When the proceedings were interrupted last night I was dealing in particular with that clause relating to the detention of witnesses. I said that it indicated that the relationship between the law and our system of justice and our people had broken down or was on the point of breaking down. The solution the Government has to this country’s problems—and apparently the only solution that it has—is simply to make laws about every subject which comes up. They think that by legislating about those difficulties they can resolve them. If you can’t enforce the laws that you make then there is no point in making those laws. Unless you can bring before the courts the culprits, the offenders against the laws that you make, then your system is in danger of breaking down. I say that because a very necessary adjunct of your law-making is, of course, your system of justice. The enforcement of the law is done through a system of justice, through the courts. They constitute a very necessary adjunct to our functions here; they constitute a very fundamental part of our Constitution. But that law-enforcement, as we understand the Constitution, is done through a system of justice of which we are very proud. How is this system going to work if you have to have provisions like this in it? I want to deal with that for a moment. The fact that the system has broken down is no fault of the system. What is wrong is that a situation has arisen, not in relation to outsiders but in relation to our own people, particularly our Bantu people. The Bantu are either unable or don’t want to see the enforcement of the law take its course and that is a most serious situation to be faced with. What is the Government’s answer to this? It is to fiddle and play around with that very system of justice which lies at the very foundation of our Constitution and our future. We foresee a future in South Africa which is going to be conducted along normal lines and in accordance with the principles of a Constitution which we only recently reaffirmed and adopted.

But if this provision relating to the detention of witnesses is strictly applied it could have the reverse effect from the one the Minister wants it to have. How many witnesses are going to come forward; how many witnesses are going to be encouraged to come forward to give eivdence if they know that they are going to be detained for up to six months incommunicado and in circumstances, apparently not dissimilar, as one sees in Clause 7, from the conditions under which 90-day detainees were held? They will be detained under conditions where they will see a magistrate once a week; they won’t be able to see. anybody else, except members of the police force, except with someone’s permission. How many are going to come forward, Sir? What I am afraid of. Sir, is this that if they do come forward it may be necessary for the. police to find them and to interrogate them while they are under detention and to detain anyone that they think might give evidence.

Having regard to the courts what sort of evidence is going to be produced by this clause? Surely this is a matter which must be of grave concern to the hon. the Minister and his Department. What sort of evidence is going, to be produced? What sort of evidence is it that is brought before the court as a result of detention incommunicado in those circumstances?

What we are determined to ensure is that this is not used as a means of interrogation. The Bill uses the expression “persons who are likely to give evidence”, not a person who has indicated that he has evidence and that he wants to give evidence but “persons who are likely to give evidence”. As we see this. Bill now those words indicate that this may be used as part of the process of investigation. We do feel that it should only be applied where there is an actual charge—not that we want it to be applied. And the hon. Minister must consider giving indemnity to those persons who give evidence in terms of this clause if it becomes law. I hope the Minister will indicate why it is that he feels that the provisions he already has in the law for the detention of absconding witnesses cannot be used to provide for those absconding witnesses, at least.

The hon. Minister says—he says so every year—“You give me the weapons and I wilt do the job”.

And I did.

What are those weapons? What sort of weapons is the hon. Minister asking for? What sort of weapons is. he going to go on asking for? Because quite clearly, if the hon. member for Ceres (Mr. S. L. Muller) is to be believed they are going to go on and on asking for more of this. But what is happening? You take out of the foundations of your Constitution material with which to forge these weapons and the foundations are weakened by this removal and by this process. Those foundations may welt collapse. If this is the only solution which the Minister and the Government have in mind it must eventually lead to that process; it must inevitably lead to it.

The hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) is not here at the moment but I think she misunderstood the hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes). We are not in favour of Clause 6 as it stands but the hon. the Minister has indicated he is going to take away sub-section (c). The hon. member for Transkeian Territories has indicated, in the second place, that he wants this placed, not on a permanent basis, but on a temporary basis. We will then examine what is left of this clause, when it is not in its present form, in the light of what the hon. Minister has said.

