsible Minister have been accused in the first place by the participants in this campaign of sacrificing the prosperity of the community in general and the progress of our economic system on the altar of creeping socialism. At the same time it is stated by those persons participating in this campaign that the system of private enterprise to which I and the Government are bound, must be given the chance to carry out its recognized functions in our national economy, viz., to promote the profit motive in a way which will advance the private entrepreneur and his financial aims and benefit, apart from the effect which this may have on the general interest and the rest of the community. Those people who hold this view contend further that the lasting development of the economy of our country can take place to the benefit of all the groups in our community in only one way, that is to say, by giving unlimited freedom to the private sector.

These bodies also contend that the Government’s various forms of interference by way of legislation and regulations which hamper the activities of the private sector, as well as its direct participation in the rendering of necessary services to the public and the delivery of necessary materials to specific consumer groups, have systematically to be broken down. I feel that the time has come when the Government, and not only the Government but all of us, must adopt a very clear attitude in this regard and in respect of these accusations. It is only possible to succeed in combating properly the evils that we are seeking to combat, as manifested in the shortcomings in our economic system, in an atmosphere of collective responsibility and by the adoption of a joint point of view. I want to make it very clear that the Government has stated repeatedly that it has made its aim in the first place to protect the present economic system in our country which is fashioned on the last of the free operation of the marketing mechanism and the acknowledged functions of the system of private enterprise, against erosion by unfair State interference on the one hand and State restrictions on the other. If there are people in the private sector of our country who still really believe that the system of private enterprise is breaking down because of the so-called creeping socialism for which the Government is ostensibly co-responsible, those who regard themselves as the protagonists of the system of political democracy should after all try to draw an objective distinction between the position here and what is happening elsewhere. If they were to make an objective study of this matter, they would be convinced that conditions throughout the Western world are at present changing so swiftly and in such a radical manner, as all foreign experts have already admitted, that before long South Africa will be the only remaining bastion of the Western economic system. It may perhaps be important for these people to realize that in the interests of the promotion of our economic system which rests upon the principle of free enterprise, we have a duty to strip the system of the shortcomings which promote exploitation.

If we do not succeed in doing so and if the private sector is not prepared to discipline itself to a very large extent, they themselves will be the hangman of the system which we want to keep alive in our country. It is significant that some of these persons who are continually lashing out at unfair State interference in our economy and who at the same time defend the doctrine of unlimited freedom for the private entrepreneur, are in fact also members of those groups and organizations in the country which often in the past made it apparent by their actions that, when the opportunity presented itself, they were only too pleased to use that so-called freedom unrestrictedly, in the first place, to their own advantage and, in the second place, to exploit it for specific political gain. There are also persons and financial writers in our country who under the cloak of high-priestly financial objectivity, write about our system with completely different motives. They want to disguise their political motive because in fact they envisage a different political dispensation in South Africa by means of a change in our economic system. Although as I have repeatedly stated the Government has bound itself to maintaining our system, in view of its over-all responsibility in respect of the Government of the country it has a certain broad duty it may not ignore. On account of the country’s involved population structure and our socio-economic political circumstances, this has resulted in the fact on the one hand that the Government has in the past had to make policy decisions which it still has to do and—let me emphasize this fact—intends to continue doing in the future, which from a purely financial and economic point of view can rightly be considered to be an interference with the freedom of the private enterprise system. The Government and I have to take these decisions because of our over-all responsibility on the basis of considerations which are in the broad national interest, and it is my intention to continue to make these decisions to an increasing extent.

I also intend taking steps particularly with a view to maintaining peace and order in our community. These are things which I regard as being indispensable, also because of the fact that our population structure is more defenceless against the shortcomings of this system than is the case in other countries with homogeneous population structures. I believe furthermore that hon. members will understand that the Government is compelled to ensure the provision of certain necessary services to the community as a whole and that it is also the duty of the Government to ensure that the supply of certain important material to particular consumer groups is undertaken and maintained.

One of the reasons for this is that no private entrepreneur—perhaps on account of financial or other problems—is prepared or able to render those services. A further reason for this can be because the Government is of the opinion that in the broad national interest those services ought to be made available to the community on a non-profit basis. It can—this I concede—justifiably be contended that the action of the Government in regard to the methods to which I have referred, as well as the activities of the Government in the aforementioned spheres in our economy, place unfair curbs upon the freedom of the private enterprise system. The State may even be engaged in bringing about the downfall of those particular enterprise systems. However, Mr. Speaker, is that true? I believe that precisely the opposite is true. I also believe that all hon. members accept the fact that it is the responsibility of the Government to interfere and, in fact, for the reason and in the way that I have mentioned.

Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to burden you with details in regard to all the shortcomings. I want to confine myself to the debate itself and I want to point out that all the hon. members—although they may differ from us in regard to certain details of the Bill—have adopted one important point of view in this House, a point of view by means of which they have given their approval to one of the standpoints to which I referred. What that standpoint amounts to is that the State has a duty and a responsibility to intervene in certain circumstances in the national economy. How ever, when the State does intervene in the way for which provision is being made in this Bill, or in any other way, it is accused from various quarters of showing increasing hostility towards the private enterprise system. When it so happens that I refer in speeches to the duty and the responsibility of the State in this specific respect, there are without fail some presidents or chairmen or organized commerce or industry who adopt a critical point of view in respect of the so-called danger of Government interference. Some of them even brand requests made by the Government as interference and even as a real danger.

When times become difficult it has become the custom to ask the State for assistance and, when the success of the assistance by the State becomes obvious, to intimate that the State should stop interfering in the economic system of the country.

There are other important matters that were raised during this debate, matters on which I should like to comment. Certain representatives of the private sector object when the Government interferes with the freedom of the capitalistic system and with the policy of commerce of the profit motive. Hon. members mentioned examples of the exploitation that takes place. However, I want to point out that their examples are not representative of commerce, industry and the private sector in its entirety. We as practical people know, however, that no person, no system and no organization is judged according to its 90% success but is in fact condemned on account of its 10% failure. That is why it is important, apart from what can be done by the State to protect the system against the weakness of the people in whose hands it is, for us to ensure that the private sector in its turn shoulders its responsibilities through the medium of codes of conduct and practice because of which it should be unnecessary for the Government to interfere. However, until this happens it is the duty of the State to do what I recommend.

Please allow me, Sir, to mention to you one example of a complaint that I received from a consumer. This particular consumer complained about a certain commodity. I had to trace the source of that commodity right down to the manufacturer. There I ascertained that the manufacturer had to manufacture that article—after all the bargaining of the large purchasing bodies had been concluded—for R4,25. Please note that he also had to put the labels on the articles. The selling price of that specific article in the shop was R9,85. After he had delivered the first consignment, the dealer asked him to remove the labels and to raise the selling price to R10,85 because, as the dealer put it, the article sold too quickly. Further investigation brought to light the fact that the same product was marked “not for sale in South Africa” and was offered for sale at R19 each. I simply mention this individual example. There are still many other examples to prove how the bargaining power of large distribution institutions is emphasized in respect of industry, an emphasis by means of which it is possible to as it were blackmail industry.

This is the way in which action is taken against the buyer and the prospective buyer. This results in my having to instruct my Department to investigate the particular industry and trade and this probably as a result of the actions of only one or two individuals who need not account to themselves for the advantages or the disadvantages which their actions hold for the community. This also means that I and my Department will have very seriously to consider whether the time has not come for the invoiced purchase price to be indicated on the article.

Mr. Speaker, having said this, I also want to issue a warning against the over-emphasizing of the interests of specific groups as against those of other groups. I also want to emphasize the fact that it is important for us to adopt a definite standpoint in regard to matters of this nature. I have undertaken to consult the private sector when considering legislation or decisions of administrative policy affecting them. It is my intention to do so but only on the understanding that the private sector will respect the confidential position in this respect. If we cannot do otherwise, we will probably have to enable people to take decisions on the strength of information supplied to them through the medium of private negotiation. It will of course be to their own disadvantage if such negotiations are without result.

†The hon. member for Constantia has referred to clause 9 of this Bill and indicated that it could be improved. I have already said that I would have a serious look at the matters which he has raised in this regard. I personally contend that the greatest weight of the Bill we are discussing at the moment lies not so much in its penal clauses, but much more in the preventative action it may lead to.

*I want to emphasize the fact that my approach in this specific connection is that we must apply preventive rather than punitive measures.

†For this very reason the creation of an advisory committee representative of all the interests which are involved is, I believe, the crux of this Bill. I would like at this stage to give the undertaking that in the constitution of this committee and the appointment of members to this board, I shall make every effort and every endeavour to ensure that people of high standing in the private sector and in the Government sector are appointed.

Sir, naturally this Bill is not perfect. It is the product of human endeavour and obviously it cannot be perfect. But I have repeatedly said that when we implement Bills which have been accepted by this House and we find that there are omissions, we would naturally come back to fill those omissions, and even if we have to amend the legislation, contend that amending legislation is in fact not a sign of weakness, but a sign of strength. Therefore I have no hesitation whatsoever in coming back to amend Bills wherever that is required.

The hon. member for Yeoville quite correctly said that the important facets or aspects of this Bill relate to advertising and to the prohibition of advertisements in terms of clause 9. He has made the point that we have a duty to protect consumers. Let me say that we accept the responsibility of being the watchdogs of the rights of consumers, but I would suggest that short-term rights of consumers and the protection of those rights are sometimes incompatible with the long-term rights and demands of consumers. Let me say this quite openly. As there are abuses in the private sector, we would take measures to try to eradicate those abuses, but I want at the same time to warn against a general impression that it is possible for the State, in all aspects and in all circumstances, to protect consumers. It is not possible. I want to warn against another wrong impression, i.e. that price control as an instrument can avoid increase in prices. This is a fallacy. Let me say it in all fairness that sometimes that can be a subsidy on unproductivity because it is cost recovering. But, having said all this, I would also say that I appreciate the co-operation of all members in this particular regard for having assisted me in one aspect alone and that is to strengthen us in our attitude that we not only have the right, but also the responsibility to interfere when there are abuses in our economic situation.

Finally, the hon. member for Springs quite correctly referred to the activities of the S.A. Consumer Council, about the codes that are involved. It is my intention further to use the S.A. Consumer Council, because I believe that the constitution of that council and the way they carry out their functions can only be conducive to proper trade-consumer relationships. I want to stress this, that there should not be an over-accentuation of the rights of the one or the other. We should rather strive in this particular regard to build up relationships of trust between consumers and traders and producers. I believe all of us have a particular responsibility in this regard, because more often than not the temptation is very great to over-accentuate one aspect and to underaccentuate the other.

*In conclusion, in the application of this Act, we shall consequently try to reconcile the interests of people. I believe that the practical effect of this legislation will be not only to protect consumers but also to promote an understanding and a sound relationship between dealer, producer and consumer. Its value will lie in the fact that its preventive effects will be greater than its punitive effects.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, this legislation is one of those pieces of legislation which the late Mr. Sauer would have described as “an Act which has nothing in it”. Purely administrative measures are being adopted here, with very little in them which is contentious, and I take it that I shall have the co-operation of this entire House in piloting this legislation through Parliament.

