Mr Speaker, I am delighted to see the hon member for Yeoville back in the House. I trust he has recovered fully from the trouble that afflicted him.

*There is always room for healthy differences of opinion as to the precise nature of the fiscal and monetary policy that the Government ought to implement in every specific situation. Thus, sound arguments were advanced in the course of this debate and constructive criticism was levelled, particularly—but not exclusively—by hon members on the Government side. I say this, of course, after having carefully perused every speech. I appreciate their positive and well-informed approach to our financial problems and policy. Unfortunately time does not permit me to give attention today to more than some of those contributions to the debate. However, I want to give hon members the assurance that their questions, arguments and proposals will be carefully studied by my department and that when that has been done I shall contact them in that regard where I am able to do so.

What must be exposed to public contempt today are the gross inconsistencies, inaccurate statements and inferences and lack of realism in the arguments of several members of the Opposition. It is these in particular that I wish to deal with now.

†It is the season of the year once again— the Budget season—when a comprehensive financial statement, itself the outcome of a full year’s concentrated effort by a highly technical and professional team, is pronounced upon from on high by all and sundry within hours, if not minutes, of its seeing the light of day. No wonder much of the criticism is over-hasty, superficial or misdirected—if not at times downright irrelevant. The latest Budget is unfortunately no exception.

Hon members of the Opposition seem to be living in a world of dreams and delusions. Indeed, listening to their spokesmen causes me to wonder whether they are talking about the same Budget as I am. [Interjections.] One would think that the world economy, with which our economic fortunes are inextricably linked, was thriving and, with the exception of the USA, not still staggering from the effects of the worst economic setback since the great depression of the early 1930s. One would think that the gold price was at least over $500 per ounce, and not well under $400 per ounce. One would think agriculture in South Africa was flourishing and not being devastated by the worst and most costly drought in living memory.

Seriously weakened export markets, a low gold price—where gold is by far the most predominant commodity in our economy— and a killer drought are all factors that have an important influence on our economic situation. When I explain the far-reaching adverse effects of those extraneous circumstances on the economy, hon members, such as the hon member for Yeoville, say I am making excuses. What could be a more grave indictment of the quality of that type of criticism than exactly this? Any single one of these calamities—let alone all three of them simultaneously—would have been enough to bring other countries in a similar kind of position to their knees, as we have seen with our own eyes during the last couple of years.

How does South Africa and its economy, however, stand in these exceptionally difficult conditions? The answer is, as I took pains to show in my economic survey which prefaced the Budget proper—in quite remarkable shape. How then does it happen that all the leading authorities are unanimous on this point except hon Opposition spokesmen?

As regards the Budget itself, I submit that it stands unscathed in the face of the misguided kind of criticism with which we have had to put up during this debate. What is more, I suggest that this is a normal Budget presented in quite abnormal circumstances. I believe that takes some doing, Mr Speaker, and it could only have been achieved if budgetary policy in the last several years had been sound to the core.

When all else fails, the critics raise the hollow cry that because Government spending exceeds the original Budget estimates— that is, because an Additional Budget is introduced later in the financial year—the policy of financial discipline and even the Budget’s credibility—because that is the parrot-like expression we hear these days—therefore need to be questioned. As if an Additional Appropriation is not the normal procedure in one country after the other!

Let us, however, look at the facts on Government expenditure and see what they amount to. In South Africa, with its heavy development and security needs, and the unceasing and ever-increasing demands made upon the Exchequer from every conceivable quarter, Government spending in real terms—that is, after deflating by the consumer price index—has risen on average over the last nine years by just 3% per year. I ask: Is that not financial discipline? What is more, Government spending in real terms per capita of the population has actually declined slightly over the same most recent nine-year period, from R267 in 1975-76 and R283 in 1976-77 to R264 today. By current standards of comparison, I suggest that is quite some achievement. I ask again: Do these figures, or do they not, represent or reflect financial discipline?

In the Budget I allowed for aggregate expenditure of R24 945 million and for a further amount of R125 million for drought relief. In doing so I stated categorically that as from now the Treasury would apply a carefully devised procedure to ensure compliance, within narrow margins, with budgeted expenditure. Yet, before the new procedure could even be initiated, the parrot cry of doubtful credibility of the figures goes up. It would have been the easiest thing in the world to estimate expenditure at, say, R26 billion, or still easier at R27 billion. However, that would have called for massive tax increases, both GST and personal income tax, to both of which the Opposition are vehemently opposed. In any case, what sort of financial discipline would that have been? Therefore, I reject out of hand this question of the Budget’s credibility as a piece of political mischief-making.

While on the subject of Government spending, I wish to refer to the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central. He said that for 1983-84 “the Government’s share of the cake”, as he called it, was 25% of GDP which, he added, “is over the acceptable limit set by the IMF”. I am not aware that the IMF has set any such limit. Indeed, if it had made such a condition, very few countries in the world today would qualify for IMF loan financing. The point I would like to make is that, when the economy is in recession, Government spending as a proportion of total spending invariably rises; firstly, because by its very nature Government spending is less flexible than private sector spending; and secondly, if the private sector loses ground in the downward phase of the business cycle, the Government by its operations will invariably endeavour to compensate where it can by maintaining as reasonable a rate of economic activity as possible. A 25% ratio of Government spending to aggregate spending is better than most; and the 21% ratio in 1980, after it had been 26% in 1976, which was also a recession year, was uncommonly good. Yet the hon member for Yeoville talks of the Government’s “grabbing of the lion’s share of the domestic product”. How can one quarter of the domestic product be the lion’s share?

I should like now to analyse the figures of the hon member for Yeoville because I do suggest that if one takes them into account and constructs a budget with them then all one could call it would be a non-Budget. I propose to give a number of figures in this regard.

The hon member said categorically in his speech in this debate:

Very well then, let us take the expenditure figures of R24 945 million. He also said:

This is the amount of R628 million from the Sasol transaction, in addition to the R259 million, which was in a rather different category, which I used myself. However, if in addition one brings the R628 million back and credits that, which I did not do for good reasons, then, he says:

It must be remembered that the hon member for Yeoville vehemently opposed the 1% GST increase in February. He stated specifically that I should have borrowed the amount instead. Therefore, the amount involved—it is about R715 million—cannot be regarded as a tax income in this Budget but must be substituted by loan financing.

Now you are not quoting me correctly. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, when I increased GST by 1% in February the hon member criticized me in public and said it should not have been done.

No, we were talking about this Budget and you know it.

A reporter then asked him how the Minister would obtain the money and what alternative method he should use, to which the hon member for Yeoville replied that he should have borrowed the amount.

Take your hands off the figures.

If the hon member for Bryanston will just keep quiet he may learn something today. [Interjections.] I am simply repeating what the hon member said. He must not try now to get out of it.

You are putting your credibility in even greater doubt. [Interjections.]

No, Sir, that is what the hon member said. It is in writing. The hon member said that R715 million should have been borrowed and not raised through the medium of increased GST. [Interjections.] That is the first point.

In the second place, I am giving the hon member the benefit of the full amount of credit from the sale of the Sasol shares and not simply the R628 million he wants to credit back. I am giving him the full amount of R887 million. On the basis, how does his Budget look? Expenditure is taken as R24 945 million. The revenue on the existing basis of taxation—because he says taxation must not be raised—comes to R20 761 million. This gives a deficit before borrowing, on the existing basis of taxation, of R4 184 million. Then I add back the 1% increase in GST, which he says should have been borrowed, and that gives a deficit, before borrowing, of R4 899 million. Then one has to add back the redemption of the loans that are in my Budget and which total R2 175 million. The amount then to be financed comes to R7 074 million. Next one takes the amount available as per the Budget Speech and that includes R915 million in local loans so that the total comes to R5 268 million. The amount still to be found now stands at R1 806 million. Then I give him the credit of the full amount of R887 million which comes from Sasol. If I deduct that, it leaves a deficit of R919 million, but already I have taken into account the R915 million which I would borrow in the local market. Therefore, according to him, the amount to be borrowed in the local market must be R1 834 million.

Firstly, I say a Budget deficit before borrowing of R4 899 million, equivalent to virtually 5% of the gross domestic product, is completely out of the question. My figure is about 3%. I would suggest if he wants to ensure a truly excessive rate of inflation, that is the very best way to go about it.

Secondly, using the large balance of the Sasol sale proceeds—that is the R628 million which I did not use but which I put into the hon member’s Budget—would mean drawing down the Government’s balances with the Reserve Bank, and that would mean direct new money creation and therefore more inflation, but the hon member constantly says the inflation rate is too high as it is!

Thirdly, to borrow nearly R2 000 million in the domestic capital market, with all the demands for loan funds in the year ahead already on the books, would be to send the already high interest rates absolutely skyrocketing.

The hon member wants inflation down, he wants interest rates down, he wants higher pensions, yet he criticizes the moderate tax increases in the Budget.

We also want more accurate figures.

What he is saying is: “Borrow more—forget the gold price, forget the drought, just borrow more!” The only reasonable conclusion I can reach is that the hon member for Yeoville’s Budget is simply a pipe dream, devoid of reality, but I do suggest a dangerous pipe dream for all that.

That, however, is not all. The hon member for Yeoville’s permissive approach is in stark conflict with that of his colleague the hon member for Walmer. The hon member for Walmer’s views on budgetary policy are just the opposite. Speaking in the House on 21 March in the debate on the Public Investment Commissioners Bill, the hon member for Walmer repeatedly stressed the need for what he called a tough fiscal policy in this Budget. Let me quote him (Hansard, 1984, col 3483):

He asked later on (Hansard, 184, col 3497):

That is what he asked the hon the Deputy Minister of Finance. The hon the Deputy Minister in replying—Hansard 1984, col 3502 —expressed his pleasure that the hon member for Walmer—

And he added:

But then along comes his party’s chief spokesman on finance and he lets him down shamelessly! I ask: How inconsistent can a party get?

The hon member for Yeoville, as chief spokesman, a few years ago—hon members will no doubt recall this—was propagating his brand of social democracy for the PFP. A lot of publicity was given to that. The hon member for Vasco asked what had happened to that.

It is still alive.

It was at that time that the Financial Mail, as the hon member for Vasco also reminded us, warned that—

I suggest that if one reads the hon member’s contribution to this debate one must conclude that he has not only sat between two stools, he slid between several stools and, in fact, I think he has gone right through the floor!

*A great deal of fuss was made, inter alia by the hon members for Sunnyside, Amanzimtoti and Yeoville, about the drop in the real gross domestic product per capita of population over the past two to three years. I concede at once that this is correct. If the same statistic is analysed over a longer term—and this information appears on page 6 of the Statistical/Economic Survey 1984-85—the cyclical fluctuations to which the economy in South Africa, as elsewhere in the world, is subject, are clearly indicated. The upswing in the early and late ’seventies was accompanied by a rise in the real GDP per capita, and the downswing in the middle seventies, as well as the present downswing, was accompanied by a decline. Looking at the present downswing, it is an incontrovertible fact that the South African economy sustained a blow due to, inter alia, the gold price—in 1980 it was $613 as against $424 in 1983 and, since then, less than $400—higher import prices, including that of crude oil, three successive failed harvests in agriculture and the inadequate demand for South Africa’s most important export products due to the recessionary economic conditions internationally. All these factors must be borne in mind when speak about what has happened with regard to the income per capita. The contribution to the GDP of South Africa of the sectors I have just mentioned cannot be underestimated.

If a different approach is adopted, a totally different result can be obtained as regards the rise or fall in standards of living. From figures published in the Bulletin for Statistics it is clear, for example, that the average earnings of Whites, after correcting for inflation, increased by 11% between 1975 and 1983—this period includes the two downward phases to which I referred—or by roughly 1,5% per annum. Playing with statistics is an interesting, if dangerous, activity. Everyone who is involved here ought to guard against falling prey to Andrew Lang’s accusation, viz: “He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lamp posts—for support rather than illumination.”

†It is one thing to say that per capita incomes have declined over a given period. It is quite another to say, as these hon members have done, that standards of living have fallen. All three hon members have I believe misled themselves on this point. The hon member for Yeoville, for instance, concluded that because per capita incomes had fallen in the past couple of years therefore “every South African got poorer”. That is a classic example of the misinterpretation of an average. [Interjections.] The quality of life is not merely a matter of income per capita. It is a matter also of the leisure available to people to enjoy the vastly increased range of options open to them: more and better education, more and better health services, recreational facilities, means of communication and all the other myriad of activities that go to make up modern living. This being so, can anyone who looks about him, fail to see that in South Africa there are far more people who are better off today than there are people who are worse off, compared with the past?

I would now like to refer to social pensions. Surprisingly, both the hon member for Yeoville and the hon member for Amanzimtoti stated in public that the increase in social pensions was 8,4%, though they later corrected themselves by saying the figure was 9,2%. The increase of 9,2% relates to White pensioners only. Not only that; it excludes the bonus, which averages out at R3 per month. In addition, both these members knew that the increases for Coloureds and Indians, and for Blacks were higher than for Whites. Including the bonus, which amounts to an average of R3 per month for Whites, R2,42 for Coloureds and Indians and R1,83 for Blacks, the average increase in pensions as a whole is more than 14%, and not 9,2% as one would have been given to believe if one had listened to these hon members. That, against an inflation rate of 10%, is in my opinion a generous allocation of taxpayers’ money. This Government has shown over a long period its very great and practical concern for the aged, and its record, as I will show in a moment, is absolutely unexceptionable. One must remember that old age pensioners are people who, for one reason or another, have not made provision for their old age and that the whole burden falls on the taxpayer. I think the hon member for Durban Point went rather overboard in his enthusiasm on this point. When I asked him what of the bonus of R36 for Whites, he replied: “The least the hon the Minister of Finance should do, should be to give the once-only bonus of R36 as a monthly addition and to relate it to the other groups, because although the percentage increase in respect of the other groups in higher, the gap between pensioners has in fact increased”. I assume from that that he wants all groups to receive an additional R36 per month. What would that mean? The total amount allocated for social pensioners, including the increases and bonuses I announced, is R1 299 million. If an additional R36 per month is paid, the total comes to R1 773 million, an increase on my total allocation of R473 million. Where my overall increase is 14% on the previous year, the hon member for Durban Point’s increase would be no less than 55,6%. With the best intentions in the world, there is no way that such an unheard-of increase could be financed from taxpayers’ money, unless, of course, there were to be an excessive increase in personal income tax or GST. When all is said and done, the fact remains that under this Government, since 1948, social pensions have risen twice as fast as has the cost of living. To my knowledge this is without parallel and is conclusive proof of the Government’s sustained concern for the well-being of the aged.