But I want to make it quite clear that the hon. Minister has made a case in respect of bail, not only in respect of the safety of the State but in other respects. He has made a case which we have to have regard to because of the protection of the very people who are involved in this matter, i.e. the public, about whose safety we are very concerned.

I think the Minister indicated what the real difference was between that side and this side of the House. He referred to that clause of the Bill—I think it is Clause 12—which provides for the abolition of compulsory corporal punishment. In other words, it gives that discretion, which the Government had taken away, back to the courts. The hon. Minister said this clause “is nie van belang nie”. This is the difference in approach between us to all these matters. It is not a matter of importance to the hon. the Minister but it is a matter of fundamental importance to us on this side of the House. It is a matter of fundamental importance that the courts have a discretion; that the courts are the medium by which people are judged; that the courts ensure the individual’s rights under the Constitution; that the courts ensure that the relationship between the Executive and that individual is ensured and protected. That is the basic difference between us and that is fundamentally the difference between the speakers who have spoken on this Bill on that side of the House and the speakers on this side. Everyone of the speakers on that side of the House is a “regsgeleerde”. One wonders how they can say the things they say. One wonders how someone trained in the law, someone who has practised in the courts of this country, can say these things. Perhaps I should give to them Polonius’ advice to his son: “This above all: to thy own self be true”. Let them be true to those principles which are the foundation of their profession. Let them examine this Bill critically, honestly, and let them say to the hon. Minister: Where you have to do something do it, but be careful that you don’t undermine the whole foundation of our society in doing so.

The attitude to the courts determines in the end the very principle of how you propose to govern the country.

The hon. Minister must seek his remedy for the awful situation which has obviously appeared in South Africa to-day in other fields; not in the field of seeking new techniques in our Criminal Procedure Act to combat these things but in the field of finding the root causes of these difficulties; of finding a way in which the majority of the Bantu will be on our side, as the hon. member for Transkeian Territories so eloquently said. Where are most of these offences committed? Where are most of these subversive activities committed? In the urban areas. Look at the Snyman report; look at the wave of crime that is going on; look at the unlawfulness; look at the robberies, house-breakings and so on that are going on; these are the matters the hon. the Minister needs to deal with in terms of this Bill, and has said so. Where are those offenders? Amongst the Bantu in the urban areas. The hon. Minister must direct his Government’s attention to that factor, to their permanence among us. That will help him; that will help us. Unless the help of those persons can be obtained—not only their help but their active support-—the Minister can go on and on bringing bills like this every year but they will not provide the solution.

Law and order must be preserved at all costs and it is for that reason that we will support part of the bail clause, when it has been trimmed of those offensive aspects of it which we do not like, and because it deals with the protection of people.

The Bill as it is before us to-day indicates that this Government is not fit to govern South Africa in any other way than the way it proposes to do to-day and will continue to do to-morrow. It is an admission that as long as we have this Government we cannot continue to develop within the framework of our present Constitution and the principles which inspired it. This Bill is not the solution, Sir. The hon. member for Ceres can say “We will keep on giving powers as the circumstances warrant it” but I say to him: “Where will it all end”, How far must we go before we stop? Ultimately there is only one end, if this Government does not take off its blinkers; if this is the only solution this Government can offer it should now resign; it does not deserve the support of the Republic.