By way of introduction I should like to refer to announcements which I have already made in this House from time to time pertaining to an investigation made into specific aspects affecting the Public Service, also by way of comparison with the public services of other Western countries, and in particularly pertaining to the structure and functioning of the central staff institutions. The object of the investigation was, inter alia, to make it possible to determine whether the central staff institution in the South African Public Service is still functioning effectively under present circumstances or whether any adjustments ought to be made.

As I mentioned last year when the Public Service Commission Vote was being dealt with, the report that had been brought out in consequence of the investigation was still under consideration at that stage. The Cabinet has since decided, having regard to all the information at its disposal and after thorough consultation with the heads of departments, with the Public Service Joint Advisory Council and with the Public Service Association, that the Public Service Commission shall continue to exist in its present form as basis of the central staff institution for the South African Public Service.

In addition to aspects affecting the central staff institution as such, other important aspects pertaining to Public Service and staff administration emerged from the investigation, some of which may profitably be investigated for possible application in our Public Service. One example of this is the improvement of the existing classification system as a basis for, inter alia, an effective posts structure which will comply with present and future requirements. Considerable progress has already been made with this project. However, each of these particular matters is being followed up separately, and adjustments and legislation which may result from this, will receive attention as soon as some of the investigations are completed.

The Bill which is being dealt with makes provision for adjustments with regard to the Public Service Commission as a body while other amendments of the Act which have become necessary in the meantime, are also being proposed.

I now want to say a few words about the provision of the various clauses.

Clauses 1(a), (b) and (d), 2, 6(b) and 8:

These amendments stem from the provisions of the revised Exchequer and Audit Act, 1975,which came into operation on 1 April 1976.Firstly, they entail merely the amendment of certain definitions, and other terms, in order to effect an adjustment to those set out in that Act. Secondly, it is necessary to amplify the definition of “head of department”, “head of a department” or “head of the department” to include the Auditor-General as well—who prior to 1 April 1976 was called the Controller and Auditor-General—as head of the Department of the (Controller and) Auditor-General, referred to in the first schedule to the Public Service Act. The Auditor-General holds a statutory post, but in terms of the provisions of section 41(3) of the Exchequer and Audit Act, 1975, he is deemed to be the head of the said department. Clause 1(a) covers this aspect. Furthermore, it is necessary to include the Auditor-General among the persons who are not members of the Public Service, for example Ministers, members of the Public Service Commission, etc. who also occupy statutory positions. The amendment of section 3(6) of the Act, which is dealt with in clause 2, makes provision for this.

Clauses 1(c) and 10:

During the course of the investigation to which I referred earlier, it was found in other countries that the central staff institutions play an important role and that recognition is accorded to that role in that, inter alia, the institutions occupy a position in the government structure which is in close proximity to the seat of authority. With one exception all the institutions which were studied abroad, occupy a position on the highest level of the executive, namely under the Prime Minister, President or Governor, as the case may be.

In this country the role of the Public Service Commission as a central staff institution is equally important, particularly owing to our peculiar structure and the chronic manpower shortage. Specific problems arise in the allocation of the available staff and means and the maintenance of the necessary equilibrium between the various departments, having regard to the particular needs of each, but always in the betst interests of the Public Service as a whole and the best interests of our country. The Public Service Commission also has an important role to play in respect of co-ordination in general. The question of control and/or authority is specifically relevant to these various aspects, and the Public Service Commission is by its nature a controlling body as well. However, control cannot be exercised without authority and after the investigation it was concluded that the Public Service Commission as body should be vested with the necessary authority and status to enable it to carry out its statutory functions properly. Arising out of this the Government accepted as policy, inter alia, that in future appointments to the Public Service Commission shall preferably be made from among heads of departments.

In view of these circumstances provision is therefore being made for the Public Service Commission to be brought under the Prime Minister, instead of under the Minister of the Interior. Provision for this is being made in clause 1(c).

In practice such an arrangement will undoubtedly place a considerable additional burden on the Prime Minister, and it will be necessary to impose upon and entrust to another Minister certain duties or functions which are being imposed upon or entrusted to the Prime Minister as a result of this readjustment. However, section 10(4) of the Interpretation Act, 1957, already makes provision for the assignment of such duties or functions to another Minister by the State President. This ought to solve the problem.

Clause 10 contains a consequential amendment in the above-mention context, as well as a consequential amendment arising out of the proposed omission of section 7(7) which will be dealt with presently.

Clauses 3 and 4(a):

Firstly, the reference to section 142 of the “South Africa Act, 1909” is being deleted since said section has in the meantime been repealed—clause 3(a).

Secondly, provision is being made for the Public Service Commission, from a date determined by the State President by proclamation, to be able to consist of three instead of a minimum of three and a maximum of five members. After suitable provision had been made in the Public Service Act during 1968 the commission delegated several of its powers, inter alia, to officers in departments. These delegations have since that time been considerably expanded, and at present departments have powers enabling them to dispose rapidly of a variety and a considerable volume of staff matters themselves. It also affords them a prominent part in the staff management function. The principle of greater managerial independence for departments has already been accepted, and further powers may be assigned to them as proper norms are determined and comprehensive directions established. The delegation of powers to departments has resulted in the volume of matters flowing to the commission diminishing considerably, and this volume will continue to diminish even further. Consequently it is thought, after having in practice functioned in this way for a few years, that a commission consisting of three members will be able to cope with its prescribed functions effectively. Clause 3(b) proposes the necessary amendment in this regard. An amendment to amend this clause will be moved during the Committee Stage in order to limit the commission to three members and to eliminate the possibility of four members being appointed.

Thirdly, it is the position that the office of vice-chairman of the commission was abolished with effect from 1 May 1975 in terms of the Public Service Amendment Act, 1975. The provisions to which reference is made in clause 3(c) and which pertain to this office, are consequently obsolete and may therefore be deleted, while the amendment in this regard contained in clause 3(f) is self-explanatory. Arising out of this it is being provided in clause 3(d) that, during the absence of the chairman—and because there is no longer a vice-chairman—the senior member of the commission may act as chairman. In terms of the existing provision the State President shall designate a member to act in this capacity during the absence of the chairman. However, this procedure is very cumbersome in that the State President has to be burdened with the designation of a chairman every time the chairman is absent—hence the proposed amendment.

Fourthly, the period of office of members of the commission is being dealt with. I am referring to clause 3(e). Before the commencement of the Public Service Amendment Act, 1975, section 4(4) of the Act provided that a member of the commission be appointed for a period of five years and that he could be re-appointed upon expiry of his period of office. The present provisions, in terms of which the duration of a member’s period of office shall be determined by the State President, sought primarily, pending the investigation into the continued existence of the commission, to enable the Government to fill vacancies in the commission for short periods of time. Now that the Government has decided on the continued existence of the commission, the necessity for the existing provision falls away. It is not conducive to stability and continuity that members of the commission should be changed too frequently while appointment for a relatively short time creates uncertainty in those who are appointed. It is consequently being deemed necessary to reenact the previous provision, viz. that of periods of office for five years. Adequate provision exists for dismissing a member or discharging him from his office if such a step should become necessary.

Fifthly, it is necessary to improve the wording of section 4(6) of the Act—clause 3(g). The expression “cost of living” allowance is obsolete as such allowances have not been payable since as long ago as 1958. The words “re-imbursive and other allowances” and “conditions of service”, respectively, are either adequate or more comprehensive. Although members of the commission enjoy the same benefits as heads of departments, the Act is not specific enough in this regard and consequently it is necessary to substitute the words “heads of departments” for the word “officers”. No new principle is involved here.

Furthermore, a consequential amendment of section 5(1) is necessary in regard to the minimum number of members of the commission who may make recommendations or give directions. The deletion of the portion of the said section as indicated in clause 4(a) of the Bill, follows on the amendment with regard to the number if members of the commission which was dealt with earlier. However, it is also necessary, arising out of the proposed amendment in respect of clause 3(b) in this regard, which has already been dealt with, to propose an amendment in respect of the clause under discussion—clause 4(a)—to the effect that the words “of whom one is the chairman or acting chairman of the commission” be deleted. This provision is now entirely unnecessary.

Clause 4(b):

In terms of the regulations referred to in section 5(3), the commission has the power at the time to make recommendations in respect of the annuities payable to members of the Services upon discharge owing to misconduct. This power has already been removed in terms of the Government Service Pension Act, 1973, and the reference to the regulations concerned may therefore be deleted.

Clause 5:

The commission has the power to make recommendations or give directions on, inter alia, the matters referred to in the relevant section—6(1)(b). According to legal opinions the commission does not, however, have powers of recommendation or direction in respect of officers or employees who have already left the service. This restriction has produced considerable problems in the past because persons, owing to delays in the submission of cases to the commission, sometimes had to forfeit benefits for which they qualified prior to termination of service because it was not possible to obtain the commission’s recommendation or direction in time before their retirement from service. The proposed amendment seeks to eliminate this unsatisfactory state of affairs. However, to prevent persons who have been retired from the service for several years being able to lay claim to certain privileges or treatment, a time limit is being added in respect of cases of the present nature, viz. a period of two years.

Clause 6(a):

Although section 7(1) of the Act provides that a recommendation of the Commission relating to a particular person shall be carried out subject to certain directions, there is no such provision in respect of recommendations relating to matters of a general nature such as organizational changes, the creation, grading and conversion of posts, the determination of conditions of service, etc. The result was that the commission’s recommendations in respect of said matters could be ignored. This situation is not conducive to sound administration, while it is a contributory factor in detracting from the status and authority of the commission and hampers the carrying out by the commission of its functions and responsibilities entrusted to it by law. Owing to its expertise and its position as an umbrella body, the commission is best equipped to decide on matters of this nature, always taking into consideration, however, the policy, the particular needs of departments, the interests of the Public Service as a whole and the availability of funds. Consequently it is considered necessary for the Act to be suitably amended to provide that, as in the case of recommendations in respect of particular persons, the recommendations of the commission relating to other matters to which the Act has empowered it to make recommendations on shall also be carried out if approval is granted for the expenditure involved, in the cases to which this is applicable. As in the case of the former kinds of recommendations, however, the door is left open to negotiations if such a recommendation should be unacceptable to a department or should create specific problems for that department and a period of six calendar months is being allowed for this purpose.

Clause 6(c):

This clause contains a consequential amendment arising out of the preceding amendment. However, it has become apparent since the drafting of the Bill that since subsection 4(4) is not applicable to the newly-inserted section 1A, the contemplated amendment of said subsection falls away, and this clause may therefore be deleted. An amendment in this connection will be moved during the Committee Stage.

Clause 6(d):

The portion which is being inserted in section 7(5) of the English text was originally omitted owing to an oversight when the Public Service Act was drafted, and is here being rectified.