*I want to refer briefly to the statement by the hon member for Lichtenburg that the authorities in general, namely the central Government, the provinces and the local authorities, have shown negative savings for the first time in the post-war years. The hon member is correct, although the extent of the negative saving was minimal, viz less than 5% of expenditure. As I have emphasized here on several occasions, this points to the exceptionally difficult year that the economy has just been through. The particulars are set out in the table on page S-102 of the Reserve Bank’s latest quarterly. The hon member will be able to see there that, on the one hand, income from property, viz interest, profits and dividend and rent receipts of the authorities in general have fallen from a peak of R1 159 million in 1980 to R302 million in 1983 and on the other hand, that over these three years subsidies have increased by 250%, viz from R745 in 1980 to no less that R1 695 million in 1983, while interest on the public debt has also risen considerably because interest rates have risen substantially and we have borrowed more, particularly in an effort to combat inflation.

The hon member Dr Welgemoed wanted to know what the total amount of money would be that the Development Bank would have avaible to lend to the member countries in this financial year. The bank informs me that an amount of R295 million will be available, R160 million of which has been voted by the Treasury.

The hon member for Durban North made the statement that Government expenditure on education has barely kept pace with the rate of inflation in recent years. I fear that that is by no means correct. In 1975-76 expenditure on education amounted to R1 099 million, whereas for 1984-85 the proposed amount is R4 225 million. These figures represent an increase of 384% in expenditure on education over the past nine years as against an increase in the consumer price index of 186%. On the basis of a compound rate of increase—the basis that the hon member wants to apply—this means that expenditure on education has increased by 16,18% per annum as against an increase of 12,4% in the consumer price index. This, in turn, means that the increase in expenditure on education over the past nine years has been approximately 30% per annum more than the rate of inflation. Therefore Government expenditure on education has indeed increased tremendously since 1975.

I want to refer to the customs union agreement and payments, with reference to remarks by the hon members for Sunnyside and Barberton, viz that payments from the pool of funds over the past year or two have increased considerably. The customs union in its present form came into being in 1969 due to an agreement between the RSA, Botswana, Lesotho and Swaziland, or the so-called BLS countries. On independence, Transkei, Bophuthatswana, Venda and Ciskei—the TBVC countries—obtained de facto membership of the customs union in that provisions of the agreement were made applicable to them in accordance with bilateral agreements between the RSA and each of these countries. Briefly, what the financial provisions of this agreement amounted to are that all customs and excise duties in the customs union area are pooled and the BLS and TBVC countries receive a share from this so-called pool of funds in accordance with an agreed formula. Moreover, an amount has also been paid to South West African over the past two years. The share of the RSA is not calculated as such, but consists of the balance of the pool of funds. The fact that payments to the BLS countries are increasing, whereas the total amount of customs and excise duties is falling, is due to the allocation formula being based on import statistics of two years ago. For 1984-85 statistics relating to 1982-83 apply, and whereas at present economic conditions are limiting the yield from customs and excise duties, in 1982-83 imports were relatively high and, in addition, there was a surcharge of 10% on imports for that year. This surcharge has since been phased out and was finally abolished in November last year.

Since the agreement was entered into in 1969, circumstances have changed. Not only have the TBVC countries de facto entered the customs union, but inflation has exerted a distorting influence on the calculations. In brief, the agreement in its present form does not meet the needs of the eighties. The Government has for some time been carrying out an in-depth investigation into all aspects of the agreement, and an exchange of notes and discussions with the countries in question has already taken place. However, this is not a simple matter, since the agreement is not confined to finance but also extends to certain other aspects such as commerce, agriculture, transport and so on. The House may rest assured that the interests of the RSA are at all times being given priority in the present process, which may be regarded as the renegotiation of the agreement.

†Sir, had I the time, I should have liked to say a fair amount about taxation today. The tax reforms that have been brought about in the last few years are, I believe, far-reaching and fundamental. They are, among others—

1. (a) the reduction in marginal income tax rates for individuals, the maximum marginal rate, for example, for married taxpayers having been reduced from 72%, including a compulsory loan levy, to 50% today simultaneously with an increase in the limit from R28 000 to R40 000 of income above which the maximum rate applies;
2. (b) the introduction of general sales tax, which is by far our most broadly based tax and which has brought about a marked improvement in the relation of indirect taxes to direct taxes;
3. (c) the bringing of all income-tax payers within the ambit of the Income Tax Act, so that now all taxpayers, of whatever race, are taxed uniformly and consistently;
4. (d) a most substantial lightening of the burden of estate duty;
5. (e) substantial tax concessions to the aged, that is, those above 60 years of age and, still more, those above 70 years of age;
6. (f) far-reaching improvements to the final-deduction system, which I shall refer to briefly in a moment; and
7. (g) the institution of the Standing Commission on Taxation Policy, by which a highly expert and experienced body comprised of both Government and private-sector representatives is able to make an on-going in-depth study of the whole tax system.

A good deal has been said about fiscal drag, or bracket creep as some people call it, as if that were a phenomenon which leaves the body of taxpayers worse off than before. That is, of course, impossible; even those who advance to the maximum tax rate will retain one half of income increments in the bracket above R40 000. Fiscal drag, it need hardly be added, can only arise if there is a progressive rate of tax combined with a sufficient increase in income to push the taxpayer into a higher tax bracket.

Concerning the hon member for Eden vale’s remarks in regard to fiscal drag, I want to point out that, while he expresses concern about the matter, he does not suggest any realistic remedy to counter the ailment. It must be borne in mind that State expenditure is also not immune from the effects of inflation and that, because taxes are levied solely to obtain the funds required to meet such expenditure, it would be unrealistic to adjust tax rates to compensate for those effects thereby leaving a shortfall in revenue which would of course have to be financed in some other way. Those countries which have attempted to make such adjustments have, in fact, found themselves in very serious trouble.

Fiscal drag can, of course, be eliminated by introducing a single rate of tax, but this would disregard the fundamental ability-to-pay rule and would result in an unwarrantable burden being placed on taxpayers in the lower-income categories.

The hon member for Edenvale compares the contributions made to be the fiscus or the Exchequer by companies with those made by individuals and, in doing so, apparently assumes that the total yield of revenue produced by sales tax is collected from individuals, as well as that the increase in the projected yield of income tax payable by individuals is entirely due to the effects of fiscal drag.

Firstly, it is fallacious to assume that sales tax is paid by individuals only. Although statistics do not exist from that which the exact amount paid by companies can be determined, the mere fact that the tax is levied inter alia on the acquisition of capital equipment and building materials should be a clear indication that probably as much as 50% of the tax is, indeed, collected from companies.

Secondly, the phenomenon of an ever-widening gap between the amount of income tax paid by companies on the one hand and individuals on the other, with the former showing a steadily decreasing trend, is by no means peculiar to South Africa but in fact occurs in many other countries as well, including the United States. This can of course be attributed to a number of causes, the most important one of which, as far as South Africa is concerned, is probably the fact that the majority of entrepreneurs conduct their enterprises through the medium of companies, and that the benefits derived from the various tax incentives and concessions are therefore reflected in the company’s liability rather than in that of its shareholders. Because the company, as a result, has more funds at its disposal, its distributions to shareholders increase with a resultant increase in their liability for tax.

It is also true that, especially in times of inflation coupled with recessionary conditions, companies are on the one hand obliged to increase salaries, etc, which further decrease their net incomes, already reduced by slack economic conditions, and therefore their liability for tax. The increased payments to employees, of course, would have the opposite effect in their case. While the hon member’s support of the proposals in regard to the taxation of fringe benefits is appreciated and the matters referred to by him will certainly be borne in mind, it is rather paradoxical that the implementation of those proposals will, in all probability, increase the difference between the yield of company and personal income tax against which he objected so strongly, thus proving once again that it is quite impossible to please everybody.

On this point, which I regard as important, the hon member for Edenvale said that he believed that the Budget condemns middle-class South Africans to a declining standard of living. He then went on to deal with other effects of fiscal drag. I must say there is no way in which I can accept this remarkable assertion. Clearly the hon member was dealing only with one sector of the income-tax paying public. The hon member, by concentrating on the middle-income sector, has seemingly chosen to ignore the fact that the majority of taxpayers—those with incomes of R8 000 or less—are virtually unaffected by fiscal drag. This is because a flat rate of tax of 12% applies to them. In fact, the increased rebate of R140 which benefits this group, has resulted in a considerable number of persons at the lower end of the scale ceasing to be liable for income tax. Hon members will recall that legislation passed by this House earlier during this session of Parliament had the effect of raising the threshold at which tax was previously payable by Black persons, from R1 800 per annum to R4 384 in the case of a married person, or to R3 575 in the case of an unmarried person. If one bears in mind that according to Inland Revenue’s statistics there are more than 996 000 White, Coloured and Indian persons with incomes of R8 000 or less and adds to that figure 3 million Black persons who are in the same group, it must be obvious that the overwhelming majority of taxpayers are not faced with an additional income tax burden. While I would, of course, like to reduce the income tax burden on the middle-income and also the higher-income groups, I have, unfortunately, to be realistic. In present circumstances it has not been found possible to propose relief except where it is most needed. At least we have succeeded in not raising tax rates for personal income taxpayers at all.

*The hon member Mr Schutte made a plea for the improvement of the Pay-As-You-Earn system to prevent large amounts having to be paid in when the income of spouses is taxed jointly. This is, of course, a problem for which a general solution has not been found since the system came into operation more than 20 years ago. It occurs because the tax affairs of every individual are a confidential matter between him and the Receiver of Revenue. Indeed, the Commissioner of Inland Revenue is expressly prohibited by the Income Tax Act from revealing anyone’s affairs to anyone else. Accordingly, the system provides that employees’ tax must be deducted from every payment of remuneration as if that remuneration is the only income of the person who receives it, and no one is compelled to reveal to his employer that he or his wife has other income as well. Nevertheless, there is provision for anyone to request his employer to make increased deductions, but that decision rests with the taxpayer himself, and for obvious reasons cannot be enforced by the tax authority without infringing the right of privacy of the person in question.

†The hon member for Albany referred to the taxing of income derived from farming and criticized the fact that a farmer is allowed to deduct the full purchase price of implements in the year of purchase and advocated concessions to encourage farmers to build up cash reserves in good years to tide them over in bad years. The concession allowing a farmer to deduct the full purchase price of implements in the year of purchase is intended primarily to improve his cash-flow position. Although it is alleged that farmers are making unrealistic purchases in good years merely to obtain reductions in their tax bills, concrete evidence that this is in fact the case has not as yet been produced as far as I am aware, and it would certainly be improvident for any farmer to spend money on implements which he does not really need merely to reduce his liability for tax by a maximum of 50% of the amount expended. The matter will, nevertheless, be looked into and, should the allegations be substantiated, obviously certain measures will be taken.

As far as the provision of reserves for lean years is concerned, the scheme put forward some years ago by the Jacobs Committee was thoroughly investigated by the Standing Commission on Taxation Policy. The Commission found itself unable to recommend its introduction on the grounds, firstly, that it is contrary to sound fiscal policy to allow any taxpayer arbitrarily to manipulate his liability for tax and, secondly, that there were several pitfalls inherent in the scheme which could result in unrealistically high taxes becoming due when farming operations are discontinued. The commission concluded that the existing provisions of the Income Tax Act concerning the equalization of tax rates in terms of which a farmer can elect to be taxed on his income from farming at either the rate applicable to his average farming income for the current and the immediately preceding four years, or the rate applicable to his actual income from farming, which is the lower, already amply safeguards the farmer against having to surrender an unrealistic portion of his income from a good year to the State. Any realistic alternative will, nevertheless, be considered should it be suggested.

Mr Speaker, I think hon members to whom I have not referred specifically will forgive me. As I said earlier, my department will look very closely at their suggestions and proposals and we shall be in touch with them as soon as we can.

*Once again I wish to convey my sincere thanks to hon members for their participation in this debate. It has been a long debate and I have found it a very interesting one.

†To sum up, I submit that the Budget is sound, consistent and entirely appropriate to the unusually difficult economic conditions prevailing. It will neither contribute to an artificial stimulation of the economy, nor will its outcome be inflationary. On the contrary, by deliberately avoiding any undue borrowing, by financing its loan requirements in a non-inflationary manner—that is, otherwise than by the creation of new money—and by holding the line against undue or unnecessary Government spending, the outcome is designed, on balance, to be counter-inflationary. As the hon the Deputy Minister of Finance said, it may justifiably be claimed that the Budget is so formulated as to achieve its objectives with the minimum of discomfort to the public at large. That is not an easy test for any Budget to pass. I suggest this one does.

Question put: That all the words after “That” stand part of the Question,

Upon which the House divided:

Mr Chairman, this Vote brings together two important elements of Government in South Africa. On the one hand there is the Executive which, from its very nature, has to recommend expenditure while, on the other hand, there is the legislature, Parliament, which is extremely jealous of its status as the sovereign, law-making body in South Africa. These two elements are brought together in this Budget.

We are entering a new constitutional era in which there are going to be many changes in respect of many of which the Executive or the Cabinet will have to take the initiative. We in these benches hold that whatever initiatives are taken by the Cabinet, the Executive, Parliament, must always remain master of its destiny as the sovereign Parliament of South Africa. We believe that while there is a transition period, while there is this changeover taking place, it becomes extraordinarily important that at no stage must Parliament see that its rights, its functions or its authority as an institution are in any way undermined by the actions of the Executive. I am not suggesting that this would be a wilful undermining. It is merely the way in which these two bodies have to operate separately. In the end, Parliament has to be responsible for its procedures, its budget, its functions and its accommodation, and it is in regard to one or two of these matters that I wish to address this Committee.