I listened attentively to the hon. member who has just sat down, just as I listened to all hon. members on the other side. Sir, we have had a strange debate here. The hon. member who has just sat down made certain references to the 90-day provision with the object of throwing suspicion on this provision in connection with witnesses. I want to say with due deference to the hon. member that that does not become him, and I shall tell him why. We suspended the 90-day provision at the beginning of this year. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, how many angry words were exchanged across the floor of this House; you will recall how much suspicion was sown, not only here in South Africa, but also in the rest of the world; you will recall, Mr. Speaker, how insinuations of torture frequently fell from the lips of hon. members on the other side of the House in connection with that provision. When that situation was brought to an end, hon. members had a fine opportunity to review the position. Hon. members of the United Party had a fine opportunity to summon me before the tribunal of Parliament for the way in which I had used those powers up to and including the beginning of January of this year, when they were repealed. I waited. I heard nothing in all the debates we had. And hon. members had ample opportunity. What is more important is that they had the opportunity when my Vote was under discussion. Throughout the discussion of my Vote the hon. member sat in his bench over there and did not open his mouth. He did not take part in the proceedings, but now he comes along and sows suspicion. In those circumstances I do not think it becomes my hon. friend to say what he did here. He allowed the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Gorshel) to speak in his stead. The hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Gorshel) also took part in this debate, Mr. Speaker. I do not feel myself called upon to say anything further about the hon. member for Hospital, except this: After looking at the newspaper this morning I said to myself, “It is a pity that honours can no longer be conferred upon South Africans; the hon. member for Hospital would have got an M.B.E.”

The hon. member again came along with the proposal—which was also made by the hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes)—that we should renew this provision relating to witnesses from year to year. I am not prepared to do that and I shall tell hon. members why. I want to test hon. members in this connection. Year after year a tremendous fuss is made when we come forward with legislation in this connection; suspicion is thrown on us; propaganda is made; and then we never hear about the matter again. I am now going to test hon. members. In the normal course of events I should have liked to have made the concession, but I want to test hon. members. I am not going to renew this provision from year to year; I am going to throw the onus on hon. members on the other side. Parliamentary machinery for moving for the repeal of a provision such as this does exist, and I challenge hon. members to make use of that machinery and to move next year that this provision be repealed. The parliamentary machinery for doing so is at their disposal. I want to see whether hon. members will have the courage to make a fuss and to come back next year and move a substantive motion in this House that this legislation be repealed. That is fair, is it not, Mr. Speaker? It will be very fair if we do it on that basis.

The hon. member who sat down just now, said, “Our whole system of justice has broken down.” That is a fine statement to make for foreign consumption. But what proof did the hon. member adduce in support of that statement? He adduced no proof whatsoever. Anybody, even the member for Durban (Musgrave) (Mr. Hourquebie), can make an assertion like that if he wants to do so. But one does not make assertions of that nature without substantiating them. After all, the hon. member knows that our system of justice has not broken down. Surely he knows that that is not so; he is an advocate in our courts, is he not? In spite of the circumstances we have experienced, our administration of justice has never before been at such a high level and has never before functioned as smoothly as it is functioning at the moment. Surely the hon. member knows that. He speaks of the “Bantu people”. What is more, in all our deliberations in the Other Place it has been the attitude of the Opposition that the very reason why we have done so well is the fact that the Bantu have been so law-abiding and that they have been giving us their assistance. Now the hon. member says that this legislation is aimed against the Bantu. It is not aimed against the Bantu. It is aimed against the communists and the saboteurs—both White and Black. The hon. member asks, “What sort of evidence will you get?” After all, we heard that same reproach in connection with the 90-day provision. I have given hon. members many examples of cases where we called 90-day detainees as witnesses. Do hon. members remember what Mr. Justice O’Hagan said in the Mini Kaba and Khayinga case? Do hon. members remember that I read out to them what Mr. Justice O’Hagan said in that connection, notwithstanding the fact that 77—if I remember correctly—witnesses who had been detained were called. We called 90-day detainees as witnesses in many cases. The court subjected their evidence to a close scrutiny, and it was for the court to accept their evidence or to reject it. And surely the hon. member knows how much of the evidence submitted by these people was accepted in his own division of the Supreme Court and in every division of the Supreme Court. One cannot come along and make assertions of this type. It gets us simply nowhere. The hon. member now comes along and says, “You come forward and ask for new legislation year after year.” Surely we all know, and I think the hon. the Leader of the Opposition realizes as much as I do, that we are right in the midst of the cold war. Must one have one blueprint when one enters the war and adhere to that blue-print no matter what changes occur in the situation? Must one not take other measures if circumstances change? Surely to adhere to one plan all the time is a stupid way of waging a war. We had the same refrain from the hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes). It reminds one of the little song of Langenhoven: „Op my ou ramkietjie met nog net een snaar, speel ek in die maanskyn, deurmekaar”.