Clause 6(e):

Section 7(7), the deletion of which is now being proposed, provides that if the State President is unable or unwilling to adopt, or reject or varies, a recommendation of the commission made in accordance with law, the commission shall report the matter fully to Parliament either by means of a special report or in its annual report. The rejection by the State President of recommendations of the commission usually has considerable news value and is frequently seized upon to cast suspicion on the integrity of the Government. In the process serious harm is done to the image of the Public Service while the person who is involved in the matter, and who had no part in it, becomes the focus of publicity which presents him in a poor light and places him in an embarrassing position. Consequently it is considered essential that the relevant subsection be deleted. The commission will still be able to report cases of such a nature in its annual report, but this may be done according to discretion. The existing provision, on the other hand, is imperative, and is considered undesirable.

Clause 7(a):

This amendment seeks to make the provisions of section 14(6), which deal with the discharge of officers, applicable to officers of the Bureau for State Security as well. The latter officers are at present excluded from these provisions. The amendment is being effected at the request of the Bureau with the concurrence of the Minister responsible for the Bureau, viz. the Prime Minister.

Clause 7(b):

In terms of the provisions of section 14(7) of the Act a female officer who marries shall be deemed to have retired voluntarily from the Public Service unless the commission recommends and the Minister or Administrator approves that she be retained in service. Owing to the manpower situation it has in recent years become essential to retain in service after their marriages, in a permanent capacity, an increasing number of female staff members. Such staff members usually have experience which is of great value to the Public Service. The provisions concerned are, under the present circumstances, obsolete and may therefore be deleted to good effect. It is realized that it will be necessary to guard against married women keeping unemployed unmarried women from appointments. An eye will, however, be kept on the position, and appropriate steps will be taken to prevent such a situation. I accept the hon. member for Houghton in particular will welcome this clause.

Clause 9:

In terms of this clause the existing provisions of section 24 of the Act are being revised in their entirety. Firstly, the requirement that the performance by an officer of remunerative work outside his employment in the Public Service is subject to the recommendations of the commission is also being extended to employees. The commission has already delegated its power to make recommendations in respect of this matter to departments. Complete directions have been issued in terms of which applications by officers and employees to perform remunerative work outside their employment in the Public Service have to be considered by departments, and these will ensure uniform action. Secondly, the application of the existing section 24(3) and 24(4) produces considerable problems in practice because the provisions of these sections are to a great extent in conformity with one another. Thirdly, it is necessary to amend the existing procedure with regard to the recovery of moneys or allowances received by an officer or employee in regard to the performance of his employment, but in some other manner than in accordance with the provisions of the Act or a recommendation of the commission.

In terms of the existing provisions the duty of recovering such moneys or allowances have been conferred upon the Treasury. However, the Public Service regulations provide that a head of department is responsible for the effective management and administration of his department and therefore he should also be responsible for the recovery of such moneys and allowances. I think this is a sound principle. There is no good reason why judicial or other steps in this regard should in fact be taken by the Treasury. The Act is definite on the point that steps shall be taken. It allows a discretion only in respect of what steps shall be taken. However, when the officer against whom steps have to be taken is a head of department, the duty of recovery may still in fact be entrusted to the Treasury—as the amendment consequently proposes. As the statutory provision reads at present, it is in any event in practice, the head of department, who causes the matter to be investigated and who takes action up to the point at which judicial proceedings have to be instituted. The Treasury is simply called upon then to act as principal to the State Attorney. From the nature of the case the head of department concerned is in a better position to carry out this duty as well. If such moneys were recovered in a manner other than by judicial steps, the Treasury will request the head of department, as accounting officer, to do so in any case. Furthermore, it will be observed that the statutory provisions are being expanded to include, besides moneys and allowances, rewards of any kind as well, and to effect general improvements to the measures.

Clause 10:

This clause contains the short title and provisions relating to the date of commencement.

Mr. Speaker, I was somewhat surprised that the hon. the Minister should have commenced by saying that this Bill had really nothing of any importance in it. I would have thought that even the mere fact that the obligation of women to have their employment terminated on marriage was being removed would have been sufficient cause to say that this Bill contained very important provisions.

I did not say there was nothing of importance. I said there was nothing contentious.

If he says there is nothing contentious, then I have a surprise for him. In the main I agree that it is not contentious, but in one particular aspect I shall have something to say a little later. If the hon. the Minister means there is nothing of real importance in general in this Bill, I must disagree with him again because we have been waiting for many years for the outcome of the various investigations which have been done in detail by the Public Service Commission as to its status and functioning in the best interests of the Public Service in South Africa. We accept that a considerable amount of the content of this Bill is consequential on other legislation which has been approved by the House, regarding changes in titles, words and nomenclature. However, at the same time there are provisions which amend the existing Act for other reasons which have been outlined by the hon. the Minister this afternoon. I want to refer briefly to some of these amendments and to indicate the views which we on this side of the House hold in regard to certain of these amendments.

We agree with and accept the placing of the commission under the control of the hon. the Prime Minister, following upon what has been adopted in other countries of the world, as the hon. the Minister has indicated. This is a wise step that has been taken. In passing, we also agree with the consequent placing of the members, the staff and the officials of the Bureau for State Security within the Public Service. I am sure they will benefit in so far as their conditions of employment are concerned. This is a regularizing step of which we approve. We also accept and welcome the amendments which deal with the position of the Auditor-General. He holds a special statutory appointment. He is not a member of the permanent establishment of the Public Service. For administrative purposes it is correct that he should be included, with the status of a head of a department, to deal with his own departmental officials in the area over which he holds jurisdiction. Equally important is the fact that because of his authority and status, and the obligations he has to comply with in terms of his statutory appointment, he should be excluded personally from the provisions of the Public Service Act, as is now being done in terms of the Bill before us. He can therefore have the same status of independence from Public Service control which is afforded to Ministers, administrators and judges at the present time. We also support the amendments relating to the composition and procedures of the Public Service Commission. I also accept, on the basis of the deep-probing research that has been done by the commission over a period of time, the fixed term of appointment of five years, the reduction in the number of members—this, of course, implies more streamlined control—and the imposition of time limits as far as the finalization of recommendations is concerned. This, I believe, is necessary. There are occasions when the commission might recommend to a head of a department that certain steps should be taken within that department with regard to reorganization, and one knows that if the head of the department does not want to carry out those recommendations he can make counter-recommendations interminably, leading over a long period of time to the frustration of the reorganization recommended by the commission. One appreciates that the introduction of a time limit will put an end to such procedures.

The next point I want to refer to relates to the provisions of clause 5. As the hon. the Minister has pointed out, these provisions will avoid the injustices which have occurred as far as former officers of the Public Service are concerned. Members who have retired, because they are ex-members of the Service, have hitherto not been able to receive benefits subsequently approved and applying to the period when they were in the employ of the State. I also believe that that is a step in the right direction.

Unfortunately the acceptability of this Bill is diminished by the provisions of clause 10. This clause removes the need for the commission’s report to contain particulars of the recommendations of the commission not accepted by the Cabinet. The hon. the Minister said that publication would lead to argument and publicity and would give forage to the news media, but I cannot accept the hon. the Minister’s reasons to justify the removal of this particular provision that exists in the Act at the present moment. The commission has a dual function. It is not merely there as a tool of the Government. It is also there as a watchdog over the interests of public servants. It has this dual approach, and if the commission makes a recommendation to the State President, which is of course the Cabinet, it makes that recommendation with due regard to its dual responsibilities towards the interests of the Government and the interests of the public servants themselves. It is therefore absolutely essential, where there is a difference of opinion between the Cabinet and the commission, that the public servants should be made aware of that difference of opinion because public servants, after all, are at every congress of the Public Servants’ Association and they make recommendations on various matters concerning their terms and conditions of employment, age of retirement, etc. Those recommendations are invariably referred to the Public Service Commission in so far as they deal with employment conditions. The public servants are therefore certainly entitled to know what the opinion of the Public Service Commission is, but if we pass the amendment to this Bill, public servants will only become aware of the recommendations of the commission which have the blessing of the Cabinet.

I believe that is wrong. It can lead, on the part of public servants, to a loss of confidence in the commission if they believe that certain matters have not been attended to, when in fact the commission has made reports to the Cabinet which the Cabinet has rejected. The public servants would have no knowledge of these rejections. I also realize that if the commission’s report publishes only those recommendations accepted by the Cabinet, it will seem as if the Cabinet is composed of reasonable gentlemen who never refuse anything, which would, of course, also be misleading to public servants. In the Committee Stage we shall definitely deal with this matter in more detail, but I want the hon. the Minister to give this matter some thought because of the dual responsibility, as I see it, of the Public Service Commission.

I now also want to deal with two amendments that I believe are of some importance. I firstly want to deal with the deletion of the requirement that married women should automatically retire. This amendment is welcomed, in particular because it will now enable women to follow a career in the Public Service. One must recognize, of course, that there will be those breaks in service which are necessary as a result of those functions which are exclusive to women and which they may wish to undertake after marriage while they are still in the Service. Family-building, I am glad to say, is a temporary matter which is catered for in the Service and which need not necessarily mean the termination of a career in the Service. One does, however, regret that the hon. the Minister is introducing this measure at a time when his colleague, the hon. the Minister of Finance, announced that he is not going to allow women that other benefit of separate tax assessment. That rather takes the gilt off the ginger-bread as far as the hon. the Minister’s proposals this afternoon are concerned. I believe that South Africa has the distinction of being almost the last country in the Western world with this provision. I think there are only two other countries that still have the provision of compulsory resignation or termination of employment upon marriage.

As I have said, I think this Bill gives effect to a long period of research by the Public Service Commission, and I hope it will lead to a real increase in productivity in the Public Service. I believe that these provisions will, in fact, lead to increased productivity as a contribution to the anti-inflation campaign, since the Government is a signatory to the anti-inflation manifesto. There is a big job to be done, but unfortunately the Public Service seems to have been having some problems in this regard. I think we all agree in this House that heads of departments and members in the senior echelons of the Public Service, persons who render a very high standard of service to the State, are unfortunately very heavily overloaded with responsibility.

The recently tabled report of the commission has drawn attention to the alarmingly large subordinate staff turnover in the Public Service. I refer particularly to the reported turnover of more than 50% in the Public Service. For example, only 21 % of the posts of the Department of Justice and 51 % of the posts in the technical division are suitably filled. New staff and frequent changes in persons filling certain posts, I am sure the hon. the Minister will agree, must affect productivity. In fact, in its report the commission states that this turnover results in a large proportion of the staff lacking in experience and background. It results in the necessity for what one might term “in-service training” in the Civil Service to achieve the desired productivity. Even in that respect, as the commission has pointed out, the position is aggrevated by a 33% shortage of work study officers. Perhaps this is not the time for me to go into any further details on this matter. It can be discussed in depth under the Vote. I shall certainly make use of a later opportunity to do so. At the moment I merely wish to draw attention to the situation which has been reported upon, the effect of that situation on productivity and the need for the commission to be re-structured and to give priority attention to this problem which is now being provided for in this Bill.

