When the debate was adjourned last evening I was dealing with the appointments to the council. I emphasized the fact that it seemed desirable that the members of the council should have a practical and realistic approach to the work of the council. I said I felt it was essential that they should be in a position always to judge the benefit in relation to the risk. I was about to quote from a statement made by the President of the American Pharmaceutical Association, Dr. William Apple. The heading of the article is as follows: “Horror Drug can be Bought without Restriction.” Referring to this drug Dr. Apple said—

Then he went on to say that one manufacturing firm, in 1964, marked the observance of the production of the hundred-billionth tablet of this drug. Dr. Apple then held up the bottle and asked: “What is this drug?” This drug is aspirin! It is the most widely used drug in the world. Dr. Apple went on—

I believe this benefit to risk ratio will be a most important factor in any considerations which come before the council.

I want to refer briefly to Clause 14 of the Bill because it details conditions under which medical practitioners and chemists and druggists can compound for the treatment of a particular person under certain conditions. I believe that representations have been made to the hon. the Minister in regard to a clear interpretation and an elimination of any doubt in regard to this clause, and I want to ask the hon. Minister most sincerely to consider the application that has been made to him.

There is a further serious difficulty which certain people envisage in Clause 18, and I am referring particularly to sub-section (3) (b), because I submit that as it stands it deprives the chemist and druggist of an inherent right which he has enjoyed for centuries, since the days of the old apothecaries, and I believe that this could well mean a curtailment of those rights, because it would deprive him of the discretion to use his knowledge in supplying medicine to people in times of need. I would like to quote a specific example in order fully to illustrate the point which I wish to make: Registered drugs must be suitably labelled in terms of Clause 18, and it is necessary for the registration number and the formula to be shown on the label. It means in effect that they should be handed out in the original packing, and to hand them out in any other form may involve the chemist in a certain amount of practical inconvenience and the public in a certain amount of hardship. I want to take a specific example involving a preparation for asthma. There are many people suffering from asthma. There are many non-Whites who suffer from this dreadful disease and many of them are poverty-stricken, and they are unable always in time of need to buy a full package of a drug which could be sold in terms of Clause 18. I take the example of a preparation, which I will not name, but which is put on the market in two packages, one of 40 and one of 500, and the retail price of 40 is R2. If the chemist and druggist is prepared to supply smaller quantities, in terms of the clause as it now stands it will be necessary for him to label a container containing possibly only two capsules with the name, the registered number and a complex chemical formula. I do not believe that that complex chemical formula is necessary in the interest of the public in such circumstances, and I believe it causes unnecessary inconvenience to very busy professional men. I appeal to the hon. Minister to consider seriously an amendment which we believe will alter that position, and make ample provision for the protection of the public. In the amendment which has been put forward it is stated specifically that the full details of the sale will still be recorded in a book which the chemist and druggist normally keeps and which will now be required to be kept in terms of the law.

I want to deal with further aspects on the question of advertising because much of it is contained in Clause 18, and I want to refer to what appears to be a question of discrimination. I realize that many of these aspects can be dealt with in the Committee Stage, but I believe this to be one of principle. As I see it, there is a discrimination between the individual who advertises on commercial radio, and the individual who elects to use the printed word or the Press for his advertising propaganda. You see, Sir, if a manufacturer were to advertise Jones Cough Mixture on the radio, the commercial radio, he could say “Jones Cough Mixture for coughs and colds”, but if he wants to send that message across in the written word, he would have to say “Jones Cough Mixture, registered number....... components and ingredients, so and so and so, for coughs and colds”. I submit that that is an unnecessary provision in this Bill. I believe it is a discrimination which will react to the disadvantage of the small man who wishes to market a preparation duly registered by this board, and duly approved, a man who wishes to market that preparation in his own home town. It would not pay him to make use of the services of commercial radio, but he could use the smalls column of his local newspaper; but if he has to publish the formula each time, it would make it very difficult for him, and I do not think it is necessary. I trust the hon. Minister will see his way clear to make some adjustment which will eliminate what to me appears to be an anomaly.

There is another provision I wish briefly to refer to where this particular clause says—

and then follow the conditions. I believe that if those words mean what I ascribe to them, a manufacturer who stamps a tablet that he manufactures, with a name, could well fall within the purview of this clause. He is advertising a drug, and surely he has an advantage, an advertising advantage over the manufacturer who does not stamp the name on his tablet. I believe that in terms of the Bill, as it stands, it would be necessary for this manufacturer not only to state the name, but also the registered number and the components. I believe that that is an unfeasible suggestion to require all that information to be stamped on the tablet. I may be wrong in my interpretation. I trust the hon. Minister will clarify this point in his reply.

Hon. members opposite have expressed the need for the control of advertising. We on this side of the House concur. There have been flagrant abuses of advertising, particularly in regard to medicines, and I believe this council can play a very important part in curbing the abuses. But we have another anomaly here. This Bill is designed stringently to control advertising, and yet in our way of life in South Africa, we have other forms of advertising which actually promote and encourage self-medication. I am now referring to the use of the world’s two best tranquilisers, alcohol and tobacco. There are no restrictions and no holds are barred when it comes to advertising! I want to refer to the abuse which is taking place in the advertising of patent medicines at the present time, and I believe that the House should realize what effect is created in the minds, particularly of the non-White people who perhaps have not the experience or the intelligence to sift the wheat from the chaff. I have here a booklet, full of the most flagrant, I believe, breaches of advertising etiquette:

A blood mixture for men and women.

They claim this for it—

And then the very next one—

Mr. Speaker, if this Bill can do away with this kind of thing, it will be serving a good purpose indeed.

Sir, there are many aspects which I would like to deal with, but my time is limited. I want to refer to one which, I believe, will simplify the working of this Drugs Council when it is inaugurated, and that is the position that exists legally at the present time, a provision whereby habit-forming drugs, which I think it can be agreed are the most dangerous drugs of all, can be used under certain circumstances without the issue of a prescription. What I mean is this: Provision is made in the Medical, Dental and Pharmacy Act for habit-forming drugs to be used in the compounding of certain approved and recognized medicinal preparations. The medicinal preparations are circumscribed by notice in the Government Gazette, which lays down the reference books which are recognized by the Department and by the South African Pharmacy Board. By this means a large circle of drugs is recognized in the British Pharmacopoeia, the British Pharmacopoeia Codex, the extra Pharmacopoeia and two volumes of Pharmaceutical Formulae. These drugs are recognized habit-forming drugs which may be ingredients of approved formulae, and can be used without a doctor’s prescription. Sir, I believe that this principle could be extended with advantage to the Drugs Council, because, if this Drugs Council would be prepared to grant a blanket exemption for all preparations which are listed in the approved reference books, they could still be manufactured as long as the formulation was strictly in accordance with the formula. I believe that a good purpose would be served, and it would save a good deal of inconvenience and delay. I believe that the public would be amply protected, because I believe that if at any future date the position should arise that some doubt is cast on a drug, powers exist in the Bill as it stands, for the council to take action in that particular instance. [Time limit.]

Although I am not a fellow professional of hon. members opposite who have participated in this debate, I should very much like to approach this legislation from the point of view of the layman, as the layman sees this legislation. I want to say to-day that we have really been very fortunate as far as this legislation is concerned to have been able to listen to excellent speeches by hon. members of the medical profession and a member of the pharmacological profession. We are grateful that they have made their knowledge available to the House in this way, knowledge which they have gained over a period of many years. But there is one thing I should like to say to the medical profession: There is a tendency on their part to-day—let me say immediately that I have the greatest respect for the medical profession—to adopt the attitude that they are untouchables and that everything they say and do is right. That is why they must also listen to the point of view of the layman and the man in the street now and again because it is very often from this source that one hears what is best for everyone.

I should very much like to associate myself with what has been said by the hon. members for Geduld (Dr. Jurgens) and Rosettenville (Dr. Fisher) which was to the effect that if we adopt the attitude of wanting to control drugs and of wanting to apply control measures to the ingredients of medicines, we must not simply control the ingredients themselves, but we must also control the channels along which these drugs are marketed. That is why I want to agree with these two hon. gentlemen that the time has now come for us to safeguard and increase the esteem in which the chemist is held, because he is a man who has gone out of his way to become qualified, although, as the hon. member for Rosettenville said, the chemist has been reduced to-day to having to sell various other articles in order to make a living. That is why I shall be pleased, while we are taking this step to control drugs properly, if we can also control the channels for the distribution of drugs, because then we will know that we will have proper control.

When we look at this legislation, we find that in 1928, 37 years ago, the first control measures were instituted in South Africa over all medicines for human consumption. If control measures for drugs were considered necessary 37 years ago, how much more are they not necessary to-day? Our population was small at that time and the inhabitants of our country were completely dependent upon the outside world for all their daily needs. Hardly any medicines were manufactured in South Africa 37 years ago, and the people were completely dependent upon the outside world for their requirements in this regard. South Africa was a long way away from the rest of the world in those days, because of the poor means of communication. Before new medicines reached us they were very carefully tested in their countries of origin; before a medicine found its way to the South African market it was tested properly. This picture has changed completely since 1928. The Republic of South Africa has become the largest industrial country on the Continent of Africa. Because of modern methods of transport, we have become a part of the world as such, and we are no longer isolated. Where previously we were largely dependent upon imports for most of our medicines, we find to-day that the Republic of South Africa is playing a leading role in the manufacture of drugs. Therefore, if legislation was considered necessary in 1928, I am sure that no person will be opposed to the general principle of this legislation to-day—to exercise proper control over medicines for human consumption. The necessity for effective control over all medicines for human consumption has existed for many years, but gradually the scope of the problems has so increased that a completely new approach to the whole question has become vitally necessary in order to protect the public effectively. We find that the Snyman Commission, which investigated the high cost of medical services and medicines, also expressed great concern at the poor control over medicines in South Africa, and as we are now on the threshold of a new era in which we shall place better and more effective legislation on the Statute Book, I think that it is fitting for the whole nation to express its gratitude and appreciation to the Department of Health, which has been such a wonderful watchdog over the health of our people over the years. We should also like to express our thanks and appreciation to our doctors, to our chemists and to the manufacturers of drugs who have always put the health of the people before the profit motive. Built, unfortunately, there is in every profession and also in the business world those black sheep which do not reveal such a high moral duty in respect of the health or interests of the public, and it is precisely on account of those irresponsible persons who put the profit motive before national interests that legislation must be placed on the Statute Book to provide for the proper control of medicines. In no other industry does human emotion play as important a part as in the pharmaceutical industry. Every doctor and every person will tell us that if a member of a family is ill, that family wants the best medicines to be supplied for that person and the best medicines are always associated with the most expensive medicines. I contend to-day that the pharmaceutical industry knows this, and that is why I am very grateful that if there is any possibility at all of there being two or three identical medicines on the market, each with the same chemical composition but that the price of one of those medicines is disproportionately high, that this control council will have the power to warn a manufacturer and tell him: I shall remove that drug of yours from the market if you do not comply with the conditions which I have laid down. I say most emphatically that in such a case these medicines must contain precisely the same chemical ingredients, because we know that we always want the best medicines for those of us who are ill, and the best are always associated with the most expensive.

The hon. member for Odendaalsrus (Dr. Meyer) told us about the control measures which exist in our country to-day. But the second control measure, apart from the Medical, Dental and Pharmacy Act, which the hon. member explained to us in detail, is the Food, Medicines and Disinfectants Act. The Department of Health exercises control in order to ensure that food, medicines and disinfectants comply with certain standards. But the system of control is not of such a nature that these preparations have first to be proven before they can be placed on the market. The hon. the Minister does have the power under the old Act, Section 42, to make certain regulations specifying the requirements to be complied with, but over the years the Department of Health has not taken steps to lay down standards for all drugs by way of regulation, and, under the present Act, it would certainly be fatal to make such a regulation at this stage. We find to-day that modern drugs are composed of very involved chemical ingredients. The control of drugs as such is a comprehensive task to-day and can only be carried out successfully by a highly specialized body. If we are in earnest in saying that the time is ripe for us to enter a new era in which drugs will be selected on a strictly scientific basis and prescribed in the same way, then the time has come for this Parliament to ensure that the health of the nation is no longer undermined. But at the same time Parliament also has a great responsibility to ensure that legislation is not placed on the Statute Book which will have a hampering effect upon our young pharmaceutical industry.

We are aware of the completely new principle in regard to the control of drugs in the Republic; we are also aware of the competition which exists in the pharmaceutical industry; we are aware of the large sums of money which are spent by the industry on research in order to relieve human suffering; we are also aware of the fear that exists in the industry that the definition of drugs is too wide; they are afraid of the words “in the public interest”. I fear that there are certain bodies which wish to read sinister motives into this definition. I do not want for one moment to say that the hon. member for Durban (Central) (Dr. Radford), who is a man respected throughout the length and breadth of our country because of his medical knowledge, as seeking sinister motives in this legislation, but the hon. member for Durban (Central) is afraid that when this Bill becomes law there is going to be interference with clinical research. As a layman, I want to tell the hon. member that if he has any fears in this connection, he should read Clause 21 (1), in which provision is made that the council will be empowered to permit certain tests to be carried out before drugs can be registered. If the hon. member is still afraid that my interpretation is not the correct one, then I think we shall be able to have a fruitful discussion at the Committee Stage. The hon. member also said that he was afraid that restrictions would also be placed upon the knowledge of doctors, and the same fear was expressed by the hon. member for Durban (Berea) (Mr. Wood). As I, as a layman, read this Bill, I feel that these fears will be dispelled if they read Clause 14 (3), which provides that a doctor can use his own discretion and can prescribe the drug which he considers is best for his patient. The hon. member for Durban (Berea) gave us an example of packages containing 40 pills, where a man can only afford five or six such pills, and I want to say that if this provision exists in the Bill, we must assist him in this regard, because we do not want to place a burden on the less-privileged people in our country. I also want to say that the most important guarantee which there is for the public, as well as for the pharmaceutical industry, is that the body which is going to act as judge in order to protect the interests of the public and the interests of the pharmaceutical industry will be an independent professional body, a council which will be composed of experts in the sphere of drugs. I agree with the hon. member for Rosettenville. I hope and trust that we shall obtain the services of the best persons possible for the work of this council, so that any vestige of suspicion which may exist can be removed. I should also like to support the hon. member for Geduld, who said that the registrar should not be a clerical person, but that he should be a highly qualified pharmacologist, a person who can do analyses immediately and advise the council.

As a layman I think that this Bill will be of great assistance to our doctors because they will now be able to obtain drugs under the scientific names of those drugs. They will be able to identify those drugs by their scientific names, and they will not need to rely upon the trade name which the manufacturers of these drugs give their products from time to time. I want to say here to-day that the Republic of South Africa is experiencing a great shortage of doctors with the result that our doctors have to-day to work overtime a great deal in order to render the necessary services, and I am convinced of the fact that they do not have the time at their disposal to enable them to keep pace with the continuous stream of new drugs on to our markets. The hon. member for Berea said that the hon. the Minister was exaggerating when he said that 200 new drugs were put on the South African market annually. But even if there are only 200 new drugs put on to the world market annually, it remains a fact that South Africa is to-day part of the world market. Distance is nothing to-day because of modern transport facilities and a drug which is being used in America to-day may be obtainable in this country within a few days. I see this legislation in this light. It has in mind the supplying of expert advice to the medical profession in regard to new drugs. This legislation seeks to keep harmful drugs off the market and to protect the public against quacks whom we all know do irreparable harm to human lives in the Republic. I see that the council will have the power, if an undesirable drug comes on to the market, to remove that drug immediately. I admit that Clause 23 of this Bill gives the council drastic powers to remove certain drugs from the market, drugs which they consider not to be in the public interest, but a right of appeal to a highly specialized appeal board is also being instituted. I admit that the powers being given to this council are very wide but we must remember that the actions of this council may effect matters of life and death. That is why I am convinced that this council will act responsibly and very judiciously. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister to provide that all appeals should be to the Appeal Board and that certain appeals should not be to the Minster. If then there is any vestige of doubt in the minds of the public or on the part of the pharmaceutical industry this will not affect the hon. the Minister or his Department. If all appeals are to the appeal board, we shall be more confident in this regard.

I want to conclude by saying that I am grateful that we have progressed so far that we now want to place this Bill on the statute book exclusively for this purpose: To make the best drugs available to the public and to protect the health of our people properly. I am grateful that the Opposition have indicated their willingness to assist in placing this Bill on the statute book. We shall be able to discuss any small differences of opinion that there are at the Committee Stage.

Obviously we are all in favour of this Bill, with more or less minor points of difference which we can discuss in the Committee Stage. Unlike the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Bezuidenhout), however, I do not agree with the inclusion of the words “in the public interest”, unless there is a definition in the Bill governing what those words mean. This is not the sort of Bill on which one uses destructive criticism. Modern drugs must be controlled and that matter was very ably dealt with by the hon. member who has just sat down. I am really speaking only on the economic side and on the powers of the Council. The fly in the ointment to me is that these words “in the public interest” are not defined, and that will lead to things which I do not think should be included in this Bill. This term “in the public interest” occurs in several places in the Bill, but there is no definition of the phrase. This side of the House, in an amendment which will be moved in the Committee Stage, will seek to remove this weakness, as we consider it to be, and limit the powers of the Drug Control Council, the Drugs Control Appeal Board and the Minister to the real purpose of the Bill, which is, as the amendment will say, concern for the safety, quality and therapeutic efficiency of a drug, and will limit the powers of the Council to deal with those matters only. The failure to define this expression throws too much responsibility on the Council, on the one hand, and gives too much power not related to the real purposes of the Bill, on the other hand.

This expression occurs first in Section 15 relating to the registration of drugs, and I am advised that the Council would have the right under this section to refuse the registration of any drug on the grounds that there were sufficient firms manufacturing it already. I am also advised that in law such a decision might be set aside by the courts, but unfortunately no appeal lies to the courts, but only to the Appeal Board set up in Section 10, or to the Minister. In my view, it is quite correct in such a Bill to limit the appeal, because we do not want to flood the courts with such problems, but then the people who have this power in terms of the Bill must not have the right to act in a manner which would not be in accordance with the law of our country. With the size of the interests at stake—and I will come back later to say how large they are; this industry is beginning to take a very important place in our economic set-up, and I must repeat that because there is no definition of this term it gives the Council too much power to carry out what it is intended to carry out. The Board can even use its powers to entrench a monopoly in a certain drug, and that surely was not intended to be one of its powers. The proposed amendment will cover this aspect, too.

The same remarks apply to Clause 16, which provides for the cancellation of the registration of any drug. I will not repeat my arguments that they apply here too. Then again, in terms of Clause 23, the Council may call on any person to destroy or otherwise deal with any drug if it considers this to be in the public interest. The power to order the destruction of a drug is obviously one the Council should have but its duties will be made much easier and its decisions will be made much easier if “in the public interest” is defined. The further one goes into this Bill, the more important it is to have a definition of that term, not a definition intended to prescribe the Council’s powers; those powers must not be prescribed as long as they are in the public interest, but we must know where they end. In fact, I repeat that the Council’s powers are really far too wide unless “public interest” is defined. It can, as was said before, even use its powers to control the prices of drugs and although in theory this might be a reasonable power, according to this country’s policy of private enterprise, such control of the price of drugs would be regarded by the industry as unfair, and rightly so. Price control is a ticklish matter and I think the Minister will agree with me that this Bill is not the correct vehicle for such control. The pharmaceutical industry is a very large one and, as was said, it has exploded in recent years. But it remains a private enterprise industry. The following facts emerged from a survey of 32 firms in that industry made in 1963. The turnover of these companies was R25 million, the capital employed was R15 million and the cost of land and installed equipment was nearly R7 million, so it is not a small industry. These figures refer to 32 firms and according to a report given to me there are apparently another 50 to 60 firms engaged in the manufacture of drugs. Surely this number of firms in the industry gives them sufficient competition to allow the law of supply and demand to play its part. It must not be forgotten, when it comes to this question of undue profits, that this industry has at its disposal all the results of research done in the whole world, and anyone trying to investigate the question of excessive profits on new drugs has a job which to my mind can only cause trouble and strife and inconvenience in the country and in the industry. Certainly the question of the cost of drugs should not be covered in this Bill. The Government has the power to control costs in various directions, but it should not come into this Bill. I do not want to labour this point. I have pointed out already that there is tremendous competition in the industry, and in conclusion, I want to read the last couple of paragraphs of a report that was published in The Manufacturer of February 1965 concerning this industry—

Let me conclude by repeating these words that it is the responsibility of Government to ensure the quality, efficacy and safety of all such preparations. That is accepted by the industry and by the medical profession and our proposed amendments will meet all their desires and meet the case which the Minister and his Department are trying to meet, namely to ensure the efficacy and safety of all these preparations and that this is paramount. Those should be the only matters controlled by this Bill, I trust that the Minister will think this over before the Committee Stage, and when he listens to further arguments in the Committee Stage I hope he will have an open mind, then I am sure he will accept these amendments.