Leipoldt.

Yes, it must have been Leipoldt. [Laughter.] I am glad that the hon. members’ knowledge of literature is so much better than their knowledge of politics. Must we take no measures against those people who undergo training abroad? After all, this Bill is not concerned with domestic matters. I made that very clear to hon. members. Surely it would be criminal folly on my part if I did not take the necessary measures against these people who have received their training outside. But hon. members opposite again come along rashly with the old story, “We must create better conditions here in South Africa.” Surely we all know that relations between the various language groups and the various race groups have never been better than they are to-day, in spite of the propaganda which has come from the pulpit and the Press and in spite of the irresponsible actions of people both in South Africa and outside. But, Mr. Speaker, let us assume for the sake of argument that better relations could be created, that we could create relations with which even the angel Gabriel would be satisfied; would that cause the sabotage camps elsewhere in Africa to disappear? Surely the hon. member knows that that is not so. Would Mao Tse Tung care or would the communists of Russia care what the relations were here in South Africa? Surely the hon. member knows that those sabotage camps have nothing to do with relations in South Africa, that they only want this land, that they only want this country. Surely that is the essence of the whole thing.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker) made a fine, pious little speech, but I just want to react to one statement which the hon. member made when he said that we had boasted that we had things under control. We did not boast about it; we merely stated a fact. And what is that fact? It is this—and that is the undertaking which I gave to Parliament on behalf of the Government and on behalf of the Department of Justice and the South African Police—that we have cleared up all the sabotage cases. We have cleared up every case of sabotage which has occurred in South Africa. After all, the facts speak for themselves. We have brought the people concerned before the courts, and there is not a single case of sabotage remaining unsolved. Surely that is a fact which speaks for itself: it is a fact about which I could boast if I were inclined to boast. Does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition dispute that?

That you are inclined to boast?

No, but I have reason to boast, and if the hon. member had led his Party in the way in which I have handled this matter, he would also have been able to boast. [Laughter.]

Order! But the hon. the Minister is boasting now. He must rather continue with his speech.

The hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman), of course, adopted her traditional attitude in regard to this matter. The hon. member was again particularly concerned about the detention of witnesses. I gave the hon. member certain assurances by way of interjection. Apparently the hon. member did not listen to me, or else she did not understand what I said. I said that it would be foolish—and I am not a member of the Progressive Party, and therefore I shall not act in a foolish manner—that it would be extremely foolish to treat one’s witnesses badly, that it would be extremely foolish to keep their family away from them, unless there was a danger of intimidation or something of that kind. All things being equal, it is self-evident that under the circumstances we will treat these people well and make things easy for them, and that we will make them as happy as possible under the circumstances. I appreciate what the circumstances are. That hon. member as well as other hon. members on the other side said that we were boasting that we had things under control; that there was no state of emergency at the moment, but that nevertheless we were coming forward with this legislation. On the other hand, again, they suggested that we were panic-stricken and that that was the reason why we were doing this. Mr. Speaker, at this juncture it is worth while recalling that the last case of sabotage we had in South Africa was the one on 23 July last year. We all know what was planned for South Africa, and it is to the credit of South Africa and its Police Force and its Department of Justice that we have this peace and quiet to-day.

We are not asking for these powers because we think there is a state of emergency. We are not asking for these powers because we are panic-stricken. We are asking for these powers because we want to combat a state of affairs which has developed against South Africa in the outside world. These people are not being trained in this country. They are being trained outside. Hon. members know that. It would be foolish for us not to take the necessary steps in that regard.