I am also pleased to note that another matter which is receiving the attention of the commission is the employment of non-Whites in the Public Service. The number of non-Whites that are employed has increased considerably, as recent figures indicate. The number of non-Whites in the Public Service has increased from 4 154 in 1973 to 11 978 in 1975, an increase of 7 824 against an increase of only 1 671 in the number of Whites that are employed. Yet, to my mind, the use of non-Whites has not sufficiently permeated the service to meet the shortages in what are termed the technical and professional divisions of the Public Service. The position in respect of White education posts, for instance, has remained static while the number of non-Whites in this field has increased enormously. In a matter of five years the number has increased from 25 363 to 35 732, an increase of 10 369 non-White teaching posts in the Public Service. One would welcome a similar development in the professional and technical divisions. I was pleased to note that the Minister was at least moving in that direction, as he indicated in the statement he issued recently in regard to a standardized scale of pay. The idea is to offer these people a suitable notch on the scale in order to attract them into the service. It also creates the machinery for the equalization of pay in respect of people who are doing equal jobs, carrying equal responsibility and providing equal services. Whether the standardized salary scale is going to prove effective or not, will be seen in the future. In any case, as I have indicated, we shall support the Bill at the Second Reading and shall deal more fully with the one aspect I mentioned in the Committee Stage.

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the remarks which the hon. member for Green Point made this afternoon. We agree on one thing, and this is that the provisions of this Bill which is before the House, aim at advancing the best interests of the service and can only result in our getting a greater degree of streamlining, effectiveness and security in respect of the commission and its functions in general. There are one or two aspects in respect of which the hon. member differs from us, and I shall deal with those aspects during the course of my speech. I actually want to refer to two clauses in this Bill. The first is clause 5, which provides that the commission may make recommendations and issue instructions in order to rectify matters after persons have already retired from the service. I think that this clause will be welcomed everywhere in the service, because in this way an official will receive the benefit due to him. The fact that the limitation of a period of two years after retirement is imposed on this, also ensures a greater degree of security in this connection. It is a fair and just provision and I think that it will be welcomed everywhere.

I also want to refer to clause 6(a). This deals with recommendations of the commission which do not pertain to a particular person, but which envisage matters affecting the organization of the service such as the creation, varying and grading of positions. It provides for a compulsory application of this within a period of six months. This ensures that there is the opportunity to negotiate within the service. The existing situation could result in large-scale wasting of the State’s money if it were not changed. As the saying goes: “Unknown, unloved”. It sometimes happens that the commission makes recommendations with regard to changing of the organization, etc., and because it is something unusual, it is not readily accepted. Therefore the opportunity is hereby being created to finalize matters, and as I said, to negotiate and therefore prevent matters being left suspended in mid-air. The commission can inspect a department not only to ascertain whether its recommendation has been carried out, but also to see how the recommendation works in practice and what its results are. As the hon. the Minister correctly said in his speech, in the absence of a provision like this the commission’s authority and status may be seriously threatened. Good administration and effectiveness, too, are handicapped by this. The expertise of the commission and its position as an umbrella body, which make it particularly well-equipped to decide on such matters, apart from its statutory duty to take decisions in this connection, must therefore be utilized, and are fully utilized in this way. If this were not the case, it would result in undermining of its status. The commission’s recommendations in this regard must be carried out. This provision can only lead to security and as a result promote greater efficiency in the Public Service.

In conclusion I should like to refer to clause 6(e). The hon. member for Green Point differs from us on that. It concerns the deletion of section 7(7) of the principal Act. Let us look at what section 7(7) says. This subsection reads as follows—

The key words in this subsection are “shall” and “fully”. In terms of this subsection, therefore, the commission is forced to make a full report concerning the two standpoints of the two bodies. This is the point at issue. On the one hand there is the standpoint of the commission, and on the other, the standpoint of the executive. It is obvious, after all, that the Cabinet will differ from the commission from time to time, and may do so in many fields. The Cabinet may have many reasons for choosing another person in preference to the person recommended by the Public Service Commission. Let me mention only three such reasons. Firstly, there may be political reasons. It may happen that a particular Government might come into power which has a particular policy which it wants to carry out through a particular department because it has committed itself to that policy as far as the voters are concerned. It would therefore not benefit the Government to have a person at a head of a department who was not favourably disposed towards that policy. I think that a good example from our history in this connection is the case of the appointment of Dr. Eiselen in approximately 1950 as the Secretary of the former Department of Native Affairs. This is a very good example. A second possible reason is that there may be a change in the presentation of the functions of a specific department. The executive may want a shift of emphasis as to the manner in which the department sees its task and carries it out. Since in such a case the executive will want to prevent specific new ideas, it may want to do so by way of a particular well-equipped person and not by way of a person nominated by the commission.

A third possible reason is the usual case where the Cabinet on the one hand and the Public Service Commission on the other hand differ from one another merely on the merits of the person concerned; in other words, on the particular suitableness or competence of the person concerned to carry out the particular task of the head of the department in that case. Whichever of the three categories we are dealing with, in the final instance it remains a choice between two persons. It means that these two bodies must present their reasons for their own choice, and if one gives one’s reasons for choosing a particular person, this necessarily also includes the negative, among other things—in other words, the reasons why the other person is not acceptable. As soon as one does that, one acts to the detriment of the other man. Then there is a conflict. There will be a conflict in this connection, because as I said, it is basically a choice between two persons. Nothing incorrect happened here; the Cabinet differs from the commission and the commission differs from the Cabinet and no one has acted incorrectly. No one acted illegally. The commission has the right to act—and it did in fact do so—and to nominate a person of its choice according to the provisions of the Act, and the Cabinet has the right to make its choice if it differs from the commission. No one is acting unlawfully. There is nothing sinister in a difference of this kind between the Cabinet on the one hand and the commission on the other. Each of these bodies is acting within its rights. The only point is that they differ. Why, because they differ, must this be broadcast? People only get hurt in the process. That is all that happens. Now we must remember that in a case like this we are dealing with two excellent officials. It cannot be otherwise, because if a man is recommended by the commission for one of the highest positions in the Public Service, he is a competent official. They are therefore two competent and senior people. Both are innocent in this whole affair.

However, one of the two must get the position. This is the important point. If he obtains the position—whoever he may be—he has to live and work together with his department, his officials, his Minister and the public afterwards. What happens in practice under section 7(7) of the Act as it reads at present? We had a good example in the annual report of the Public Service Commission for the year 1972-’73. In that year, in accordance with section 7(7), the commission reported on the appointment of the present departmental head of the Department of Information. I do not want to dig up history again at this point. If one reads that report, one will see that on the one hand the standpoint of the commission is given as to why they recommended Mr. X as departmental head, and on the other hand the standpoint of the Cabinet as to why, in their opinion, the present Secretary of Information should have been appointed. In the process, what this amounted to was that the qualifications and abilities of the one were weighed up against those of the other to the disadvantage of both. Neither of the two came through the process unscathed. I have the details before me but I do not want to go into the details because it is unnecessary. Now I ask whether it is necessary to make public such details about people. The hon. member for Green Point said that the commission had a double aim; it must see to the interests of the officials and the interests of the State. It does so. He adds that the officials want to know what the standpoint and the opinion of the Public Service Commission is. I shall deal with that in a moment. As the hon. the Minister pointed out, the rejection of the recommendations of the commission is usually newsworthy, too, and this is seized on by the news media, that is, the newspapers, to get at the Government so as to injure the Government’s dignity and try to make political capital out of the situation. In the process the image of the person who is the Government’s choice, is often criticized with the aim of showing what a bad choice the Government has supposedly made, and that such a person is only the lackey of the Minister concerned or of the political party which forms the government of the day. I must say in all fairness that this is not fair. That man is an innocent party in the •whole issue and in the whole dispute. He has not asked for this. The whole image, not only of the Government or the Cabinet, but of the Public Service as an institution, is harmed in this way. Now it must be remembered—and this is my answer to the standpoint of the hon. member for Green Point—that the Public Service Commission still has to make a report every year in terms of the provisions of section 6(2)(n) of the Act.

But not a full report.

Wait a minute, I am coming to that. The commission still has to make a report every year. That hon. member knows as well as I do that in the Public Service Commission’s annual report every year a specific part is devoted to those matters on which the commission and the Cabinet differed from one another.

This is in accordance with section 7(7).

No, it has nothing to do with section 7(7). When it comes to section 7(7), the commission once again gives both standpoints in full. For instance, this is what we had in the annual report of 1972-’73. Let us now look at the annual report of 1973-’74. I think that the hon. member for Green Point referred to this report last year when the position of the hon. the Minister was being discussed. The commission then reported as follows. One of the recommendations which was turned down by the Cabinet during the year of the report, was the following (page 20 of the 1973-’74 report)—

No full particulars are given here. The fact that there was a difference is reported. This is being done. In this year’s annual report, that is, for 1974-’75, from the Public Service Commission, we once again have paragraphs—I am referring to page 30 of the report—which deal with cases of the commission and the Cabinet differing from one another. The issue here was the question of retirement ages and retirement of staff. The group with the choice of retiring with a pension at any age above 60 was being considered. Now I want to refer to page 32 of the report, para. 100. Here the following is stated—

After that the three parties they consulted, are mentioned. I quote further from the report on page 32, para. 101, which reads as follows—

Then four principles are set out which were recommended by the commission. In other words, the commission stated its side of the matter fully. The Cabinet’s standpoint, however, is not stated. One only has a single paragraph, and in my opinion this is completely correct. All it says is—

No detail or particulars of the Cabinet’s standpoint appear and I think that this is correct. The Cabinet can speak for itself. The commission does not have to report on behalf of the Cabinet here. A member of the Cabinet can report to any hon. member across the floor of the House or in the privacy of his office, if necessary. I think that in this particular case, where the issue is usually the balancing of the interests of two persons, the clause we are accepting here is a sound and desirable clause. The commission regularly reports on recommendations which it has made and in respect of which the Cabinet differs from it. That right of Parliament is not being taken away. However, the difference is that the commission has a discretion in the report. Parliament’s right to know is not taken away by this. I understand that the commission itself is in favour of the deletion of subsection (7).