Mr. Speaker, we should not forget that this Bill is intended to protect the public of South Africa and not the manufacturers of medicines. This Bill owes its origin to the Snyman Commission, which consisted of the most eminent and well-known men in the medical profession, under the chairmanship of Prof. Snyman, the Deputy-Chairman of the Medical Council of South Africa. It was a commission which consisted of prominent members of the profession, a commission which investigated all the circumstances in the country, and for the first time in our history gave us a detailed exposition of the conditions in the medical profession and those in regard to the provision of medical services to the people of South Africa. They made a thorough study of it with only one object, to serve the people of South Africa—not to serve the interests of any section and their enrichment, nor to serve the interests of the pharmaceutical firms, but to serve the interests of the broad public of South Africa. I had so hoped that in this debate there would be no signs of any approach other than purely the interests of the public. It was sad, among the good parts of the speeches of hon. members opposite, always to hear only one theme, like the theme of the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Ross), viz. the interests of the pharmaceutical firms. Surely that is the wrong approach. The approach is not to ensure that the pharmaceutical firms should make large profits, but to protect the sick man. We are dealing with an industry which is certainly one of the richest and the most powerful in the world, an industry which does not derive its riches from the riches of others but from the illness of people, and often very poor people. We who deal with the public have often seen that when a poor man becomes ill he loses everything he has built up throughout his life. They are the people whom we should try to protect. What little the man possessed is lost and when he has to start work again he starts as a poor man, and most of his money is in the hands of a great industry. That is what we want to stop. Nobody has any objection to the pharmaceutical firms making reasonable profits, but we dare not adopt the standpoint that we are dealing here only with the protection of their profits. Most of the complaints one receives from every section of the population are in regard to the tremendous cost of the medicines prescribed. It is an industry which lavishly advertises its products, not only in the newspapers and in beautifully illustrated brochures, but which advertises its products by means of a small army of trained men who go to the doctors and the chemists to advertise these pharmaceutical products. It is not I who say so, but let me tell hon. members what well-known scientific bodies in the medical world themselves say. I read in a pamphlet published in England that there are literally thousands of these representatives who are paid very high salaries, and then this periodical says—

The deleterious effects of the remedies are always minimized, or else they keep silent about them. There is no remedy which does not have its after-effects. They may be very good remedies but they always have their bad effects too. I do not want to say that this precise state of affairs obtains in South Africa, but it is a fact that it does exist here to a large extent. We cannot shut our eyes to the fact that a medical man to a large extent today obtains his information from advertisements and from these representatives. Allow me to remind hon. members of it again. This is not what I say. The hon. member for Durban (Central) (Dr. Radford) said that I had said so, but I was only quoting what the chairman of the British Committee for the Classification of Remedies had said. He said that the majority of doctors obtained their first and often their only information from the companies manufacturing these remedies, and often the information was prejudiced and misleading and distorted.

Now the hon. member for Durban (Central) says we should not interfere with the medical men; that they have studied for seven years and are fully au fait. But it is surely unreasonable to believe that the public can believe that. It is unreasonable to imagine that any man can know every one of this stream of remedies, which according to the Snyman Report amounts to 200 per month and there are already 25,000 on the market, and to remember the qualities of each one. Surely it is impossible. The hon. member for Rosettenville emphasized this and said: Show us where accidents have ever taken place. Let me read to him from the Snyman Report. As the result of an analysis done by the Snyman Commission in 1960—it can be found on page 125—in regard to the effect of advertisements, which was done by a group of medical schools in the U.S.A., the following appeared. They say—

Could there be more significant evidence than this, which was provided by the American universities which investigated it, that in one-tenth of 1 per cent, in other words in one out of every 1,000 cases, these remedies are actually used correctly? Surely that is a state of affairs which we cannot allow.

The hon. the Minister has quoted from pamphlets published in England and America, but has he the right to apply the same facts to this country?

I expected a much more reasonable remark from the hon. member than that. Let me point out something else to the hon. member. It just so happened that the hon. member for Prinshof (Mr. Visse) showed me the latest edition of the S.A. Law Reports, for May 1965, and there I read the following—

I now ask the hon. member whether we in South Africa are so much more clever than the people in all the other countries?

Mr. Speaker, the Minister is quoting something that was done by a man working under supervision, and not by a doctor.

Order! The hon. member may ask a question, but he cannot make a speech.

This is my criticism of those hon. members, that in this debate we expected a fair and reasonable consideration of the Bill, because it affects the lives of people. We are dealing with the welfare of the large mass of the people, but that is the sort of remark one hears. There is only one reason for their approach, and that is that they have been approached by the pharmaceutical industry. They do not sit there as impartial medical men, or they would not have acted in that way. But they were briefed by the pharmaceutical industry, and all the pleas we have heard from them, and also from the hon. member for Benoni, were because they were briefed to protect the profits of the pharmaceutical industry.

That is not true. I take the strongest exception to it.

I say it is true. I am just mentioning this unfortunate approach on the part of those hon. members, and I want to plead with them that we should not have that approach, but that we should simply look to the welfare of the people.

The hon. member for Durban (Central) also had another objection to the Bill. He said that this Bill restricted research, and that every medical man should be free to investigate these new remedies. But let me just sketch the position as it is in fact. I have already quoted facts to show that masses of these new remedies come on to the market without ever having been properly tested. What do these pharmaceutical firms often do? They send the doctors quite a number of those remedies, together with a letter saying: Please experiment with these and let us know the results. Just imagine, that is being done with remedies which often contain poisonous substances, the effects of which are unknown. Surely it is unreasonable to expect the ordinary medical man, who is busy all day, to test out those remedies scientifically without tragic consequences, and without perhaps seriously injuring his patients. The Snyman Commission said that it was necessary to restrict this sort of thing; we have certain institutions where the patients are kept under careful observation if new remedies are tried out on them, so that at the first sign that a remedy is not the correct one, its application can be stopped. Those are the circumstances in which such remedies can be tested out, but surely one cannot allow every doctor to do so. I, myself, have had the experience of a doctor telling me that he had received a few packets of medicine with which he had to experiment, and that I should take some and see what the effect was. The Bill, of course, says that we will allow these remedies to be fried out, because in the final result all remedies have to be tested on people, but that it must be done under strict supervision. They will be given to approved institutions, so that one will have the assurance that people’s health and lives are not endangered. That is only fair. But those hon. members are protecting the pharmaceutical firms, because it is those firms which distribute these remedies so freely; that is what those firms want.

I think there is one point on which we can all agree, and where I fully agree with hon. members opposite. I think we are approaching the stage where the function of the chemist should be radically reviewed in South Africa. Here one has a profession consisting of people who study medicines. We know that a doctor during his trainnig has to squeeze so many subjects into his seven-year course, so many important subjects, that he cannot possibly be an expert in regard to all of them. With this tremendous stream of new remedies to-day, we need the assistance of specialists, and we have them in South Africa; we have a specialist in the form of the chemist, but in South Africa we have hitherto made only minimal use of the chemist. We could make much greater use of him. We could make much better use of him if he and the doctor could form a team. The doctor does not have the time to study remedies. Here the doctor has someone whose assistance he could easily call on, and in that respect we could be of much greater help to the doctor. But we could also use the assistance of the chemist in other respects. We can call upon him to put a stop to the wrong use of medicines by the public. I do not know whether hon. members have noticed that the Snyman Report states that to-day practically just as much medicine is sold to the public directly as is sold on the prescriptions of medical men. That is the state of affairs to-day. Where members of the public to a large extent try to cure their own ills, it is essential that they should also be able to get the assistance of a chemist; that is essential, but under our present set-up the chemist cannot render this useful service. I think that in future we shall have to devote attention to making the chemist play his proper role in the curing of human ills.

Hon. members opposite raised various other points, but those points can possibly be discussed much more fruitfully when we discuss the different clauses, and therefore I will not say any more.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

I move—

This Bill amends various minor aspects of the Post Office Act, but they are essential amendments which have to be made. Section 1 of the Post Office Act gives the Post Office the power to enter into agreements for the transportation of post by land and by sea, but there should also be provision for agreements in regard to the transportation of post by air, and Clause 1 simply seeks to remedy that defect.

Clause 2 in intended to make the position easier for printers and publishers of newspapers. The present provision is that the full title, or portion of it, and date should appear on top of every page of a periodical, but many printers find it difficult to comply with this provision, and will find it easier if they are allowed to display those facts anywhere on any page. Clause 2 is simply intended to remedy that position.

In Clause 3 an amendment of Section 20 is proposed whereby the proviso is taken out and inserted in another section, namely 115bis (1) (h), where it fits in better. Clause 4 amends Section 80. In terms of Section 80, the Postmaster-General has the right to enter upon land in order to erect telegraph lines. He has always maintained call office cabinets where they stood on the land of other owners, but the law advisers have felt that where the wording to-day is “telegraph line or any works”, those words do not cover call office cabinets, and the proposed amendment is intended to remedy that defect.

Can the Minister just tell us why “any work” does not also include call office cabinets? Surely it is a broad term?

That is how it was always interpreted in the past, but the law advisers have, after further investigation, come to the conclusion that it is not covered by the term and that it would be better to mention it specifically in the Act.

Clause 5 amends Sec. 83 of the principal Act. It is provided that when a local authority by its actions causes a telegraph line or a pipe or a tunnel to be relaid or changed, the local authority must bear the cost, but the words “telegraph line, pipe, tunnel or tube” do not include any call office cabinet, and the amendment of this section is simply intended also to include such call office cabinets. Clause 6 amends Section 107 of the Act. The principal Act provides that if anyone deliberately or maliciously damages a telegraph line it is an offence. This amendment is simply intended also to include call office cabinets, so that when a person damages such a cabinet he will also be punishable.

Clause 8 amends Section 115. Perhaps I should just remind hon. members that the postal service is a universal service; it is a service intended to serve every individual, and for that reason the postal service must be a cheap service, but it cannot be cheap if it has to apply safety measures at a very high cost. It cannot, e.g., accept the transmission of diamonds and then accept responsibility for the loss of those diamonds if it means that it has to incur enormous costs to ensure that such diamonds will be safe, and therefore the Act provides that where an officer in his official capacity causes damage or loss through fraud, the Department or the Government will be responsible, but if the loss is caused by accident or through negligence there is no such responsibility. The Post Office and its officials are therefore under normal circumstances not responsible. If somebody wants to send diamonds by post, he must himself take steps to have the diamonds insured, for example by a private insurance company. From the nature of the matter the Post Office utilizes the services of other hauliers to transport its post. So, for example, it uses the S.A. Airways, K.L.M. and Pan American World Airways. They are then the agents of the Post Office in doing the work of the Post Office. Hitherto it has always been accepted that the rights of those hauliers are the same as those of the Post Office; that a haulier is relieved of responsibility to the same extent as the Post Office is. Unfortunately a case was recently heard in court in connection with diamonds which were lost while they were in the possession of Pan American World Airways. In this case it was decided that the Post Office was exempt from responsibility but that the haulier who transported it on behalf of the Post Office was not exempt and that he had to make good the loss. Therefore unless the Act is amended it will simply mean that all air lines will refuse to transport postal matter because they may be involved in tremendous costs, out of all proportion to the money they receive for the transportation of the postal matter. This section is now being amended to give such institutions the same protection as that enjoyed by the Post Office.

Clause 9 inserts a new section in the Act, Section 1156/i. In terms of Sections 20 and 115 of the existing Act there is exemption against loss, unless those losses were caused through fraud. Section 115, in its proviso, empowers the Postmater-General to pay compensation when he considers it reasonable to do so. In other words, the Post Office is exempt from paying compensation where losses are suffered as the result of the negligence of its officials, but in general the Postmaster-General in fact pays compensation; he pays compensation in the case of the theft of savings bank books or registered articles. If, for example, a savings bank book is stolen and money is drawn from it, the Post Office is exempt from the obligation to pay compensation, but nevertheless the Postmaster-General goes out of his way to pay compensation. When the thief is caught and convicted in a criminal case, he ought to be compelled to repay to the owner the value of that which he stole. But in the case of the Post Office, the courts have now decided that because the Post Office is not compelled to pay compensation this is an ex gratia payment, and because it is an ex gratia payment the Post Office has suffered no loss. This amendment seeks to remedy that also. This, in brief, is the meaning of this Bill and I hope I shall have the co-operation of the House in regard to it.

This Bill deals with four or five largely unrelated matters, as explained by the hon. the Minister and I think the details could best be discussed during the Committee Stage. The Bill deals in the first place with the two provisions which the hon. the Minister mentioned first of all. The Post Office did not in the past have permission to carry mail by air, in law, and this Bill now seeks to rectify the position. Secondly there is a small change allowing newspapers to place their names and the date of publication at the bottom of the page instead of at the top. There is, however, a more general principle running through the other provisions. There is a provision firstly in regard to callboxes and then there is a provision with regard to mail carriers. These provisions are designed to give greater protection to (the Post Office. We believe, particularly in the light of the recent court decision, that these amendments have become necessary and that it is a good thing to pass a Bill of this nature. The provision in regard to callboxes in particular is important. The Minister explained that callboxes could not be included under “general Works” in the original Act, and that is why callboxes are mentioned specifically in this Bill as things belonging to the Post Office Department and with which the Post Office is allowed to deal. We all know that damage has been and is being caused to callboxes by vandals, particularly in our big cities, and it is proper that in one case at least the penalty should be increased for such damage. We have a few reservations with regard to the extension of the right of the Minister with regard to call-boxes. He now claims the right to erect call-boxes wherever he wishes, but that is a matter, too, which I feel we can deal with later during the Committee stage.

The provision in regard to mail carriers is one which will protect the Post Office but one is a bit saddened by the thought that here again we have a case of a Government Department being absolved from direct legal responsibility for damages caused. It is a case where the discretion is left to the Postmaster-General as to the amount that he pays in damages. I trust that when this discretion is exercised the Post Office, as has happened in the past, will rather err on the side of generosity. It has, after all, a personal loss which may affect the individual concerned very greatly, when something is lost by the Post Office through negligence, whereas it might not be such a great loss, comparatively speaking, to the Post Office. I feel therefore that the Post Office should be generous in assessing the damages and in compensating the person who suffers the loss. It is only right that the Post Office should then have the right to demand that the guilty person should repay any ex gratia payment that the Post Office might have made.

Then I want to make one further point. As I have said, these measures are there to protect the Posit Office, and they are also there to safeguard the Post Office from unnecessary financial loss. One might say that these measures would increase the income of the Post Office. Sir, in a Bill such as this, any matter of policy is really three-dimensional. It deals not only with the content of the Bill, but it also deals with the reasons why it should be introduced, which the hon. the Minister gave us, and thirdly, the third dimension is how it is to be applied. We have here a Bill to amend the Post Office Act. We know how overworked the Post Office staff is, and we should Like to have an assurance from the hon. the Minister that this Bill will not in any way increase the burden on the hard-working and long-suffering members of his staff, and in particular that this Bill will contribute towards increasing the funds of the Post Office. On that account I also trust that the hon. the Minister will see his way open to be more generous to the industrious and patient members of the Post Office staff.

I am very grateful to hon. members opposite for the support they have given this Bill.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Orders of the Day Nos. IV and V to stand over until Order of the Day No. VI has been disposed of.

I move—

I want to say immediately that this measure which is before the House must not in any way be regarded as a panic measure. In essence this measure has nothing to do with any immediate threat we have to face up to. This measure must only be seen in this light that we are living in a dangerous world; that there are wars and rumours of war; that we form part of that world, and that, like any other country, South Africa must be prepared and establish an effective organization to protect its citizens, not only, as is clear from the principles contained in this measure in time of war, but also when other big, natural disasters hit us as they hit any country. Earth tremors have recently caused great havoc in other countries of the world, and nobody can say with any degree of certainty that such a natural disaster will not also hit this country. While I am on the subject of natural disasters, it is true, of course, that minor natural disasters have hit us in the past and will probably again do so in future, and that is why the Department of Social Welfare is, in the first instance, concerned with this measure. Hon. members will remember the floods we had in Natal and other areas. The Department of Social Welfare stepped in there and stepped in very effectively. From the nature of things they will step in when less serious disasters befall us, but one should bear in mind, Sir, that, both in the case of a war and in the case of a major natural disaster, there should be other machinery that can be set in motion immediately. I want to sftate this principle right at the outset: Various State Departments are concerned with certain matters, and they are well equipped to do that work. But hon. members will agree with me that it takes some time for the ordinary State Department which has been entrusted with those matters to get into action. It is essential, therefore, particularly in the intervening period, i.e. from the time the disaster has taken place until the ordinary State Department, whose function it is to cope with that disaster, comes into action, to have a blitz organization which can meet the situation as it has arisen. Hon. members will agree with me that the stage where most lives and also most material damage is suffered, is the very stage after such a disaster, before the other Departments concerned can exercise their normal functions. That is the fundamental principle underlying this Bill. I also want to say that there is hardly a single provision in this Bill which is new in essence. Most of these provisions have either directly or indirectly been taken over from existing legislation. In essence we are dealing with the establishment of a full-fledged Emergency Planning Department. It may be asked whether such a Department is necessary; whether the Emergency Planning Section should fall under the Department of Justice, and whether it should not fall under another Department; that is a point that one can argue and on which one can even differ. The Cabinet has decided—I think on good grounds—that it should form a sub-section of the Department of Justice, and that is why it is my task to submit this Bill to the House.

I may also add that the provisions of this Act follow as closely as possible the provisions of similar legislation in other countries. I have in mind countries like Belgium, Israel, Britain and other countries whose legislation we have studied very thoroughly. Emergency planning previously fell under the Department of Justice and auxiliary services under the Department of Defence. An auxiliary service section was also attached to the Police In terms of this Bill, it will now become an independent sub-department of the Department of Justice. In this connection I want to refer hon. members immediately to Section 82 of the Defence Act, No. 44 of 1957. I shall read the whole section—-

It is not my intention to-day, to emphasize the necessity of having such a service except to say that, considering the circumstances, we must be prepared. We must be prepared in case we are involved in a state of war; we must be prepared in case a disaster of the severity previously outlined by me befalls us.

When we study this Bill in the light of Section 82 of the Defence Act, we realize that there is practically nothing in that section which does not also appear in this Bill. No do I think it is necessary for me to explain the clauses of this Bill in detail; they are all very clear. I do, however, want to say a few words about certain provisions of this Bill.

As hon. members know, of course, the Public Safety Act lays down in which circumstances a state of emergency can be declared and in Clause 1 (vii) “state of emergency” is defined as follows—

1. (a) a state of emergency referred to in Section 2 of the Public Safety Act, 1953 . . .

In order to refresh hon. members’ memory I just want to read the section concerned—

In passing I just want to say that (c) is very important in that it clearly states that the ordinary laws of the land must be inadequate to enable the Government to ensure the safety of the public or to maintain public order.

Hon. members know what the attitude of the Government and of myself is in this connection —we have often discussed it in this House— namely, that the Government will not easily declare a state of emergency because, not only does it disrupt every-day life, but because it apparently and possibly also disrupts the economy of the country and that is something one would like to avoid. “State of emergency” is further defined as follows in (c)—

It has also been asked why the Minister is given power to do certain things. That is purely for the sake of convenience. It may be difficult, in certain given circumstances, to get the State President to sign the proclamation concerned. In view of what I have said, namely, that the initial stage is the important stage, you cannot delay matters until such time as the formalities have been complied with. If an emergency arises and if it is necessary the Minister must have those powers.

Can’t you ask for it to be of retrospective effect?

Not as far as I know; I shall, however, go into it but I do not think it can be done. In that connection I also want to point out to hon. members that this is not a new principle. It is already contained in Section 4 of the Public Safety Act and reads—

It is clear why that should be the position. This provision must, therefore, be regarded and interpreted in that light.

As I have said we already have a subdepartment in the Department of Justice. In respect of many formal actions this subdepartment is really suspended in mid-air because it has not yet been given statutory recognition. All we are doing in Clause 2 of this Bill is to give statutory recognition to that organization and I don’t think hon. members want me to say anything further in that connection.