In the first instance, under this Vote there is an increase in expenditure of some R3,7 million. In view of the fact that it has been announced that a new dispensation is to commence around the beginning of September this year, we would like to know what specific provision has been included in the Budget for that new dispensation. It has been said that the first parliamentary session of the new dispensation will take place on or about 7 September of this year. We should like to know from the hon the Minister what has been included. If something has in fact been included, how has it been decided upon? Who has decided what to include for Parliament? Has it been the Executive that has decided or has it been Parliament that has decided? We want to know, because we are jealous of Parliament as an institution, to what extent the Budget reflects the will of Parliament in respect of the new constitution or to what extent it reflects the will of the executive in respect of the new constitution. We hold that Parliament is sovereign and while it has to accept a Budget from the executive, we are jealous of our rights and status and we believe that Parliament must put its imprint on its own Budget and not merely meekly take over the Budget presented to it by an executive.

The second point is in respect of accommodation for Parliament. I accept that that is an item of capital expenditure. Nevertheless, to the surprise of I think every hon member of the House, a relatively junior Minister stood up in front of the Speaker and of the Leader of the House to announce to Parliament that there was going to be a new building for Parliament. We did not know about this. It was going to be under one roof, and we are delighted that this is going to take place. I would have thought, however, that it would have been the Speaker or the Leader of the House who would have announced this intention. I would not have thought that it would be a relatively junior member of the executive who would tell Parliament that we were to have a new building and that it would be located between the Houses of Parliament and Tuynhuys. [Interjections.]

Order!

We believe there should be a Parliament under one roof, but we say to the executive that they have to take the initiative, they have to get the system moving, but we ask the executive to be extraordinarily sensitive to the rights and the status of Parliament and the attitude that Parliament is an institution in itself which should not merely have to do what the executive wants it to do.

We hope that there is a move for Parliament to be better consulted. We hope that at every stage of the design of that new building Parliamant as a Parliament is going to be consulted and that it will not slip over into the hands of the executive. I say this because that particular site is perhaps historically and culturally one of the most important sites in the Mother City situate between Tuynhuys and Parliament and the Companies garden on the other side. We hope that the hon the Minister will see that building as part of Parliament and not as part of the executive. It must not reflect the character of the past, nor the character of apartheid, but it must reflect a new deal, a new deal in which for the first time the State says people are coming together in order to make common decisions. We hope that the hon the Minister in charge is going to see that all along the line Parliament is recognized in that building.

The final point I must make is that in the past the debates on this Vote unfortunately have been dominated by discussions on what has become known as the Parliamentary dining-room issue. I would hope that as we move into a new era, we can get away from all that trivial nonsense that we had to listen to from the other side. Time and time again we said that it was quite wrong for ordinary MPs not to be able to introduce people of colour into the Parliamentary dining-room. When we pressed for that year after year, what did we have in this Chamber? Year after year we had disingenuous, embarrassing and unedifying arguments from the Government that the dining-room was too small, that we must see it as a private club, that there must be consensus, that there must be procedures and that there was not really discrimination.

The hon the Minister is the new Leader of the House, but he should not do that egg-dance of his predecessors. We must establish how Parliament can bring about an end to tortuous arguments and the antiquated procedures it has followed in respect of its dining-room. Here we are exhorting other people to get rid of hurtful and unnecessary discrimination, but in the Parliamentary holy of holies we are carrying on in practice the same unnecessary and hurtful discrimination which we ask other people to eliminate. We have changed. We got rid of the Group Areas Act in order to allow clubs to desegregate. We have changed the liquor legislation to allow our sportsmen to have a beer together after matches. We have extolled the virtues of Danie Craven and other sportsmen who have turned their back on discrimination. We have commended our business leaders for having opened up their facilities. How can we as the legislature of South Africa give a lead if we are still trapped in and are still perpetuating a system which is archaic, which is racist and which is unworthy of the dignity of the sovereign Parliament of South Africa?

So, Sir, we are moving into a new era, an era in which this Parliament will no more be all White. I hope that we can use this opportunity to wipe the slate clean and to make a fair start. We on these benches believe that all MPs must be equal, that there is going to be no segregation but that all MPs should be equal, that all MPs should share existing facilities on an equal basis and that all MPs are going to be able to invite guest without reference to race or colour. We believe in the concept that all MPs should be equal and that all MPs should be entitled to use the parliamentary facilities on an equal basis. And this goes for Parmed, for this building, for Fernwood and the Parliamentary Association. We believe that right here and now the Government should declare certain rules so that the public may know that as from the commencement of the new political dispensation apartheid and race discrimination will be banned from the precincts of Parliament and that every member of Parliament, whatever his race or colour, may take his seat in Parliament and in the institutions that go with Parliament with full dignity as a citizen of South Africa. This is our view. Whatever the past, we believe that we should enter into the future on the basis of all MPs being equal, all having equal access to the facilities connected with Parliament and the equal right to invite people to use those facilities subject to rules which are free of discrimination on the grounds of racial colour. We believe that this Government today can strike a real blow against race discrimination. It is no good MPs saying that others must get rid of race discrimination in sports clubs or that others must get rid of discrimination in commerce and industry but when it comes to our own facilities here in Parliament we carry on with the same racialistic bigotry as we have done in the past.

Mr Chairman, having declared our attitude we now call upon the Government to declare its attitude and to have the courage to take South Africa into the new era, an era in which there will be no discrimination in the Parliament of South Africa.

Mr Chairman, we have just had a Budget debate, a debate which, it was said, was the last Budget debate under the present dispensation, the dispensation in which we were able to act as a sovereign White Parliament. We put some very urgent questions to the Government. There was no reply on its part, however. We asked certain urgent questions regarding the future of this Parliament and we asked the Minister of Finance where the Budget for the new Parliament was. We want to know what it is going to cost us and what the new set-up is going to look like. We pointed out that the hon the Prime Minister had announced last year with a great fanfare that the homeland policy of the Conservative Party would cost the country R85 billion. Last week the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning addressed this House for 30 minutes. He is the Minister responsible for drawing up Government policy with regard to the new dispensation. However, he gave us no indication of what the new Parliament would look like constitutionally, or what the buildings, are going to look like. Today we listened to the hon the Minister of Finance for 45 minutes, and we did not get a reply from him either. We gain the impression that that Prime Minister is behaving like a modern Pied Piper of Hamelin, whilst the rest of the Government are following him like a lot of mice, and they do not care where they are being led. Once again we want to avail ourselves of this opportunity to say that the CP do not intend following a Prime Minister who simply goes in any direction like the Pied Piper of Hamelin. To us the question is where the children of our people are going. I therefore want to ask the hon the Leader of the House if there is a hidden agenda about which we have not yet been told at this stage. Is there a hidden agenda concerning where the Government is taking the Whites of this country? This is something which not only creates uncertainty for the Whites, but which makes the Brown people and the Indians, who are going to become part of the new political dispensation, just as uncertain.

But you know everything, old Daan.

I know, and that is my problem. Thathon member know nothing, however. He simply follows the Pied Piper of Hamelin. He should rather go and fight an election in his constituency.

The Government prides itself in having gained a large majority yes-vote last year, but I maintain that that majority represents a conglomerate of ideas and that the Government cannot lead us into a hazy future on the basis of that result alone. The Prime Minister and the Government are not being honest with the public at large about the future of this Parliament. The CP is a party that is eager to enter the future, because we have a specific plan for South Africa. However, the Government is negating this country’s entire history, as well as the aspirations of our predecessors, and the blood, sweat and labours of generations, since it is abolishing this Parliament now. We do not know what is going to take its place.

Since we are commencing the Committee Stage of the Appropriation Bill today, I think it is imperative that the hon the Leader of the House should give us absolute clarity about the direction in which the NP wants to take South Africa. If we do not get an honest reply today, the CP will make use of every platform, both here and outside, to force the truth out of the Leader of the House and the Prime Minister, so that they can tell us where we are going. The Prime Minister, the Government, may be bluffing the public at large, and they may be keeping many people in suspense, but as long as there is an Opposition party like the Conservative Party, we will always require the truth from the Prime Minister, from the Government. We are not prepared to follow a Government that is unwilling to inform the people about its plans. We are not prepared to allow the institutions of our people, even if it is only the structure of Parliament, simply to be abolished. We want to know from the Prime Minister, from the Government, precisely in which direction they are taking us.

Order! During the course of his speech the hon member said that the hon the Prime Minister and other hon members were not being honest, or that they were supposedly being dishonest about the future of Parliament. I cannot permit other hon members to be accused of dishonesty and I therefore ask the hon member to withdraw that.

Mr Chairman, I withdraw that which is unparliamentary.

Mr Chairman, I do not intend to deal with the issues raised by the hon member for Rissik, because I cannot be further removed from his thinking that I am at this present moment.

I would like to deal with the issues raised by the hon member for Sea Point, because I find myself in accord with him on one, while in respect of the other I regret to say that he has regaled us here with a lot of words and has indulged in what I consider to be a certain measure of “nit-picking”. At the outset I would like to say that I agree entirely with the hon member for Sea Point when he says that Parliament must remain the master of its own destiny, and we should remember this. There are three committees of this House, namely the Committee of Standing Rules and Orders, the Committee on Internal Arrangements and the Parliamentary Catering Committee. I do not want to refer to the Catering Committee now, but I want to deal with the other two as they have pertinence to the question raised initially by the hon member for Sea Point, namely additions to the buildings.

The hon member condemned the fact that a junior Minister presented a fait accompli to this House. I submit that this is not factual. There was a meeting of the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders on 23 February this year at which that hon member was present. It was held in the old section of this building, and at that very meeting it was decided to set up a subcommittee of the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders to investigate standing rules and orders for the new dispensation. It was further decided that the plans for the extensions to the buildings of this Parliament would be laid before that subcommittee, which I understand is meeting later this week, before they were laid before the Committee on Internal Arrangements, which deals with building extensions to this Parliament. [Interjections.] Is that not the normal way to lay it before Parliament?

Why did the hon the Minister make the announcement?

He may have made an announcement, but I cannot defend his actions. The hon the Minister may have made an announcement, but he has made no decisions on behalf of this Parliament. The standing committees referred to will make the decisions, and I am part of those committees and I believe the hon member for Sea Point is as well. I regret to say that the hon member obviously does not know how this place works. [Interjections.]

As regards the dining-room of this House, we in this party regret that this is the fifth consecutive year that this matter has been raised in this House under this Vote. I believe that the hon Chief Whip of the Official Opposition made a far better speech last year than the hon member for Sea Point did today. The 10 reasons given by the hon Chief Whip last year certainly argued the point well. It is still a source of regret to me that this matter is not kept out of this Chamber and is not dealt with in the relative committees. This can obviously not come about until such time as the Government deals with it in its own caucus. I charge the hon the Prime Minister and the hon the Leader of the House with this and ask them to deal with it in their caucus before it is too late. There are hon members in the National Party who agree with our view. Our point of view is simply that the dining-room should be available to each and every member equally, be he a Minister, an ordinary member, a backbencher or a frontbencher, or whatever. Each member should have the right to invite whomever he wishes as long as he remembers that he carries the responsibility for the conduct of his guests at all times. We support the thought that our dining-room, and dining-rooms of the future, be open to members of all race groups, to anybody, as long as the member takes the responsibility for those whom he invites.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Sea Point became extremely excited. The dining-room facilities have been debated for the past five years, and I do not want to repeat these arguments now. There have been problems with space, and additional facilities were created in 1968.

With the new dispensation there will be a dining-room for the Coloured Chamber, a dining-room for the Indian Chamber and one for the White Chamber. [Interjections.] Of course. Surely we cannot all share the present dining-room. As it is, the dining-room is always being over-booked. We cannot let all the groups eat in the one dining-room. There are going to be committees on Standing Rules and Orders for the Indians, for the Coloureds and for us, and they are going to meet and draw up new rules when the whole process is operating in practice. It is therefore not necessary to debate the matter today. The chambers are not here yet.

On Thursday the leader of the hon member for Rissik, the hon member for Water-berg, and the hon member for Sea Point, will serve together on a committee that will discuss these plans. They are aware of that. Mr Speaker informed us of this beforehand. We have discussed the plans. All the parties are represented on the committee concerned. Is it practical to discuss the plans for the new buildings in this House? One needs a committee in which this can be discussed. There are representatives of each of the political parties serving on each of the various committees in which the plans are being discussed.

†The hon member for Sea Point wants to know why there is an increase of 3,7% in expenditure. Let him look at the Vote. There were increases in salaries, the prices of foodstuffs went up and the subsidy on the dining-room has been increased by the Minister of Finance.

*These are the reasons for the increase. Sir, hon members are asking stupid, ridiculous questions. They need only read the bulky book in which the Estimate of the Expenditure that has to be defrayed from the State Revenue Account is set out. [Interjections.] I say that this is not the time to discuss these matters. This must be solved in our committees.

We are in the process of effecting changes, but what has happened? The hon member for Rissik says that today he wants to know the truth about where we are going. Does he want to know where we are going? We are on the way to that for which 66,5% of the population voted “yes”, viz the new constitution. He must go and reread the new constitution, which the people accepted. That is what 66,5% of the population voted for, despite all the negative opposition from him and his blood brothers in the official Opposition.

†The hon member for Sea Point said people must boycott this new dispensation. Now he comes and says we must make all people equal. His hon leader is present and I want to quote for their benefit from the leading article in the Rand Daily Mail of Friday. I would ask them to give me a reply to that—after all, they want all matters answered today. The short piece I want to quote goes under the subheading “PFP Surprise":

*Those people trim their sails to the wind. If they have to decide whether a Black man should be allowed into a library, they say …

You know what our policy is. [Interjections.]

Sir, the hon the Prime Minister has one aim with the new constitution, viz to move towards equality as far as is practically possible. Now is not the time to make decisions when there are committees that discuss all these matters, and we will have a joint committee of the new chambers that will sit around a table together to decide how dining-room facilities and all the other problems should be dealt with. The question of the new building will also be discussed on Thursday afternoon, and representatives of each of the parties opposite will have the opportunity then to see the plans, just as Mr Speaker has shown them to us in a committee on a previous occasion. That is all I have to say about the matter. If there are any further questions, they will be stupid questions. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, it is probably strange that I am rising to speak immediately after the hon the Leader of the House. However, life does not only consist of eating, and, under the circumstances, we must also have a little nourishment for the mind.