I want to conclude by saying this: There is a positive side to the matter. The deletion of subsection (7) may lead to greater openness in the interests of good administration. The fact that a full report must be made, may result in the commission hesitating to mention facts or particulars concerning a certain person precisely because a full report would have to be made and a full report can be very detrimental to one’s interests. Mr. Speaker, I believe that the commission and the Cabinet, which are both extremely responsible bodies and must act as such, are competent enough to settle a matter like this between themselves without broadcasting it. In the process people are mercilessly, unnecessarily and unfairly crushed between these two millstones, and I believe, therefore, that no one can be placed at a disadvantage by the deletion of subsection (7). This can only contain advantages, and therefore we wholeheartedly support this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I will react to some of the comments made by the hon. member for Koedoespoort in a few moments but at the outset I would like to react generally to the Bill. We have no objections in principle to the Bill at all. There are one or two main features on which I would like to comment, starting in particular with clause 1, the definitions clause, in terms of which the Prime Minister is substituted for the Minister of the Interior in matters relating to the Public Service Commission. As I understand the position and as the Minister has said, this development is in line with the modernization of many Civil Service establishments throughout the world where there is a growing tendency to have a central personnel institution governing the structure of the Civil Service and where that central personnel institution is in most cases in the hands of the Prime Minister or of the head of State. This is very necessary, Sir, because of the very function of this body. This is an independent body, separate from the Civil Service. It deals with the problems of the staff of all departments, and in many cases the Public Service Commission is the arbiter as to conflicting demands and requirements of different departments. Theoretically and I suppose even in practice, this could place a Minister, who is an ordinary member of the Cabinet, in a difficult position from time to time when conflicting demands arise from various departments. I therefore feel that this move is justified and I think that by placing the Public Service Commission under the aegis of the office of the Prime Minister, a greater status is given to the commission itself, and I should think that it would give the chairman of the Public Service Commission direct access to the Prime Minister in matters of concern, so I think that this amendment cannot be faulted.

With regard to clause 3, in terms of which it was proposed that the number of commissioners be reduced to four and not less than three—I see now that an amendment is to be moved by the hon. the Minister. My attitude is slightly different from that of the hon. member for Green Point. I may say that I welcome the amendment which the hon. the Minister of the Interior has placed before us this afternoon. I think it is far better to have flexibility as far as the number is concerned.

It is three now.

I assume now that the number shall be not less than three but that the Minister has not placed a ceiling on the maximum number.

Three only.

I am sorry; then I misread the amendment and then I find the amendment worse than the provisions of the Bill. I am not happy about that amendment at all. Let me say that I understand the reason for this amendment. I realize that it is the policy to delegate more powers than hitherto to the departments. I realize that the departments have themselves been allocated work study groups and that as a result of this there is possibly according to the thinking of the hon. the Minister less work for the commission.

But as you know, Sir, the Civil Service is in fact facing very serious problems. The Civil Service, in terms of the report for last year which is before us—and I see that the figures in the budget estimates are even higher—had an establishment of some 157 000 people as at the end of last year. The establishment over the years has shown an increase of roughly 5% per annum, and yet it has also been revealed—and this is one of the reasons why I am not happy about this section—that there is a turnover and has been a turnover over the last three years of over 50% in the Public Service itself. The losses, according to the report, amounted to 54% and the gains to 52%, so while the establishment grows the staff complement actually appears to be shrinking. On page 13 of the report of the Public Service Commission for 1974-’75 it is stated in paragraph 40—

It then goes on to say—

Mr. Speaker, I want to say that alarm is not only centred on the personnel of the Public Service; alarm has been expressed by various sectors of the community, and in this connection I should like to quote from the editorial of Rapport of 29 February 1976—

The editorial then goes on; it is in fact a long editorial. I see evidence of a certain amount of impatience on the faces of hon. members, but I want to say that they make certain recommendations and express public alarm at the difficulties being experienced at the present time by the Public Service Commission. I cannot find fault with the comments in the commission’s report or in the editorial in Rapport, and I would suggest that there are many urgent duties awaiting this reconstructed commission, urgent duties which are going to require more than just three men. May I name just some of the duties to which this commission will have to attend as a matter of urgency? There is a great need to ensure greater efficiency and productivity in the Civil Service as such. The second point is that the whole question of implementing unproductive laws—call them petty apartheid laws—should receive the attention of this commission.

The third point is the question of salary structures, particularly in regard to the necessity of narrowing the wage gap. This is a matter which is going to have to enjoy the attention of the commission very shortly. The incorporation of Blacks, Coloureds and Indians on an increasingly equal footing in the Public Service, I believe, is a burning issue, not only for South Africa, but also for the Public Service. Then there are also the following points: the better utilization of all the labour resources, the question of better training, research and even mechanization.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say that I doubt whether four members—and now I see it is three members—of this commission can in fact deal with this wide range of topics which I have mentioned, and with the many other aspects of the Public Service with which they come into contact every day. When it comes to the co-ordination of the dynamic change that is going to have to take place in the Public Service in a very few years, the tremendous co-ordinating task of including all South Africans in the Public Service, it is going to need more than just three men to accomplish it.

There is another factor which should be considered. I see that the establishment is now, in terms of the estimates, going to consist of some 186 000 people as against 157 827 at the end of 1975. We must realize that, at the end of last year, there were 75 256 posts for non-Whites. If I may put it in another way, almost 50% of the Public Service is in fact manned by Coloureds, Indians and Blacks. At this stage, of course, they are still in the lower echelons of the Public Service, but the Government has announced its policy some time ago of utilizing more non-Whites in senior positions. There are training schemes which should make this possible. Universities are turning out graduates. I am referring now, for example, to the University of the Western Cape, the Indian University of Durban-Westville and the universities in the homelands. In years to come, many of these people will be absorbed by the homelands, but many of these people, hopefully, will be absorbed in South Africa as well, and in the Public Service itself. These people will play a role in in the service of South Africa. Sooner or later the day must come when Blacks, Coloureds and Indians will be eligible to serve on the Public Service Commission itself, because of the huge complement of Blacks, Coloureds and Indians in the Civil Service. I would venture to say that it could happen sooner than we anticipate.

I would be happier if we did not restrict the numbers, and if the hon. the Minister would consider simply stipulating “not less than three” and not specifying a top limit. If that was done, it would still be in the jurisdiction of the hon. the Prime Minister to make a decision. However, by leaving that figure open we would create a situation in terms of which it would be possible to include persons other than Whites on the Public Service Commission. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I am not pleased with the reduction.

I welcome the provisions of clause 5 of the Bill. The present position is that, when a person leaves the Public Service, the Public Service Commission has no power of recommendation. The hon. the Minister has explained the effect of the proposed amendment and I am sure we can support it. It is a laudable amendment and it will certainly be of assistance to quite a number of people.

I now want to deal with clause 6 of the Bill, which amends section 7 of the principal Act, and to which the hon. member for Koedoespoort has also referred. I can understand the argument put forward, which relates to recommendations on particular people not being accepted and preferably not being published or mentioned in a report. I appreciate the fact that people holding a senior position in the Public Service will not benefit by their personal affairs being bandied about in this House or in the public eye, but I must say that, taking that into account, I nevertheless doubt whether it will be wise to conceal or not place on record officially vital recommendations which might in fact deserve being debated.

As a result of this amendment it could happen that actions could be cloaked in silence and that an injustice to an individual could be perpetrated without its ever being exposed. Therefore, I am not happy with this clause.

The hon. member for Koedoespoort said that what worried him were the words “shall” and “fully”—”moet” and “volledig”. Mr. Speaker, if one amended the clause in order to delete those two words, one might just as well delete the whole clause, because if one deletes the word “shall”, it will mean that the report can be made at the discretion of the commission. It would also be unwise to delete the word “fully”. Again, this would mean that it would be rather like the Schlebusch Commission putting in their report only things that they want mentioned. [Interjections.] I must say, however, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member gave himself away, because the hon. the Minister of the Interior, in quoting the reason for this amendment in his Second Reading speech, spoke about the personal aspects of—if I remember correctly—the inadvisability of making these things publicly known. On the other hand, the hon. member for Koedoespoort said: “You know, we may actually want to make a political appointment, and if we make a political appointment over the heads of the Public Service Commission, we do not really want this to be the subject of a report.” “You will remember,” says the hon. member for Koedoespoort, “there was a fellow called Dr. Eschel Roodie, and there was a debate about the matter …” I do not want to go into details of that now. It is a dead issue, and I do not want to drag it in here, but the hon. member for Koedoespoort used that example in the context of this argument. [Interjections.]

What I actually want to say is that if the Government, in any circumstances, wishes to make a political appointment, while the Public Service Commission in fact recommends that the position be given to an outstanding civil servant who has given years of service to the country in a non-partisan fashion, and there is a dispute of that nature, I believe it is correct that such a dispute be brought before this House. Surely, this is democracy, and this is surely a protection against political appointments. Therefore, in quoting that reason which the hon. member for Koedoespoort did, I believe he rather gave the game away, and by doing that he weakened his case. [Interjections.]

I welcome the provisions of clause 7(b), which amends section 14 of the principal Act. It is the amendment which relates to the emancipation—as it has been stated—of women in the Public Service. For many years, the teachers’ bodies throughout the country, staff associations, members of the Opposition, people in the business world and many others have urged the Government to get rid of the discrimination under which women have laboured in the Public Service. Mr. Speaker, I want to welcome the provisions and I want to say that I think the hon. member for Houghton will, no doubt, have her say on the matter here later or in the newspapers. Suffice it to say that I welcome the provisions and that I hope that the scrapping of this outdated handicap will be a precursor of an enlightened policy of employment, of promotion, of pay on an absolutely equal basis with men. Just in case hon. members are wondering, Sir, I did not require the permission of my wife to make this statement.

Clause 9 of the Bill tightens up the provisions relating to the accepting of rewards other than normal emoluments paid to civil servants. I think these are to be welcomed and I believe they will help to avoid controversies.

To sum up, I just want to repeat that I am not happy with the two points I have mentioned, but on balance the Bill is to be welcomed. We shall support the Second Reading of the Bill and raise the other matters during the Committee Stage.

Mr. Speaker, before I begin my reply to the debate, I should like to avail myself of the opportunity to welcome the new secretary of the Public Service Commission, Dr. Willem Steyn, to his new capacity. Mr. H. C. van Zyl, who served in that capacity for many years, retired from the service during the recess and has been replaced by Dr. Willem Steyn of whom I have very high expectations in the post. I should like to avail myself of this opportunity to welcome him sincerely and to wish him many years of fruitful service.

I should like to thank the hon. member for Green Point for his support of the Bill. However, I want to tell him immediately that he should not put words into my mouth which I did not say in my introductory announcements. The expression which Mr. Sauer used—that there is nothing in the Act—does not mean that there is nothing important in the Bill. These are administrative measures which are indeed necessary, but my point of view is that there is nothing controversial about it. Now it seems as if there is in fact one controversial matter which the hon. member has brought to our attention and I shall say a few words about it shortly. But I should like to thank him immediately for his support of the other provisions, and I also thank the hon. member or Sandton for his support in this respect. It is fortunate that we are at least unanimous here in respect of the broad directive concerning the Public Service Commission which has to serve the whole Government and the country.

I should like to say a few words on the whole matter of the size of the Public Service Commission, the three or five members which were mentioned by the hon. member for Sandton. The idea is clear, and it was motivated here in my Second Reading speech, that owing to the delegation of powers to heads of departments, which has removed quite a number of administrative duties from the Public Service Commission, there are now fewer responsibilities on the commission as such. Therefore, the task of the commission will in future be concentrated more on determining the direction to be taken in policy matters and on broader guide-lines provided from one central point.