The brings me to Clause 3 which after all is the most important clause of the entire Bill. I want to read it because it has a bearing on my argument—

1. (1) The object and purpose of the division is to take measures, other than measures taken under the Public Safety Act, the Defence Act or the Police Act, for the purpose of

   1. (a) providing the Republic and its inhabitants with regard to a state of emergency with the greatest possible measure of protection and assistance;

We can wholeheartedly subscribe to that principle whatever our political affiliations may be—

1. (b) combating in the most effective manner civilian disruption during a state of emergency

We then outline what we really want to do in this regard and in the following lines the duties and functions of this Division of Emergency Planning are set out—

Sub-section (2) is very important and must at all times be borne in mind in this connection as I shall explain to hon. members a little later on. In every big city there is a fire brigade which falls under the control of the city council. Hon. members will appreciate however, that this fire fighting machinery is only adequate to meet the ordinary needs which arise from time to time. Suppose, for example, a disaster, albeit a war or a natural disaster, hits Cape Town and causes serious fires. In such a case the existing fire fighting machinery will be hopelessly inadequate to fight those fires. In the first place we have to co-ordinate the various fire fighting services and in order to do so we have already had discussions with all the bodies concerned in this connection. Not only have we had discussions with private and municipal bodies but also with the Municipal Association as organized throughout the .Republic. Hon. members would perhaps have noticed from the Press that they discussed this matter at their latest meeting and that that meeting, in general, gave its blessing to this Bill. The State will have to assume certain responsibility in that connection. At given times, and where circumstances necessitate it, the State will have to assist the local authority whose duty and function it is to fight fires in those circumstances. What the extent of that assistance is to be is not relevant at the moment; we are only dealing with the principle. Not only in terms of this legislation but in terms of the general principles involved the State will have to assist, in self defence and in defence of its citizens and inhabitants, either by way of providing machinery and equipment or financial aid if the local authority is not in a position to fight the large fires caused by that disaster on its own. That is the underlying principle in this connection. The second duty is to do rescue and evacuation work. In passing I again want to point out to hon. members that there are other departments which can effectively undertake this work but that it will take these departments some time to get into full action and, because the initial stage is the important stage, it is necessary to have an organization which is specially geared, which has the necessary power and the necessary machinery to do the rescue and evacuation work immediately as outlined in this Bill. Clause 3 (iii) reads—

The question arises immediately whether, in view of the atomic wars which are predicted and about which we hear and read such a great deal to-day, we should not construct special shelters. My reply is—and I have gone very thoroughly into this matter—that it is practically and economically impossible to provide special facilities except in extraordinary circumstances. No matter how essential one may regard it and how desirable one may regard it, it is and remains a practical and economic impossibility. This is also how most other countries regard it. You can make adjustments; you can use existing buildings; you can make suggestions, as we are doing in pamphlets and over the radio, how best to escape those radio-active fall-outs but it simply remains a practical impossibility to provide the entire nation with shelters. I shall not say anything further on this point because I think that must be obvious to everybody but if hon. members want to raise the matter at a later stage we can discuss it.

Sub-section (iv) deals with medical treatment and care of injured and sick persons, and health services. In the ordinary course of events those functions are naturally performed by the various health services either of the Republican Government or of provincial authorities. I want to point out again that, as in the case of similar legislation, this has been inserted because you must immediately have the power to act in that connection until such time as these other bodies can come into action and carry on from where you have left off after the first few days.

Sub-section (v) deals with the provision of emergency housing, food and clothing. Again it is the normal function of the Department of Social Welfare to step in in this connection but until such time as that Department goes into action with its far-flung machinery there must be a body to assume responsibility.

Sub-section (vi) deals with the readjustment of communities and individuals. I know some doubts have been expressed in this regard as to whether it was now the intention of this Department to move people and to take over the work of the Group Areas Department, as it were. That is a ridiculous suggestion but many ridiculous suggestions are made in this world and people even believe some of them. I wish to refer hon. members to Section 18 of the Defence Amendment Act, Act No. 12 of 1961, which says—

The marginal note reads: “Evacuation of or concentration of persons”—

That is the Minister of Defence—

Hon. members will remember that this particular provision was discussed, and that it was accepted. The Department of Defence has the power, therefore, to order a person or a community of people to evacuate a certain area or to assemble somewhere. Once the Department of Defence has done that, its task is finished, but those people must live. It is, consequently, the task and duty of this organization, where Defence has issued such an instruction, to assume the responsibility of looking after these people until such time as other steps can be taken. I shall give hon. members a good example. Supposing a town along the borders of the Republic is attacked. I am merely giving this example by way of argument, not because I think it may actually happen in the near future, but because it is a possibility which we must always bear in mind when dealing with legislation of this nature. Supposing a town along the border is attacked by guerilla fighters, the so-called freedom fighters, which are being trained in the rest of Africa to-day. Then it is obvious that where Defence steps in, or even the Police, the entire community must immediately be evacuated, because they are in the fighting area. You cannot simply tell those people to evacuate without taking the necessary steps, and without providing them with the wherewithal to live until such time as other arrangements can be made. Therefore, when we talk about the readjustment of communities and individuals, we have in mind those instances where, in those circumstances, it is regarded essential to evacuate those individuals. It may also happen in the case of a major natural disaster, like an earthquake—that an area becomes so dangerous—as happened in America recently—that the entire community must simply be moved out. In that case you must assume the responsibility of looking after those people until such time as they can be looked after in some other way.

That also applies in the case of (vii), “the maintenance of essential services and the protection of essential industries, places and areas”. Hon. members will also find this provision in the Defence Act; (viii) “transport, communication and warnings” also appears in the Defence Act, as well as other legislation. Hon. members will appreciate that somebody must immediately assume that responsibility.

That brings me to (ix) “the continuation of existing central provincial and local government”. Here, too, the ridiculous suggestion has been made in some circles that this provision could be used to set up a dictatorship and heaven knows what else. It very clearly says “the continuation of existing central, provincial and local government”. Let me explain to hon. members, taking the last one first, why it is essential to have such a provision. Every town or city has a city council. That city council carries out its functions in certain buildings. If it has no buildings it cannot perform its functions. Supposing that, as a result of any disaster, albeit it a war or a natural disaster, the buildings in which that local body functions are destroyed. In that event it naturally becomes essential for them immediately to continue their work in other buildings; that something must be done so that they can move to another building. They do not have such a building, however. If the site and the buildings of the Cape Town City Council, for example, are destroyed, it has no power to commandeer other premises. It can only acquire other premises by way of negotiations, negotiations which may be drawn out or which may come to nought. It is essential, therefore, that there should be a body somewhere with power to enable the City Council to continue with its normal functions. The same applies to the Provincial Council, and it also applies to this Parliament. If the Houses of Parliament were destroyed, again as a result of some disaster, it is essential that Parliament continues with its normal functions. There must be a body somewhere which can provide the necessary accommodation and everything that goes with it at the shortest possible notice. That body must have the necessary power to do the formal things necessary in order to enable the administration of the State, whether it be parliamentary, provincial or local authority, to be continued. That is all we are concerned with here; we are not concerned with anything else; it is not our task or function to concern ourselves with anything else except to find and to provide the necessary facilities, so .that existing administrative bodies can, in all circumstances, carry on with their normal activities, even in a state of emergency.

In (x), which also appears in the Defence Act, we refer to “any other matter which the State President may designate by proclamation in the Gazette”. I have already pointed this out to hon. members, but I again want to draw the attention to the fact that Clause 3 (2) states very clearly—there cannot be any misunderstanding about this—

It is very clear that there is no question that this Department can or wants to perform the functions of another Department. One would be very grateful, from the nature of things, if one did not have to step in. You only step in (a) if that Department has not yet gone into action; (b) only to the extent to which that Department asks you to act. If that Department does not require your assistance, you do not step in; if it does require your assistance, temporarily or for whatever period it may be, you are at its disposal and exercise the power, but you can only exercise it in terms of the provision of sub-section (2).

I also refer to Clause 3 (bb). In this case also hon. members will find that Section 100 of the Defence Act is similar—

Clause 5 of the Bill empowers the Minister to delegate the powers conferred upon him by this measure. From the nature of things he must have power to delegate some of his power to others. It is obvious that the Minister himself cannot be everywhere; it is obvious that, in a case such as this, he must have power to delegate, otherwise you will be defeating the very purposes of this Bill. That is done in Clause 5. Clause 6 provides for money to be spent so that the provisions of this law can be put into effect, and Clause 8 provides for the appointment of committees. Without these committees, one would naturally not be able to do a great deal.

I can tell hon. members that not only have we made a study of this subject for many years but the officials, particularly the director, especially recently, has had many discussions with all interested parties, such as emergency assistance organizations, etc. The emergency assistance organizations have been brought together and subsidized, and have done valuable work in this connection, because hon. members will realize that it is urgently essential to render assistance immediately after a disaster. Many classes have been organized and I want to express my appreciation not only to those who have conducted those classes but also to the larger number of people who have attended them. As hon. members would have noticed from the Press those appointed were mostly retired officers who, not only know something about these matters but who are at home in this type of work by virtue of the positions they had occupied. Appointments have been made in all the big cities and people are already organizing. I do not think it is necessary for me to say more in this regard. If it is raised at a later stage I can enlarge on it.

Then we have Clause 9. I want to draw hon. members’ attention to the fact that Clause 9 holds out the prospect that certain persons (the clause states which persons are excluded) may be called up to undergo training in this connection. Our entire approach has and is to use the services of volunteers in this connection. The more one can do that the better. In this regard we have been very successful in that the public has, in many instances, responded very well to the appeal made to them to offer their services voluntarily. But I think hon. members will also agree with me that we cannot only depend on volunteers and that if circumstances warrant it we must be able to take other steps. I want to say very clearly that we shall only do so as a last resort; but if it becomes necessary for the protection of life and property you must have the power, as it exists in the Defence Act, to compel people. The people you may compel are not people who will be required for the defence of the country; they are the remains after Defence has taken what it requires in order to wage the war. However, the home front, the protection of life and property—that was evident during the last war in particular—is as important as the fighting of the actual war, not only for the morale of the soldiers doing the fighting in that they know their families and children are safe, but to avoid a repetition of the havoc that was caused amongst the ordinary civilian populations of the countries which took part in that war. My argument is, therefore, that if you have the right to compel people in the event of a war, you should also have the right, as a last resort, to compel them if there are not enough volunteers. You must take the power in legislation to compel people to do the necessary on the home front in time of war because the one is as important as the other and because not only is the one ancillary to the other, but because the one can hardly be carried out without the other being carried out, and because the one cannot be done effectively without the other one being on a sound basis and well organized. In this connection I refer hon. members of Clause 10, which deals with volunteers in this connection.

For the rest the provisions are based in the main on the provisions of the Defence Act, the Emergency Powers Act and other laws which already deal with these matters. I do not think it is necessary to go into the matter any further because it is clearly set out in this Bill.

I conclude by saying that I think everybody will regard the provisions of this Bill as necessary and that I think this sub-department which has already been established has done excellent work during the short time it has been in existence. I want to express my appreciation to the officials of that sub-department and the public who have co-operated so magnificently. I personally have received many letters from people from all walks of life in which they not only express their satisfaction with the whole matter but also offer their active assistance and co-operation in this connection. Hon. members would also have noticed statements in the Press by persons who are authorities in this field expressing their satisfaction with this measure. I think this is a measure in connection with which we could perhaps argue the details but, as far as the principle is concerned, I do not think we need differ from one another. I trust, therefore, that both sides of the House will heartily welcome it. I think hon. members will agree with me when I say it was a wise decision of the Government to give this instruction to the sub-department. I can assure hon. members that this sub-department, in view of all the problems which confront it and in view of the fact that we are really entering a new field in South Africa, because during the past 60 years we have not had a war on our own doorstep, with the result that we are unacquainted with many of these conditions, is anxious to co-operate heartily with all bodies concerned. As I say, many of the arrangements that will have to be made will perhaps be strange to us, but in this regard we have learnt from the experience gained by those countries which have indeed had to conduct a war on their own soil; we have learnt from countries which have suffered from severe and extensive natural disasters and in view of that experience we have tried to incorporate, as briefly as possible, in this Bill the principles which should be incorporated in such a Bill.

As one of those who raised the subject pertinently with the hon. Minister in the past, I may say there is no disagreement between us on principle, and this Bill will receive the support of this side of the House. We have, however, certain misgivings as to the manner in which this Bill was to be applied, and it is for that reason that we were anxious to hear the hon. Minister’s ideas before any discussion took place at length on the Bill, and I understand that I have the agreement of both sides of the House to move—

That the debate be now adjourned.

Agreed to.

I move—

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Basically this Bill is merely an enabling measure, establishing an Hotel Board as a body corporate. I know it consists of some 40 clauses and it may seem to be involved, but really what it conveys is that this corporate body will now be established. It gives the composition of the board, and it gives the powers and functions to achieve the objects of this Bill. In fact it is really a culmination of many years of inquiry and investigation, and it is interesting if one looks into the past, to see exactly how we have led up to the stage that this Bill can be introduced and an Hotel Board is now envisaged. I think the original investigation was undertaken by Dr. Norval in 1936, and it covered the tourist industry, but referred naturally to the matter of hotels. In 1942, the Government of the day appointed a commission and the hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Higgerty) was chairman of that commission, and it was commonly known as the Higgerty Commission. That commission recommended also the establishment of a body corporate. That was in 1942, but it was not proceeded with. I am sure that the hon. member for Von Brandis must feel now some of the frustration of the past being taken away from him when now we propose to establish an Hotel Board. But after 1942 there was a second inquiry in 1949. and an Hotel Bill was introduced in the House in 1950 and re-introduced in 1951. It went to a select committee, and eventually another Bill came from the select committee and that was gazetted, but that also was not proceeded with. In 1963, the hon. Minister of Economic Affairs appointed an Hotel Commission and this commission in due course reported. Its report and findings were tabled in February this year and this Bill is based on part of that commission’s findings.

Business suspended at 12.45 p.m. and resumed at 2.20 p.m.

Afternoon Sitting

I might say that the Hotel Commission itself handed in its report to me towards the end of 1964. The English version of the report was printed in December and was made available to all interested parties, although due to translation difficulties the reports themselves were only tabled in February of this year.

I realize that the report of this commission is not under discussion, that in fact the Bill itself only forms a portion of the recommendations of this commission. Therefore I will restrict myself to those aspects of the com-! mission’s report which have a direct bearing on this Bill. If I read the introduction of the terms of reference of the commission, I think hon. members will appreciate how wide the commission’s report could go and the limitations which this Bill has on the discussions of the whole of the report. I read the introduction of the terms of reference—

And then paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) follow. I only want to bring out that there was a definite emphasis on the matter of tourism, and therefore tourism did not necessarily only mean an inquiry into the hotel industry. Although it is called the “Hotel Commission” the scope of the inquiry was very much wider. I would also like to pass a compliment to the members of this commission. I feel the House should realize that this commission in a period of about 16 months, at very little cost (under R 15,000), after many meetings and interviews with, I think, almost 100 bodies, produced what I consider a very sound and interesting report. The members of the commission were Mr. R. Knobel (chairman), Mr. F. F. M. Ferguson, who resigned and was replaced by Mr. W. F. Hamilton, Colonel E. O’C. Maggs, Mr. S. P. C. Odendaal, Professor W. J. Pretorius and Professor B. S. Wiehahn. In addition there was the secretariat, Mr. Kruger and Mr. Robertse. Now the common ground between this Bill and the Hotel Commission’s Report is the fact that the Hotel Commission recommended the establishment of a corporate body and this Bill establishes this corporate body. In fact, the commission went to a great deal of trouble to show what they felt was the type of legislation that should be introduced. At the end of their report they put forward a draft proposed Bill which they called the “Hotel Industry Bill”. The various hotel organizations naturally were very interested in what the Government intended doing about the recommendations, and even before the recommendations were available. the hotel industry already realized that the intention was to establish some sort of hotel body. I assured them that once the Hotel Commission’s Report was available, my Department and myself would have subsequent discussions with them before a Bill was introduced by the Government. In that process we had various discussions also with the members of the commission about that proposed legislation and how they viewed the basis of operation for this board. It was on the Commission’s Report and Recommendations that I and my Department had discussions with the hotel organizations. We had not yet introduced the Bill, it was just on the basis of the draft legislation in the report. After listening to them, and to a certain extent, taking heed of the points they raised, this Hotel Bill was introduced. It was introduced, I think, towards the end of April. It incorporated some of the ideas that they had expressed, the opinions they had conveyed on the draft legislation in the report. They nevertheless still had the opportunity of studying this actual Bill before the House as subsequently we again discussed this particular Bill with them, and listened to certain suggestions they made. In certain cases we accepted the points, as hon. members will see from the amendments on the Order Paper, and in other cases we were not prepared to accept their suggestions. However, I want to say that the whole of the discussion was very amicable and very helpful, not only to me and my Department, but also to the hotel organizations themselves. I think we cleared up some of their difficulties and they undoubtedly made their contribution.

To give an example of the actual way in which this Bill was formulated, I would just refer, for instance, to the composition of the Board. I know the details can be discussed in Committee, but I want to give hon. members an idea of how particular problems were handled. The Commission in its report, although it has received representations from the hotel organizations that they should be directly represented on this Board, decided against it. They said there should be three hoteliers, but that they should be appointed without any direct reference to the organizations in question. During my discussions with the hotel commissioners it became obvious that they felt that these hoteliers must not be in any way directed or led by any hotel organization. They considered they should be hoteliers actually engaged in the hotel industry, but not directed by an hotel organization. On the other hand however the one hotel organization considered that the three hoteliers for which provision is made in this Bill should come from their organization. Another hotel organization considered that if the others got representation they should have at least one representative. This was at the stage when the Commission’s report only was available. Then we drafted our Bill, after having these discussions. Our Bill to this extent departed from the suggestions of the Hotel Commission in that of the three hoteliers we accepted that one should be chosen from a panel of names submitted by hotel organizations recognized by the Minister. This was embodied in the Bill, and this was again made available to the hotel organization. We met them again and they then indicated that they were not satisfied. They really wanted to be directly represented by more than one member on the hotel board.

How do you mean, by more than one person?

They wanted three from their organization, and not only one from their organization and two from other hoteliers. I am not suggesting that their demands were unreasonable, but I do not think that all three hoteliers should represent one organization or that it should go further than the one representative for whom provision is made. They suggested that it should be at least one. I would not accept that because if we said that it must be at least one they would immediately say that it meant two. I said we would adhere to what was provided in the original Bill.

Then they referred to the fact that in the composition of the Board there should be some way in which the Minister should consult these bodies to see who the two other members should be. I conceded that. As far as that was concerned, I would in the ordinary circumstances, without an alteration in the Bill, consult them in the same way that I consult other bodies like Satour, which I felt would be able to help this Board to function better. Therefore if hon. members look at the Order Paper they will see that there is a small amendment to the effect that “two of the said three members shall be appointed on the recommendation of the Minister made after consultation with the organizations referred to in paragraph (a) of sub-section (2) and such other organizations and such persons as the Minister may deem fit.” I mention this to show the House the manner in which we as a Department went into the whole aspect of the various clauses of the Bill. No doubt it will not satisfy the hotel organizations completely because in the one case they wanted three members and in the other case they wanted one, which made four representatives, whereas only three hoteliers were to be appointed. But this was the basis on which we considered the matter of representation after this full discussion with them should be finalized.

I mentioned that this is essentially an enabling Bill. What it does is really to establish an autonomous body, a corporate body, where the members are appointed by the State President for a maximum period of three years, and where the Chairman must not be directly interested in the hotel industry, and I subsequently accepted an amendment from the liquor trade that there should be three hoteliers’ representatives as I have said.

The actual objects, functions and powers of the Board are set out, so that this Bill really contains the major working of this Board. The objects of the Board are stated very generally. The object for which the Board is established is “to foster the development and the improvement of accommodation establishments with a view to achieving and maintaining the highest possible standards in the quality of the accommodation, meals and services provided by such establishments.” The powers and functions of the Board are laid down in Clause 4, which covers a lot of things. It has to encourage and advise accommodation establishments. It has the power to lend money and to hire and acquire property, subject to certain restrictions. The Board must try to establish satisfactory standards of service and accommodation and to finance the training of personnel. They can call for information and statistics and publish information and statistics and the hotel list. This Board may appoint committees to assist it, and naturally it has the power to appoint staff. All these powers and functions are incorporated in this Bill. But I fully appreciate that the details of the Bill can really be better discussed in the Committee Stage and therefore I do not want to go into too much detail. All I can say is that the major functions of this Board is that it shall keep a register of hotels and register hotels or accommodation establishments. It shall grade and group them and it shall have the power to inspect and investigate them. It will have the power to issue certificates of registration for these hotels and to register hoteliers. It can review decisions, and there will be appeals to the Board, and in certain cases to the Minister, But these details can be better discussed in the Committee Stage.

The Board naturally also has to have finance available to it, and Clause 28 makes provision for that. The Board can impose a levy, which is the usual way in which it is done overseas. I have seen on many hotel accounts that I have paid that there is a percentage levy added to the account for the purpose of financing such a board. So it can impose a surcharge or a levy on services rendered. In consultation with the Minister of Finance, it can also have borrowing powers, and it can borrow certain amounts from the Government. One of the functions of the Board is to lend money to certain registered accommodation establishments for improvements to those establishments, so that if an hotel wishes to improve its standards and has to spend money on it, this Board can lend money to that hotel to meet those commitments, and it can lay down the terms under which it will do so. These are matters which the Hotel Board itself, as a corporate body, will have to tackle. As far as new hotels are concerned, there is also a provision that the Board can lend money for the building of new hotels, but here there is a stipulation that it can only be done with the approval of the Minister. Basically the idea is that whatever funds the Board has should be used particularly to lend money to hotels for improvements and to raise the standards and quality of existing hotels, and not to absorb all its funds in helping to build just a few big hotels. There is also a clause that the Auditor-General should report on the funds of the Board, and he then reports to the Minister. Then there is a bilking clause which allows the same facilities granted in terms of the Liquor Act to hotels registered with the Board, because the Board can also register unlicensed hotels. If accommodation is up to the standards they set, it can register an unlicensed hotel. The Liquor Act gives protection in regard to bilking to licensed hotels.