I wish to touch on a matter about which I believe hon members of the Opposition will agree with me. That is the reason why I want to refer to it at this stage. The many historical objects, sketches, paintings and portraits that adorn the corridors of the Parliamentary Building attest to the long way the traditions of Parliament have already come. One can feel the atmosphere, and one respect it. Indeed, there are not many sources available in which the history of Parliament is recorded. Apart from that, other historical pieces and people have come to the fore in respect of which and about whom nothing has been recorded. I am thinking in particular of the pieces of moon rock and the miniature national flag that are exhibited in the Gallery Hall. There is also the national anthem which was written by Prof J R Branco, a master in the art of illumination. Nothing has been written about these and other objects. A short biography on each Speaker who has honoured Parliament with his unique competence has been recorded. As hon members are aware, a portrait is painted of every Speaker of the House, which is given a place of honour in the Lobby. A beautiful portrait of the hon member for Vryburg has recently been hung in the Lobby. As far as I could ascertain, however, a short biography has not yet been written on him and the present Speaker. By this I do not mean that Mr Speaker and the hon member for Vryburg are a part of history, but we are entering a new era in the political history of South Africa and this extremely important information must be retained for our descendants at all costs. This brings me to my plea.

In 1972 the Select Committee on Internal Arrangements took the following decision:

Since we will probably be changing over to the tricameral system later this year, it is probably an appropriate time to have such a brochure published. When the other population groups come and take their place in Parliament, a new chapter in the history of South Africa will begin. Therefore, in my opinion, this is a fitting end to one chapter of the Parliamentary history of our country and a fine beginning to a new chapter. Considering our present economic situation in South Africa I am not asking that money be made available for this purpose immediately, but let us place this high on our list of priorities, and as soon as those funds are available, let Parliament vote funds to have the history of Parliament recorded. We must record and preserve history for our descendants.

I want to present a few interesting events and items that are part of the history of Parliament to hon members. The Parliamentary Building, which was inaugurated on 5 May 1885, had to face many setbacks before it was finally to be completed. A competition for architects was held in 1873, and seven different designs were received. The first prize of 250 guineas was won by a certain Charles Freeman. The condition was that the cost for the construction of the building should not amount to more than £50 000. Ten months later, after Governor Sir Henry Barkley had laid the foundation-stone on 12 May 1875, it was discovered that the cost of constructing the building would exceed £100 000. It was also discovered that the foundation of the building was faulty and the entire building was demolished. The foundation-stone which had been laid and which weighed approximately three tons, was lost in the process, and to this day no one knows what became of it. All that remains of Freeman’s design is a tile tableau that still hangs above the stairs to the public gallery. It was also discovered that Freeman was not an architect, but a British actor who began working for the Department of Public Works after his arrival from England.

It is probably true that hon members do not all know where the office of Speaker originated. In earlier years the office was known as procurator, and when the king wanted to know what the people felt about a matter the most eloquent representative was usually nominated as spokesman to go and put their case to the king. Often the king was dissatisfied with a negative reply, and the procurator was then summarily beheaded. Perhaps it would have been a good thing if the hon member for Rissik could have been a procurator at that time. [Interjections.] Sir Peter de la Mare became procurator in 1376. He was a cautious man and first demanded certain guarantees from the king before he conveyed the relevant message. He also went down in history as the first Speaker. In South Africa the Speaker no longer requires those guarantees when he reports to the State President.

In South Africa the office of Speaker has only caused a stir once. That was on 23 June 1914, when the late Mr Charlie Fichardt proposed that Speaker Molteno’s salary be reduced by R2 000 because he “gedurende het debat vast zit te slapen, sodat een bode hem moet wakker maken”. [Interjections.] Gen Smuts was the senior Minister at that time and he defended the Speaker as follows:

I was unable to ascertain whether they had a vote on this motion, and whether Speaker Molteno survived it.

Hon members are probably also familiar with the history of the Mace. The stinkwood Mace was taken into use on 5 June 1961 when the House of Assembly met for its first sitting after we became a Republic. On 18 January 1963, the opening day of a new Parliamentary session, the stinkwood Mace was replaced by the present gold Mace. After certain formalities had been disposed of, Mr Speaker requested the Serjeant-at-Arms to remove the stinkwood Mace and to place the new one upon the Table. The Serjeant-at-Arms handed the stinkwood Mace to the Chief Messenger, who placed it in the crook of his left arm with its head pointing down and carried it out of the Chamber. As hon members are aware, the stinkwood Mace is at present on display in the Gallery Hall.

The present Mace is made of pure South African gold, and it was designed by Dr C Pama, under the watchful eye of the Standing Committee on Standing Rules and Orders.

When one speaks about the history of Parliament there are literally hundreds of items that all have their own history, and one needs a great deal of time to discuss them all. Not to speak about a few of the adornments of Parliament, however, would mean that a very interesting part of it would be lost. The clocks in the Assembly Chamber, for example, were always set five minutes fast. This was done to give hon members the opportunity to catch the train at 22h30 when there was an evening sitting. In so doing, they could still catch the train after having adjourned at 22h30 parliamentary time.

The sand-timer that is used for divisions in the House has been in use since 1862. Its origin is unknown, although it can be said with certainty that it comes from an overseas country because the kind of glass from which it is made was not manufactured in South Africa at that time. What is odd about the sand-timer is that the sand runs from one side to the other in 2 minutes 7 seconds, and when it is turned around, the same sand runs through the same little hole in 2 minutes 18 seconds—a difference of 11 seconds.

When the Union Parliament assembled for the first time on 4 November 1910 a suitable snuff-box was sought. A small pewter box was found, which was already more than 100 years old at that stage. Hon members can still take snuff from that snuff-box today. That is, of course, those who need to. The hon member for Houghton and the hon member for Germiston District can therefore sit back and relax, since because snuff is permitted in the House, it does not mean that it is compulsory. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I do not want to take up the time of this Committee unnecessarily. However, the hon the Leader of the House saw fit to quote from a newspaper report which appeared on Friday in order to cloud the issue of my party’s standpoint in respect of the parliamentary dining-room a little.

I want to point out at once that if that newspaper report created the impression that I, or anyone in my party, was not prepared to adopt a standpoint of principle with regard to local matters, this is definitely not good enough. However, I believe that experience has taught us—as has history—that the reverse is actually true, particularly when we observe what happened in the Johannesburg City Council and the Randburg City Council. In this particular case all I can say, for the information of the hon the Leader of the House, is that when I was approached to comment on this matter, I said that it was a local government matter and that I knew nothing about it. I went on to say that I felt that the relevant person should first be asked for clarifying comment. Of course, what appeared in the relevant newspaper report was not a complete version of what I said. I am, however, quite prepared to say that if Canon George Pressly in fact said what was reported in the newspaper, namely that he had voted against the admission of Blacks to the local library because provision had been made for a library for Blacks in their own residential area, I would not consider this to be a reflection of the PFP’s standpoint, and I would therefore oppose Canon Pressly on this matter. What is more, I would do so in public with the utmost confidence, because his behaviour does not reflect the policy of my party. Of course, it is Canon Pressly’s problem to decide how he reconciles his attitude with the standpoint of his party, if he in fact wishes to retain any association with the party. However, this is no problem to me. For that reason I want to make it quite clear that our standpoint in this connection— whether we are discussing the parliamentary dining-room or the public library in Kimberley—remains unchanged.

Mr Chairman, the hon the Leader of the House said earlier that he hoped no more questions would be put to him because any further questions could only be stupid questions. However, during the Second Reading debate on the Appropriation Bill the hon the Minister of Finance was asked repeatedly—and the hon the Leader of the House was once more asked to do the same thing this afternoon—to explain exactly what is going on here. At the moment we are discussing the Vote “Parliament”, and with regard to this Vote provision is only made for the salaries and allowances of members of the House of Assembly. The Government has already announced that in terms of the new dispensation an election for members of the Coloured House of Representatives and the Indian House of Delegates will take place on 22 August of this year.

Surely there is an Additional Appropriation. [Interjections.]

Now we are asking the hon the Leader of the House where provision is being made in this Budget for the Minister, as from 22 August, to have the authority to pay the salaries of those new people. If such authorization does in fact exist, we want to know what amount is involved.

Why should you concern yourself about that? [Interjections.]

The hon member for Turffontein asked why I should concern myself about that. We said during the Second Reading debate that this Budget did not reflect the actual expected expenditure of the State for the coming year. Now the hon member has confirmed this. The hon the Minister of Community Development has just said by way of an interjection that this will be done in the Additional Appropriation.

No, I did not say that. I said there was an Additional Appropriation. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I maintain that this is completely irregular. No provision has been made in this Budget for the payment of the salaries of those representatives. I also maintain that if that election in fact takes place and no legislative authority exists for the payment of those representatives’ salaries, such action by the Government, if it does take place, would be illegal. [Interjections.]

In the Second Reading debate I said that one of two things was true. Either the Government did not intend to introduce the new dispensation in the first place—and that I do not believe—or the Government wanted to conceal from the White voters of South Africa how much the new dispensation was going to cost the country. [Interjections.] I should like a reply to this from the hon the Leader of the House. Why is not even R1 at least being voted for this purpose?

Mr Chairman, I accept the explanation of the hon the Leader of the Opposition. However, I just want to raise the point that whereas I am being pressurized to say how I feel about a matter he, according to his newspaper … [Interjections.] I have respect for his standpoint. My standpoint is as I have stated. There are select committees which are inquiring into all these matters in order to implement the decision taken by the people in the referendum that we should have three Houses. It goes without saying that each of those three Houses will have its own dining-room because surely we cannot all be accommodated in the same dining-room.

As far as the regulations in connection with inviting guests from one Chamber to another are concerned, the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders, the Select Committee on Parliamentary Catering and all the other committees that have been referred to, will have to decide on these matters. The hon member for Umhlanga also referred to this.

As far as the speech of the hon member for Barberton is concerned, let us assume that some disaster or other were to befall the country. [Interjections.] The hon the Minister of Finance cannot make provision for such an unforeseen event because anything can happen. He cannot make provision for everything. It goes without saying that the new Members of Parliament will receive their salaries. When that stage is reached, they will be paid their salaries according to the directions set out by the hon the Minister of Finance in the White Book. I have also been informed that the Payment of Members of Parliament Act is still going to be amended during the present session to make provision for the members of the two new Houses. The payment of members’ salaries is a statutory appropriation. Provision will be made for all these matters during the present session. [Interjections.]

Hon members opposite simply do not want to accept that we are entering a new dispensation. They refuse to accept it although the people have already accepted it. [Interjections.] It is only in that part of the country where the trees grow on the other side of the Bergs that they have not yet accepted it, although they are in the process of doing so. [Interjections.] I just want to make this statement in connection with the hon members of the CP. What they feel they have sacrificed they should weigh up against racial harmony and stability in our country. This is not the time to discuss this matter. I just want to tell those hon members that we are going to settle their hash in Potgietersrus … [Interjections.]

Order!

Vote agreed to.

Chairman directed to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.

Mr Chairman, hon members will recall that as far as this party is concerned, hon members are entitled to exercise their own discretion and to follow their own consciences in regard to a Bill of this nature which affects the distribution of liquor. I stand here at the moment to speak entirely in my personal capacity. My colleagues, of course, are free to express their own personal views.

I stand here not as a prohibitionist, as one who believes in prohibition as it obtained in the USA, because that could be counterproductive. I stand here merely to express concern because what that clause in effect does is to extend the availability of liquor. In terms of section 32 of the principle Act liquor licences can only be transferred if they are wholesale liquor licences, brewer’s licenses, wine farmer’s licences, foreign licences or hotel liquor licences, but in terms of the clause a grocer’s wine licence will also be tranferable in future. We are, in other words, extending the availability of liquor.

I think our society and in particular Western society is too far gone to turn back the clock and to stop the sale of liquor. I would therefore not ask for it although I think it should never have started in the first place. Nevertheless, liquor is being sold and we have to deal with the problem. We know about the problems which exist in regard to alcoholism. My fear is that if we extend the provisions in regard to the availability of liquor we are making it easier to obtain and more available particularly in grocery shops which are licensed. We have been talking about hypermarkets and supermarkets that will be able to display liquor on their shelves. If it is displayed on the shelves, it means that it is available and it is there for all to see. There will be no distinction between old people and young people as is the case with bottle stores where there are age limits. This clause does away with the age limit and a youth will in future see wine and sparkling wine where it is readily available.

What is availability? If something is available, it is, as has been shown, there so that one can be tempted. One can also define “availability” as “temptation”. Very often people will fall for temptation, and therefore, if one is making it available, one is tempting people into this problem.

I think many hon members of the Committee will share my concern about the youth. The youth are vulnerable, they are susceptible to availibility, to temptation. We have had problems with the youth, not only in this country, but world-wide. Like the rest of the civilized world we share those problems which concern drug taking, smoking and the consumption of alcohol. I think there is a correlation between all of them. In fact, I can substantiate this correlation. After Pres Nixon had appointed a commission of inquiry and spent R1 million on that commission under Mr Schaeffer, a book Marijuana—a signal of understanding was published. There are 10 lines in this book which I should like to read in order to prove the point I want to make:

Dagga as we know it:

It is basically for this reason that I express the fear of making this more available and am opposed to the clause.

As far as the clause is concerned we should look at section 32 of the Liquor Act. We are dealing with the transfer of a grocer’s wine licence, and in this connection section 32(1) provides that such a licence shall not be transferred to—

1. (a) any producer or his agent
2. (b) any brewer or his
3. (c) any person who has a financial interest in the business of such a producer or a brewer or the agent of such person;
4. (d) any company in which shareholders having a financial interest in the business of a producer or a brewer together hold a controlling interest, or the agent of such company …

There is a clear provision of intention in the section we are dealing with to prohibit the breweries from having an interest in wine, and quite frankly I think that we are opening the door. Section 32(1)(d) precludes any company in which shareholders having a financial interest in the business of a producer or a brewer together hold a controlling interest, from being granted a liquor licence, but with all the amalgamations of companies we have in South Africa today, and the conglomerates that are being formed, the whole question becomes so involved that it may be that brewery companies may hold shares in companies which may well sell wine. I would like to have the hon the Minister’s comments as to whether in fact companies will be able to evade the prohibition which is contained in this section with regard to the separation of the interests of a brewery or persons having a shareholding in a brewery and those having an interest in the wine industry itself.