The hon. member for Musgrave also spoke. I now go on to deal with the hon. member for Transkeian Territories. I think the hon. member for Transkeian Territories, who was the first speaker on the other side, did not treat me kindly; he was unfair towards me. He made this accusation against me, “The Minister was not fair in introducing this measure so late”. The hon. member knows that in the case of all legislation introduced by me I am as approachable as far as the Opposition is concerned as any person can be. The hon. member knows my attitude in those-matters. But what is more, here we have a Bill consisting of 18 clauses. It does not require a great deal of study. One need only glance at it. If one has any standpoint, then one knows immediately whether one is in favour of it or not. The facts speak for themselves.

Why did you not introduce it earlier?

The hon.. member had a whole week in which to study these matters. But it is not necessary to study them at length if one’s party has a standpoint. Hon. members opposite must not blame me if it takes them days to formulate a standpoint in connection with such simple matters. Surely the fault does not lie with me or with Parliament; it lies elsewhere. It is time hon. members searched their own hearts in this regard.

Various matters were raised by hon. members, particularly by the hon. member for Transkeian Territories. I listened attentively but the issues raised here are ones which we can discuss profitably in the Committee Stage; it would only take up time unnecessarily if I discussed them at this stage. However, the hon. member did touch upon one matter which I want to deal with immediately, and that is the question of protection of witnesses before and after they have given evidence. The hon. member asked: “Why is this necessary now? You say you can protect the witnesses after they have given evidence. Why do you want to protect them in this way now before they have given evidence?” The hon. member is a lawyer. Surely he knows that there is a world of difference between a witness who still has to give evidence and one who has already given evidence? Surely he knows, particularly as far as these undermining elements are concerned, that they will move heaven and earth to prevent a man from giving evidence, because “dead men tell no tales”, and that once he has given evidence he runs a very much smaller risk than he did before he gave evidence. Surely that is self-evident? There is still some risk that action may be taken against him out of revenge, but we protect him, and we protect him effectively. We can take him away and find him employment elsewhere. That is done not only in South Africa, but throughout the world. Mr. Speaker, our problem lies in the very fact that they are after his blood—and practice and experience has taught us that—in order to prevent him from giving evidence, because the evidence given by him may easily lead to the death penalty or many years of imprisonment for some person. That is why there is such a strong motive to do him harm or to eliminate him before he gives evidence. That is why it is self-evident that one must see to it that the witness appears in court, not only because one owes that to the witness, but, as the hon. member for Standerton (Dr. Coertze) correctly pointed out, because one owes it to the law. Therefore one must take the necessary steps in that regard.

The hon. member again adopted the attitude that “there must be a different approach”, and that if there was a different approach, the law-abiding people would assist the police. Mr. Speaker, our difficulty is not that the law-abiding people do not want to assist us. Let me say this: We do get the largest measure of assistance—and I mention this with appreciation—from the law-abiding people in South Africa, both White and non-White. My problem does not lie with the law-abiding people; my problem lies with the communists, who recognize no law, and no situation which is created in America or in any other country in the world will make those people change their views, because it is a fundamental part of their creed and their political philosphy to undermine the very law in which we all believe.

We are concerned with three kinds of witnesses. One is the witness who comes to seek protection of his own accord. It is easy to solve his problem. Then there is the witness who is going to run away. I think I have made out a case that I should be able to detain him. The hon. member asked me: “what about our existing procedure?” I know Section 214 and Section 215 of the Criminal Procedure Act as well as he does, but I say to him that those sections mean virtually nothing in the existing circumstances because money means nothing to these people. The attitude of our courts is to ask for the minimum amount for bail, and I do not blame them. They have their duty to carry out in this connection and they fix bail at the minimum amount.

Then we have a third category of witnesses, the witness who is in danger, but does not want protection. This category is going to be the difficult one. One does not want to force a person to protect himself against himself.

The Attorney-General will have to act with the greatest circumspection in this respect. He will have to act after having considered all the pros and cons in this connection. However, we can discuss this matter further in the Committee Stage. I realize the problems as fully as the hon. member does.