Now I want to tell the hon. member for Sandton, while he is talking to his Whip, that in referring to the problems of the Public Service Commission and the tremendous turnover in staff, he is creating the impression that there are major problems. He is creating the impression that a commission of three would be too small to handle the matter and that I should therefore have greater flexibility. Furthermore, the impression is created that a larger commission would probably be a more efficient commission, because more people would serve on it. I should like to tell the hon. member that his own political party is probably the best example of this. As an old member of this House I should like to say to him that his party was much more effective when only the hon. member for Houghton was here. Therefore, a larger number of people does not necessarily increase efficiency. As I have said, this has been illustrated very clearly here in politics. [Interjections.] The fact is that this is true, and I am not joking. The policy of that party was conveyed more effectively by the hon. member for Houghton than it is now being done with all the hon. members there. This is common knowledge.

I should like to say a few words on the high turnover in the Public Service. It is true, as the report indicates very clearly, that there is a high turnover in the Public Service. This is one of those problems which one must overcome and which one overcomes with great difficulty. Our experience at the moment is that we do not have many problems on the higher levels of the Public Service. When one has been there for a number of years, then one remains there. It is especially on the intermediate levels, after a man has been gaining experience for a number of years and has a reasonably good grounding, that he is lured away or sometimes bought over by the private sector. From the nature of the case one can do very little about this, seen from the viewpoint of the Government, because one has a number of officials in the Public Service who are all in the same category or group and if one of those people suddenly becomes attractive to some private concern or other, then an extremely attractive offer is made to that one person and the Government cannot prevent this by offering that person a higher salary as well, because then one would be disaligning the whole matter with all his colleagues who are on the same level as he. This is our problem in practice in the Public Service.

The hon. member quite rightly says that while the activities of the Government are becoming more and more, the number of Government officials seems to be decreasing, a trend which one would rather not have, but which to my mind implies a tremendous compliment for the Public Service, that a smaller staff, due to circumstances which we would rather not have, is still doing the work of the Government so effectively that the Government machine still runs as smoothly as it is running at present, and that those people continue to do their work with such dedication and energy and enthusiasm that the Government machine can show the normal progress which it does in fact show. Let us have no illusions about this: For the private sector and for the ordinary man in the street it is just as important as for the Government itself that there should be a good Public Service, because this eventually forms the essence of the whole organization for the private sector which also deals with the Government from time to time. For that reason I should like to avail myself of this opportunity to pay tribute to the Government officials in general for their dedication and for the hours of service which they render to keep the Government machine going with the dedication with which it can be done. I think they deserve praise and gratitude for the work which they are doing for the Government.

I should now like to proceed to the controversial clause, according to which the report to Parliament, or the survey in the report of the commission, need not be complete, and there is no necessity for it to be reported either. This is the provision which is being amended here. The hon. member for Koedoespoort summarized this very neatly. Let us take the facts as they are. The Public Service Commission makes a recommendation, and allow me to add to this for the information of the hon. member for Green Point, because this was one of the problems in his argument; he referred to the Society of public servants at their congresses who make recommendations and said that only the parts of these recommendations which are accepted will be made available and will be read while those which are not accepted will never be heard of again, because there will be no need to report on those which are not accepted. But the hon. member is making just one mistake. This particular provision concerns people only and not matters.

The Public Servants’ Association is not concerned with people in any way. It does not recommend which person should be recommended. Here we are concerned with people only as far as matters, are concerned, there is no obligation to report on these. In other words, the hon. member’s premise is wrong in that respect. [Interjections.] We shall be able to debate this further in the Committee Stage. I should like to debate it there. But this is concerned only with people and the recommendations affecting people. The Act presently provides that if the Public Service Commission makes a recommendation to the Cabinet and the recommendation is not accepted, the commision can take certain steps. It may then be taken to the State President, and if that has been done and it has still not been accepted or given effect to, the commission must mention it in full in its report to Parliament. This is the present provision. The commission, as a statutory body, which advises the State on staff matters and which should enjoy a high status and great esteem and to which we should like to afford that status and esteem, feels that since these things are prescribed to it by the Act, it must make full use of all these steps in order to illustrate not only its credibility, but also its seriousness concerning a recommendation. If it is opposed in the Cabinet, if Cabinet does not agree with its recommendation, then the commission feels that if it were to yield immediately, it would seem as if it had not conducted proper research before making the recommendation, and this could make things difficult for it, and for that reason it normally follows all the steps which the Act makes available to it right through to the end. But this sometimes leads to a peculiar difficulty, namely that a complete report now has to be submitted on the people concerned. The people’s qualifications have to be investigated. This is juicy news and the people like writing about it. Two people become involved in a matter which is in fact unpleasant for both of them. The man who has not been appointed to the post now has to read about these things in the Press every day, and the man who has been appointed to the post feels sorry that he was appointed, because he does not want to become involved. Why? There are certain countries—the hon. member for Sandton spoke of democracy and said it ought to be this way, but I do not know whether the hon. member does not regard the USA as a democratic country, because when there is a change of President, all posts in the top hierarchy of the Government service fall away and they are all filled with party appointments. Is this not democratic? The hon. member refers to the democratic right.

That is another system.

That is another system, yes, but the hon. member uses the argument of democratic right. America is a democracy and when a different President is elected, when there is a new chief of Government, then all the posts on that level fall away and are replaced by political appointments—the whole lot. [Interjections.] Afterall, the point of the hon. member’s argument is that it should be democratic. If the hon. member feels that the way in which the Americans operate is not democratic, he should say so.

Paul Kruger also did this.

I should like to state the matter as follows: The Public Service Commission itself felt that this recommendation sometimes places them in a quandary, because it sometimes happens that they have to oppose the Cabinet and the impression is created in some cases that they want to dictate to the Cabinet or do not want to accept the ruling of the Cabinet and therefore want to rule South Africa in the Cabinet’s place. Over and above the personal embarrassment which people may at times be caused, the commission feels that they and all the people concerned would be spared many problems if it need not necessarily take place in this way. The hon. member for Green Point initially raised the matter and I would like to say to him that he will agree with me that the commission inspires great confidence, because the commission as such consists of officials in whom we as well as the public servants have very great confidence. The commission does its work.

Yes, and that is why I said that the Cabinet should carry out the commission’s recommendations.

The hon. member would like the commission’s recommendations to be implemented, but the hon. member does not seem to realize that the way the provision reads at the moment, it is being left to the efficient commission to exercise a discretion as to whether it should be reported or not. They may decide not to report it at all or only to report it in part. If the hon. member places such a high premium on the commission, surely he should also place a high premium on their discretion to decide on what to report. With reference to the argument advanced by the hon. member, I want to say at once that because we have confidence in the commission, we should like to leave it to their discretion whether they will report it in full, in part or not at all. We as a Cabinet will abide by the decision of the commission, because we have great confidence in the commission, and so, fortunately, does the hon. member for Green Point. I think this matter has now been made clear, but perhaps we can come back to it during the Committee Stage. There is no need for me to talk at any length because this is the kind of measure which may be discussed more fully in the Committee Stage. The purpose of the Bill is actually to increase even further the esteem and status enjoyed by the Public Service Commission.

Perhaps I should remove one other problem which was raised by the hon. member for Sandton. I refer to the question of non-White staff in the Public Service. I should like to explain the position as it is at present. The Public Service Act is not discriminatory in any way. Therefore, non-Whites may and will be appointed to posts for which they qualify in their fields of activity. Consequently, no amendment to any law is needed to make this possible; it is already possible at the moment. It only depends on their qualifications, the demand for staff and their ability to fill the posts. Seeing that no discrimination may take place in terms of the Public Service Act, this is one of the Acts which the hon. member and his colleagues ought to support 100%.

I should like to state the matter concerning the Public Service Commission as follows: The thorough investigation which was conducted by the commission itself some time ago, included amongst other things, an overseas tour for the purpose of studying central staff institutions. The comprehensive report which was submitted afterwards enabled me to take a fresh look at the whole aspect. As the responsible Minister I wanted certainty in my own mind that South Africa’s Public Service institution and staff were still keeping pace with the modern world in which we are living, that they had not started to lag behind, but were up to date and in line with the rest of the world. That is why I gave instructions for a complete investigation to be undertaken. I then submitted to various bodies the report which had been submitted to me, as mentioned in my introductory speech, and after thorough consideration of all the pros and cons, it was decided that the present system should continue. I may point out that some countries have a central staff institution. They do not have Public Service Commission or anything of that kind, but a department of staff matters which is on the same level as any other department, serves under a secretary and has an ordinary staff administration like any other department. This is one of the systems which are quite successful in some countries. We had to consider whether we should make use of such a system, but we eventually decided that our present system should be retained, provided, however, that we make it more streamlined and that we effect certain other adjustments as recommended in the report. Accordingly, the intention is to make further adjustments during the course of next year upon completion of the investigations which are being conducted at present. In doing so, we are hoping to set our Public Service to rights, so that there will be a machine which will be streamlined to handle the task and the challenges presented by our present position. The amendments which are before the House at this stage, therefore, are essentially provisional amendments, and we hope to be able to introduce more far-reaching amendments next year. I thank hon. members for their support. I believe that the remaining points which they raised may be discussed in the Committee Stage.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Clause 3:

Mr. Chairman, I move as an amendment—

Mr. Chairman, I should like to know why the hon. the Minister wishes to restrict himself by bringing the number down to three. If he uses the term “at least three”, it means that he can have three commissioners and be in a position to exercise a discretion. My difficulty is that I am not convinced by the hon. the Minister that three commissioners are sufficient. I can see no necessity for restricting the Minister and future Ministers to three commissioners. Why can we not have a provision that there will not be fewer than three commissioners? Such a provision will leave it in the Minister’s discretion and if circumstances will in years to come require the appointment of more than three commissioners, it will be possible to do so. Furthermore, such a provision will not make it obligatory for the Minister to appoint more than three commissioners at this stage. I should like to know why the Minister wants to tie his own hands.

Mr. Chairman, in my reply to the Second Reading debate, I have just indicated my reasons for this, but perhaps I should further point out to the hon. member that if we were to give effect to his proposal, there would be quite a few additional matters which would require attention. For instance, there is the question of a quorum. Surely it goes without saying that if there could be four or five commissioners instead of only three, the quorum would have to be defined differently. The same goes for the commission’s powers in respect of issuing instructions, because it must be clearly defined how many commissioners are required. My honest opinion is that a commission consisting of three members, is sufficient. Furthermore, I may point out that the commission has consisted of three members over the past 18 months and has been carrying out its work extremely efficiently. Consequently we are of the opinion that practice has proved that it is not necessary to have more than three members.

Amendment agreed to (Progressive Reform Party dissenting).

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 4:

Mr. Chairman, I move as an amendment—

This is merely a consequential amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 6:

Mr. Chairman, I move as an amendment—

I explained the reason for this amendment in my Second Reading speech.