Are you amending that now?

Yes, the amendment is on the Order Paper. The clause in the original Bill went too far, but now the position is that if a licensed establishment is not registered with the Board it is still protected under the Liquor Act. If a non-licensed establishment is registered with the Board, then it has the same protection against bilking. So it covers all establishments registered with the Board.

Then there is a clause dealing with penalties. The penalties which apply generally for certain breaches are a fine of R200 or six months’ imprisonment. For giving false information in regard to hotel registration or in regard to the grading and using a name which is not registered, and for breaches of regulations and refusal to give evidence under oath, this penalty is applied. If there is a breach of secrecy under this Act, there is also a sanction imposed. There is only one instance where the penalties are higher than a fine of R200, and that is for perjury, where it is R400 or 12 months’ imprisonment.

Finally, the Liquor Act is amended. In terms of the present Liquor Act, the Liquor Board can not only certify and classify but can also grade. Now that this Hotel Board is established, the word “grade” is being deleted from the functions of the Liquor Board.

What is the position in regard to establishments in the Transkei which fall outside the Liquor Act?

I am afraid I cannot tell the hon. member now, but I will go into that point and if the opportunity arises I will give him the information.

There is also an amendment to the Satour Act, deleting the power which Satour had to grade hotel establishments, based on the fact that now we have the Hotel Board which will carry out that particular function.

Hon. members would probably like to know what the major differences are between the Commission’s draft Bill and the Bill as it stands here. There are a lot of minor points, but the major issue is this. In the Commission’s report it put a qualification for the registration of an accommodation establishment. In order to be described as an hotel only an accommodation establishment which met the standards and which made available not less than half its accommodation for tourists could be registered. There was a very wide definition of “tourist”, including holiday-makers; it was not just the overseas tourist, but nevertheless it said that more than half of the accommodation had to be of this type. Then there was another type of hotel which was called a “residential hotel”, where not less than 25 per cent of its accommodation should be for tourists. We went into this very thoroughly. We realized that the Hotel Commission was most anxious to see that the tourist industry as such should develop in this country and therefore accommodation should be available in hotels, or places which call themselves hotels, for tourists. I agree that the idea is that accommodation should be available for tourists if one wishes to build up a tourist industry, but when it came to stipulating in this Bill that the Hotel Board could not register a hotel because it did not comply with the definition they had of a tourist hotel or a residential hotel, we were not prepared to agree. [Interjection.] The Board itself can grade places catering for tourists, but it cannot direct registration on that basis. The Commission said this—

That means an hotel which makes available 50 per cent or more of its accommodation for tourists. You can keep an hotel which has all the facilities necessary, but which, for seasonal reasons, like here in the Cape, cannot show that in the ordinary course of business it supplies more lodging to tourists than to permanent residents in a year and according to that definition it could not be registered with the Hotel Board. We said that went too far, and therefore we did not incorporate what was suggested in the Commission’s report. If you have an hotel which supplies 40 per cent of its lodging to tourists, we say that hotel should be registered. So we were not prepared to make the percentages the basis of registration. We also felt with regard to a residential hotel, which was defined as “an hotel which supplies not more than three times as much lodging to permanent residents than to tourists”. That such an hotel could not be registered because it did not comply with this definition and therefore could not call itself an hotel— we considered that would be a great hardship on many hotels which through no fault of their own did not conform with these stipulations. That is one of the cases in which we made concessions which the Commission itself did not make. There was another major point, namely that in the Commission’s report they maintain that once an hotel was registered with the Hotel Board its liquor licence should be granted automatically and it no longer came under the jurisdiction of the Liquor Act. Here also this Bill does not agree with that line of thought. The Liquor Board will still operate and it will still decide whether a liquor licence should be granted to that estabishment. It can even decide whether it will classify that licence as a late licence or an early licence or a mealtime licence. We are prepared to say that that is the function of the Liquor Board and not of the Hotel Board, because the function of the Hotel Board is to grade. We were not prepared to concede that the Hotel Board should take over the functions of the Liquor Board. The Liquor Board will therefore still operate and decide whether a liquor licence should be given to an hotel, or the basis on which it should be granted.

Is that Government policy?

It is the policy of this Bill. This Bill establishes a corporate body which is not going to have the functions of the Liquor Board transferred to it. Hon. members may not agree with it, but this is the basis on which this Bill was drafted, that the Hotel Board will do the grading but it will not do the liquor licensing attached to hotels. On those two points there were major differences between the Commission’s report and the Bill as it is now. There are other small items. The Commission, e.g. talked about the Hotel Industry Board. I had representations made to me that it should be called the Tourist Hotel Board, because tourism is the objective. I considered that the best thing to do was to call it the Hotel Board, without any qualification. There were certain minor items which will come out in discussion. I do not think they are very important. The Commission recommended eight members for the Board, but the Bill has arranged for seven. I do not think that is important. As far as I can see, this Hotel Bill is one which has endeavoured to meet the requirements necessary for the establishment of this corporate body. I would say that it conveys to the hotel industry that here is a corporate body to which it can turn for advice and assistance. Now for the first time there is a central body which can assist the hotel industry to overcome its difficulties. I considered that that in itself is a move in the right direction. There are many advantages attached to registration such as I have just mentioned, like financial assistance when alterations are required. But in general I would say that this Bill is one which I can commend and I trust that it will be supported by all sides of the House.

The hon. the Minister, in introducing this Bill, traversed certain history. The problem has been one of long standing, as he correctly stated. It is a problem which has been discussed at various times during the last 30 years, and it has gone through various processes. I am glad to say that we have got away from the stage where the hotel industry was considered as a Cinderella industry carried on by pseudo criminals, because that was the attitude in the past, but we have gradually got away from that. In 1936, at the instance of the Government of the day, Dr. Norval produced a report which, except for different figures, came to almost the same conclusions. The axioms he laid down, mainly in regard to tourism, remain the same to-day, and all that has happened is that the figures have altered over the years. Then there was a committee presided over by myself, as the Minister stated, and there the principle was recommended that there should be a central hotel authority, but it was wrecked on the rock of classification. The hotel industry at that time would not accept the principle of classification and would have nohing to do with it, and no progress was made. Since then they have come to see the necessity for having classification within the industry, and I am glad to say they welcome it to-day.

Then there was a Hotels Bill introduced and it was tied up with the Transport Commission, and that Bill foundered on that rock because one could not see what the hotel industry had to do with the Transport Commission. More recently we had the present commission which, I agree, has made a most comprehensive survey and did excellent work. There is no question but that the principle has been accepted by all these committees, commissions and individuals who have investigated the hotel industry, including a study made by the University of Cape Town at one stage, and they all recommended that there should be a central hotel authority to assist, guide and control the hotel industry.

There is no question either that the hotel industry is not one in which great profits are made; it is not one that attracts many people. Sir, I am not going to weary the House with a great number of figures, but hon. members will find that the industry encounters great economic difficulties. For instance, figures taken out in 1946 and 1947 showed that on turnover there was a profit of 11.3 per cent in the case of licensed hotels and many years later, in 1958-9, that net profit has fallen to 5.6 per cent. There is reason to believe that until just recently the figure had fallen even further. In the whole period from 1946 to 1958 the number of hotels increased only by 13 per cent while their gross revenue increased by 81 per cent, and yet the profit ratio fell to 5.6 per cent in the same period. There is no more outstanding example of the state of our hotel industry than Cape Town itself, which is considered to be a premier holiday resort and which is also, of course, the legislative capital of the Republic. Its attractions are world renowned and what is happening is that hotel after hotel in the last few years has been disappearing from the scene. One only has to look at the Sea Point seafront. A few years ago every second plot of land along the seafront was a hotel of some sort. If you go to Muizenberg you will find hotels are now being sold for the erection of flats. There is, therefore, a great need for something to be done to advise this industry and to help it to get on to a proper economic basis.

I have felt that up to now too much emphasis has been placed on the de luxe hotels. We see headlines in the newspapers as to what is being done and what negotiations are going on in regard to the establishment of de luxe hotels. I accept that there should be de luxe hotels, but the problem does not relate to the de luxe hotels; it relates to the mediumsized hotels which far outnumber the de luxe hotels in catering for the tourist trade. I am certain that when the hon. the Minister travels to inspect the Satour offices which are under his charge, he stays at the de luxe hotels, but when the Minister goes in his private capacity he does not stay in that type of hotel; he stays in the medium-priced hotel, as most people do. I have done the same myself. If I travel in a representative capacity I stay at the de luxe hotels which cater for a minimum number of people, the wealthy people, and people who are there in a representative capacity. I believe that this Bill should take care and I believe it does take care of that large proportion of the hotels which cater for the greatest number of people. I think up to now our perspective has been a little bit out of gear, in placing so much emphasis on the de luxe hotels. Sir, the Minister referred to the fact that I might have got rid of my frustrations to-day, because he knows that I have been interested in this problem for some time, but I hasten to assure him that I have not got rid of them entirely. As a mater of fact, along with industry in one respect, I am deeply disappointed. The hotel industry as such has looked forward for years to a central controlling authority and has campaigned for it for years, so that it will be able to deal with one authority instead of having to deal with many authorities.

In other words, to put it plainly, they would have liked to have seen a Bill put before this House which excised from the Liquor Act the questions that deal with the hotel industry, and that those matters be incorporated in a Bill creating one single charter, one single control, for the whole hotel industry. Sir, when I read this Bill I begin to wonder what privileges are going to be granted to hotels by this Board to give them an incentive to get a better grade and a better grouping. You see, Sir, the privileges that can be handed out are in the hands of the Minister of Justice; they are not in the hands of the Hotel Board as such. I refer to all the privileges in regard to liquor. I believe that if there was only one authority the position would be very much better. I you have two authorities you have a double inspection. You have the police authority inspecting hotels and under this Bill you are creating an inspectorate to inspect the hotels as such. I believe that a single control is the ideal which the hotel industry has been hoping for and aiming at for a number of years. It is obvious to me—and that is why I interjected when the Minister was speaking—that it is Government policy that this division should still continue. In other words, they have decided that the Minister of Justice be left with these functions and that the remaining functions be provided for under this Bill. I believe it is going to make for a great deal of red tape, with this duplication of work.

Sir, the success of this Bill or the success of the objects which it sets out to achieve rests, to my mind, almost entirely on the question of the composition of this Board. The Minister said that that was a detail. It is a detail but it is the most important detail in the Bill. The objects of this Bill are to develop, improve and assist the hotel industry and to create a central authority, and to my mind unless we start out with goodwill and co-operation between the Board and the liquor and nonliquor hotel industry as such, very little is going to be achieved. It seems to me, although I hope that that is not so, that the Minister has almost closed his mind to any further alteration of the Bill or any discussion on the question of the composition of the Board. It is true that he has gone a certain distance to meet the suggestions which have come from the industry as such. I firmly believe that if the Minister is prepared to agree that from a panel submitted to him he should appoint two members from the licensed industry and one from the non-licensed industry he will go a very long way towards getting an acceptance of the Bill without any misgivings at all within the industry. I think that would go a considerable way towards reassuring them because there are reservations and the Minister is aware of the fact that there are reservations, and those reservations largely revolve around the question of the composition of the Board.

The Minister has, quite rightly, anticipated a number of amendments that might have been put on the Order Paper. He had discussions with the interests concerned and with the members who were interested in this Bill. I accept that he has endeavoured from his point of view to meet the points that have been put to him, and having made up his mind how far he can go at this stage he has placed certain amendments on the Order Paper which will facilitate discussion in the Committee Stage. As I have said earlier, I hope that the Minister has not closed his mind to argument on this question. I think he has endeavoured to get an agreed Bill; he has gone a long way in that direction, and where differences occur between the recommendations of the Commission as far as the hotel industry is concerned and the Bill placed before the House, those differences occur because the Minister has been faced with the realities of the situation.

So was the Commission.

I do not think the Commission had quite the same opportunity of discussing matters with the interested parties, although they received evidence from them. I am not blaming the Commission, but, of course, Government policy also enters into the picture. All I say is that the Minister has been faced with the realities of the situation and being in that position he has quite rightly tried to get an agreed Bill. As far as this side of the House is concerned, we support the principle of this Bill and we will vote for it at the second reading. I am personally glad that we can do so because of my interest in this problem. The party as such supports the Bill. There will be further discussion on certain matters in the Committee Stage and other amendments will be put on the Order Paper where the Minister has perhaps not met the position with his own amendments which are at present on the Order Paper. Other members will put forward their point of view in the second-reading debate in regard to other detailed matters of the Bill.

I should like to express my appreciation of the fact that we have reached the stage to-day where we have this legislation before the House. This Bill is of far greater importance than it appears to be on the surface. It is of great importance because tourism has become the greatest industry in the world to-day and because South Africa’s share in that industry is as yet small and because the hotel business in South Africa must assist us to increase South Africa’s share in the tourist trade. I want to point out that tourism to South Africa, which is seeking export markets, is of very great value because tourism performs the same function as an export market does in this sense that it earns foreign currency for this country and that it can sell the products of this country to people from overseas without the necessity for exporting these products; in other words, it earns foreign currency for the country very easily. Moreover, it is also a fact that the scope of world tourism has increased under modern conditions. When one considers that the turnover of the world tourist industry is estimated at R3,000,000,000 per annum and that South Africa at the moment is only earning R75,000,000 per annum from the tourist industry, one realizes that our share is still very small.

I also want to point out that the commission of 1942 of which the hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Higgerty) was chairman, indicated that over and above the transport facilities which a country has to offer, the hotel industry is actually the most important factor in the encouragement of tourism. When one considers the money spent by tourists, it appears that, apart from transport expenses, most of the money spent by tourists goes to the hotel industry. That is why the hotel industry is such an important earner of foreign currency for any country. Moreover, an hotel is the window of one’s country. Tourists gain most of their impressions of the organization of a country from its hotels. Very few tourists, except those who come here for business reasons, make a point of obtaining a deeper insight into the organization of industries in the country and that is why the hotel industry is a window through which the tourist sees the country, an extremely important window. We must admit that in the past our hotels have not always, at least in many cases, been a suitable window through which the tourist has seen South Africa. When one considers that two-thirds of the money spent by tourists is spent in a foreign country, according to a survey made in America, then one realizes that most of this money goes to the hotel trade and, because of this fact, what an important role the hotel trade plays. I admit that our hotels in South Africa have experienced difficulty in showing a profit. I noticed recently that Mr. Kuschke, the managing director of the Industrial Development Corporation, indicated that a certain group of hotels in South Africa showed a profit of 8.7 per cent on its capital investment. When one considers the profits made by other industries in South Africa, one realizes that 8.7 per cent is a very small profit. We know that many of our hotels have ceased to exist recently and that is why one would like this charter which is now being drawn up for the hotels in South Africa to assist the hotels to make a better living here.

I also want to point out that this direction is a direction which the world is accepting. There is hardly any country in the world to-day which does not make provision for assistance for its hotels. I have made a list of the countries in Europe which have similar legislation and which are assisting their hotels. I can only say that according to the information that I have it is only Britain and Austria in the whole of Europe, west of the Iron Curtain, which do not assist their hotel industries. The countries which do assist their hotel industries are Belgium, Holland, Norway, Sweden, France, Portugal, Spain, Italy, Turkey, Switzerland, Germany, Finland and Ireland. This indicates that the hotel industry is experiencing difficulty virtually throughout the world and that it has to rely on the Government for assistance. That is why it is so important that this Bill should also make provision for financial support for the hotel industry. I have already said that Britain does not make financial assistance available to its hotel industry and I should just like to make one or two quotations in order to show that it is the tendency throughout the world to-day to assist the hotel industry in this regard. I have here extracts from two speeches on the hotel industry in Britain where no assistance is given to this industry. The report says—

Another gentleman, Mr. Maxwell Joseph, the chairman of Grand Metropolitan Hotels, had the following to say to the shareholders of his company—

That is why I say that I am pleased that we have before the House to-day what I want to call the charter of the hotel industry. I also want to point out that our legislation makes provision whereby assistance can be given to our hotel industry. It is very important that the hotel industry should be assisted and in this connection I also want to indicate what has been said by a person who has played a very important role in the hotel industry in America. Provision is made by way of legislation in America for the granting of assistance to the hotel industry, not only financial assistance but also assistance in the form of advice and guidance. I want therefore to ask that the hotel board which is to be established will also advise our hotel industry in regard to the erection of hotels. I have here an extract from a speech made in 1957 by Mr. Tabler of the Hilton Hotels Corporation, one of the largest hotel corporations in the world. He points out that if an hotel is to be a success, 7 per cent of its profits must come from its rooms and not from its liquor, 20 per cent must come from its liquor sales, and, in their case, 10 per cent from the letting of shops. He points out that administrative and running costs are reduced as a result of planning. He says, for example, that previously the hotels had one staff member per room; that they had as many staff members as rooms but that as a result of planning their hotels had succeeded in one case in reducing the number of staff to 370 in the case of an hotel with 455 rooms. In another case of an hotel with 1,000 rooms, they had succeeded in reducing the number of staff to 600. I should like to quote what Mr. Tabler goes on to say—

This is a man who has a share in a large corporation, perhaps one of the most successful hotel corporations in the world. He says that one can still make a profit in the hotel industry but that the planning of the building is very important. I hope that as we are now going to have an hotel board, it will also assist the hotel industry in this connection because if we are to make our tourists happy, the functional efficiency of the building is very important. One must remember that tourists are people who need rest and who have very little opportunity to rest. That is why the atmosphere and functional planning of the hotel are so important. I also want to express the hope that this hotel board which is to be established will make South Africa’s hotels more attractive by, for example, abolishing the closed bars, or by working for the abolition of closed bars and the introduction of the bar system in South Africa. The atmosphere of our hotels will in my opinion improve enormously if we can succeed in introducing the open bar system instead of the closed bar system. It is because of the closed bar system that an hotel simply concentrates upon the consumption of liquor. If we want to improve the atmosphere in our hotels, I hope that the hotel board will work for the introduction of the open bar system in South Africa. I am speaking here chiefly about local tourists. I hope that our hotels . . .

Then you support the recommendations of the commission?

Yes, I support them in certain respects. I want to emphasize once again that I am pleased that we are giving the hotel industry in South Africa a charter to-day. Tourism is of the greatest importance to South Africa. We know that an incorrect picture is painted of our country overseas. We are a young country which must also receive its share of this expanding industry and that is why I am pleased that we are giving the hotel industry a charter to-day which will place it on a sound basis and which will assist it to become a very good and attractive window of South Africa.

I want to say right at the outset that I was a little bit disappointed at the introductory speech of the hon. the Minister with regard to a Bill of this nature which it is obviously desirable that we should all support and do what we can to make it a better measure in the interests of the hotel industry in South Africa; I had rather hoped that in this debate we would have had some indication from the hon. the Minister as to how he thought the hotel industry should develop in future, and that he would have given us a broader picture of what he thought would be the actual functions of the Board, other than those which he read out to us and which are normally laid down in legislation of this kind. I got the impression—and I am sure other hon. members did—that the Minister as Minister of Tourism was attempting to offload his responsibility for the development of the hotel industry on to the shoulders of an independent statutory corporate body, as he said so many times in the course of his speech. Sir, the Minister overlooks Clause 34 of this Bill in terms of which all the regulations made in respect of the activities of this Board will be made by the Minister. Under the final sub-section of Clause 34 the Minister in fact is given the widest possible latitude in respect of regulations that he may make governing any of the activities of this corporate body. I should have liked to have seen some more imaginative thinking on the part of the hon. the Minister. The Minister started off by outlining the history of this measure and he explained the difficulties that had been encountered over the years in attempting to have legislation evolved that we could place on the Statute Book of South Africa to develop the hotel industry. He referred to Dr. Norval’s report of 1936. Sir, it is interesting to note an observation made by Dr. Norval in his book on the tourist industry. This is what he says—

That principle, of course, as the hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Higgerty) has pointed out, has been accepted ever since the idea first arose of taking some steps to develop the hotel industry. But the crux of the problem has always been, as the Minister well knows, that in establishing a body of this nature you are taking steps to control or restrict or extend the activities of an industry which is primarily in the hands of private enterprise.

That has been the problem. We have now reached the stage where the hon. the Minister has come forward with a Bill of this nature, a Bill in which he is leaving the activities of the board entirely to the voluntary co-operation of the hotel industry as such. Many conflicting opinions have been expressed about this type of control, as the Minister knows. That is very evident in all the reports, such as that of the Select Committee which sat in 1951. However, no Government, especially the Nationalist Party Government, has had an opportunity up to now of proceeding with this matter because of the fear of participating in the activities of an industry which primarily rests on private enterprise.