I also want to ask the hon the Minister, as I asked earlier, what the criteria are in granting grocers’ wine licences. With regard to the transfer of these licences, I would like to know whether a chain store which for example has 20 branches throughout South Africa can transfer its grocers’ wine licence to its various branches, or whether each separate branch has to apply for its own licence. If such a licence is granted, for example in Port Elizabeth, and the company decides to transfer the licence to its Knysna branch, will it be allowed to do so?

It is with these reservations that I express my personal concern that the temptation aimed at the youth. We cannot wrap them all up in cotton wool and one of the problems with regard to the youth is the peer group complex. If it is part of this complex to drink, to smoke dagga or cigarettes, that influence is stronger than anything else. I fear that the temptation created by the freer availability of liquor, may just spell more problems for the youth of our country. Therefore I personally am opposed to this clause.

Mr Chairman, during the Second Reading debate the CP, through the hon member for Langlaagte and the hon member for Barberton, stated why we are opposed to this legislation, and, consequently, why we shall be voting against the clause concerned. I should like to make a few remarks in this regard.

I know the hon the Minister well enough to realize that he is someone who is well aware of the problems with regard to this matter. It is not necessary for me to say that I accept his bona fides with regard to this matter. I can understand that as the Minister responsible for this matter he has to see to it that the interests of those concerned, particularly as far as the trade is concerned, are looked after. Just like all of us, whether or not he wishes to propagate the use of alcohol in a responsible way, he is also someone who has a very strong standpoint on the matter. The hon the Minister will also understand that when a sensitive matter such as the use and abuse of alcohol is at issue, everyone who would like to see happy families in our community realizes that liquor could be the cause of the breaking up of families. The whole question of the abuse of liquor is an evil that does not only occur in modern society. It is probably as old as mankind itself. The abuse of liquor and drugs is part of community life, whether they are so-called civilized or primitive. This has existed since the time of Noah, and even before his time. Since the modern world is becoming more complicated in many respects, and since all the things that are really important to one are being questioned by the libertines, it is important that we as a Parliament—the Opposition, in conjuction with the Government party—should warn against the consequences.

As my hon colleagues have remarked, we are voting against this because we do not want the availability of liquor to be extended. Since the hon the Minister is acting in the interests of the liquor trade we must see to it that everyone—politicians, those who are involved in the wine industry or those who process it in some form or another—is attuned to the correct use of wine and everything that goes with it, now more than ever. Whilst some people probably feel more strongly about this than others, we all have a joint responsibility. There are various cultural communities with historic differences in South Africa. In the world in which we live everyone must be attuned to advocating abstinence, rather than advocating that liquor be made available too easily.

Whilst we can understand the problems and responsibilities of the hon the Minister, we as a party—this is also the standpoint of our members as individuals—will vote against this clause.

Mr Chairman, to a certain extent, this Bill succeeds in doing certain things. The wine industry is a very noble industry and is practised throughout the world by many noble and genuine people. Those who practise it as a farming industry are not guilty of the offences or wrongs that result from the abuse of the processed article. It must be made clear that the agricultural section of the wine industry is a pure and noble industry.

When one speaks of the evils that result from the consumption of the processed article, a distinction must be made between these two aspects. When one speaks of the evils that result from the abuse of the processed article, cognizance must be taken of the fact that the RSA is not the only country that has this problem. We cannot be presented as the worst example of the dreadful consequences that arise in the world as a result of the abuse of alcohol. The Red Indians in America and the natives of Australia are examples of how millions of people have deliberately been destroyed through the abuse of alcohol. There is no other word I can use to describe this. One realizes then what can happen. I wish to state at the outset that I, and I think each one of us in this House, condemn abuse of any kind, as well as the consequences. On the other hand, we must see this legislation, and clause 1, which is being dealt with at present, in particular, in the right perspective. If we look at what clause 1, in fact, provides, one sees that it is not effecting any change in the conditions for obtaining licences. It is simply determining the maximum number of licences that can be held by an institution. It is not changing a single condition applied by the Liquor Board when it decides to grant or reject an application. When the hon member for Hillbrow, and to a certain extent, the hon member for Rissik, says that there could be abuse as a result of the granting of licences, I can sympathize with their standpoint. However, I wish to state that if one interprets clause 1 correctly, one sees that no changes are being effected to the conditions in terms of which the Liquor Board judges applications for licences. These remain unchanged. Consequently, I think that the arguments the two hon members advanced as to why they are opposing this clause, are misplaced. I take pleasure in supporting the clause.

Mr Chairman, my hon colleague, the hon member for Amanzimtoti, who regretfully cannot be here today, said in the Second Reading debate that, as far as any laws concerning liquor are concerned, we in this party have a free vote. Nevertheless, I think that the hon member for Amanzimtoti stated our case extremely well. He pointed out, inter alia, that the amendments contained in the Bill deal, as the hon member for Vasco has just reminded us, purely with a technicality and not really with the free availability of liquor.

I should, however, like to react specifically to what the hon member for Hillbrow said here this afternoon. He is perpetuating a confusion which so often arises in the minds of people who have taken a dislike to a particular product, be it tobacco or liquor. That confusion arises from their idea that the availability of a product is directly related to the irresponsible use of that product. The hon member for Hillbrow quoted at some length from a publication to show that those individuals who smoke cigarettes also at some stage try dagga and that those people who become abusers of liquor at some earlier stage came into contact with it. That does not, however, prove the point the hon member is trying to make. He has said to us today that a large number of the people who come into contact with dagga are people who smoke and this means that, generally, the population is going to abuse cigarettes. That is the gist of his argument. I want to point out that that is fallacious. It is not the availability of a potentially dangerous commodity that leads to irresponsible use of abuse. Irresponsible use or abuse is a question of the education of the people concerned. I may point out to the hon member that in the case of reckless driving or the reckless use of fire-arms, the individuals predominantly involved with such irresponsible use or abuse come from backgrounds which make them potentially irresponsible people who will then abuse some product or thing. It is not the availability of the product as such that makes them irresponsible. That tendency of irresponsibility is already there. May I just point out that the hon member himself said that he is not in favour of total prohibition. In other words, it must be made available in a responsible manner in the marketplace. I should like to ask the hon member for Hillbrow whether, as far as an adult is concerned, it is more irresponsible to sell wine in a supermarket than in a bottle store. Any adult, or any individual who appears to be an adult physicially, has the right to go into a bottle store to purchase liquor whether he is going to use it irresponsibly or not. We do not believe that it makes for irresponsible behaviour having wines available in supermarkets.

Does “we” mean your party?

No, I talk of the lobby, those people who believe the same as I do. We believe the mere availability of wine in a supermarket does not become the cause of irresponsible behaviour. That irresponsibility is already there in the individual before he is in the position to actually go out and buy liquor. I believe it is a total overreaction to the situation by those persons who do not believe that liquor, or tobacco, should be made available on a relatively free basis. Once again I should merely like to assure the hon the Minister that those of us who believe that liquor should be made available on a relatively free basis to adults will not be influenced by the type of argument used by the hon member for Hillbrow. I personally will certainly be supporting the clause in this instance.

Mr Chairman, I should very much like to associate myself with the hon member for Durban North, and I should also like to refer to a point raised by the hon member for Rissik. One need only look at what really happened in practice on the farms in the Boland, and with regard to off-sales and on-consumption when people were not familiar with the principle of enjoying wine with food. This is concerned specifically with the correct use of wine. I could quote some very fine examples in this regard. There is the case of a hotel in my constituency which belongs to a Coloured man. He exercises very strict control over the people who visit his hotel on a Friday afternoon after they have received their wages. He first sends them home to take their money to their wives, after which they are permitted to return with R1 or R2 to spend, provided that they have a plate of food with their wine. I am simply mentioning this case as an example to indicate the degree to which people, particularly those in the lower class, have been taught the correct use of the product over the past 10 or 20 years. The whole principle of grocers’ wine licences has made a major contribution over the past two decades in bringing home the correct use of wine to people, viz with food. This is one of the finest principles that was accepted at that time and which is being confirmed in this legislation.

As regards the other principle, I wish to associate myself with the hon member for Vasco. In principle, there is no extension whatsoever, since the Cabinet accepted as far back as two or three years ago that no group of grocery stores is permitted to have more than 36 licences. That is the maximum number, whether it is a large or a small group. As a result of other circumstances, these two groups were restricted to a lower number, however. All that is happening now is that the unnecessary restriction on these two groups is being removed. These two groups remain subject to the maximum number of 36 determined by the Cabinet, however. I take pleasure in supporting this clause unconditionally.

Mr Chairman, I thought that during the Second Reading we had dealt extensively with all the arguments that could be raised about this amending legislation. Yet hon members have now repeated some of the arguments that we discussed at length then. The hon member for Hillbrow, for example, again raised the argument that availability leads to abuse. I have dealt with that already and I am not going to repeat what I said. There is in any event no scientific proof for that viewpoint. There is no correlation between availability and abuse. I realize that it is a difficult area. We are all against abuse and all the problems that go hand in hand with abuse, but to take as a premise that availability will automatically lead to abuse is not correct. The hon member feels very strongly on this matter and I appreciate his point of view. I fully understand that people can feel very strongly about the availability of liquor. However, I should like once again to make the point that a consequent viewpoint should then argue that no further liquor licences should be granted. The amendment in actual fact proposes a small alteration which will make it possible for two groups that have been restricted by the present legislation in terms of acquiring further grocers’ wine licences, to acquire the maximum number of 36.

*The hon member went on to ask what the intention of the original legislation had been. The intention of the original section 36 was very definitely, within the administration of the Liquor Act, to prevent vertical integration and to maintain separation as far as possible. Surely the hon member knows that separation on various levels, that is to say separation between wholesale and retail and separation between the beer, wine and spirits industries has been a long-cherished ideal, and still is. This is a standpoint on which the KWV, among others, has repeatedly expressed itself strongly in favour. This ideal was also affirmed last year by the report of the Competition Board.

Over the years, however, various developments have taken place in the liquor industry which made it difficult and even impossible to attain that ideal. That is why it was not possible for the Government to accept the Competition Board’s recommendations last year, with the result that we are saddled with an integrated industry today.

The ideal of separation is, therefore, not practicable, and the purpose of the amendment is simply to be consistent. Since we now have an integrated industry, why should some participants be discriminated against, while others have the privilege of obtaining a licence? All that we want to do by means of this amendment is to make the rules of the game, at least as far as grocers’ wine licences are concerned, the same for everyone.

†The hon member for Hillbrow asked whether a grocers’ wine licence, when granted to a chain store, could be applied to all their outlets or whether it is applicable to only one outlet. The application only has a bearing on that one outlet for which the application was made. Each and every application must go through the normal procedures. An application must be lodged, the board must consider that application; there is an opportunity for complaints to be heard and evenatually the liquor board will decide on that particular licence. Should the specific group, after acquiring 36, wish to transfer a licence from one area to another, they have to apply for a new licence but on the condition that they will close down one of the existing licences; in other words, they will never be allowed to exceed the number of 36. Each and every one of those 36 licences is regarded as a separate licence by the liquor board and is treated as such.

*I thank the hon member for Rissik for his kind remarks and for the earnestness with which he discussed this matter as well. I do not doubt that everyone in this House is in earnest about co-operating as far as possible to combat the abuse of liquor.

This is not easy ground to cover. The hon member will realize that we are living in a broken reality, in which the abuse, not only of liquor, but of many of the gifts with which we are endowed—as he himself remarked— is as old as mankind itself. In this situation of a broken reality it is important for us to try to promote responsible, civilized usage. I stated in my Second Reading speech—and I should like to repeat it—that the evil is not situated in the product or in the gift itself, but in the person who abuses that gift.

For that reason, a great responsibility rests on each one of us, as members of a family, as members of society, as members of a community, to contribute to responsible usage; to educate people so that we will be able to combat evils in our own society as well.

The hon member for Vasco and the hon member for Paarl also supported this legislation. They pointed out that it was a technical measure, that it merely made provision for the normalization of a situation in regard to grocers’ wine licences, and the hon member for Paarl emphasized once again how important the good, civilized and responsible use of wine and food was.

†I thank the hon member for Durban North for his contribution. It is certainly a technical matter, and it is really a minute change that is being effected to the existing system of grocers’ wine licences and the granting of such licences to applicants.

*With these few remarks, Mr Chairman, I want to thank all hon members for their contributions.

Mr Chairman, I should like to react very briefly to what the hon the Minister has just said. Firstly, however, I should like to point out to the hon member for Durban North that this whole matter is not simply one of education. It goes far deeper than that. I do not deny, however, that education is of extreme importance. I do believe, however, that availability together with group influence are the most important aspects in respect of this whole matter.

I regret the fact that the hon the Minister states that there is no question of the availability of liquor being extended in terms of this measure. It is common sense that availability indeed causes temptation. I have quite extensive experience in respect of the youth, particularly in relation to drug abuse. I have played a very active role in the establishment of a clinic for the treatment of drug victims. I am also a member of the management committee of the said clinic. As regards the users of marijuana or dagga, I still contend that availability, which causes temptation, is one of the major factors that has to be combated. It is so easy to get these drugs from so many different sources. That is why they are so extensively abused in this country. That is also why the SA Police have to spend thousands of rand and many hours of labour destroying thousands of tons of dagga every year. In respect of the use of other drugs, such as LSD, cocaine and other dangerous drugs, availability also plays a very important role. That is why I submit that that has to be curbed. With great respect, Mr Chairman, it is only common sense that availability indeed causes temptation.

If my wife should leave her handbag in her motor car with the windows wide open, that handbag would be available to any passer-by simply because it is there and it causes temptation. As sure as anything, Mr Chairman, that handbag will not remain untouched for very long. The same test applies in the case of the availability of liquor. Here too availability causes temptation. That is my reaction to what the hon the Minister has said.

Mr Chairman, I do not think I shall deal with the arguments of the hon member for Hillbrow at any length. I think in this case we shall simply have to accept that we disagree with each other.