Mr. Chairman, para, (e) of clause 6 deals with the deletion of subsection (7) of section 7 of the principal Act. I shall be brief on this matter. I have already indicated to the hon. the Minister what our views are on this matter. I am not very impressed with the argument of the hon. the Minister or of the hon. member for Koedoespoort. They have raised the issue solely on the basis of recommendations which might involve an individual in his appointment to some office in the Public Service. The Public Service Commission has to make recommendations and has powers under section 6 of the principal Act which are elaborated in no less than 15 categories.

There are 15 functions and only one of these has reference to recommendations which affect individuals. The hon. the Minister and the hon. member for Koedoespoort have offered no reason whatsoever as to why the recommendations in 14 of the 15 provisions which were not accepted by the Cabinet, should not be published. The hon. the Minister has certainly offered a reason, his own reason, as to why any recommendations under section 6(2)(h) of the principal Act, namely recommendations in regard to the appointment to posts in the various departments should not be published. I am quite happy that in so far as post appointments are concerned, it be left to the discretion of the commission under para, (h)—where no names are published, but where there have been recommendations. We can discuss them in this House with the hon. the Minister. However, as for the remaining recommendations—and there were some, for instance about a uniform retirement age, etc.—it is in the interests of the Public Service, it is felt, that the recommendations and the attitude of the Cabinet should be included in the report. If the hon. the Minister will at some other stage—I do not suggest he does it now—give consideration to the exclusion of para. (h) in certain circumstances, then perhaps we can debate it on another occasion. At the moment the deletion of subsection (7) of section 7 of the principal Act covers all 15 paragraphs of section 6 of the principal Act in so far as compulsion and obligation are concerned. Therefore, I move the following amendment—

Mr. Chairman, I support that amendment. I think I have already stated my case in the Second Reading debate. I believe that if there is any matter of great importance over which there is a dispute between the Cabinet and the Public Service Commission, this will very likely become news anyway and I do not think a report to Parliament is going to alter the fact. I am quite sure that major matters cannot permanently be hidden, but I do believe that the motivation and the reasons for the decisions and arguments should be placed before Parliament. I want to say in particular that I am not in full agreement with the hon. member for Green Point. He says that he will be happy if para. (h) of section 6 of the principal Act be excluded. My belief is that it is particularly the individual who might find the necessity for protection in having his case placed before Parliament, and therefore I should not like to exclude para. (h) from that provision. Therefore, I cannot vote for the clause as set out by the hon. the Minister, but will support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Green Point.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to explain the matter with reference to the original Public Service Act. When we read section 7(1), to which this matter exclusively refers, we find the following—

In other words, this recommendation only has a bearing on recommendations about persons and not on other matters, as I told the hon. member a short while ago.

Where do you find that?

I find it in section 7(1) of the principal Act.

Section 7(7)?

We deal with section 7(7) in clause 10. Section 7(1) is being dealt with here.

That deals with the manner of dealing with personal recommendations. If the hon. the Minister will look at section 6, he will find the powers for it there and section 7 merely indicates how he deals with recommendations which are referred to a person …

Order! The hon. member may not make a speech now. He may only put a question.

Mr. Chairman, with respect to the hon. member for Green Point, I will read it again—

That includes subsection (2)—

Consequently I conclude by restating my argument that it has a bearing on the whole aspect as it is here at the moment. The hon. member’s fears are unfounded. He sees dangers that do not exist. For that reason I believe that the matter must remain as it is, and consequently I regret that I cannot accept his recommendation.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister and I seem to be reading a different section 7, and the purpose of it. This Bill before us has specific reference to one of the problems which the commission has had. There is a procedure for what is to be done with recommendations which apply to a particular person, namely the dealing with them departmentally, how it has to be done and when it has to be finalized. The Bill before us has in fact provisions in it as to what is to happen when they deal with a group of persons. Section 7 has nothing to do with what the commission can do or must report upon except subsection (7), which the hon. the Minister now wishes to delete. Section 6 of the principal Act gives wide powers and I hope the hon. the Minister will look at my argument and perhaps come to the conclusion in consultation with the commission that I am correct and he is wrong in his approach.

Mr. Chairman, I have an open mind in regard to this matter and I will indeed consider it. But at this stage I am still convinced that I am right when I say that we are dealing here with recommendations about people as such. However, I shall look at the matter again, together with the commission, to determine whether the hon. member is not perhaps correct.

Amendment moved by the Minister of the Interior agreed to.

Amendment moved by Mr. L. G. Murray negatived (Official Opposition and Progressive Reform Party dissenting).

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

This Bill is aimed at establishing a university for medical, dental and veterinary training for Bantu. The establishment of such a university for the Bantu may justifiably be called an historic event. For the Black population of a country it is a step of special significance, for although medical training facilities for Bantu do exist at present at the University of Natal, they are available to other non-Whites as well, and consequently the intake of Bantu is limited. This will therefore be the first medical training institution specifically for Bantu. In respect of dentistry there is the existing arrangement that the University of the Witwatersrand does take in a few Black students. Veterinary training has never before been offered to the Black people. The envisaged university is therefore historic in so far as it will have the first medical faculty and the first dental and veterinary science faculties specifically established for the training of Bantu students. I think it is appropriate, since we are going to discuss medical training for the Blacks, that we should first consider briefly the history of medical training for Bantu. As far as I was able to establish, the first attempts in this regard were made in 1922 by Dr. Alan B. Taylor of the American Mission and Dr. J. B. McCord, then head of the McCord Zulu Hospital. They realized the pressing need for medical services among the Zulu and in the absence of a sufficient number of Zulu matriculants they wanted to accept even lower qualifications as entrance requirements for medical training. The authority which was responsible at the time for the registration of medical practitioners was not prepared, however, to recognize an inferior qualification, as is still the case today. In 1938 the Government appointed a committee to investigate medical training in general. The committee, with Prof. M. C. Botha, not I nor my father, but the then Secretary for Education, as chairman, and among others Dr. Karl Bremer, the subsequent Minister of Health, as one of the members, recommended inter alia, that a separate medical school be established for non-Whites. With the outbreak of the Second World War, however, the implementation of this recommendation failed to materialize. In the meantime the Durban medical profession had begun to take an interest in the effort made by Drs. Taylor and McCord, to which I have just referred. In 1943 the Natal Branch of the Medical Association of South Africa reconsidered the matter and appointed a committee to investigate the possibilities. The council of the University College of Natal also decided at this time to establish a medical school under its control. They sent a deputation to the then Minister of Education, the late J. H. Hofmeyr. But he was of the opinion that there was not a sufficient number of matriculated non-Whites to justify the establishment of a medical school. Neither the medical profession in Natal, nor the University College of Natal wanted to admit defeat, however, and soon afterwards presented statistics indicating that a sufficient number of non-White matriculants would in fact have been able to qualify. The college estimated that an annual intake of at least 40 students could be guaranteed.

In the meantime the report of the National Health Service Commission was tabled in 1944, which recommended inter alia that Durban was the appropriate place for a medical school intended primarily for non-Whites, but also for Whites who wanted to equip themselves to serve non-Whites.

In 1947 the Government decided to grant its approval in principle to the establishment of a non-White medical school at Durban under the patronage of the University College of Natal.

That, then, was the position in 1948, when the National Party Government came into power. This Government gave its support to the establishment of the school, but with the proviso that only non-Whites be admitted. Ample financial assistance was rendered by the Government and, training commenced in 1951. The school has therefore been in existence now for 25 years.

The statistics pertaining to intake and production over the entire period are as follows—

Until approximately three years ago, as hon. members probably know, there was an additional preparatory year between the matriculation year and the first year at university for students studying medicine there, in order to make up a certain leeway. This only fell away a year or so ago.

The average number of first admissions to the school per annum, and the average number of graduates per annum for the past six years, were as follows—

This medical school did pioneering work in the training of non-Whites, and I understand that valuable contributions were made, particularly in the field of research. Therefore I should like to avail myself of this opportunity to express my appreciation for the work which has so far been done there for the promotion of medical services, particularly as far as the Bantu are concerned. This applies in respect of the university as such and also to individuals on the staff of that university. This, then, is briefly the history of medical training specifically for the Bantu.

To return to the Bill before us, I should now like to draw attention to the need which exists for the envisaged training, and I also want to indicate what the motives were which led to the Government deciding to proceed to the establishment of a new medical training institution.

It is an unfortunate fact that the largest population group in our country, the Bantu, have the least number of medical practitioners to serve their own people. Fortunately the medical practitioners of the other population groups have always been prepared to render medical services to members of other population groups, particularly the Bantu.

In certain areas, however, particularly in the various Bantu homelands, there is a disturbing need for more Bantu medical practitioners. The ratio of medical practitioners to patients in the various population groups is at present, according to calculations, as follows for the separate groups—

The ratio for all the population groups together is 1 to approximately 2 000. The ideal ratio, according to general standards, is 1 to 1 000. Here in our country we at present, as far as can be established, have approximately 400 Bantu medical practitioners, and this is of course completely inadequate. During the past few years there has been an estimated average Bantu population increase of approximately 400 000 per annum. At the ideal medical practitioner/population ratio of 1 to 1 000 this amounts to a need for 400 Bantu medical practitioners per annum. Hon. members will agree with me that the present production of the medical school of approximately 15 Bantu medical practitioners is not even sufficient to meet the needs of the normal population growth, with the result that the backlog increases annually.

During the past 25 years a total of 688 Bantu students have been admitted to the medical school: 583 to the first year or preparatory year, and 105 to the second year after these 105 had completed their first year or even a B.Sc. degree at other Bantu universities. However, these 688 were only approximately one-third of the number of candidates who applied and qualified for admission. So there is undoubtedly sufficient student material to justify more extensive training facilities. In addition the number of Bantu matriculants with matriculation exemption continuing to increase encouragingly. In 1960 there were only 182 candidates who obtained matriculation exemption. This number increased to 827 in 1965, 1 856 in 1970 and at the end of last year 3 520 candidates passed in this way. Although a relatively high percentage of this group would qualify for medical training, it is obvious that not all of them have the aptitude and the interest.

The training facilities at the existing medical school are limited and the grounds on which it is situated do not lend themselves to expansion. Recently the University of Natal, in an application for the expansion of hostel accommodation to make provision for more students, stated inter alia that the grounds at Wentworth are bordered on three sides by an oil refinery and may be bounded on the fourth by a developing Coloured housing area. The university maintains that the smell and the noise make living conditions almost unbearable. According to the university undesirable elements from the neighbouring residential areas break through the boundary fences and trespass on the hostel grounds. The condition of the old barracks which were converted into hostel accommodation is no credit to anyone either. In any event, it was designed for 235 students, while in 1975—293 students were already being accommodated there. The present hostels are not in the right locality either, since they are situated on a site approximately 11 km away from the medical school. This entails considerable transportation costs for students and also interferes with their studies in that they are unable to use the library after hours.

After a thorough investigation on the part of the government it was found that several million rands would be required for extensions in Durban, which could not be justified either because even after such expenditure the facilities and conditions would still not be satisfactory. The academic buildings, too, were originally planned in such a way that it would only be possible to make extensions enabling the accommodation of larger numbers at considerable cost. To make the planning of all this development possible at the existing faculty it would be necessary to expropriate land in which there are vested interests.

