Since the preceding article was written, the Kahn Committee, mentioned therein, has presented its report with a minority report by one of its members on the communications media. The central feature of the report is the Bill of a Protection of Privacy Law which the Committee recommends; a copy of the Bill is appended to show Israel thinking on the subject and to illustrate how far the Bill meets the matters raised by Dr. Gavison.

Apart from a very general discussion of the problems involved, the report contains a brief sketch by Dr. N. Rakover of those aspects of the subjects which are covered by traditional Jewish law and a comparative study by Dr. Gavison herself of the position mainly in the U.S.A., England, Germany, France and Canada and incidentally in Sweden, Switzerland, the Argentine, Brazil, Mexico and Venezuela, with special reference to recent legislation.

For the record it may be noted that the Committee was appointed in August 1974 by the Minister of Justice to examine the means by which protection of privacy can be secured. It held 16 meetings and heard or received in writing the views of various institutions and individuals.

The law governing co-operative housing in Israel is an explicit example of legislative response to social and economic pressures, and psychological needs. In this regard it is, however, not unique, since similar pressures and needs with similar solutions are found in other countries. Here, as elsewhere, the same motivating forces have operated—the desire to possess a home of one's own for reasons of personal dignity and assurance, encouraged by calculated need to hedge against inflation; the increase in population leading to larger demands for housing accommodation, which remained for long generally unsatisfied because of pegged rentals under tenant protection legislation; the high cost of land and building, which called for the optimum utilization of land and raw materials; and the preference for apartment dwelling due partly to the closer social life that it affords, and to which the population was from previous experience accustomed, and partly to the widespread employment of women, which put a premium upon living quarters that required less time and effort for housekeeping. Of these forces, the population pressure, due to natural increase but far more to immigration after the establishment of the State in 1948, and the continuous rise in land prices were particularly significant in Israel.

Very soon after the establishment of the State (and as an important part of its constitutional structure) the office of State Comptroller, responsible to the Knesset alone and independent of the Government, was established under statute—the State Comptroller Law of 1949. After undergoing a number of amendments, the Law was eventually replaced in 1958 by a Consolidated Version but without any substantive change being made in the functions and powers of the Comptroller, a fact which goes far to demonstrate the proven worth of the office.

Briefly, the functions of the Comptroller are to carry out “inspection of the finances and the management of the finances and the property and administration of the State and of the bodies subject to the inspection of the Comptroller, and to perform the other functions assigned to the Comptroller by this Law”.

The bodies subject to inspection include, in addition to every government department, state enterprises and institutions and local authorities, persons or bodies holding, otherwise than under contract, or managing or controlling any state property or funds in the management of which the Government has a share or which are made subject to inspection by the Knesset or by agreement with the Government.