The fact of the matter is that the amendment in clause 1 makes no change to the availability of liquor in South Africa. Liquor is freely available. I made this quite clear to the hon member during the Second Reading stage. I said at that stage that liquor was in actual fact so freely available in South Africa that it was as near to the consumer as his telephone. I cannot therefore agree with the hon member in this connection.

One could take the argument a step further by saying that if the availability of a substance or a product necessarily leads to its being abused, this detracts from the entire sense of responsibility of a community which is constantly being confronted by a variety of opportunities which could lead to abuse. If that argument were to be taken to its logical conclusion, then the hon member should actually advocate, in the spirit of the Middle Ages, a community in which abstinence is the key—an attitude of do not touch, do not taste, do not mention. This is the attitude which prevailed in the Middle Ages, when people withdrew into cloisters because exposure to the world would of necessity lead to their downfall.

I cannot agree with such a standpoint because I believe that it is the responsibility of human beings, in a world which is in actual fact imperfect and full of evils, to promote a sense of responsibility which will enable them to deal with the world in such a way that the world will not lead them to destruction but that they will change the world into something worthwhile for them and their community.

With these few words I feel we have discussed this clause as fully as is possible.

Clause agreed to (Mr A B Widman and Conservative Party dissenting).

Clause 2:

Mr Chairman, I rise briefly to oppose this clause as well. I am sure that the hon the Minister who is piloting this Bill through the House, having been a man of the cloth himself, will appreciate my point of view and the concern that I feel in regard to this matter.

The clause extends the sale of certain types of liquor by means of grocers’ wine licences to include sparkling wines as well. It is therefore a further step in the distribution of liquor. That is one of the reasons why I am opposing it. The provision is being extended here to include sparkling wines so where is it all going to end? Is this going to be the end of it or will it go on and on? Will we come back here every year and have to agree to further extensions in respect of the distribution of liquor under grocers’ wine licences? For these reasons I am opposed to this clause.

Mr Chairman, the CP will also vote against this clause. My attitude in this connection is basically the same as the one adopted by the hon member for Hillbrow. In our modern society the tendency is that the moment one lifts restrictions, particularly in connection with something like liquor, there are people who will regularly insist on more and more restrictions being lifted.

I just want to ask the hon the Minister, who is going to bear the responsibility for this legislation for an indefinite period, to ensue that in future a watchful eye is kept on all the problems and dangers which may ensure from it.

Mr Chairman, I rise to support this clause and to cross swords with my colleague, the hon member for Hillbrow. I do not disagree with much of what he has said. In fact, I have a great regard for his concern in respect of this problem and also for the work that he has done in the field of combating the evils associated with the abuse of liquor and drugs.

In this particular case, however, the clause merely provides for the definition of what is a wine to be extended to include sparkling wine which most people generally describe as champagne.

I do not think champagne has been one of the methods by which drunken dead-beats get drunk. I think champagne is a much more civilized kind of drink. It is not used by the lower echelons of society or by those who are intent upon abusing alcohol; it is in a different category. The principle of selling wine through grocery outlets is not at stake here; merely a clearing up of the definition of what may be sold. Since it extends the definition to a very rarefied segment of the wine industry, I think it can be supported.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Constantia is quite right. The clause merely concerns the definition of “natural wine”. It clarifies the definition to include “sparkling wine” or “champagne” as it is traditionally called.

*In this connection it is actually clarifying the position. The present definition of “natural wine” in the Act, lends itself to uncertainties, and in order to clarify the definition and place it beyond doubt what is and what is not included in the category of “natural wine”, this amendment is being effected.

The questions asked by the hon members for Hillbrow and Rissik regarding the further extension of grocers’ wine licences are really not relevant. We are dealing with a specific category and there is no extension outside the category. We are dealing with natural wine.

In my Second Reading speech I tried to spell out the Government’s standpoint very clearly regarding the availibility of beer in grocers’ shops, for example. I do not want to go into all the arguments again, except to state briefly that the Government has taken regional interests into account, that the Government has taken existing and established interests of the trade into account and that such a measure has consistently been rejected by the Government since it was recommended by the Malan Commission in the, sixties. We shall continue to approach the grocers’ wine licences in that spirit, and this minor extension to the category of “natural wine” will make a minor change to existing licences. The fact of the matter is that sparkling wine constitutes less than 1% of the “natural wine” category. As the hon member for Constantia said, this is a category used by people who would not necessarily want to abuse liquor. Abuse can take place in far cheaper ways.

The extension is therefore small. The amendment has contributed towards clarifying the definition and for that reason I thank the hon members who supported us in this.

Clause agreed to (Mr A B Widman and Conservative Party dissenting).

House Resumed:

Bill reported.

Mr Speaker, when you interrupted me last week, I was just getting into my stride and I would therefore appreciate it if in future you would allow me to finish speaking before you adjourn the debate!

There are few professions so open to criticism as the medical profession. The grass always looks greener on the other side of the fence and the general public thinks that the medical profession is all moonlight and roses. They have their knife in for doctors. Just listen to what they say. Fancy motorcars, high fees, grand houses, beautiful and expensive wives. However, I wonder whether things always go so well in the medical profession. I read in a newspaper that some of them are abandoning their practices. Some of them even go so far as to come to Parliament! If things were going so well they would surely not come here, because they do not fare too well here either. But perhaps some of them simply come here for the sake of good company. As far as I can see they are no different to other ordinary members like ourselves. As a matter of fact, looking at them right now, they all seem to be having a very hard time.

The Medical Council was established by medical practitioners, for medical practitioners. The medical practitioners control themselves. These amendments are being made at the request of the Medical Council. They ensure that high standards are maintained, they ensure that steps are taken against dishonest persons and they ensure that medical practitioners are protected from vexatious questions. They also ensure that they receive enough or too little money. This Bill is necessary to be able to do this better. Anyone opposed to it probably did something wrong at some stage or other, but I support it with a clear conscience.

Order! I have compared the hon member’s speech with his previous speech and it would seem to me that the interruption did him quite a lot of good.

Mr Speaker, I have stated previously that the medical profession is generally held in very high regard by the public, but there is no doubt that times are changing, and with these changing times, so are the medical practitioners. They appear, if I may say so, to be losing some of the glittering image they once had. Certainly one finds it difficult to find that good old-fashioned GP who is prepared to do after hours calls in an emergency. Possibly today we expect too much from the modern day doctor. I am indeed very fortunate to know such an old-fashioned GP, a gentleman who is dedicated, not only to his practice, but also to his patients. His financial consideration take a secondary place. Unfortunately it appears that this is a fast disappearing breed in modern society. Like any profession, it is always the minority that causes an undesirable image. To highlight what I have just said, I want to refer to a recent case where a workman was injured on duty. The doctor attended him and suggested to him the following day that as Workmens’ Compensation takes a long time to settle its accounts, it would suit the doctor better if he would allow his treatment to be put through his medical aid. It is unfortunate that such instances do not enhance the reputation of the medical fraternity as a whole. The profession has a right to protect its image against irresponsible behaviour by its members and the legislation before us will create the necessary mechanism with which it can be done. The NRP will be supporting this Bill. However, it is our intention to ask quite a few questions to get clarity on certain measures embodied in the Bill.

The most important part of the Bill is the proposed insertion of the new section 41A under which certain investigations may be instituted. This certainly gives teeth, in no uncertain manner, to the registrar for the purpose of investigation. We are pleased to see that the person appointed by the registrar to do such investigation, will have to be issued with a certificate and will need to produce it on demand during the exercising of his powers or carrying out of his duties. Another important facet of these powers is that should an investigating officer seize books or documents, the person from whom they are seized will be afforded an opportunity to make copies of such books or documents as well as obtaining a receipt for the article so seized. This will at least allow the person to continue with his profession.

The proposed new section 41A(9)(a) deals with the secrecy aspect of investigations by the officer or his assistant, and is also welcomed, as is the disclosure of a patient’s personal particulars referred to in section 41A(9)(b).

Section 41A(10)(a) should have an inhibiting effect upon frivolous and petty reports to the registrar or council to instigate an investigation. The first question that arises here is whether the confirmation of allegations under oath applies to the proposed new section. 41A(5)(a), (b), (c) and (d) or only to (d).

I now want to refer to clause 6 which deals with section 52 of the principal Act. We have quite a vew questions here in this regard said, if the hon the Minister is in a position to do so, I would like him to reply to them in due course. I would firstly like him to define “open shop” as referred to in line 63 on page 9 of the Bill. Will the existing doctor be allowed to continue in terms of the proposed section 52(2) or will his registration be subject to the conditions provided for under the proposed section 52(2)(a)? What qualifies as being “in the public interest” under the proposed section 52(2)(b)? This is a very wide term. Will it be the distance from a pharmacy, convenience or price, bearing in mind that the public interest does not seem to allow a doctor to do dental word or an ophthalmologist to supply spectacles? Is there any reason why doctors cannot be associated with pharmacists to supply medicines in terms of the proposed section 52(1)(a)? This could be done in a clinic situation in industrial areas.

A further question concerns “a reasonable distance” referred to in line 31 on page 11. Is one kilometre, five kilometres or 10 kilometres a reasonable distance? I have looked up the definitions but it is not defined. I feel that we should be more definitive here and, depending on the hon the Minister’s reply, it may well be that we will move an amendment at the Committee Stage as we feel that we should be more specific as far as a reasonable distance is concerned.

Furthermore, if a doctor is granted the right to dispense on the grounds that there is no pharmacy within a reasonable distance, will that right be taken away if a pharmacy opens within a reasonable distance? Equally, if a doctor is at present dispensing within a reasonable distance, will he now be registered? If not, will a period of time be granted to allow the doctor to dispose of his stock? In other words, will a doctor who dispenses within the distance, have to stop dispensing? Moreover, with regard to the registration of these dispensing doctors, will this registration be reviewable periodically and will a registration fee be paid on an annual basis?

A further very important aspect concerning dispensing doctors is how it is envisaged that these doctors will be made aware of the provisions of the Medicines Control Act and its implications. Many dispensing doctors who may employ unregistered persons to dispense, appear to be totally unaware of the regulations, for example, in regard to the labelling and storage of medicines.

I want now to refer to the question of a registered nurse being a qualified person. If she is employed by a doctor to dispense, will she be responsible for her own errors and omissions or will it be a joint responsibility? The pharmacist plays a very important role in our lives. Regretfully, I believe he is not given full recognition for his professional abilities. The time has surely come for us to recognize the pharmacist as an important and integral part of our primary health care. I would respectfully suggest to the hon the Minister that the regulations governing the registration, as envisaged in the proposed section 52(1)(a), should include, firstly, a restriction on such registration where the medical practice is within 3 km of a retail pharmacy, and, secondly, that registration should be granted on condition that such dispensing be done without profit motive as per the Medical Council’s ethical rules. To prevent the further escalation of doctors dispensing and the possible deleterious effect on pharmacies of such escalation, a mechanism should be established whereby the pharmacy profession could be consulted before permission is granted by the council for a doctor to employ a nurse to dispense medicine. Such mechanism could be included in the proposed section 52A. Further, the Director-General should be empowered to grant such authority after consultation with the SA Pharmacy Board and not the council as envisaged in the Bill. We support the measure.

Mr Speaker, in the course of my speech I shall be referring to certain aspects the hon member has just raised. As I see it, this Bill embodies three important principles. They are set out as follows in the long title:

I listened to the speeches of the hon member for Parktown, the hon member for Pietersburg, the hon member for Witbank and other hon members who have already spoken about the Bill today, and although I support the principles I have just quoted, I do not want to elaborate any further on the specific reasons why I support them because of the fact that I find myself in the extraordinary position of thus far being—so it seems to me—the only member of the House who has certain misgivings about particular aspects of the Bill. I have discussed my misgivings with the hon the Minister and am therefore not adopting a rebellious attitude in this regard.

The first aspect I want to refer to relates to clause 5 which proposes to insert a section 41A into the principal Act. To be brief and to the point, what this amounts to is that the Registrar may appoint an inspector who could be an officer of the council but does not necessarily have to be one. It also concerns the powers of the inspectors. That is where one of my problems with the Bill lies. From the speeches of all the other hon members I have concluded that they are quite satisfied with this. Unfortunately I am not. In the field of medical services one of the principles is that the treatment should not be worse than the disease. I think it is also a principle in the administration of justice or the judicature that the power that one exercises in putting matters to rights should not have a worse effect that the relevant errors being corrected. Let me put it differently: If a young boy who is not very strong were to attack one with a knife, I do not think one should be able to counter that with a shotgun.

The proposed section 41A(6) reads, inter alia, as follows:

1. (a) at any time with the approval of the president and without prior notice enter upon, enter and search any premises, and carry out such an investigation and make such inquiries as he may deem necessary;
2. (b) while he is on the premises or at any other time request any person found on the premises to immediately or at a time and place determined by the registrar or investigating officer …
3. (c) at any time and at any place request any person … having … any book …

This is where my problem lies. I had a look at the Criminal Procedure Act. What does this Act provide when it comes to offences? In the legislation at present under discussion it is, to a large extent, a question of the contravention of an ethical rule, often with no offence, in that sense of the word, having taken place. It is therefore not a criminal offence that is being committed. I agree with the principle that the Medical Council and the Medical Association, which are involved with offences committed by doctors—these being ethical in nature—should have muscle. I do not, however, think it is right that one should be able to get at any person—if I may express it in those terms—at any time and at any place.