From the above it is clear that the training facilities at Wentworth are in any event very limited, even for the present inadequate student intake only. It is estimated that the construction of the necessary hostel amenities would amount to approximately R1,8 million. It is estimated that it would cost R23 million to expand all the amenities at the medical school to such an extent that the student intake would be the same as that of the envisaged new institution near Ga-Rankuwa. What is more, this estimate does not even include training facilities for dentistry and veterinary science.

In view of the great need for more Bantu medical practitioners, and the fact that more Bantu are qualifying for admission annually, consideration had therefore to be given to a new medical university. However, I want to make it very clear that the existing medical school is not suddenly being closed to Bantu students. The training which is being provided there is systematically being superseded by an institution which will be able to accept more students annually and which will have far better amenities. It is probably of importance as well to point out that the existing single faculty of human medicine for the three groups of non-Whites is being augmented and superseded by three new faculties of medicine, dentistry and veterinary science for the Bantu peoples, in addition to the provision which will be made for the other two non-White groups. Therefore there can be no question of the decision being prejudicial to any specific population group. Eventually the readjustment will therefore mean that the existing single faculty of human medicine in Durban will be superseded by seven faculties, viz. three for medicine, three for dentistry and one for veterinary science.

As far as dentists are concerned there is, as far as is known, only one Bantu dentist in South Africa. If it is accepted that it is possible to meet the need with a ratio of one dentist to 5 000 possible patients, there is at present a shortage of 3 000 Bantu dentists to serve their own people. In addition, there is at present no qualified Bantu veterinarian either. The homelands have an immediate need for at least 22 State veterinarians. This number is expected to increase rapidly once the services are established and as progress is made with animal husbandry in the Bantu homelands.

The envisaged medical university is being planned to make provision for an annual intake of 200 medical, 50 dental and, initially, 50 veterinary students in their first year. The first year of study in all three disciplines consists of basic training, and this will provisionally be offered at the existing three Bantu universities. This is no new principle of course since students already attend one of the three Bantu universities for their first year and then the medical school in Durban for their second year. This arrangement has the added advantage that available funds may be utilized to offer maximum medical training from the second year onwards at the new institution.

The question may now arise as to why it has been decided to situate the new medical university near Pretoria. I want to draw attention to the fact that various commissions were appointed in past to determine the need for and plan the development of medical training. The most important reports, and the one which is of cardinal importance because it has a direct bearing on the university under discussion, is what we call the interdepartmental Van Dyk report, which was before the Cabinet in August 1966. This report dealt mainly with medical training for non-Whites. On that occasion I was already present as member of the Cabinet.

After careful consideration of this report the Cabinet decided that separate institutions should in time be established for each of the non-White population groups, that the first institution for medical training for the Black population should be in the Transvaal, that there should be an institution for the Brown population in the Western Cape, and one for the Indians in Natal. This was decided as long ago as 24 August 1966. [Interjections.]

The specific situation of such an institution has to comply with certain basic requirements. I should like to point out the most important. In the first place there has to be a hospital large enough to provide the students with adequate opportunities for training. It is undoubtedly very relevant to draw your attention to the fact that shortly after the 1966 decisions of the Government I instructed the Department of Bantu Administration and Development to build a hospital suitable for training work near Ga-Rankuwa. This hospital is already in full operation with 1 258 beds already available and a planned expansion up to 2 100 beds. I could mention that the hospital is able to render ultra-specialized services and has already been registered with the Medical Council for the accommodation of interns. A second important consideration is that there should be practising medical practitioners in the immediate vicinity of the university, in particular specialists in various fields who may be called upon on a full-time or part-time basis as lecturing staff or to be of assistance with research in various spheres.

But thirdly it is essential to ensure that such a new institution will from the outset maintain recognized standards in the training and evaluation of its students. The new university will consequently be specially situated so that it is within reach of two established universities—of Pretoria and the Witwatersrand—each with a medical and dental faculty, but of greater importance, with the only faculty of veterinary science with its own research institute, viz. the world-renowned Onderstepoort, not far away.

It is a privilege for me to state that the Universities of the Witwatersrand and Pretoria have consented to the deans of the corresponding faculties serving on the advisory pilot committee which I have specially appointed to help plan the new university. In future it will also be necessary to lean heavily on the knowledge and experience of these two institutions. I wish to convey a special word of thanks to the controlling bodies of the two universities, the vice-principals and five deans of the two universities, and in particular to Prof. Dr. H. W. Snyman, who owing to the good co-operation of the University of Pretoria is acting as chairman of the interim pilot committee and is also my chief adviser for the envisaged training.

Furthermore I should like to draw attention to the fact that the application of a new principle is being envisaged here in that the ancillary or supporting studies, frequently called the para-medical professions, for the three disciplines will also be offered at the envisaged university. This approach has the advantage that not only will a feeling of solidarity and mutual respect be created among the various groups, but also that the training which has already been undergone, whenever studies are terminated for some reason or other, may be better utilized if the student transfers to a related line of study in one of the supporting professions. It is even possible that recognition may be accorded to studies that have already been completed in the form of a reduction of the training period prescribed for a specific course.

It is interesting to note that at the Ga-Rankuwa hospital training is already being provided for dental therapists, occupational therapists, dieticians, radiographers and physiotherapists. In addition there are such courses as medical laboratory technology, nursing, pathology and optometry.

Because the need is so great considerable progress has already been made with the physical planning of the entire complex consisting of the hospital, university, hostels and grounds. As had already been said, the hospital is already in operation. Provisional estimates indicate that the cost of establishing the three faculties with certain additional amenities may be in the region of R30 million. It will be generally appreciated that this university will make heavy financial demands on us—also as far as its operating costs are concerned. In view of this, and also taking into account the limited availability of professional manpower, this institution will first have to be well established and utilized to its optimum capacity before any thought can be given to the establishment of further similar institutions for the Bantu elsewhere.

Mr. Speaker, I want to elucidate certain provisions of the Bill briefly. The Bill is relatively simple and for the most part adopts the provisions of the Acts of the existing Bantu Universities verbatim. There is also considerable conformity with provisions pertaining to other South African universities. For that reason it is not necessary for me to explain each clause of the Bill.

The university is established by means of clause 2 and will be known as the Medical University of Southern Africa. This name may conveniently be abbreviated in both official languages to MEDUNSA.

It should be observed that the institution as a whole is not called a medical school, nor is reference made to medical faculties, for it is not part of another university. The institution, with its three faculties, is in itself a university. Nor is this procedure unique, for there are similar institutions overseas which are not broadly conceived universities with many faculties, but universities which one may, in a certain sense, call technical universities.

Clause 3 provides that the seat of the university shall be near Ga-Rankuwa. The site belongs to the South African Bantu Trust and adjoins the town of Ga-Rankuwa in the Bophuthatswana homeland. The university will serve all the Bantu nations in South Africa. It ought to be mentioned that we will of course also provide Black students from South West Africa, and if circumstances permit, students from neighbouring countries with training. Although section 2(1) of the Promotion of Bantu Self-government Act, 1959, to which reference is made in the Bill, mentions only the Bantu national units in the Republic, clause 19 makes provision for the admission of students who do not belong to the said national units.

Clause 10 makes provision for a university council. The attention of hon. members is drawn to the fact that we are following an entirely different pattern at this university than was the case at the other Bantu universities. Since the university will serve all the Bantu national units, it is being provided that each homeland government will appoint one member to the council. In addition the councils of the Universities of Pretoria and the Witwatersrand, appoint three and two members respectively, from their corresponding faculties. Each of the councils of the three universities for the Bantu offering the first year course will also appoint a member. Furthermore provision is being made for the appointment of a member by the contemplated convocation immediately the members reach the figure of 100, and two members immediately the members reach the figure of 500.

In the Senate—i.e. the provisions of clause 11—provision is being made as a temporary measure, as in the case of the Bantu universities, and in order to ensure that existing standards are maintained, for the appointment of professors from corresponding faculties of other universities.

In clause 13 provision is being made for a convocation which is comparable with those which exist in terms of legislation at other universities in South Africa.

In terms of clause 24 there shall be faculties of medicine, dentistry and veterinary science at the university. The clause also empowers us to establish courses, certificates, etc., pertaining to the ancillary or supporting professions which I have already mentioned. I have already stated that professors from other universities will form part of the senate of the university. Similarly provision is being made in clause 27 for the appointment of external examiners and moderators. This is the normal procedure in any case.

Clause 35 contains provisions pertaining to the hospital at Ga-Rankuwa, which will be used as a training hospital. Except in cases where health matters have already been transferred to homeland governments, the provision of hospital services in Bantu areas is in the hands of the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, in terms of the provisions of section 2 of proclamation R.96 of 1970. The Secretary for Health controls certain hospitals in these areas in the capacity of agent of the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development.

Because the hospital at Ga-Rankuwa will serve as a training hospital, it is essential that the development and planning of both the hospital as well as the university shall take place on a synchronized basis. This can only happen if the control over both institutions— as well as their estimates—is exercised by the same Minister and the same department. To achieve this ideal the Minister of Bantu Education is, in the present case, being authorized to take over the task of the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, as provided in the abovementioned proclamation. The provision of course refers only to the hospital at Ga-Rankuwa. The Secretary for Health will continue to manage the hospital, but in future as agent of the Minister of Bantu Education. The Staff will therefore continue, as in the past, to fall under the Department of Health and will also retain their conditions of service, prospects of promotion and so on. The costs involved in this will, however, be recovered from the Department of Bantu Education. This department will make provision in its estimates for the redemption of the said costs, as well as for other capital requirements in this respect.

The Government entertains the expectation that Bantu universities and the Governments of the Bantu peoples will give their full support to the envisaged medical university, and that students and graduates of the medical university, too, will give the university their loyal support. If these expectations are fulfilled, and the circumstances are therefore favourable, the Medical University of Southern Africa could become a powerful professional powerhouse in the development of our Bantu peoples. It will also provide each of these nations with professional men, individuals who are best able to serve their own people, and who ought in course of time to make valuable contributions as soon as the establishment of further similar training amenities elsewhere can be justified.

Mr. Speaker, with that I have now indicated the most important principles contained in this Bill. I now want to express the hope that this Bill will receive the support of all the hon. members of this House.

Mr. Speaker, this is a most important piece of legislation. In listening to the interesting speech of the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development and of Bantu Education … [Interjection.]

Order! The hon. member has addressed the hon. the Minister incorrectly. He is acting today only in his capacity as Minister of Bantu Education.

Very well, the hon. the Minister of Bantu Education then. Mr. Speaker, I and other members of this hon. House want time to study the speech of the hon. the Minister. We want to see what effect it has on the other institutions in our land today that deal with similar education and particularly on those people who want to take up a medical course. For these reasons I would ask that this debate be now adjourned. I hope that the hon. the Minister will agree. I accordingly move—

Agreed to.

Mr.

Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.