What has really brought this Bill forward now is the growing importance of the tourist industry to South Africa. The plain fact of the matter is that the further extension of the tourist industry in South Africa rests primarily on the development of an adequate hotel industry. But there is another factor which has brought this Bill forward and that is the relaxation in our approach to the consumption of liquor in hotel establishments. There has certainly been a more tolerant approach towards the consumption of liquor in this country.

The hon. the Minister has made it quite clear that the Bill before us does not go as far as the recommendations of the Hotel Commission which was appointed in 1963 and reported towards the end of 1964. Where this Bill does not go as far as those recommendations it does recognize, as its main objective, the raising of the standard of accommodation establishments throughout the country whether they be licensed or unlicensed establishments. This Bill must be viewed in the broader context of the needs of the tourist industry in South Africa

What is the potential of the tourist industry related to the hotel accommodation available? The latest report of the Tourist Corporation indicates that foreign tourist earnings in the year 1963 amounted to some R75,000,000. This is an estimated figure but it does indicate that tourism is one of the leading export industries as far as the earning of foreign currency is concerned.

Then we have domestic tourism which is, to my mind, the most important factor in the development of the tourist industry in South Africa. As far as hotels in South Africa are concerned a great many of the establishments used by foreign visitors depend mainly for their existence on the regular patronage of our domestic tourists. It is obvious that no hotel establishment can exist or carry on a profitable business on the basis of tourists coming from beyond the borders of the Republic. Therefore, when considering the merits of this Bill and its objectives, it is a mistake to overlook this important factor, namely, the value of domestic tourism. Let us face it, Sir, the standards demanded of the hotel industry by overseas tourists are not necessarily the same as those demanded by domestic tourists. Let me illustrate my point: In 1963, according to the Tourist Corporation report, something like 217,000 tourists entered the Republic from beyond our borders. Of those only 8,491 came from the North and South Americas; only 33,235 came from all countries in Europe. In other words, on the basis of the 1963 figures, it would appear that 80 per cent of the tourists who come to South Africa come from countries within Africa. I therefore think it is fair to assume that the general standard maintained in the hotel industry at the present time —in fact, I make so bold as to state this—is little better than the standard maintained in the countries from where the bulk of tourists come. I am not suggesting that the hotels in Rhodesia, for instance, are better than our South African hotels. The point I am trying to make is that the standard of our hotel industry in South Africa, as far as the bulk of our tourists are concerned, is certainly no better or no worse than the countries of origin of these tourists.

I make these points, Sir, because there is a tendency, when we think about the hotel industry, a tendency displayed by the hon. the Minister and others, that tourists demand for themselves large chromium-plated establishments plus all the trimmings, drinks at all hours, telephones in the bedrooms, radios, music, meals at all hours, in fact, the whole lot. I think it is wrong to think along those lines. But the report of the Hotels Commission seems to give this impression. If you relate the figures of actual accommodation available to the number of foreign tourists—I have the latest figures available-—it would appear that the foreign tourists from the Americas or Europe who occupied licensed hotel accommodation over a twelve-month period, represented only 7 per cent of the total volume. In the case of unlicensed hotel accommodation foreign tourists occupied only 2 per cent of the available accommodation over that 12 month period. It is interesting to note that domestic tourists occupied 51 per cent of the available licensed hotel accommodation and 17 per cent of the available unlicensed hotel accommodation.

Another significant thing is this that the number of permanent residents in licensed hotels occupy practically 50 per cent of the available accommodation to-day whilst in the case of unlicensed hotels permanent residents occupy 81 per cent of the available accommodation. I quote these figures, Sir, because I think it is erroneous to base our thinking on the assumption that, because we are establishing an Hotels Board, suddenly, overnight, the available hotel accommodation is going to be taken up by foreign tourists.

I think where this Bill can give the greatest assistance is the small and comfortable residential hotel. Anybody who has travelled abroad must know that, because a person goes overseas, he does not necessarily go to on expensive hotel. Tourists tend to seek accommodation within their financial reach; accommodation which is of his own level. It is quite clear, Sir, that in developing a tourist industry, large numbers of tourists will come to South Africa who will want to go to that class of establishment which offers him private or unlicensed accommodation. It is in this regard that I believe this Bill can assist. It can assist by raising the standard demanded by domestic tourism, in the first instance, in both the licensed and the unlicensed establishment. In considering this measure, there is another important aspect, and that is to ask what the shortcomings of the hotel industry are? What are the shortcomings which this Bill is going to overcome?

The only information we have on the shortcomings of the hotel industry is that contained in the Commission’s report. This report has 387 paragraphs and only 17 of those refer to the so-called shortcomings of the hotel industry in South Africa. They classify the shortcomings into two classes: The available accommodation and how bad the establishments are. The Commission makes this very significant observation that over 50 per cent of the accommodation available in licensed hotels is filled over a 12-month period. In other words, over a 12-month period over 50 per cent of the beds in our licensed hotels remain unoccupied. This report gives no figures in respect of unlicensed establishments but according to the figures of the Bureau of Statistics it would appear that 65 per cent of the accommodation available is occupied every night in South Africa. The percentage in the case of unlicensed premises is a very much higher one than in the case of the licensed premises. To see this matter in its true perspective, I think we must ask ourselves how many licensed and how many unlicensed establishments there are. According to the Bureau of Statistics there are 2,100 accommodation establishments, whether licensed or unlicensed, in South Africa. I repeat, of these, 50 per cent of the accommodation in licensed establishments and something like 35 per cent of the accommodation in unlicensed establishments is available every night of the week, other than peak periods, but taken on an average.

The other shortcoming the Commission points out is in regard to the service rendered in hotels. Dealing with these shortcomings the report says—

To sum up, Mr. Speaker, I say the objects of this Bill are obviously to overcome those two disabilities, namely, the shortage of accommodation and the low level of the standard of service generally offered to the foreign tourist, the domestic tourist and to the travelling public. To raise the standards will increase domestic tourism, tourism from the African Continent and from foreign countries. If we can achieve that then the hotel industry will obviously be placed on a much sounder and firmer basis.

I want to deal with one or two other aspects of the Bill. The hon. the Minister has emphasized that in order to achieve all the objects as outlined in this Bill this Hotels Board is to be established and that this board will exercise its functions on the basis of cooperation. How will the board get this cooperation from the hotel industry? The Minister wields a whip, Sir, in that he gives to the board the sole proprietary right to the word “hotel” because in terms of this Bill, no hotel proprietor will be allowed to use the word “hotel” or any designation of that word, whether it is “motel” or “hotel” unless he obtains registration from the board. A distinction is made and it is this: Those hotels who have a liquor licence and are classified will automatically get their registration. In every other instance, when this Bill becomes law, it will be illegal for an establishment to call itself an hotel unless it has received registration from the board. Whilst it is a cooperative effort that is the whip. If any hotel establishment wishes to call itself “hotel” it must apply for registration.

There is another whip: No accommodation establishment will be registered unless the hotelier, the person who owns it or the person who runs it, receives registration from the board. In other words, the right to call an establishment an hotel will depend on two factors: Firstly, the right to register and, secondly, the registration of the hotelier.

These are far-reaching provisions and it is therefore clear that registration of any accommodation establishment will be dependent on the standards laid down by the board for the grading of those establishments. It is clear from the Bill that the board is not going to register any establishment which does not conform with the standard laid down by the board and I think the clause makes this perfectly clear.

It is clear that, if non-liquor establishments and liquor establishments have to conform with these standards before they are registered, it is only right that there should be the widest representation on the board. In his introductory speech the hon. the Minister went to great pains to indicate the efforts he had apparently made over a period of time to try to solve this difficulty in a fair and reasonable way. It is clear that the objectives of the Hotel Board would fail completely if the grading system did not exist. In this regard I would like to get some clarity from the hon. the Minister because I understood him to say in his second-reading speech that the board would have no right, in its grading, to use a percentage basis as far as tourists were concerned. In other words, the board will have no right, when grading an hotel, to say this hotel allocates 35 per cent or 3 per cent of its accommodation to tourists. I shall be pleased if the Minister will clarify this because it is clear from Clause 15 that the board has power to group hotels. I presume the board will group them into liquor establishments and non-establishments; but the board can also classify them into groups as to which ones cater for tourist trade and which ones do not.

If the Minister looks at Clause 34 (h) he will find that his powers are so wide in regard to prescribing regulations that he can in fact prescribe that no hotel should be graded unless it makes a certain percentage of its accommodation available to the tourist trade. I shall be pleased if the Minister would offer some further clarification in that regard because, my own feeling is, that the board will, in fact, have this power to grade on the basis of what percentage of his accommodation a proprietor allocates to the tourist trade.

There is no doubt that after the appearance of the Hotel Commission report there was considerable consternation amongst the nonliquor hotels. It is contended by people who run non-liquor hotels that there is a different approach to the running of hotels between them and those who run liquor hotels. They say the hotel proprietor who runs an establishment which sells liquor regards liquor as his prime consideration in the running of his hotel, probably as a result of our liquor legislation of the past, but that the prime concern of the person who runs a non-liquor establishment is to make a profit out of the accommodation that he offers to the public. They therefore argue that their approach to the running of an hotel is different from the approach of those who run liquor establishments. Hence, Sir, if the whole system is going to operate on a grading basis it is only fair that the representation of the hotel industry on the board should take in both the liquor and the nonliquor interests. As the hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Higgerty) has already indicated, when we come to the Committee Stage we shall move amendments in this regard.

I have already dealt with the number of liquor and non-liquor establishments and I think, when the Minister looks at the total number of liquor and non-liquor establishments, he will agree that it is only fair that non-liquor establishments should also be represented on this board.

There are two other matters I wish to raise briefly with the hon. the Minister and that is in regard to the registration of hoteliers. The Minister said we could go more fully into this in the Committee but we are now dealing with the principle that the registration of an hotel will be entirely dependent on the registration of the person who runs that hotel. These powers are wide because the conditions under which a person will be disqualified from running an hotel will simply be laid down by regulations and as determined by the board. For instance if a retired person wants to invest the capital he has saved through the years in opening a private hotel he has to apply to the board for the right to use the word “hotel”; his establishment conforms to all the requirements laid down but the board says: “No, you cannot run the hotel; we shall not register you as a hotelier” because there may be a provision in the regulations that every person who runs an hotel should be bilingual and that person may not be. The board may say they are not going to register any hotelier unless he has undergone a 12-months’ course in the running of an hotel. In other words, the wide way in which this clause is worded in that regulations for disqualification will be laid down by the board, makes the registration of any hotel establishment in South Africa a risk. Because at the whim of the board, at the whim of the regulations, any person may be debarred from registration as a hotelier. When we come to the Committee Stage we will move amendments in this regard because we on these benches feel that the same principle should be laid down in this Bill as that laid down in the Liquor Act. You have to comply with certain qualifications when you apply for a liquor licence and if a person is qualified to run an hotel in South Africa he should not be refused registration. We feel that principle should be incorporated in this Bill.

I want to make another observation. I rather hoped that the Minister would have dealt with this in his introductory speech at some length. It is clear that the hotel industry, more than any other industry in South Africa is dependent upon the degree of skill of those in its employ. The general condemnation of the hotel industry in South Africa is that the skill of those employed by the industry is at a very low level. It is common knowledge that the hotel industry largely rely upon the Indian and the Coloured communities for their labour. One of the functions of this board, as laid down in this Bill, is to encourage the adoption of measure for providing adequate training and instruction for persons employed in the industry. I hope that the Minister is going to use his influence in this regard, as Minister of Tourism, responsible for the hotel industry in South Africa. If we want to get an hotel industry of any status at all institutions should be available where non-White labour—Coloured, Indian and Bantu—can be trained properly for the hotel industry. One of the reasons for the low standard of service in our hotels is the migratory nature of the personnel employed. It is clear that if a grading system is going to be laid down by the hotels board and expect hotels to conform to that grading the hotels will be unable to do so if they cannot employ the staff to render the service which will give them a two or three or three-star grading as an hotel establishment.

I therefore hope that once this board has been established the Minister will use his influence to ensure that steps are taken for the immediate and adequate training of personnel for the hotel industry so that the migratory nature can disappear. [Time limit.]

I do not wish to traverse the ground which has already been covered by previous speakers who have dealt in detail with the background to this Bill and the steps which have led up to it. I support the Bill largely because I believe it is a step in the right direction although not the complete answer to the problems which remain his responsibility believe, however, that it does provide the machinery which can deal with the problems of the industry. Machinery which is created by this Bill, vested with additional power, as I believe it will be in time, can and will solve many of the problems which it is necessary to solve provided the board as such recognizes and deals properly with its responsibilities. The board which is to be appointed by the Minister is the key to the success or failure of this measure. In the hands of that board will rest the success or failure of the Minister to solve the problems which remain his responsibility —and remain so because the Minister himself is called upon to promulgate the regulations which the board wishes to make. I want to make that point very clear because it is not possible to say: “Well, that is a matter for the board to deal with”. The Minister is the ultimate authority; his responsibility will be the promulgation of the regulations which the board will lay down for the direction, guidance and control of the industry as a whole. It is essential, therefore, that the Minister, in his selection of the members of the board, selects people who share the desire of this House and of the Minister and his Department, to carry out the objective as specified in the Bill. There has been a great deal of co-operation up to now in regard to this Bill. The Minister paid tribute to the Hotels Commission. That commission did an excellent job of work. It went into the problem very fully and it put forward some excellent recommendations.

I think it is only fair, however, that this opportunity should be taken to record, in addition to the tribute which the Minister paid to the commission, a tribute to the bodies which made so big and as important a contribution. I refer in the first instance to the Federated Hotel Association of South Africa, FEDHASA, which, I am sure the hon. Minister will agree, play a major part in providing the commission and subsequently the Minister himself with facts, figures, advice and information. I would like, too, to pay a special tribute to the support given by the hotels themselves, voluntarily, freely and in a spirit of full cooperation in accepting machinery which in fact, although it will assist them in many respects, will also be restrictive in other respects. I think it was a fine gesture on the part of organizations which are to be restricted that they should willingly accept restrictions with the objective of improving their own standards and their own services. It is for that reason that I particular appreciate the attitude and the willingness of the hotels to co-operate towards the objectives which this Bill sets out, not only FEDHASA, but also the Non-Liquor Federated Hotel Association who also made their contribution. Finally, and this is a little difficult for me to say, but I must nevertheless say it, and I will not put my tongue in my cheek when I do so, I must thank the Minister for his co-operation. That was very hard to say, but I managed to say it! I must thank the Minister for his co-operation and the manner in which he has listened to representations and agreed, wherever those representations were reasonable, to accept them and incorporate them either in the draft Bill before it was printed or subsequently in the form of amendments which he has put on the Order Paper. The result is that we have a Bill before us here which is largely a Bill agreed upon by those who will be affected most by it.

Very little reference, however, has been made in this debate so far to perhaps the most important person concerned in this measure, the consumer, the person who is going to use the hotels and pay for them, and whilst we have paid attention to the interests of the licensed hotels and the unlicensed hotels, the tourist industry and visitors from overseas, although reference has been made to them, perhaps not enough emphasis has been placed on the importance of the South African consumer, the day-to-day occupier of hotels, the public servants throughout the length and breadth of South Africa on the relief staff, relieving stationmasters, relieving postmasters, who have to spend a month here, and three months there, living in an hotel, and last but not least the poor politician who has to spend nights in hotels spread over the length and breadth of the country. I think that those who have to use the hotels will also welcome this step to improve the quality of the service which they obtain. In remembering that, we must be careful that we do not make the one cardinal mistake, which it would be so easy to make when dealing with the problems covered by the Hotel Board, and that is to think of hotels in terms of one or other group only, to think of them in terms of the de luxe hotels or non-liquor hotels only, and to forget the vast range of demands which the public make upon the supplier of accommodation. We must think of that whole range from the de luxe for the rich tourists to the good class hotel for the businessman, to the holiday hotel for the family-man, the holiday hotel in the cities for the person who wants to enjoy the night life of the city, the holiday hotel at a beach resort where he wants pleasant conditions for his children where they are not being chased around from morning to night because they are dropping sand on an expensive wall-to-wall carpet, etc. And then there are the needs of the small country towns, which to my way of thinking form one of the biggest problems of all, the small hotel serving us, but not living up to the standard which we would wish to see. That is going to be the Minister’s biggest problem and it is going to be the biggest problem of the Board, and even more a big problem to his colleague, the Minister of Justice. In terms of the present gazetted qualification standards for hotels over 70 per cent of the hotels in South Africa will lose their liquor licence in three years time. Unless there is a change in the present grading, or unless hotels improve their structural position by building bathrooms, etc., etc., there will only be 30 per cent of the existing hotels left to serve the public at the end of 1968.

That is not the whole story.

Yes, unless they improve their standards by structural alterations. A survey has been made . . .

You know of the undertaking I gave; and in any case I think your figures are wrong.

A survey has been made showing that on present structural requirements, 70 per cent of the hotels will not qualify. The Minister has given an undertaking which I have welcomed and accepted, but I draw this to the attention of the hon. Minister of Tourism, because this Board is also going to have to pay attention to the problems of that large majority of hotels I have mentioned. My figures may be out, the Minister may have other figures.

I think your figures are wrong.

The figures I have here show that 71 per cent of a cross-section of hotels would not qualify at present, and the Minister of Tourism cannot simply wipe 70 per cent of the hotels in South Africa off the face of the map as hotels. I do not think he intends to do so, but I draw this problem to his attention because it is one of the most important problems that he will have to face, and it is an important problem which I am sure, with the co-operation of the Minister of Justice, can be solved. I am looking forward very much to a statement from the Minister of Justice which will determine the position as regards to classification, which in turn gives automatic registration of hotels. This Board can only register a liquor hotel after it has been classified Therefore the Minister of Justice is the first person who has to deal with the problem before it gets to the Minister of Tourism, and co-operation between these two departments is going to be of the utmost importance. Therefore the problem of the Board in regard to this aspect is as important as any other aspect.

I want to support the views of the hon. member for Von Brandis that the three persons whom the Minister is to appoint because of their knowledge or experience of the hotel industry should, as the Minister has agreed, be appointed after consultation with the bodies concerned, and that one of them should be from a panel submitted by an organization approved by the Minister, and, as the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) pressed for, one should be a representative of the non-liquor interests, particularly in the initial stages of the existence of the Board, because the first year of the existence of the Board will be the year in which standards will be laid down and regulations will be made. That is the time at which the interested parties should be able to express their views and all aspects of the hotel industry should, through the members of the Board, necessarily be represented, and spoken for by someone who knows their problems. Thus, unless there is a person who knows the nonliquor business on the Board in the first year of its life, the problems which are peculiar to non-liquor hotels will not be brought to the attention of the Board. Equally so a nominated representative from FEDHASA, for example, as an organization recognized by the Minister, would bring to the Board, the views of the majority of licensed hotels. Therefore by appointing two people in that way, one with knowledge of non-liquor hotels and one selected from a panel, and the third one being free for the Minister to choose, if he wishes, after consultation—by this method you will ensure that all interests are represented and that when drawing up its regulations, the Board will be in a position to take account of the needs of all groups who are concerned in the problems which the Board will have to face. The Minister has the power to appoint people for a period up to three years. If he does not want to commit himself to three years as far as initial appointments are concerned, let him at least appoint a person from non-liquor interests, not necessarily from a panel, but a person with experience of nonliquor hotels and a person from a panel, preferably from FEDHASA, and a third person at his discretion, for a year if he likes, so that at least, in the initial phase when standards are established all interests will be taken notice of.

There are a number of points which I do not want to cover at length now, but which I want to mention in passing so that the Minister may consider them and we can then deal with them in detail in the Committee Stage. One is the limitation on the acquisition of hotels. I notice that the hon. Minister has placed an amendment on the Order Paper which limits the circumstances under which the Board may acquire property or hotels. He has made provision to dispose of hotels which have been purchased under one of the three fields in which the Board may purchase, but he has no provision to dispose of properties purchased in regard to the first and second group of reasons for the purchase of properties. If he studies the clause in question, he will find that the Board may purchase hotels for three reasons and may dispose of those purchased for one reason but may not dispose of those covered by the first two groups which it may purchase or hire. Therefore you will find the Board sitting “opgeskeep” with hotels which it cannot get rid off or sell, and I hope the hon. Minister will give consideration to that point.

A query has arisen in regard to the provision that accommodation establishments with an on-consumption licence may be registered. The query is whether the on-consumption licence includes a wine and malt licence. I hope the hon. Minister will clarify that point.

Then there is provision that the Board shall publish in the Gazette, determine and publish in the Gazette, the standard laid down for definite grades and groups. I would suggest that you should also publish the standard laid down for registration per se, apart from a group or grade, because there will be three steps: One is the registration per se, where hotels with liquor licences have automatic registration; then there will be the grading into groups and thirdly, the grading into grades. Provision has been made for groups and grades but not for the first step, which is that of registration.