Chapter 2 of the Criminal Procedure Act deals with search warrants, entering of premises, seizure, forfeiture and disposal of property connected with offences. In that Act an offence is defined as “an act or omission punishable by law”, or in Afrikaans “’n handeling of versuim wat regtens strafbaar is”. In terms of section 19 of the Criminal Procedure Act, the provisions of that Act are not necessarily applicable to other Acts. So if we insert in this legislation before the House that an inspector can, at any time and at any place, enter any premises, he could, for example during Holy Communion at church on a Sunday, walk in and ask my clergyman where the file is that his doctor gave him to take to Bloemfontein to his son who is a doctor. He could do so at any time and at any place. What does the Criminal Procedure Act lay down? Subsection 2 of section 21—the heading of this section is “Article to be seized under search warrant”—reads as follows:

The article is therefore subject to qualification. It is therefore not simply any article. I quote further:

In other words, it is not any person, but a specific person. The legislation now before the House speaks of “any person”. I quote further:

Nor is mention merely made of “any premises”. My objection is to the fact that the legislation could be subject to a very sweeping interpretation. I have said on occasion that it is wide open as God’s mercy. I do not think it is right to provide in legislation, virtually without qualification, that action may be taken against any person at any time and at any place. The protection that is indeed afforded is very little. There must, for example, be secrecy. I cannot see, however, how one can allow an inspector, who does not have to be a doctor, to enter a doctor’s consulting rooms and, for example, ask the servant making the tea or the bookkeeper, who just happen to be present, to give him certain articles, and they must simply do so. I think that is going too far.

I also want to quote another example as a comparison. For notice in Gazette No 9029 of 13 January draft legislation was published. It was the Medicines and Related Substances Control Bill. Here we are dealing, amongst other things, with very serious offences, in respect of which in certain cases the penalty can be a fine not exceeding R100 000 or a term of imprisonment of 25 years. So here we really have matters that are regarded in a very serious light. The proposed clause 18 also deals with the appointment of inspectors. It is provided that the Director General can also appoint inspectors and that they must have a certificate. The proposed subsection 5 reads as follows:

Here we therefore have the qualification “at all reasonable times”; not at any time—

In other words, the premises are also subject to qualification. The clause in the proposed legislation goes on to state:

Again it is not simply any person, but that person who for the time being is in charge or control. So very distinct qualifications are written into the legislation. Let me perhaps just quote one further provision from the Criminal Procedure Act in support of my argument that this legislation ranges too widely. Section 29 of the Criminal Procedure Act, No 51 of 1977, reads as follows:

In this legislation, concerned with serious offences, qualifications are also laid down.

There is a further qualification in the Criminal Procedure Act. Although someone may indeed enter premises without a warrant, in section 22 of the Criminal Procedure Act there is again a qualification concerning the special circumstances under which a person would be permitted to enter premises without a warrant. So a police officer cannot take arbitrary action. The legislation under discussion at present is therefore, in my opinion, too wide-ranging. In the Committee Stage we ought to qualify the words “any time”, “any place” and “any person”.

The next point I want to raise is one contained in clause 6 of the Bill, which is substituting section 52 of the principal Act. In order to clarify my point, Sir, I trust you will permit me to quote the present section 52. It reads as follows:

It is therefore any medical practitioner’s existing right to supply his patients with medicines at all times—the section specifically provides “his patient”. The fact of the matter is that there have been medical practitioners who have abused the situation. I have, in fact, been told that there are medical practitioners who see ten patients in a week and earn R100 000. Then they are not, however, prescribing medicines to their own patients.

I am a member of the Medical Association and have previously served in the highest body of that association, the federal council. For many years, too, I served on the West Rand branch council, amongst other things as its first president. It has consistently been my standpoint, and I have personally put this standpoint across in the federal council. On 11 April 1984, at a West Rand branch council meeting, I submitted a proposal which was unanimously accepted, a proposal which read as follows:

At that stage I was no longer a member of the federal Council. This decision of the West-Rand branch of the SA Medical Association was, however, conveyed to the federal council by our representatives. The member who conveyed the decision informed me that it was not disputed by the federal council of the SA Medical Association.

I therefore support the legislation under discussion because I believe it is necessary to clamp down once and for all on medical practitioners who deal in medicines in that fashion. I am not referring to medical practitioners who do not necessarily see patients, but do sell medicines. I shall accept it. I do, however, foresee great problems if this legislation were to be wrongly implemented and medical practitioners were to be deprived of existing rights. I believe it could indeed happen in terms of this measure, and I am therefore really concerned.

I have said previously in this House that the general practitioner, the family doctor, is the salt of the earth as far as the medical profession are concerned. We think we should protect the family doctor. Reference has been made here to 800 medical practitioners who dispense medicines. I do not know exactly how many of them there are. They are, however, people exercizing a right that has been in existence for many years now. In this connection I should like to quote certain passages here in connection with the struggle between medical practitioners and pharmacists in the 1850s. Perhaps I should just quote one brief paragraph, Mr Speaker, because I see that I do not have much time left. I want to quote from A History of Medicine in South Africa, the same book from which I have previously quoted. The writer is Edmon H Burrows. I quote from page 186, a passage in connection with a certain Dr Fraenkel, a man who could not make a living at Colesberg and then became district surgeon at Worcester. The passage reads as follows:

So the writer goes on to tell of the struggle that went on. He also points out that there was indeed legislation prohibiting these practices on the part of apothecaries. The objection, however, was to the fact that the existing legislation could not be implemented in practice. A Commission of Inquiry was therefore appointed, and one of the members was specifically an apothecary. Thus this struggle has a long history.

I have also previously pointed out—I have also illustrated this by way of a quotation— that a medical practitioner’s right to supply his own medicines is a right that has literally been in existence for centuries now. We must therefore reflect very seriously about whether the wording of the measure under discussion will not now create the possibility of doctors being deprived of that right. This, then, brings me back to the general practitioner. My time is running out. I have passages here from the report of the commission of inquiry, the so-called Steenkamp Commission. In evidence before that commission a request was made to prohibit medical practitioners from prescribing medicines before having consulted a pharmacist. So there are people who have it in mind to deprive medical practitioners of that right. There are also other reports in which it is stated that pharmacists should in future obtain the right to provide certain scheduled medicines without a prescription. Those are all attempts at providing cheaper medicines. I just want to point out that 54% of the practising medical practitioners in South Africa work for the State, with only 10% of pharmacists working for the State.

†The chairman of the Pharmaceutical Council, Mr G G Clark, in a paper delivered at a seminar on planning the availability of medicines for the year 2000, held on 22 April 1983, had the following to say:

He went on to say:

We also have reports in regard to the number of doctors leaving this country. In this regard I should like to quote from Hospital News, the January 1984 edition, in which, under the heading “Money makes the world go around but leaves South African patients worse off’ we find the following:

*I could continue in this vein.

Let me conclude by saying that I support this legislation because I think it should have muscle. The Medical Council must be able to clamp down on people, but I am very concerned that we are giving the Medical Council too much muscle in regard to offences that are not all that serious. I am very concerned about the possibility of the legislation being used to restrict a medical practitioner’s right to supply medicines to his patients.

Mr Speaker, the hon member Dr Vilonel expressed reservations in regard to supporting the Second Reading of this Bill. I have a certain amount of sympathy for the hon member not only in respect of the reservations that he has but also in regard to the bravery he has shown by coming to this House and telling us what his reservations are in spite of the fact that he is bound by the decision of his party to give formal support to the Second Reading of this Bill.

The hon member stated that he had approached the hon the Minister of Health and Welfare in regard to his reservations, but obviously the hon the Minister did not see fit to meet the reservations expressed by the hon member.

The hon member’s first objection is in regard to the disciplinary powers that the Medical Council will have in respect of doctors. He compared this provision with the Criminal Procedure Act. I must say that I as a lawyer also have certain reservations. Perhaps we can discuss this in greater detail at the Committee Stage. While the hon member for Parktown expressed the general approval of this party in respect of powers granted to the council, it may nevertheless be a good thing to discuss this in more detail at the Committee Stage as far as those powers are concerned.

The hon member also referred to clause 6 dealing with the rights of doctors to dispense medicines, and quoted from the report of the Steenkamp Committee. I shall be dealing quite extensively with this subject during the course of my speech.

As far as the Bill itself is concerned, as the hon the Minister pointed out, there are three main provisions with which we have to deal. In the first instance, an additional dentist is to be appointed to the executive committee of the council. There is already one on the council and an additional one is to be appointed to the executive committee. Although the hon the Minister did not give reasons for this, we accept it because I am sure there can be no objection to the appointment of an additional dentist to serve on that committee.

The second aspect of the Bill relates to what the hon the Minister described as cumbersome provisions in regard to investigating disciplinary actions against doctors. The hon the Minister has therefore proposed certain changes in respect of which the hon member Dr Vilonel has already expressed certain reservations. The third aspect is the right of doctors to dispense medicine. Here we enter an area of dispute between the pharmacists and their interests on the one hand and the doctors on the other.

Nowithstanding those three points, there are also clauses 8 and 9 which deal with section 53A and section 61 of the principal Act respectively. In the first instance the repeal of the provision is sought which provides for a tariff committee of the Medical and Dental Council and then there is the consequential amendment to take away the powers of the Minister in that regard. This whole section of the Bill is consequential to the Bill with which we dealt earlier and which concerns medical schemes.

Here again we once again come to what our reservations were in so far as the abolition of the tariff committee and the removal of the Minister’s powers were concerned and the resultant procedure of leaving it to the Representative Association of Medical Schemes to settle with each separate association and to reach agreement by way of consultation. About this we shall argue during the Committee Stage, but I want to say on this occasion that our reservation on these two clauses must remain because, as mentioned by the hon member for Parktown, there is no final solution, nothing to determine how, if a dispute should arise between the Representative Association of Medical Schemes and the various other associations representing the doctors, the dentists, the paramedical people and the private nursing homes, such disputes should be settled. Who will settle such disputes? When we discuss that part of the Bill during the Committee Stage, we shall deal with this problem in more detail although it has been dealt with quite substantially during the course of this debate.

When it comes to clause 5 which seeks to insert a new section 41A to make provision for certain disciplinary power, we have no objection to the appointment of an outside person—I take it that it will be somebody with professional and legal experience—to do the investigation on behalf of the Medical Council. Whereas the Medical Council never undertook an investigation unless there was a complaint against a specific doctor, the position is now changed in that the Registrar himself is empowered to determine that an investigation should take place into the conduct of a doctor. Once the Registrar finds that a prima facie case has been established against that doctor, then it is deemed that a complaint has been lodged by a member of the public.

Wide powers are also given to the investigating officer—he is either a member of the medical profession or a person from outside—to go into a doctor’s consulting rooms or dispensary, to seize any books or documents, to ask for statements and to carry out the investigation along those lines. Whether these powers are too wide is a question which we can debate during the Committee Stage, but the principle remains that there should be some disciplinary power. I think, however, that the hon the Minister should tell us why it is deemed necessary to go further than the disciplinary powers already enshrined in section 41 of the principal Act. I think the hon Dr Vilonel has already referred to circumstances which necessitate that one should take a hammer to kill a fly, but I am not sure whether the hon the Minister is not perhaps going too far in this respect. I think when we get to the Committee Stage, we may debate the question whether these powers go too far. There is the question whether a provision in an Act can override the protection given in terms of our laws on evidence to a person—in this respect the hon the Minister of Justice will bear me out—in that he cannot be compelled to make a statement which incriminates him. The proposed section 41A provides that the investigating officers can demand statements from a person, but I think this provision should be subject to the legal right which all persons enjoy not to make statements which incriminate them. I think this goes without saying.

One of the other principles with which we shall have to deal is the vexed question of the right of doctors to dispense medicine. Are we endeavouring here to settle the dispute between the pharmacists on the one hand who say that the doctors are taking away their living and the doctors on the other hand who are maintaining that they are rendering a very valuable service to the community of South Africa in providing dispensing? It goes without saying that in a small village or town that has no pharmacist, the population would be only too grateful if the doctor is able to dispense medicine or, where there is a pharmacist and he is not available, that the doctor can dispense. Whereas there may be a certain amount of merit in keeping a register of all those doctors who are entitled to dispense, I would ask the hon the Minister whether, if we pass clause 6 of the Bill, it is going to mean a new ball game in so far as the 820 doctors who are dispensing their own medicine today are concerned; in other words, is it the hon the Minister’s intention to reduce their numbers or to screen them or curb their activities in any way?

I must tell the hon the Minister frankly and honestly that since the Second Reading speech of the hon member for Parktown we have received representations. I think the hon the Minister has received representations as well. We received representations from the National Medical and Dental Association and from the Natal Guild of Doctors. I think it is appropriate for me to put some of the points in the memorandum we have received to the hon the Minister so that he can deal with them in his reply to the Second Reading debate. I think the hon the Minister has received the memorandum, but I want to highlight some of the points made in it.

The memorandum was submitted by the Committee of Dispensing Doctors to which represents about 500 dispensing doctors. They say that they dispense medicine on a significant scale and that they are gravely concerned about the proposed amendment which may curb their activities. They refer to the attacks that have been made on them by pharmacists. I do not know too much about those attacks, except that the allegation is made that doctors are taking away their money. Doctors refute these allegations and maintain that they are rendering a very valuable service to our South African society, and in particular to the deprived sections of the population, by making available to them medicine and drugs which they would otherwise be unable to afford. This is a most important point, one which I think the hon member for Pietersburg also made. To deprive them of this right would have a crippling effect and not only upon the doctors which is not as important as the crippling effect it would have on the patients. It is our job in Parliament to protect the patients, particularly patients who are not affluent and who cannot afford medicines that are prescribed and have to be paid for at pharmaces. To restrict their right would in fact discourage doctors from continuing with this work. They admit that there may be individual cases of abuse. There may be individual cases of abuse where a doctor may have overtraded or has not had strict control over his drugs. Perhaps the hon the Minister will give an indication in his reply as to how many cases have been submitted to him or to the Medical Council with regard to abuse by doctors who are dispensing medicine to the public. If he can justify this provision we will listen with great interest to what he has to say. We will reserve our position with regard to clause 6 depending on the hon the Minister’s reply. We will then decide how far we can support the hon the Minister in respect of clause 6.

As far as the abuse of trading is concerned, it is said that there is no need to punish hundreds of thousands of poor people all over South Africa. The culprit and not the patient should be punished. They say it is not true that pharmacists are going out of business because doctors dispense. They say it is in fact shown that on many occasions pharmacists have a higher earning capacity than doctors. If their right is taken away, they maintain that the costs of dispensing medicine will double and that the patient will then have to pay twice as much. They say that although the system does allow room for abuse the advantages to thousands of poor people far outweighs this disadvantage. They say too that the proposed cure for the disease is a hundred times worse than the disease itself. It is further submitted that priority should be given to what is in the best interest of the patient either because of his economic and social position or his educational disadvantage. Accordingly, it is submitted that this legislation poses a serious threat to the availability to the majority of South Africans of adequate health care within their own means; that the proposed amendments should not be proceeded with and should be withdrawn, or alternatively, that this Bill should be held over and abuse in any event prevented.