I want to conclude by saying that having weighed up all the pros and cons as we have debated them here, and having taken into consideration the attitude adopted by hon. members on the other side and the attitude adopted by hon. members on my side and having considered everything in the light of the facts, it is perfectly clear to me that a case has been made out not only for 17 of the clauses of this Bill but for all 18 clauses of this Bill, and I take the liberty therefore of asking the House to vote for the Bill.

Question put: That the word “now” stand part of the motion, and a division demanded.

Fewer than four members (viz. Mrs. Suzman) having supported the demand for a division, Question declared affirmed and amendment dropped.

Original motion put and the House divided:

AYES—76: Bekker, M. J. H.; Bezuidenhout, G. P. C.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, M. C; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Coertze, L. I.; Coetzee, P. J.; de Jager, P. R.; de Wet, J. M.; Dönges, T. E.; du Plessis, H. R. H.; Faurie, W. H.; Frank, S.; Froneman, G. F. van L.: Greyling, J. C.; Haak, J. F. W.; Henning, J. M.; Hertzog, A.; Heystek, J.: Hiemstra, E. C. A.; Jurgens, J. C.; Knobel, G. J.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Labuschagne, J. S.; le Roux, P. M. K.; Malan, A. I.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; Martins, H. E.; Meyer, T.; Mostert, D. J. J.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, H.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, J. A. F.; Odell, H. G. O.; Otto, J. C.; Pansegrouw, J. S.; Pelser, P. C.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. W.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Schoonbee, J. F.; Smit, H. H.; Stander, A. H.; Steyn, F. S.; Steyn, J. H.; Treurnicht, N. F.; van den Berg, G. P.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Ahee, H. H.; van der Spuy, J. P.; van der Walt, B. J.; van der Wath, J. G. H.; van Eeden, F. J.; van Niekerk, G. L. H.; van Niekerk, M. C.; van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; van Wyk, H. J.; van Zyl, J. J. B. Venter, M. J. de la R.; Visse, J. H.; von Moltke, J. von S.; Voster, B. J.; Vosloo, A. H.; Waring, F. W.; Webster, A.; Wentzel, J. J.

Tellers: D. J. Potgieter and P. S. van der Merwe.

NOES—45: Barnett, C.; Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Bennett, C.; Connan, J. M.; Cronje, F. J. C.; de Kock, H. C.; Durrant, R. B.; Eden, G. S.; Emdin, S.; Field, A. N.; Fisher, E. L.; Gay, L. C.; Gorshel, A.; Graaff, de V.; Henwood, B. H.; Hickman, T.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Hughes, T. G.; Lewis, H.; Malan, E. G.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Moore, P. A.; Oldfield, G. N.; Plewman, R. P.; Radford, A.; Raw, W. V.; Ross, D. G.; Steenkamp, L. S.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Suzman, H.; Taurog, L. B.; Taylor, C. D.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Tucker, H.; van der Byl, P.; van Niekerk, S. M.; Warren, C. M.; Waterson, S. F.; Weiss, U. M.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: N. G. Eaton and A. Hopewell.

Original motion accordingly agreed to and Bill read a second time.

I move—

That the Bill be now read a second time.

I want to express my regret to hon. members that they have to listen to me a second time this Saturday morning. I can only say to them that I myself would prefer to be elsewhere.

As far as this Bill is concerned, the same principle applies which I stated yesterday in connection with the Criminal Procedure Act and which was endorsed by the hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes), and that is that this matter, too, is one which lends itself in the first instance to a Committee Stage discussion, firstly, because the principles underlying this Bill have already been discussed on numerous occasions in this House, so that they have really been ground to dust and one can really say very little about them that is new, and secondly, because it is also the position here that each clause is an entity on its own and should be considered as such.

We have 10 clauses in this Bill, and just as-I did yesterday, I shall say a few words about each of the various clauses. I do not think. Clause 1 of the Bill should present any problem. All that we are doing there is, that where it is already an offence for a person to carry or display certain things, we are now also making it punishable for him to possess those things. That really follows automatically from the principle contained in that clause, and accordingly I shall say no more about it.