The question of disqualification of hoteliers has been raised. I do not want to take it further, other than to refer the Minister to Act No. 30 of 1928, the Liquor Act, Section 65 which lays down the disqualifications. Those may not be sufficient in itself, but I hope that the Minister will consider detailing the disqualifications in this way, rather than an open right to disqualify anyone whom the Board may wish to disqualify.

The Minister has dealt with the question of grouping, but then there is the question of the use of the name “hotel”. The Bill provides that an hotel, unless registered, may not use the name “hotel”. The Liquor Act, as amended, lays down that hotels have until 1968, to classify and therefore to retain liquor licences. They need not at this stage be classified but will retain their licence until 1968. There is a grace of three years. This Bill lays down that the loss of the name “hotel” could be immediate. I intend to move in the Committee Stage that the use of the name “hotel” may be continued until 31 December 1968 at which date the grace granted to licensed hotels to classify terminates. Otherwise you will have the anomaly that an hotel licence is granted under the liquor licence grace until December 1968, but under this Bill it may lose its title “hotel”, whilst still having a hotel liquor licence.

The question of draft regulations is also of importance. I hope the Minister will accept an amendment to the effect that where practical draft regulations should be circulated to organizations which the Minister recognizes for comment before they are promulgated.

One aspect which the Minister has not dealt with and which the Bill does not deal with is that of the petty licences. An hotelier has to take out a baker’s licence, a mineral water licence, a general dealer’s licence and about 17 other licences, all of which form part of the business of running an hotel. The original recommendation was that these should be eliminated and I would ask the Minister to deal with that in his reply. I hope he will give us the assurance that it will be dealt with in other legislation.

Finally, I would like to make an appeal to the hoteliers of South Africa in whose hands ultimately the success or failure of this legislation rests. In their hands lies their own future. Their co-operation with the Hotel Board, their co-operation as individual hoteliers and through their organization, both licensed and unlicensed, will, determine whether in fact as a result of this legislation we will achieve the objective at which we are aiming, namely improved standards and higher quality accommodation and that these improved standards should be made possible through improved benefits to those who are providing them, benefits financially in the form of loans, in the form of taxation, in the form of training schools for staffs, in the form of guidance. Those benefits will have to be extended. There are not enough at the moment to make them attractive, but I hope that the hoteliers of South Africa will treat this measure as a sincere attempt to move in the direction of improving their own position as hoteliers and also in regard to service to their customers. I hope they will not look on it as a restrictive measure or worry about all the powers which are of necessity given in this Bill. Tremendous powers are given, but it is inevitable that they should be given. They must be there if the Board is to function properly.

I have heard criticism from hoteliers who say “an inspector will do this and an inspector may do that, and this could happen and that may happen”. Admittedly these things could happen, but the powers must be there to deal with specific problems. I am convinced, and that is my final appeal to the hon. the Minister, that the Board and the Minister will not abuse these powers which are given of necessity. Therefore from the hoteliers’ point of view, I hope their attitude will be not one of suspicion and hesitation and fear, but of co-operation, and seeking to use the channels provided by this measure to their own benefit and the benefit of the country. From the Minister’s side I hope that his attitude will also be not that this Board is to be a police force which is to hammer people who are trying to provide hotel strvice, not that it is to be a restrictive organization, but that it is to be a constructive organization. I hope that he will give the assurance that as far as it is in his power (and he has tremendous powers) he will ensure that inspectors do not waste their time on pettiness, on unimportant things, but that the basic objectives shall be to help and not to hinder, to build and not to break down, to create and not to act as petty spies who are perpetually in the hair of the people who are trying to run an hotel. The Minister can ensure that that is so, and I hope he will give the undertaking, so that from his side and from the industry we will see that this step which it has taken some 30 years to achieve, will be a start to greater assistance, greater co-operation, greater co-ordination, leading to that state of affairs which it is the object of this Bill to create.

Because this is a non-contentious measure, I rise simply to make one appeal to the hon. the Minister. However, I should like to make a few remarks in passing. I want to welcome this Bill as the magna charter of the hotel industry in South Africa. I welcome this Bill as one of the greatest achievements of the new Department of Tourism and I congratulate the Department on this legislation.

This new hotel board will have many powers and I trust that because it has the power to do certain things, it will make it its business to work positively from the start to give our hotels a true South African spirit. Nobody can deny that an hotel in Johannesburg cannot be distinguished from an hotel in London. It is not that I have anything destructive to say of any hotel in London but I am sure that it is no longer fitting that a South African hotel should be precisely the same in all respects as an hotel in Great Britain. This hotel board can, for example, in the first place, ensure as far as the registration of hotels is concerned that the unimaginative and colourless names which we have thus far had for our hotels, are done away with and that names are given to our hotels which are drenched in the culture and history of our two White South African groups. Mr. Speaker, this hotel board can also ensure that our hotels have a specific South African stamp as far as their architecture and furnishings are concerned and also specifically as far as the food which is served in the hotels is concerned. In this respect too I think we have up to the present been following the pattern of English hotels too slavishly.

The appeal that I want to make to the hon. the Minister is in regard to the position of the hotel industry in the rural areas. The hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) has already sketched for us the predicament in which the rural hotel finds itself. I just want to say that because of the swift depopulation of the platteland, it is becoming more and more difficult for the small rural hotel owner to keep his head above water, and there is an increasing tendency for these hotels to fall into the hands of group interests. I think it is necessary for the small rural hotel to remain in operation and not only to remain in operation but to have its own individual character. Apart from the service which it has to render to the public in its vicinity the rural hotel is essential for the tourist industry in order to attract more tourists to our beautiful and attractive natural beauty spots. Mr. Speaker, I know that the appeal which I am making to the hon. the Minister will be difficult to implement but nevertheless I want to make an urgent appeal to him to give very serious consideration to the provisions of Clause 5 which deal with the composition of the board in order to ascertain whether one of the members to be appointed should not be representative of the rural hotel industry. I know it is difficult to break up the composition of this hotel board more into group interests but I am convinced that there is not one single group interest in this connection which requires more sympathy and attention than the rural hotel industry, and that is the reason why I am making this friendly appeal to the hon. the Minister.

I think the hon. Minister in his introductory remarks failed to stress the importance of the Bill when he said that the main purpose of the Bill was to introduce an enabling authority and to have a board. Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this Bill is far wider than that suggested by the Minister. The whole of the future and the development of the whole hotel industry is now to be guided and to be directed by a board and by the Minister himself, to whom in many cases powers are reserved, and from whom in many cases, authority must be sought before the provisions of the Bill can be implemented.

As has already been said, the Bill is welcomed by this side of the House. It comes at a time when there is a rather strange phenomena in the hotel industry. On the one hand the hotel industry has made rapid strides, but on the other hand there has been the closing down of some of the better-known hotels in the country. I think it is right and proper, if tourism is to be assisted not only externally but internally, that something should be done. In the good old days the basis of the establishment of an hotel, particularly of a licensed hotel, was primarily that you made your profits out of the sale of liquor and you really were not terribly concerned about accommodation. If you broke even on accommodation and meals, you were reasonably happy, because you expected the liquor trade to take care of the rest. But there has been a fundamental change in thinking over the past decade or two and to-day it is realized that this is not good enough. I think it was the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. van der Walt), who gave a description of what was thought to be the correct standard in America: 70 per cent of your income should come from board and services.

In the Bill the most important clauses from the point of view of the principle of the Bill are Clauses 2, 3 and 4, which provide for the establishment, the objects and the powers of the board. Briefly, the concept is that the board shall direct and assist and provide services to the hotel industry which in turn will provide the highest possible standard of service commensurate with economic principles. Here I want to echo the sentiments that have already been expressed; that not only the city hotels will receive consideration. We have been taking steps for the past year or two to improve the tourist position in this country. Last year, e.g. we had the Tourist Corporation Amendment Bill to improve the means of attracting tourists to this country. I hope that the board will give as much assistance to the out-of-town hotels, to those hotels established in the areas which have tourist attractions, as they will to the hotels in the cities.

Clause 4 (a) provides that one of the functions of the board is to give advice and guidance and to render assistance to any person in connection with the establishment, expansion or conduct of an accommodation establishment. To be able to give advice you first have to have knowledge, and to have knowledge you have to do research, and the board and the Minister will be in the fortunate position that their field of research is the entire world; they have the whole world to learn from, and there is much to learn. We have some very fine hotels in this country, but I agree with the hon. member for Kroonstad (Mr. A. L. Schlebusch) that it is time we started making some changes and moved away from the stereotyped type of overseas hotel. Some of our hotels are of a very high standard, but in the main they are very dull and stereotyped and they certainly reflect nothing unusual. The hon. member for Kroonstad mentioned the names of hotels, and so did the Commission, and when one travels throughout the country one finds the “Grands” and the “Royals” and the “Masonics” and the “Imperials”, all looking the same and having the same standards, in the main, of service and accommodation. And the hotel buildings are unutterably dull in concept and construction. We have a different atmosphere to offer in this country, compared to the atmosphere one finds in say London, and those countries which have tried to expand their tourist trade have taken advantage of this situation. If you go to Honolulu, for example, you will stay in the “Hawaian Village”, which is typical of Hawaii. If you go to the East, you stay in hotels which are part of the East. I hope this Hotel Board will take into account what is South African and build its hotels, particularly at the tourist spots, on the concept of South Africa. People travel for change. If one did not want change one would stay at home, and if one travels for change one wants something different. The stereotyped hotel, the international menu in all our best hotels, with nothing South African about them except perhaps for mealie-meal, are of very little interest to the tourist. When one travels, the first thing one wants to know when arriving at an hotel is what is there different that one can eat, but when you go to a South African hotel there is nothing different. I hope this will be changed.

The grading of the hotels is of fundamental importance. We are apt to regard South Africa as being known to all the people of the world, but unfortunately this is not the case. When I travel abroad I am a little horrified to find that when one suggests to people that they should visit South Africa one has to give them an awful lot of information. They know as much about South Africa as we know about Cambodia or Fiji. When you travel abroad on the recognized travel routes in Europe or the U.S.A., you have no real worries about the accommodation you will find, but when you travel to the East you want to know what accommodation you are going to get to make sure that there will be certain standards. This is what the people from the U.S.A. want. They want to know whether they are going to a de luxe hotel or to a five-star or to a three-star hotel, because then they know what they will get. Then you will not have the picture I had in taking an American visitor to the Kruger National Park, where he insisted on brushing his teeth with soda water because he was afraid of what might happen if he used the water that was available. That is the way people think, and the grading of the hotel indicates to the world the standard they can expect when they come here.

We have said a lot about accommodation this afternoon, but you may have the best accommodation in the world in an hotel and you have nothing unless you have adequate service. And that depends on labour. The Hotel Commission dealt very fully with this question of labour, and I want to deal with it fully, too.

Labour in an hotel is perhaps the most arduous occupation, and I speak from personal experience. There are long hours and you have to put up with the public all day and with all their nonsense. It is hard work. The picture has changed in this country because some 20 years ago in the larger hotels the bulk of the employees that the public saw were Whites. There was White management and administrative staff and White room staff and dining-room staff. Over the years this has changed and more and more non-Whites are being integrated into the hotel business, and to-day, as the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) said, without the non-White employee, our hotel industry would grind to a standstill. But there are certain problems in regard to which we want certain information from the Minister. As far as the White staff is concerned, the report deals with certain training methods and training establishments that should be set up. Then it goes on to deal with Indian personnel, and amongst other things it says this. There is apparently in Natal the M. L. Sultan College which trains Indians for the hotel trade—

This presupposes that there has to be some alleviation in the rules and regulations in regard to people travelling from one province to another. We have the same situation in regard to the Coloureds, who operate mainly in the Cape, and the commission recommended the establishment of one hotel and catering school in the Cape by the Department of Coloured Affairs, to be attached to the Technical College of the Western Province, and that students from other areas should be able to come to this college and that provision should be made for housing them. Then there is the Bantu personnel which probably accounts for between 40 per cent and 50 per cent of hotel employees. The Minister will know that unless there is going to be freedom to house these people and institutions to train them and that they are allowed to move from one point to another to meet seasonal requirements, nothing he can do in regard to creating boards will be successful. I hope he will tell us that he has made arrangements with his colleagues to deal with these matters.

In regard to Bantu personnel, the report recommends that there shall be urgent provision for training in consultation with the Departments of Bantu Administration, Bantu Education and the Hotel Board. Then we come to one or two problems we have had in the past, such as locations in the sky and job reservation. Perhaps the Minister will tell us that the other sections of the report which deal with such matters as locations in the sky, have been considered. The report says—

I hope the Minister will be able to tell us that he has been able to arrange with his colleagues that the latitude referred to in these recommendations will be granted. The same applies to work reservation. The commission found that there were no White barmen available in certain areas and that those that were available were unsuitable, and it recommended that Indian barmen should continue to receive exemption in Natal, for example. We know that this has been done by blanket exemptions under the work reservation provisions. These are the essentials if the hotel industry is going to prosper. It is also essential that there will be free access to labour, that the labour will be properly trained and that it can be moved from one area to the other, irrespective of existing legislation which prevents it.

We have talked a lot this afternoon about this Bill, but little has been said about what advantages will accrue to the hotelier himself, apart from the fact that his hotel will be graded. I wonder whether the Minister will tell us whether he has had any consultation or discussion, e.g., with the municipalities in regard to the question of rating relief or town planning so as to make it easier for hotels to be built, and what advantages he thinks the hotels, existing and new, will receive under this Bill in return for the freedom of action they are so willingly giving up. The hotel business is not an easy business and it has not in the main been a very profitable business. It is a very arduous business and for many years, particularly until the Liquor Act was amended, one carried out one’s occupation with a certain amount of fear and trepidation. This to a large extent has disappeared since the Liquor Laws were changed. But the hotel industry has provided service to the community, some better and some worse, but service, and to-day it seems that we have to get together to make it better for the public and for the industry. I hope the Minister, who now has vast powers to provide assistance, will give some indication of the direction in which he thinks assistance will be granted.

I should like to approach this question of hotels from an angle a little away from the five-star angle. The hon. member for Parktown (Mr. Emdin) said he had had some experience of the hotel industry, and I too can speak from personal knowledge. I want to offer some constructive suggestions to the Minister. There is no doubt that this Bill is not only long overdue, it does not go far enough.

I want to revert to the remarks of the hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Higgerty), in which he said that it was a pity that the hotels were not going to be controlled by one body. The Minister was at pains to explain, that as far as the licences are concerned, that would still fall within the purview of the police and the Minister of Justice. I say that that is a mistake, because the hotel people now have three bodies to deal with. The one is the local authority through the Medical Officer of Health, and the public health inspectors. Then once a year the police come on inspection and make recommendations and the licence is renewed or not, and additional facilities may be given by way of off-sales licences. Now the Hotel Board will come into the picture to do the grading. We refer in this Bill to tourists, and the emphasis seems to be on people, who will come from other countries to see what we have to offer. That is true, but at the same time these tourists will not spend their time exclusively in the big towns, attractive as they may be. These tourists will move around and stay in the small hotels on the platteland, hotels which have steadily deteriorated over the years because, as was pointed out, they have had to rely for a livelihood, because of the new roads which by-pass the towns, on the local consumption of liquor together with the Coloured bar, which in recent times has also been patronized by the Bantu. I do not want to discuss that aspect of it, but I think the emphasis has been for too long on the question of the sale of liquor. I am not an anti-booze personality in any way, but that is not a prerequisite of hotel-keeping. Hotel-keeping is to provide a service, and I believe, that the small hotel proprietor on the platteland will make as big a contribution to the entertainment and hospitality, which will be extended to tourists as any other group of people, and therefore I ask the Minister whether these people will also enjoy the benefits, which will flow from this Bill.

That brings me to the particular aspect for which I got to my feet, and that is that in the course of investigating a complaint, which came to my ears last year from the Commercial Travellers’ Association, I made a discovery which affects tourists in exactly the same way. It is this. Tourists who use drivers, usually a Coloured man and often a Bantu, to drive the motor-car they have hired, to tour the country, in the same way that a commercial traveller employs a non-White driver, arrive at an hotel in the country and find that there is no accommodation for the driver at all. The man who is born and bred in this country and has been on the road for many years as a commercial traveller is familiar with the requirements of the law. but the tourist is not, and he does not understand that there is no accommodation in most rural hotels for their Coloured drivers. The law limits the number of Bantu or non-Whites on the premises to five, but in most cases that accommodation is occupied by staff employed in the hotel and it often happens that the people concerned have no place to sleep. In addition to that, if the man is an African, he must find accommodation in the nearest Bantu village or location. If he arrives there at sundown, there is no office open for the local authority to give the White man a permit to take his driver into the location to sleep, an if he enters it without a permit, it is a crime. If he gives his car to the Bantu driver and tells him to take it away and bring it back in the morning, all his samples and other things are in the car, and the car stands in the open all night, with a consequent risk of theft. Worse than that, if the White man decides to go into the location and drop his driver there and come back with the car, he finds that when he goes back in the morning and he is seen driving out of a location at 7.30 a.m., he is an object of suspicion under other laws. I bring this matter to the notice of the Minister because it came directly to my attention through representations made by the S.A. Commercial Travellers’ Association. In the course of investigating it I discovered that tourists and travellers of other kinds who are simply here for pleasure, moving around the countryside to see the sights, many of which are off the beaten track, run up against this same set of laws. In those cases where accommodation is provided on the hotel premises for non-Whites, it is usually of the type of being one room, into which, they are all herded, and they sleep in bunks, one above the other. There are no facilities for storing their valuables or personal possessions and in many cases they lose them. When tourists travel with non-White maids in charge of their children, the position is even worse, because there is no accommodation for non-White females in these hotels right throughout the length and breadth of the country. I therefore bring the matter to the notice of the Minister because my information is, that as far as commercial travellers are concerned, the law is observed more in the breach than in the observance, and I think that is a mistake. I think the Minister might apply his mind to that, because it is obviously something which was never contemplated originally and which should be remedied. We do not want people coming here and writing letters back home about these conditions, which are common right throughout the country.

Another question was raised here in regard to planning and the necessity for having better types of hotels. I believe that the hotel industry, if it is to be efficient, has to have properly trained staff. Because of the lack of opportunity in other callings, Indians and Coloured people, and of course Africans, who do most of the rough work, find a fruitful field of employment in the hotel industry. The hours are long and the work arduous, and the public is difficult. I suggest to the Minister that he might include, in collaboration with the Minister of Coloured Affairs, the provision of suitable training establishments in ordinary domestic science and hotel services, because when one meets highly trained Indian and Coloured waiters one meets the best. They are as good as any on the Continent.

Many comparisons are made between European and Continental hotels, where all labour is done by Whites. There one has the waiter who sets the table, and the man who takes the order, and another who serves it, and another who takes away the dirty plates. I think we should avoid at all costs, getting into that entangled system, and that we should have a system with which we are familiar. The people who can give an hotel a truly South African atmosphere, are none other than, the Coloured people themselves, as well as the Indians. So, I ask the Minister, that in approaching this matter of providing service to the public, he should ensure that the platteland hotels get the finance which they so badly need, and that a stop should be put to this business of tied houses mentioned by the hon. member behind me, the liquor houses and the breweries, who are interested only in the sale of liquor and who own these hotels by the dozen. I believe that if those people are going to be interested solely in liquor, then the liquor side should be divorced from the residential side, and it should not be the measure by which a particular hotel is judged.

I come now to my final point and I ask this. I suggest to the Minister that provision should be made for the Coloured people, too. I am not asking for five-star accommodation for Coloured persons who find themselves without accommodation at hotels when driving motor cars for their White employees, but I want to ask the Minister whether he envisages, that this Board will also deal with the provision and extension of hotels for Coloured persons travelling about the countryside. A number of Coloured hotels are being established, and some of them are quite well run; others not so well. The emphasis here again, is on the sale of liquor. Unfortunately the Roos Act of 1928 has made the sale of liquor the one cardinal factor in the running of .hotels. There are large numbers of Coloured people and Indians to-day who travel around the countryside as much as we do. They are able to pay their way and they are willing to pay their way, and I think the time has come when active steps should be taken by the Minister to see that provision is made for a network of hotels to accommodate these people. I am sure that if the Minister would occupy his mind in that direction, he would find that these hotels would be well patronized and that the Coloured community would be very well pleased. I would like to say in conclusion that any Coloured person of any consequence, any means or any standing, has great difficulty in finding accommodation if he wishes to travel around this country under the conditions as they are at the present moment.

And what about the Bantu?

It is quite a big field as well, as far as the Bantu are concerned because there are many Bantu who are also well-to-do, who own motor cars, who pursue legitimate and legal livelihoods, who are citizens and taxpayers and are willing and able to pay. On that note, Sir, I conclude and say to the hon. the Minister that I hope that this will not be the last that we shall hear of this Board, inasmuch as, this Board should be the one controlling authority and efforts should be made to make certain, that the grading of an hotel is decided on the standards of the hotel as an establishment, where one sleeps and eats, and not where one goes to drink.