In terms of the proposed new section 41A, investigatory powers are being extended. Therefore, the hon the Minister and the council need have no fear that they will not be able to take action against doctors who abuse this privilege.

In terms of section 52 of the principal Act doctors are given the right to dispense these medicines for the treatment of patients only. This section has certain safeguards built into it. Firstly, the dispensing can only be done for the doctor’s own patients. Secondly, the prescription must be prescribed by the doctor personally and not by another doctor unlike a pharmacist who dispenses for all doctors. Thirdly, the doctor may not keep an open shop like a pharmacist. Surely these existing safeguards are adequate in the circumstances.

It is submitted that the effect of the amendments will be to deprive the patient of the right to obtain medicines from his doctor. It will also deprive the doctor of his right to dispense and it will subject the present dispensing doctors to control which will have the effect of making dispensing excessively burdensome. It will also make it impossible for new doctors to dispense at all unless they submit proof of the satisfaction of the council that it will be in the public interest for them to do so. I will refer to the public interest again later. The council will have the right to withdraw the doctor’s right to dispense after an investigation. These measures are therefore quite far-reaching and it is submitted that the proposed new section 41A will be sufficient to enable the council to take action.

The main thrust of the submission is that perhaps we are erring by considering White patients with White doctors in cities. There is for instance a building housing quite a few doctors and with a pharmacist in the same building. I agree that a doctor should not be dispensing when there is a pharmacist in the same building. However, one must look at a much wider area. One should look at the hundreds of thousands of non-Whites who are very much poorer and in regard to whom doctors practise in the townships and in places where they live. I think that this caters for the majority of those people.

Such people will go to a doctor for a consultation because they are ill and that doctor will charge anything from, say, R8 to R12. Included in that R8 to R12 will be the medicine he prescribes for his specific patient. I think that that is very reasonable. If, on the other hand, the patient goes to a doctor and gets a prescription, the doctor still charges R8 to R12 and the patient then has to go to the chemist to have the medicine dispensed, and that will add to the cost to the patient.

Secondly, there is the question of the availability of a doctor who is able to dispense. The majority of the people to whom I am referring now are members of the working class. It may be argued that they can go to a provincial hospital and get treatment there. However, we know how overcrowded those hospitals are. They are working at 200% of capacity. We know how long people who go to those hospitals have to wait for treatment. We know that people are not only kept waiting long there, but also have the fear that they will lose their jobs because of that long waiting period. Then, it is more convenient for them to come home from work and go to see the dispensing doctor afterwards at any time between 8 o’clock and 10 o’clock at night to get treatment on that basis. So, as I see it, there is a case to be made out for dispensing doctors in the specific areas serving these specific people. I think we should not be in a hurry to take away that right—and I fear that they fear that that may well happen to them—because of the socio-economic and political factors which affect the health and status of a major group of South Africa’s population.

We must also bear in mind that social differences are such that we virtually live in two entirely different communities. We have a First World community living in the Third World and a Third World community living in the First World. There are vast differences in the provision of housing, in the provision of schooling, in the provision of transport, in the provision of health services, in the provision of recreational and sports facilities, in the provision of employment and in remuneration. In these fields vast differences exist between the people I am referring to here and others. Statistics relating to diseases prevalent in different groups are also significant. I can mention diseases such as tuberculosis, measles, gastro-enteritis, cholera and heart ailments. The mortality rate is different and the availability of medical aid is also different. In fact, I think it can be argued that, as far as the Black population is concerned, only about 10% are on medical aid as opposed to approximately 70% of the White population who are thus able to afford the necessary medical services. So, by and large I think the people concerned have a case which the hon the Minister must try to meet.

I should like to hear the hon the Minister’s replies to this. He may well have answers—I do not know. We are going to give him every opportunity to refute the fears and dangers that have been spelt out, particularly with regard to the fact that proper medical attention may not be meted out to hundreds of thousands of people if this right is taken away. If the hon the Minister can come up with good answers, we will support the clause; if not, we must obviously express our reservations on this. I do not think that the associations to which I have referred had any objection whatsoever to curbing abuse, taking disciplinary measures, seeing that people obey the law and preventing huge profits from being made out of this. However, I want to bring the specific point to the hon the Minister’s attention that the people concerned submit that the allegations have not been properly investigated. I hope that the hon the Minister and, if necessary, the Medical and Dental Council will be able to give sufficient proof that the allegations have in fact been properly investigated.

There is one other aspect I want to raise. It concerns a legal difficulty. We have to decide whether the right to dispense is in the public interest. “Public interest” has various connotations. The courts have tried to interpret what “public interest” means. The Dictionary of Legal Words and Phrases, compiled by Claassen, quotes a number of cases in relation to “public interest” and says it means “for the public benefit reasonably required”. Of the various cases this matter appears in the Rent case. I also cite the case of Clinical Centre (Pty) Limited v Hollgate Motors 1948 (WLD). In this case it was held as follows:

I hope that within this definition, where only a class or portion of a community will benefit, that will be the criterion that will operate in exercising judgment as to whether the public interest has been served.

I conclude with those few words. We await with great interest what the hon the Minister has to say.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Hillbrow and I differ fundamentally, of course. In the first instance, his idea of a few words is totally different to mine. [Interjections.] I want to ask him a few questions and I hope he will do me the honour of listening to them. Has he had any contact with, or received any representations from, the Medical Association of South Africa?

The hon member for Parktown has.

I think the hon member for Parktown would have a heart attack if he were to hear what nonsense the hon member for Hillbrow has uttered today. [Interjections.] Has the hon member for Hillbrow received any representations from the Medical Council?

No. [Interjections.]

However, the hon member stood up here and championed the cause of the greatest enemies of the Medical Association of South Africa today, viz the National Medical and Dental Association.

And what about the service they render to thousands of people?

Those are people who go out of their way to have the Medical Association of South Africa worked out of the World Medical Association. It is the cause of those people that the hon member has come here today to champion. [Interjections.] There is an old saying: “A little knowledge is a dangerous thing”. The hon member did not know what he was doing. He championed the cause of the enemies of the Medical Association of South Africa and then added that he was doing so “in these few words”. [Interjections.]

I want to ask the hon member Dr Fontanelle whether he received any representations from the Medical Association. He only told us what he said to the association, but has he received representations from them?

I received representations from medical practitioners, but not from the Medical Association.

And from the Medical Council?

No.

Oh. Sir, this legislation is now being changed at the request of firstly, the South African Medical and Dental Council and, secondly, at the request of the Medical Association of South Africa. It is being done at this point after various negotiations have taken place over a number of months. The President of the Medical Association of South Africa, as well as their legal adviser, paid a call on me last Friday and as a result of their representations I am prepared to effect two further changes to the legislation. The first change they requested were that the words “at any time” be replaced by “a reasonable time” in which the investigation has to take place. The second change they requested dealt with the aspect mentioned by the hon member, viz what is in the public interest.

It is a pity that the hon member for Park-town is not present now. Basically he agreed with this legislation. He had no problems in this regard. He agreed with it and subsequently proceeded to discuss previous legislation that had already been approved. However, he advanced no objection to this legislation; in fact, he said repeatedly that he supported it.

The hon member for Pietersburg was basically concerned about the right of medical practitioners to dispense medicine, as was the hon member for Hillbrow. However, the hon members did not read the legislation properly. The Medical Association objected strongly to the accusation by pharmacists that 860 or more medical practitioners dispensed medicine. The association then decided to register the dispensing medical practitioners. That will enable them to state their case. It is for this reason that they request this legislation.

In the first place, let us determine what dispensing means. Section 52 of the principal Act is now being amended by clause 6. In terms of the proposed section 52(1)(a) a register will now be introduced at the request of the Medical Council. In terms of the proposed section 52(1)(b) the council may decide to exempt any medical practitioner or dentist, and can even decide not to introduce a register at all. The proposed section 52(2)(a) merely embodies the protection of existing rights. If the Council wants to establish a register of those who have the right to dispense medicine, then the provisions of the proposed section 52(2)(a) are necessary. This means that the names of those who are at present dispensing medicine will have to be entered on such a register.

The proposed section 52(2)(b) specifies what action must be taken in regard to new registrations. Here the hon member for Hill-brow objected to “public interest”. However, I have already given him the assurance that as far as subparagraph (b) is concerned, I shall propose a new formulation to do away with the word “public”. Thus the sub-paragraph will read more or less as follows “…in accordance with the requirements of the Medical Council”. That is how it reads at present. However, hon members still have problems in this regard, but I think that this is because they have not read the legislation properly.

Hon members have problems with the inspections as well. However, the Medical Council specifically asked for inspections because according to section 42 of the principal Act, and in terms of section 42(4) in particular, they have the right to demand the production of all the necessary documents they may require from any medical practitioner. As things stand at present, they can demand this from him. All they are asking now is to be given the right to carry out an inspection. Now we must consider how this inspection will be carried out. It will not be possible for just any inspector to carry out this inspection. Such an inspector can only be appointed by the Registrar, with the permission of the chairman of the Medical Council. Therefore he may only be appointed with the permission of the Council. Only when the chairman of the Medical Council is satisfied that such an inspector is indeed necessary, is the inspector appointed.

Surely it would be unnecessary to appoint an inspector without giving him the right to carry out inspections wherever necessary. Therefore, when the inspector is instructed to carry out an inspection in the consulting rooms of the medical practitioner, then the doctor in question can simply take everything he does not want the inspector to see, to his home. Surely that could not be allowed. When anyone is given the right to carry out an inspection then he also has to acquire certain other rights and powers. In the first place it must of course be ensured that the inspector appointed is a responsible man. Therefore he has to be appointed by the Medical Council.

Who, then, are the people who will be subjected to inspection? It will be a medical practitioner or a dentist or a practitioner in one of the supplementary medical professions.

How is a medical practitioner registered? A medical practitioner can only register in accordance with the requirements of the Medical Council. A person can only become a student in medicine after he has been approved by the Medical Council. During the entire period of six years during which a person is a medical student, he falls under the jurisdiction of that council. If he does not behave himself the council can summarily suspend him and he has to abandon his studies immediately. After the conclusion of his medical studies the candidate in question is registered anew and the ethical rules in terms of which he has to act as medical practitioner are put to him clearly. This, of course, is done after he has been notified in which hospital he has to work for a year. During his hospital year the candidate in question is also subjected to inspection to determine whether he is able to perform his task properly. Only once the inspector has satisfied the Medical Council that the candidate in question has performed his work properly is he registered for the first time as a medical practitioner. However, he remains subject to the control of the Medical Council and it is expected of him to practise in accordance with specific ethical codes specified by the council.

What are the powers of the Medical Council? The Medical Council has the power to caution a specific medical practitioner, to suspend him temporarily or even to strike his name off the medical roll permanently. With very few exceptions there are no other councils with the right permanently to exclude from his career a person who has offended. The Medical Council possesses that right. All medical practitioners, including myself, the hon member Dr Vilonel, the hon member for Pietersburg, the hon member for Rustenburg and all other practising doctors practise under the circumstances I have just sketched. It is in these circumstances, then, that an inspector is being appointed by the Medical Council which, in any event, exercises control over all medical practitioners. Moreover, the members of the Medical Council are, virtually without exception, elected by the practising doctors of South Africa themselves. Not only them, but also the SA Medical Association, which represents the medical profession in South Africa itself, have requested us to embody this specific provision in legislation. That is exactly what we are now doing. I have already said that with one exception, all the provisions embodied in this measure have been requested by all these people themselves. As I have already indicated, that exception is of course the question of a “reasonable time”. They do not object to the other matters. In fact, they say to me that they want to know how many of their people will fall under that so that they can defend them, because otherwise those accusations will simply be left hanging in the air.

The interruption of the speech of the hon member for Worcester was a good thing, as he said, because it afforded him the opportunity to say once again that the medical profession is an honourable profession. We want to keep it that way, and it is for that reason that the Medical Council and the Medical Association are calling for these amendments. It is not so as to persecute people; rather it is to maintain the ethnic standards of this profession at as high a level as possible.

It is not a question of increasing patients’ fees. I know of medical practitioners on the platteland who, as part of their consultation fees, also provide medicine to their patients, and I have no objection to that. Nor has the Medical Council any objection to that. All we want to say to those medical practitioners is that they must notify us that they are registering. If it establishes a register then the legislation provides that such a medical practitioner must be registered.

What I do object to, however, is what I call trading in medicine, and I shall defend my standpoint in this regard anywhere. By trading I mean that after a specific illness has been diagnosed and a specific medicine prescribed for it, that medical practitioner is paid for professional services, and not to trade in that medicine. This is my standpoint which I put to the Medical Association and to the Pharmacy Board, and I stand by it. At that stage the medical practitioner is paid for professional services, and the medicine provided at that stage is no longer a commercial article. Before that stage has been reached, the manufacturer of the medicine is paid for his services, because every manufacturer is entitled to make a profit on his product.

May I please ask a question?

Please first allow me to complete my argument. My standpoint is that as soon as a prescription has been issued, one is treating a patient for a specific illness. If, subsequent to that, I must accept that people trade in medicine, then I must also accept that they are trading in illness, and I am not prepared to accept that. The hon member for Hillbrow may now put his question.

In the memorandum submitted by the Committee for Dispensing Doctors they refer to National Medical and Dental Association and to the Natal Guild of Doctors. Did the hon the Minister receive representations from them and, if so, did he reject their representations merely on the grounds of their quarrel with Namda?

No, Sir, I did not reject their memorandum. I have not received any representations from Namda. I did, however, receive a letter from the guild in which they said more or less what the hon member for Hillbrow has said here today. That is not new to me and, in fact, I am not going to act upon it. As far as I am concerned, the statutory body governing the practise of medicine in South Africa is the Medical and Dental Council. This is what they asked for. The official body of the Medical Association asked for this as well.

Hon members will realize that it is not possible to give effect to the wishes of everyone but if I am given a choice between Namda and the Medical Association of South Africa then it will be the easiest choice of my life.