Most of the points that we wish to make have been fully ventilated by my colleagues sitting on this side. I do not want to take up the time of the House by repetition or by going over the same ground merely in different phraseology. I will therefore put the few points which I consider to be of importance, but before I go any further I would like to say that I disagree entirely with the hon. member for Karoo (Mr. Eden) in his remarks about platteland hotels deteriorating. My experience in this regard started about 40 years ago. I spent a lot of time on roads, and my experience is that the platteland hotels have improved out of all recognition, especially in the case of the Garden Route. But I could not agree with him more in what he said about accommodation for drivers. It is an outrage that people, particularly visitors from overseas, cannot get accommodation for their drivers. They hire a car which is driven by an African or Coloured driver and there is no provision whatsoever at hotels for that driver. He usually has to sleep in the car. I think the House will be grateful to the hon. member for drawing attention to this. I hope that this is something which this Board will deal with fully.

The hon. the Minister said in his opening speech that accommodation must be available for tourists. May I say that I entirely agree with him. It is of the utmost importance, firstly in order to earn foreign exchange and, secondly to let people see the true conditions in South Africa. I sometimes stay at a rather well-known hotel which is filled almost entirely with people from overseas, and it is extraordinary to see, after they have been in this country for a fortnight or three weeks, that they have a totally different outlook towards our difficulties and our way of life and everything else. Therefore from that point of view, in the interests of South Africa, it is essential that we should have first-class hotels for tourists. But, Sir, we must also look after the interests of our own people, and I want to emphasize that. I have a large number of pensioners in my constituency. They are older people whose children have grown up. You find that the husband and wife are living alone; they cannot keep a house going because they have to have servants. They want to live in some small hotel. The husband may have been a senior civil servant and he wants to have an address which gives him the social status to which he was accustomed. He wants to stay in an hotel where he can get to know people and make friends. He would probably want to live in a non-liquor hotel or a residential hotel where he can keep up his social status. Sir, as I said, on a former occasion some years back, the menace of old age is not death or disease, it is loneliness. These people must have a place which they can look upon as their home. Sir, if those hotels have to keep, say, 25 per cent of their beds free for casual visitors, their charges will have to go up; these people would then not be able to afford to stay here and it would change the whole nature of -their lives. Sir, it is possible that such an hotel might not get registration. It might be quite a good sound clean place but it does not get registration and so would have to drop the use of the word “Hotel”. These people do not want their friends to think that they are living in boarding-houses. I am talking about people I know something about because there are large numbers of them in my constituency. Therefore I entirely agree with the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) who stated the case very well indeed for the necessity of allowing a longer period before these hotels are forced to drop the designation “hotel”. I do hope that the hon. the Minister will take note of that. Sir, I agree also with my Chief Whip—I am in a very agreeable mood to-day -—that the hotel industry does not pay big dividends. [Interjection.] No, I am not going so far as to thank the Minister, as my hon. friends suggest. Old hotels are disappearing very much more rapidly than new ones are arising. That is the serious position with which we are faced to-day. Look anywhere you like; go to Johannesburg and see what is happening there. Sir, the fact that the Carlton has been broken down is a tremendous loss to the ordinary travelling public. Anyone who is connected in any way with an investing house will agree that again and again money is lost on giving mortgages on hotels. In many cases you will find that large sums of money are lost or that investment houses have to take over an hotel. The running of an hotel, of course, is not their line of business and they have great difficulty in doing so. Sir, anybody connected with an investing house will also tell you that where they buy an hotel which is becoming old-fashioned and has to be demolished because it is out moded as an hotel, or where it has been burnt down, with only the site left and the site is bought, it does not pay them to build another hotel to replace the one closed or burnt down. They usually build a block of flats with shops below which is a much more payable proposition, and perhaps a small hotel on some part of the site. That has occurred in the Sea Point area lately. Therefore this Board is most essential in order to see that the hotel industry is built up and assisted in every way. The Board will, I hope, be a sort of “universal aunt” to the industry and do all it can to help it, and to represent them in dealings with Government Departments where difficulties might arise. You can take it from me, Sir, that hotels have to deal with a large number of Government Departments who do not have the same sympathy with hotels which this Board certainly will have. For instance, if some misguided Minister, dealing with Indian or Coloured labour, makes it difficult for a hotel to get the right type of staff or makes it difficult for the hotel to keep its staff due to some regulation as to where they have to go and live or as to the time they have to be out of the hotel, this Board could take up the matter with the Department concerned. This sort of thing can make it extremely difficult for hotels to keep up a proper standard. I know of first-class hotels which cannot keep suitable staff because of this.

Sir, I want to support what the hon. member for Durban (Point) has said so ably and clearly. I do not want to go over the whole ground again, but I just want to draw attention to the fact that I was present when a deputation from the hotels came to see us. Sir, as you know, there are seven members on the Board of whom only three shall be connected with the hotel industry. I feel that one of the latter should represent the non-liquor or residential hotels. That case was quite clearly put by the hon. member for Durban (Point) and I do not want to take it much further. Sir, hotels of this kind have their own technicalities, their own way of running an hotel, as the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) has said. The licensed hotels derive most of their income from the sale of liquor whilst the non-liquor hotels depend entirely upon their table and upon the quality of their accommodation to make their money, and the two have totally different techniques. It can be said that if the proprietor of a non-liquor or residential hotel has a grievance he can appeal under Clause 22 of this Bill. But, Sir, if such hotels have representation on the Board and if one representative of the non-liquor and residential hotels sits on the Board and he is able to point out to his colleagues what the difficulties are and what should be done about it, this might obviate an appeal to another authority, to the Board, or finally to the Minister, if regulations have been made which do not fit in with the views of the non-liquor or residential hotels. The four people who represent interests other than the hotel industry are always in the majority, why not have at least one, as several of my colleagues have suggested, representing the non-liquor or residential hotels? There would then be two representatives of liquor hotels and one representative of the non-liquor or residential hotels.

Sir, just one small point before I close. South Africa, as you know, probably has the finest fruit in the world. Our hotels should be shop windows of our fruit and I challenge anyone here to deny that if one goes to five hotels, one will find that at four of these the most inferior fruit is served: even in the most expensive hotels. Sir, the peaches and plums and the deciduous fruit generally usually consist of windfalls; it is an absolute disgrace. When this Board is instituted and the various sub-committees sit, I would like them to have an expert on fruit who will go round and see that the hotels supply fruit which is a credit to South Africa and not the type which is being served at the present time.

That disposes of what I have to say on this Bill. I congratulate the Minister; I do not want to thank him.

Hon. members must not interfere with the hon. member when he wants to thank the Minister.

Sir, I know my place and it would be as much as my life is worth if I did, so I will not do it. But seriously I just want to say that I congratulate him on the introduction of this Bill. I do hoDe that he will take note of the points that we have put forward from this side. They are very important, particularly the question of having a representative of the non-liquor hotels or residential hotels on the Board. If there is no such representative it would lead to all sorts of trouble, appeals, etc., and all that expense and time could be saved.

Several members on this side of the House have referred to the importance of the Board in the future control and development of the hotel industry. But I think it is fair to say that the real future of the hotel industry is going to rest in the hands of the Minister: The responsibility is really going to rest on his shoulders. It is true that there is a great deal of authority placed in the hands of the Board, but basically, for the very reason that the Minister has brought this Bill before Parliament, the final authority will rest upon his shoulders and so will the destiny of the hotel industry. Only time will tell whether that authority has been well-exercised; whether the responsibility has been well carried or not.

Sir, I do not want to traverse the ground which has been covered by other hon. members but I do want to touch upon one point raised by the hon. member for Parktown (Mr. Emdin) very briefly in passing. The hon. member referred to the fact that we had places of interest outside of our major cities and towns. Sir, because of various circumstances I have been brought into quite close contact with a large number of oversea tourists. I do not want to dwell only on the overseas tourists, because we can look upon travellers from the Republic who go from place to place for all sorts of purposes as people requiring accommodation of a character very often of a like kind to that demanded by people from overseas, although it is true that there is a class of person, particularly from overseas who demands something a good bit higher than our average standard. In dealing with these people I have found that it is almost the 100 per cent considered opinion of those with whom I have discussed it—and I have discussed it with a very large number indeed—that when they come to South Africa they do not come here to see our cities; they are not interested in Cape Town or Durban or Johannesburg. If they wanted to see cities they would go overseas; they would not come to South Africa to see cities. When they get here they may be surprised at the magnitude of our cities, because I do not know what some of them expected to see—rondavels or something of that sort—so they may be surprised to see our cities but that is not what they come here to see. They come here to see what they call raw African life and our wild life, our game reserves and so forth. It is in connection with that latter point that I want to say a few words here this afternoon, because the position here, as I see it, so far as one aspect of the tourist traffic is concerned, it rests in the hands of the Minister in regard to those areas. You see. Sir, throughout the whole of the African Continent wild life to-day is disappearing, and it may well be that even within the next decade we will find that conservation measures in the Republic of preserving and conserving about the last remnants of Africa’s wild life to an extent which is going to be of material value so far as the outside world is concerned. I am not prepared to say that there will not be little parcels of animals here or there, but Africa’s wild life within the next decade will cease to exist as we know it to-day. The rate of retrocession in regard to the conservation of wild life is so fast and there is such an increasing tempo that it is quite incredible to those who are not following the position almost month by month to see how fast it is disappearing. Sir, this is going to give us, as far as overseas tourist traffic is concerned, a tremendous incentive to bring people from overseas to our country. They come at the present time to see wild life and what they call the raw African and so forth. Sir, it is becoming abundantly clear to those of us who are associated with conservation that we cannot continue to establish what are urban areas inside the boundaries of our nature and game reserves. There is a strong feeling already that we should cut our losses, and that we should simply abolish those camps, as they are called—actually they are small villages and towns and many of them are even getting beyond the state of being a small town—and that we should allow that land, which is occupied to-day by camps, to become part and parcel of the reserves as was originally intended, and that human beings, homo sapiens, who come to enjoy what we can show them in the way of fauna and flora within the boundaries of the reserves, should be housed outside the boundaries as close as may be to the reserves. They should be living outside of the reserves, not inside the boundaries. As I say, we are being exhorted to-day to cut our losses in regard to some of our camps. Let them go and establish areas outside. Sir, we have felt this is an opening and an avenue for exploitation by the private hotelier who wants to take advantage of what South Africa has to offer in the way of nature conservation if he will come and put his money into an hotel alongside our reserves.

A sort of border industry.

It would be located outside. I repeat that the principle is to keep homo sapiens outside the reserves. Sir, such an hotelier will have certain difficulties to face. I am not going into the question of servants; that has been adequately dealt with. I am not going into the question of, accommodation for people who travel with the tourists and who are non-Europeans—drivers and so forth. That has also been adeouately dealt with. But such an hotelier would have to provide accommodation for the tourists, drivers, and servants and also for the servants working in the hotel. But in addition to that he has to provide his own water, his own light and power. These are inevitable in the very nature of things, because if he is in a position to get light and power from another authority, then he is probably virtually associated with some urban authority. Sir, I have in mind—and since I have no interest in it, I hope hon. members will bear with me if I mention the name of the place— a place in Northern Zululand, the Ghost Mountain Inn. The Ghost Mountain Inn is right alongside a game reserve. It caters specially for people who want to go in there, spend a day there and then come out at night when the gate is closed; but it also caters for passing traffic. It has not been built on a scale of fantastic cost. It is built to the design of the people there who themselves thought out the design; it has a nice name; it is not called the Royal Hotel or the Imperial Hotel or anything like that, and to my mind it serves the purpose admirably and could be the kind of thing to exemplify what I have in my mind as the future development for hotels round and about our nature resorts, game reserves and so forth. Of course, we also have wonderful spectacles so far as many of our natural features are concerned, in the Drakensberg, in the Eastern Transvaal and so forth, areas where that kind of thing might also develop as time goes on. But, Sir, because of the pressure within our reserves and the fact that our wild life is going to increase so fast in its value, if people from overseas want to see any of what is left in Africa, I believe that there is an opening here and I would like to see the Minister, as a matter of policy, being prepared to foster the development of this type of hotel, to make it something really worthwhile.

The hon. member who has just sat down (Maj. van der Byl) dealt with the question of food which is also referred to by other hon. members. Sir, I have pleaded in this House before to-day for what I would call truly South African cooking. You can go through the length and breadth of our platteland areas and you can get meals which are second-to-one anywhere in the world, meals cooked for you by the ordinary housewife, whom you meet on the farm, but you cannot get that even in our best and highest class hotels. You get stuffed with stuff that is called mutton or chicken or beef and it might be anything out of this world for all it tastes like. I do feel that it should be possible at our hotels, and particularly where our tourists are concerned, to give them purely South African meals and South African cooking as something of which we can well be proud. The Minister should treat it as a matter of priority to try to develop this new approach to the type of hotel that is going to be necessary, and, I believe will be a very payable proposition in the years which lie ahead of us, hotels that will serve our game and nature reserves. If the Minister does that I believe he will be doing something as far as the tourist industry is concerned which will bring untold benefits because it will be providing for the moneyed people overseas who come here to see our wild life and not to have a look at our main streets and our big cities, which they can see anywhere else in the civilized world. Let us cater for those people and give them what they want to see and let us do it in a truly South African manner. I am sure it is going to bring great benefits to South Africa.

I fully appreciate that many constructive suggestions have been put forward to-day which would be of great interest to the Hotel Board when it comes into operation. I would like to point out to hon. members that I indicated at the beginning that this Bill, in fact, only dealt with one major aspect of the Hotel Commission’s Report. It sets up this central authority, this corporate body, with certain objects and certain functions and certain powers. The hon. members for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) and Park-town (Mr. Emdin) amongst others, expressed great disappointment because I had not discussed certain aspects to which they referred. The hon. member for Parktown wanted information from me about the movement of Indian labour, about locations-in-the-sky, about job reservation, about municipal rates and matters of that kind. Admittedly these matters are referred to in the report of the Hotel Commission. My Department has taken up every one of the matters referred to in this report with the various Departments concerned. The report deals with labour on pages 91 and 95, 156 to 176; it deals with Indian Affairs. Coloured” Affairs. Bantu Administration, Bantu Education, Education, Arts and Science, Transport, Community Development, etc. We have followed up all these matters with the Departments concerned, but they do not fall under this Bill. Sir, those matters are not under discussion here. You would rule me out of order if I started discussing the whole of the Commission’s report. We are dealing here with one aspect of the Commission’s report.

You are running away from the issue.

The hon. members for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw), Von Brandis (Mr. Higgerty) and Green Point (Major van der Byl) did raise issues which are connected with this Bill. They limited themselves to this Bill. They would probably also have liked to express their views with regard to other matters, but those matters are not under discussion here.

Are the functions of the board not under discussion in this debate?

These functions and powers are being given to the board and the board will naturally perform these functions and exercise these powers. Of course, I know that the hon. member for Turffontein is always disappointed with other people’s speeches. The only type of speech with which he is not disappointed is his own.

Why are you being personal? I was not personal. Why not try to rise to the level of a Minister?

The hon. member always makes remarks of this kind and when one replies to them he becomes upset. The hon. member said that I wanted to off-load my responsibility on to the shoulders of the Hotel Board. But Sir, everybody else welcomes the idea that there should be a central authority. According to the hon. member, however, I am trying to off-load my responsibilities on to the shoulders of the board. But that is what everybody has been wanting. The Hotels Commission recommended that an authority should be established to perform certain functions and that is what this Bill provides for. The hon. member for Von Brandis says that in 1942 already he felt that there should be a central authority. But in spite of all this the hon. member says that I want to off-load my responsibilities on to the board.

I did not say anything of the kind.

When the hon. member finds that his statements are incorrect and that they do not carry any weight, then he tries to run away. I do not mind, Sir, the hon. member is at liberty to say all these things, but the matters to which I want to reply are matters which I regard as being of importance. I refer, for instance, to some of the points raised by the hon. member for Durban (Point). I understand that he is going to put forward certain amendments in the Committee Stage, and I can quite understand that. The hon. member talked about on-consumption mealtime licences, which are referred to in the Bill. I can understand that he wants clarification in that regard. He also referred to registration per se, to hoteliers’ disqualification, the name of the hotel, regulations, etc. I know that certain members have given the details of this Bill a great deal of study, and I want to say that I appreciated all along, the way in which I was able to discuss matters with the hon. member for Von Brandis and the hon. member for Durban (Point) in an attempt to clarify certain issues. It was most welcome to me. I made certain amendments to my Bill and I subsequently put further amendments on the Order Paper, and I did so because of their knowledge of this matter and the study which they had put into this problem. There are, of course, certain points on which we will disagree; I never thought otherwise; I never tried to influence them to accept this Bill in toto; I merely tried to clarify the points at issue. Sir, when it comes to the question of representation hon. members will realize my difficulty. The hon. member for Kroonstad (Mr. A. L. Schlebusch) felt that one of the representatives should be a platteland hotelier. One hotel organization considered that it should have three representatives; another one felt that it should have one representative, but the basis on which I came to my decision as far as the composition of the board is concerned was this: I accepted that there should be a representative of the recognized organizations and that that representative should be appointed from a panel of names. The hon. member for Green Point quite rightly says that there are many nonliquor or residential hotels which also play a part in accommodating tourists. I agree with him entirely. There are many people who stay at residential hotels. I have often stayed at non-liquor hotels myself as a matter of preference. They rely entirely on their table and they have certain features which appeal to me. The hon. member for Durban (Point) said: “Suppose a member of the panel of the Liquor Association is recognized and appointed by the State President.” “But when it comes to the non-liquor people,” he said, “when you are formulating plans to register and grade both liquor and non-liquor hotels a man with a knowledge of non-liquor hotels may be a very important person on that board.” I think he is quite right. The conditions which will apply to a non-liquor hotel will be a bit different to those applying to a liquor hotel.

The people to whom the hon. member for Green Point has referred, stay at a nonliquor hotel. Their lounge is a comfortable, a coffee-drinking, and meeting place. They may not have as many lounges as the people who stay in a liquor hotel. It can be of a higher standard than the lounge of a liquor hotel but there may not be so many of them. I have no intention of directing myself at liquor establishments only at the expense of non-liquor establishments.

The Commission, which heard the representations by the liquor people and the non-liquor people, came to the conclusion that three hoteliers should be appointed but not from the panels of names of organizations. I discussed this fully with them. I asked them for their reasons and they said those hotel representatives should be people who are connected with the hotel business directly, but that they should not be people Who could be dictated to by hotel organizations. They should be independent hoteliers. They can belong to an organization but the criterion should not be that only members from a panel can be nominated.

Can’t one of those three be connected with the non-liquor business?

I was coming to that point. I conceded the point that organizations—there are only two of them— could submit panels of names and that the State President could choose one of those names. Supposing he chooses a name from a panel submitted by a liquor organization and two other hoteliers have to be appointed then he is not directed to choose the names of the other hoteliers from any panel.

The hon. member for Durban (Point) made a point when he said that if a man was appointed from a panel the State President should have the power, in appointing the other two, to appoint a non-liquor man and that even if he did not appoint him for the maximum period of three years it may be advisable to do so at the inaugural stage of this board. I do not know how many nonliquor people are going to apply for registration.

How do you know how many licensed ones will make application?

I do not know. The point is this that a licensed hotel will make application because if he is not registered he cannot call himself an hotel.

He does not have to.

The hon. member knows that unless he registers before 31 December 1968 he cannot call himself an hotel. The hon. member for Point said he was going to move an amendment to change that date to 31 December 1968. That is quite in line with my own thoughts about the matter. If an hotel gets a liquor licence, or even if it does not, but does not apply for registration it cannot call itself an hotel. That is why I say the liquor hotels which want to call themselves hotels will make application. In the case of the non-liquor hotels there is not the same incentive. Many of them may probably not worry about calling themselves hotels. They may not even want to register. A non-liquor hotel may be quite satisfied to call itself the Villa Rosa instead of the Villa Rosa Hotel. That is entirely their own concern. If they want to register and they comply with all the requirements, they can call themselves hotels. If they do not register or do not comply with the requirements, they cannot call themselves an hotel after a certain date.

Does the Bill not provide that the Board shall be compelled to register an hotel which has an hotel liquor licence? In other cases the Board does not have to.

Only if they make application. If he does not make application he cannot be registered. That is the whole point.

Can the Board reject it?

No, the Board cannot reject it. If he applies he is automatically registered. But if he does not apply because he does not want to go to the trouble of applying, or because he does not want to co-operate or something of that nature, he must remember that after a certain date he will not be entitled to call himself an hotel. The hon. member talked about a whip; that is a whip to a certain extent.

The hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Higgerty) maintained that the mere fact that this Board would have no say over the liquor licence was losing a very effective weapon. My attitude is that there is a Liquor Board to attend to that aspect. The Department of Justice has handled liquor licences over a long period. The Liquor Licensing Board has from time to time followed a pattern. I am quite willing to leave the question of liquor licensing in their hands. If an hotel gets a liquor licence and applies for registration, that application cannot be turned down. Basically the Liquor Licensing Board is the body to establish whether a liquor licence should be granted or not or what kind of licence should be granted. That leaves the Hotel Board to perform its own important function, namely, the grading of hotels according to service, food, etc. My contention is that the Hotel Board should not be so involved with liquor licences that it cannot see the wood for the trees. If the Board were to decide on liquor licences it would not be able to get on with the job which I consider is the job of an hotel board, namely, to see that the standards of accommodation establishments are improved right throughout the country. I do not want to be obstinate or difficult, I am quite prepared to listen to other amendments hon. members may submit in the Committee Stage. I have given them my views. I am not completely dogmatic on this subject, but they will have to make out a good case because up to now I have gone into so many aspects of the submissions made to me. My Department and I have come to the conclusions set out in the last amendments we have made to the Bill. But that will not make any difference. Hon. members are quite entitled to move amendments. I have listened to the hon. member for Point about this date covering the denegation “hotel”. He wants the date to be more specific. I understand that, he is afraid that I may enforce my regulations when they are not enforced by the Liquor Board. I understand that. It has never been my intention that we should work separately. We should work together as far as that is concerned.

The hon. member for Von Brandis said his frustration continued, because of the liquor licence. I am convinced he can no longer be as frustrated as he was before this Bill was introduced. The fact that the Liquor Licensing Board has the power to control a liquor licence and not the Board is not something that should upset the hon. member.

You wait till you apply for a liquor licence.

No I do not. The hon. member for Turffontein said he was worried that I was placing too much emphasis on these de luxe hotels. The hon. member for Turffontein said the Minister seemed only to be interested in chromium-plated hotels, or something to that effect.

I never said that.

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to argue with the hon. member but he said what disturbed him was that the Minister seemed to be so impressed by the chromium-plated type of hotel.

If I said that I shall apologize to you.

All I want to say is this. The Commission say in their report that the funds of the Board should be used for the purpose of financing new hotels. I maintain that the funds of the Board should be applied to improving existing hotels so that they come up to standard. I accepted finally that they could also consider financing new hotels but only with the Minister’s concurrence. Why did I do it? I did not want all the money spent on new and fabulous hotels. The Government has already given its consent to certain arrangements with regard to Johannesburg for the purpose of building de luxe hotels. That was done before establishing the Hotel Board. The Government did so without waiting for the Commission’s report. The Government did so because it realized that at an air terminal like Johannesburg it was essential to have de luxe accommodation. Johannesburg, like Cape Town, has a scarcity of that type of accommodation. If I remember the amount involved was over R10,000,000.

I do not want the Hotel Board to start handling that sort of hotel. I want them to handle the hotels referred to by the hon. member for Durban (South Coast) the normal hotels, the one-star, the two-star, the three-star hotels. I do not want R4,000,000 or R5,000,000, or whatever funds the Board has, to be absorbed in connection with one big project. I may say that even the Hotel Commission did not have the proviso on new hotels of “subject to the Minister’s approval”. I brought that in myself about new hotels, because I was not going to allow this sort of development taking place. Of course, I do not say: “No new hotel.” If a case is made out for a new hotel which is going to cost, let us say, R200,000 or R250,000 and it is at a place where one needs that sort of hotel and the Board recommends it, I am not going to be obstinate and say “no”, but I do not want hotels to develop in the direction I have mentioned.

Sir, I will not hold it against the hon. member for Green Point (Maj. van der Byl) when he says that he congratulates the Minister. I will never mention it again. I will not even hold it against the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw), for his “dank die Minister”. Because I know, any moment I will get a blast in some other direction. But what I do say, is that this Bill is a Bill which establishes a body that the country and the House approves of. The details we can discuss in the Committee Stage. I would say to hon. members that I thank them for their support and I trust that we can come through the Committee Stage without too many difficulties, because I do not think the differences between us are so great that we need have too many disagreements on this Bill.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

I move—

This Bill replaces the Welfare Organizations Act which was put on the Statute Book in 1947. When that Act was discussed in this House it enjoyed the positive support and goodwill of both sides of the House. That Act was passed to comply with the needs and the circumstances of the time and for many years it was possible to render useful services within its framework, particularly through the National Welfare Board, which was appointed in terms of it and which functioned particularly in respect of the co-ordination of welfare services and the registration of welfare organizations. That it was successful at that time appears, for example, from the fact that since it came into operation in 1947 it was amended only three times, namely in 1949, 1960 and 1961. But circumstances have changed, particularly in recent years. The increased population, changed economic factors and general development in all respects have also brought about a change in regard to the scope and the nature of social problems. Greater specialization and more intensive planning in that regard have become necessary. Sociological research has increased, so that it may truthfully be stated that the standard of our specialized services which are rendered in all spheres Of social work have improved rapidly and are still improving.

As I have said, more intensive social planning has become necessary. Consequently, the existing National Welfare Board has also concentrated on that increasingly in recent years. As this aspect of its work speedily developed, it began to appear that a large, generally orientated board which, like the present one, seldom met could no longer render the most efficient services. From time to time there were investigations affecting the operation of the Act. In 1953 there was the Du Plessis Committee, which investigated the financing of welfare organizations. This committee, for example, recommended that the country should be divided into a limited number of regions, with a welfare board for each region. That was done (administratively). The committee further recommended that the regional boards be appointed by the Minister from persons nominated by the welfare organizations and that the National Board appointed by the Minister should be representative of these regions. This could not be acceded to in terms of the existing Act. Since then there has always been great interest in welfare work on the part of the public and certain organizations. This interest resulted in Family Year in 1960, which reached a peak in 1961 with the Family Congress. The general feeling of the Congress was that the formulation of a family policy had become essential and it was suggested that this task should be entrusted to some permanent board or institution. During the same period (1960) there was the Piek Committee, which investigated the question as to what extent family allowances could contribute to larger families. This committee came to the conclusion that economic factors were not the most important factors resulting in smaller families. The committee further expressed the opinion that the country needed a comprehensive quantitative population policy. In order to devote attention to this, it recommended that the establishment of a body for family policy should be considered.

The question consequently arose whether the time had not arrived to extend the National Board in such a way that it could systematically devote attention to certain basic matters lying at the root of national welfare. I then appointed a work group on 17 May 1963 consisting of representatives of the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions and of the National Welfare Board and instructed them to review the whole matter and to make recommendations for the establishment of the necessary machinery to ensure that this board could function more efficiently as an adviser to the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions. This work group consisted of the following members:

Representatives of the Department

Chairman. Deputy Secretary of the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions.

Under-Secretary of the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions.

Chief; Technical Services of the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions.

Chairman of the National Board; Head of the Department of Sociology, University of Pretoria.

Deputy Chairman of the National Board and Deputy Chairman of the Rand Aid Society.

Member of the National Welfare Board; member of the Executive Committee of the National Board for the Care of the Aged.

In its report which was submitted to me on 26 August 1963 the work group expressed the opinion that the National Board had hitherto fulfilled a useful function in assisting the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions in regard to the registration of and supervision over welfare organizations. Changed circumstances (as I have indicated) resulted in the National Board having to concentrate increasingly on social planning. This aspect of its work developed rapidly and it became necessary to do justice to it. A big, generally orientated board which, like the present board, seldom meets can no longer render effective service in this regard. As the result of the report and the recommendations of the work group, it was decided that, with a view to the broader functions and specialization envisaged, the National Board should consist of a comparatively small number of persons with the necessary experience and knowledge of welfare work, supplemented by certain permanent commissions, each of which would devote attention to a particular facet of social welfare. The board should further be assisted by regional boards to which certain powers and responsibilities can be delegated and which will also supplement the work of the board and advise it. In order to achieve these objects it is necessary to replace the existing Act by a new measure.

A copy of the report together with a draft Bill was submitted to the National Welfare Board for its comment. The board sent copies of it to all its members and to all the regional boards and to the 19 nationally and provincially organized welfare bodies for their comment. The comment received was considered by the board on 24 March 1964 and was submitted to me together with the board’s suggestions.

The comment which was received was generally favourable. In the meantime there were, however, also requests to investigate the possibility and the desirability of providing for the registration of social workers and, if such a step was decided on, to embody it in the same Bill. Since the end of the second world war, social work has developed tremendously and the work became more technical. In 1953 already the Committee of Inquiry in regard to the financing of voluntary welfare organizations (the Du Plessis Committee to which I have already referred) recommended that social workers should be registered and that this should be the function of the National Board. Since then there have been tremendous developments in the sphere of social work and the necessity for the registration of social workers was advocated by various bodies, inter alia, also the Social Workers’ Association of South Africa. Consequently, on 4 September 1963 I appointed a work group to investigate this matter and to submit a report and recommendations to me. This work group consisted of—

Chairman. Deputy-Secretary for the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions.

Under-Secretary of the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions.

Chief of the Technical Services of the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions.

Chairman of the National Welfare Board and Head of the Department of Sociology, University of Pretoria.

Secretary of the Sinodale Kommissie vir die Diens van Barmhartigheid van die N.G. Kerk, Northern Transvaal; member of the Executive Committee of the National Welfare Board.

Organizing Secretary of the A.C.V.V.: Deputy-Chairman of the Social Workers’ Association of South Africa. She is also one of the deputy-chairmen of the Executive Committee of the International Federation of Social Workers (an international organization).

In its report dated 10 April 1964 this work group recommended that the time was ripe for legislation to make the registration of social workers possible. The report further states that State Departments, Universities, professional associations for social workers and various bodies employing trained social workers had been consulted, that practically all those bodies were in favour of statutory provision being made for the registration of social workers, and that the Welfare Organizations Act should be amended to provide for this. Consequently it was decided to give effect to this general desire and the original draft Bill was accordingly supplemented. After this the Bill was again submitted on 28 May 1964 to all interested bodies for their comment, and the comment received was very favourable, with a few exceptions. I mention this to show that all the relevant bodies which were directly or indirectly affected, or which were interested were consulted, and that this Bill was accepted practically unanimously.

Mr. Speaker, time will not allow me to deal with all the provisions of this Bill, nor is it necessary to do so. The provisions are explained in the printed memorandum which is already in the possession of hon. members. The basic approach of the 1947 Act is, inter alia. that control should be exercised over the establishment of welfare organizations, that there should be general supervision in regard to the implementation of their approved objectives, and certain other measures of control in that connection. That was also the only executive function entrusted to the National Welfare Board by the 1947 Act. We have received no proposals to amend these functions of the National Board, and I think it is a good thing that the provisions in respect of this matter should be taken over just as they stand in the 1947 Act. Hon. members will find that in Clauses 16 to 32. I do not want to deal with these provisions further except to give praise to the numerous private organizations and individuals who spared no time and money in doing valuable work in connection with the welfare of the nation. The State has a duty and a function in this regard. The State can and must give guidance; the State can and must do work itself, but the assistance of voluntary organizations is indispensable. This is definitely a sphere in which the State, the Church and voluntary organizations work together for the benefit of the welfare of the community.

I just want to point out in passing that since the 1947 Act was passed, 5,806 applications for registration were considered by the National Board, 2,709 were registered, and of these 579 have in the meantime for some reason ceased to exist. At present there are still 2,130 welfare organizations registered in terms of the Act. That gives hon. members an idea of the enormous function which the Board performed in this connection in the past and will still perform in future. It also affords proof of the invaluable nature of the work done by private organizations.

I should now like briefly to deal with the establishment of a National Welfare Board, certain commissions and regional welfare boards.

National Welfare Board: As I have already said, it was decided that the National Board should continue in existence but that, in view of the broader functions envisaged, it should be a comparatively small body supplemented by a number of specialized commissions and assisted by regional welfare boards. Clause 2 provides for the establishment of a National Board which will consist of one representative of each of the nine regional boards, a technical officer of the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions and five other members. They will all be appointed by the Minister. The present Board, as constituted in terms of the 1947 Act, consists of 24 members appointed by the Minister from a list of names submitted by the regional welfare boards.

In terms of the provisions of the old Act, the Board itself elects its chairman from one of its members. Clause 2 (3) of the Bill provides that the Minister will appoint the chairman of the Board. This is being done on the urging of the National Board and with a view to the fact that the new Board will serve to a much greater extent as adviser to the Minister in the sphere of welfare matters.

Clause 4 sets out the duties of the Board, and what is important here is that the Board may delegate any of its powers to one of the four commissions or to the regional boards. The commissions and regional boards will therefore be directly subordinate to the National Board.

Commissions: Clauses 7, 8 and 9 deal with the commissions. The motivation for the establishment of commissions, their composition and functions are dealt with in the memorandum. Four commissions are envisaged, namely a Commission for the Registration of Welfare Organizations, a Commission for Social Work, a Commission for Family Life and a Commission for Welfare Policy. These four commissions will, each in its own specialized sphere, advise the National Board and perform such duties as the Board may delegate to them.

I want to explain the Welfare Policy Commission and the Family Life Commission further because welfare and family policy are so closely connected. The whole sphere is, however, of too large a scope to be dealt with by a single commission. There is, however, a clear dividing line between the functions of these two commissions. The Family Life Commission will devote attention to normal family life, inter alia—

1. (a) the family and the philosophy;
2. (b) the relationship between family policy and national policy;
3. (c) the needs of the family in respect of housing policy;
4. (d) larger families, etc.

The Welfare Policy Commission will devote attention to social problems and the following spheres will fall within its scope—

1. (a) Social deviations;
2. (b) Child protection;
3. (c) Welfare planning and co-ordination;
4. (d) Voluntary welfare services and their subsidization, etc.

Regional Welfare Boards: This is set out fully in the memorandum. In this regard I just want to mention that it is essential that regional boards be retained, but these boards should have a smaller membership and they should be more representative of particular initiative. State Departments (excluding the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions) and local authorities do not confine themselves only to welfare matters and there is no reason why consultation cannot take place without the representatives of such bodies having to be members of the regional board.

Nominations: Clause 15 provides for the drawing up and keeping up to date of nomination lists. This has been explained in the memorandum.

Registration of Social Workers: I now want to deal with the other equally important aspect of the Bill, namely the registration of social workers. After the report of the work group had been considered, and after it had been considered by the welfare board and the other aforementioned bodies, it was decided that the time had arrived that statutory provision be made to enable social workers to be registered, subject to certain conditions. It appears that the predominant opinion is that the registration of social workers what comply with professional qualifications is desirable because it will contribute to the further extension of professional social work and will place the standard of that work on a higher level. There was a great measure of agreement among the bodies consulted to the effect that registration will lend status and recognition to the profession, that it will protect the employers, the public and the clients of the social workers, and that it will also have benefits for the social worker himself. This is a new development in the sphere of professional social work in which South Africa is taking the lead.

In its report the work group expressed the opinion that the registration of social workers should not be dealt with as a separate task but should be included in the broad welfare policy of the country. The National Board is best equipped to perform this duty and therefore it ought to be part of its functions. The Du Plessis Committee, as I have already said, recommended in 1953 already that the National Board should do the registration. Certain persons and bodies who commented expressed the opinion that the profession should create its own machinery to do the registration. This matter was very thoroughly considered and it was found that that was not practicable. At the moment there are only about 1,000 social workers who will be able to register, and if these persons have to keep such a body going it will result in heavy financial obligations being placed upon them. Registration is not compulsory and if a section of the social workers were to decide that the advantages in connection with the registration do not outweigh the financial burden it may wreck the whole undertaking and do tremendous damage to the profession.

Mr. Speaker, I think I would be wasting the time of this House if I were to deal separately with every clause in regard to this aspect of the Bill. The provisions are quite clear and have been further explained by the memorandum which has been made available to hon. members. However, I should like to deal with just a few of the most important provisions of this section of the Bill.

Clause 33 provides that the National Council must register persons as social workers. The responsibilities of the Board and its Commission for Social Work will be to approve or disapprove applications for registration in the light of the prescribed requirements.

In terms of Clause 35, the National Board will further be responsible for the investigation of complaints which may be lodged against registered social workers, and if such person is found guilty of improper conduct he may be suspended or warned or his registration cancelled for a specific period.

It is of course essential that persons against whom such action is taken should have the right of appeal, and that is provided for in Clause 40. The Minister, with whom the appeal is lodged, ought not to give a decision himself but should appoint an Appeal Committee. Sub-section (2) of Clause 40 provides how this Appeal Committee is to be constituted and special provision is being made that a member of the National Board or of a Commission may not be a member of the Appeal Committee. I want to emphasize that the control over and the discipline of a social worker lies in the first place with his employer, whether it is the State, a welfare organization or other body. Further, it would be wrong to use the National Board again to investigate the domestic investigation of the employers. In the same way, the finding of a court of law or of an inquiry held in terms of the provisions of the Public Service Act in respect of a public servant, if it reveals improper conduct in the opinion of the National Board, will be accepted as prima facie proof for this purpose (Clause 36).

The advantage attaching to registration is that it will place the profession on a higher level. So, for example, Clause 38 provides that no person who is not registered may be appointed as a technical officer (welfare) in the Public Service. Clause 39 provides that the State may only subsidize the salaries of social workers in the employ of private organizations if those persons are registered.

The work group which investigated the desirability of the registration of social workers mentions in its report that it was generally urged that also persons who teach social work as a subject at a university or other recognized educational institution should be registered social workers. This proposal is embodied in Clause 34. Objections to this provision were received from a few educational institutions, e.g. the University of Natal, and it was proposed that the clause should clearly provide that this provision would apply only to people who had been appointed full-time as lecturers to teach social work as a subject, because universities often make use of other lecturers in, for example, the medical and legal professions, for the training of social workers. The original clause was then amended to comply with this request and the clause as it now stands was accepted by the universities concerned.

The filling of posts of social workers by registered personnel should in time become the general practice, to the benefit of the profession. It would, however, be very unwise to expect employers immediately after the date of the coming into operation of the Act to comply with the provisions of Clauses 34, 38 and 39 and therefore these clauses contain provisos making their provisions applicable only to persons appointed to such posts after the Act has been in operation for five years. Hon. members will agree with me that this provides more than sufficient opportunity to prospective social workers, universities and other employers to make the necessary adaptations.

In conclusion, I want to repeat that the principles of the Bill were thoroughly studied by the National Board, that it unanimously accepted them and unanimously requested that they should be embodied in the Bill. There must always be a partnership between the private welfare organizations and the State. That was the basis of the 1947 Act. That is the basis I always lauded and still laud to-day and which I should like to retain. Therefore hon. members will see in this Bill that there is at all times the closest link between the Department and the National Welfare Board and the private welfare organizations, and I can give hon. members the assurance that this sound co-operation will continue. We dare not eliminate private initiative. On the contrary, if the State alone had to do welfare work it would not be able to do so. It is only with the help of private initiative that we can make a success of welfare work in South Africa. I can give hon. members the assurance that this Bill fulfils a long felt need.

We have listened with a great deal of interest to the introductory speech by the hon. the Minister. I think in considering this Bill hon. members will be struck by the fact that this Bill involves large numbers of people in their every-day existence as far as welfare services are concerned. They may be surprised to hear that there are as many as 2,100 registered welfare organizations which are also affected by the introduction of this Bill. Then there is also the question of social workers who in terms of this Bill will now be able to take the first step towards gaining full professional status.

I would like to say that we on this side of the House support the second reading of the Bill. We support its principles in that a number of the main principles contained in this Bill are based on principles already embodied in the original Welfare Organizations Act of 1947. Sir, we have had the benefit of studying the explanatory memorandum on this Bill, and we intend during the course of the second-reading debate, to mention certain points in respect of which we have certain reservations and certain comments to make and we also intend to move certain amendments at the Committee Stage. Therefore I do not intend to deal with this Bill clause by clause. As I say, we will move certain amendments at the Committee Stage to which we hope the Minister will give his careful consideration. Sir, the foundations for the registration of Welfare Organizations and for control over such organizations was laid as far back as 1947, and it is only natural that certain amendments will be required at this stage in the light of advancements which have been made in the science of social welfare work. Therefore we naturally support the extension of the principles embodied in the Principal Act of 1947.

As I have said, there are certain other aspects in regard to which we have certain reservations and I intend to deal with those later on in the course of my speech.

As far as the constitution of the national welfare board is concerned, membership of the presently constituted Board is going to be reduced from 24 to 15. It will have the power to appoint four commissions which will extend its entire scope and will channelize into specialized commissions work that has been undertaken hitherto by the Board as a whole. We feel that this is an improvement in that these commissions will be able to specialize in their own particular spheres of work. But, Sir, the most important aspect is the composition of this welfare board. It appears that the present National Welfare Board was appointed in 1962, and its term of office is therefore not due to expire until 1967. We would like to know whether the hon. the Minister intends, after the passing of this Bill, to appoint the new Board on the new basis or whether he will allow the period of office of the members of the present Board to expire.

Sir, there are other important aspects and matters that I would like to deal with in connection with the establishment of the National Welfare Board on its present basis, the work of these four commissions and the important new principles involved in the method of registration as far as the social workers are concerned with regard to the question of their gaining professional status. With your permission, however, Sir, I would like to move at this stage—