As regards Clause 2, which deals with the right of legal practitioners, whether advocates, or attorneys, who are communists—not who are communists according to my opinion, but who are indeed communists according to their own admission and according to the finding of the liquidator, which cannot be questioned and which has never been questioned—to practise, I accept the principle, which I have repeatedly put to the Bar and to the Side Bar, that no such person, particularly after these persons have showed their true colours in recent years, should have the right to practise-as an attorney or an advocate.

I may mention in passing that I have discussed this matter a great deal with the General Bar Council, and the position at the moment is that one half of the General Bar Council is opposed to the principle, while the other half is in favour of it. It is also the position at the moment that in all the years since this matter was raised I have not received a single objection to this measure from any Law Society as far as the attorneys are concerned. There is not one single official objection lying in my office in respect of this matter. But because I suspect and have reason to believe that this matter will give rise to a lengthy discussion, and that the difference between my attitude and that of hon. members on the other side is that I am not in favour of communists being allowed to practise, while they hold the view that if any action is to be taken, it must be taken by the courts, I have decided to let this matter stand over. That is the fundamental difference between us and the hon. members on the other side, and I think the hon. member for Transkeian Territories will admit that I am putting the position fairly as far as the Opposition is concerned. In view of the late stage of the Session, I shall let this provision stand over until next year. But hon. members must understand very clearly that this attitude is one of principle as far as the Government is concerned and that we shall proceed with this measure at the very first opportunity next year.

Clause 3 need not present any problems. It goes hand in hand with Clause 9 and therefore, I shall not explain it.

Clause 4 has already been popularly called the Sobukwe Clause. We have already debated this principle on many occasions in this House. Accordingly I do not intend to discuss it in detail, apart from saying that this person is being treated particularly well and that his health is good and leaves nothing to be desired. Hon. members will recall that on a previous occasion, and again subsequenty, I permitted the representative of the International Red Cross to carry out an inspection, not only as far as this person was concerned, but also of our other prisons. Before I knew what report I would get, I undertook to make it available to the Leader of the Opposition, and I did so. While we are on that point, Mr. Speaker, you wil pardon me if I diverge for just one moment.

I have frequently been asked why I do not publish the report. I want to make it very clear that there is nothing in that report which cannot stand the light of day, and I think the Leader of the Opposition will agree with me.

Yes.

But my reason for not publishing it has become a matter of principle to me. The world is constantly accusing us of treating our prisoners badly and that such and such conditions exist in our prisons. I granted Dr. Hoffman, the representative of the International Red Cross, free access to our prisons, and to Sobukwe as well. He was allowed to go where he liked and to talk to anybody he wanted to. He was free to visit any prison in South Africa. I know my institutions and that is why, even before he had completed his report, I said that I would make the report available to my friend the Leader of the Opposition, which I did. But the reason why I am not publishing it is that stones are always being thrown at us and accusations are always being made against us. I shall not publish that report. I want the International Red Cross itself to publish the report. That is the attitude which I am adopting in principle. They came and made the investigation. I gave them access to the institutions and they know that they have permission to publish the report and to spread it abroad. If I published the report, they would not believe me in any case; they would say that I had cooked it. But what is important is this: I throw open my prisons, and I allow free access to Sobukwe, but I want all the other African states to do the same. Let them throw open their prisons and invite the International Red Cross to inspect them, and let the Red Cross publish their report, just like mine. I think that is a fair attitude, and I am glad the Leader of the Opposition agrees with me, because now we have a united South African standpoint in regard to this matter. We have nothing to hide, but there are many other people who have many things to hide.

Did the Red Cross undertake any other investigation except in connection with Subukwe?

Yes. I am very glad that the hon. member has asked that question. Their representative visited various prisons in Cape Town, the Free State and the Transvaal. I allowed him to visit all the 90-day detainees there were at that time and he saw and questioned all of them. I gave him the names and addresses of those who had been released, if he wanted to follow up the matter and go to see them. I did not hide anything at all. I am very grateful for the fact that the Leader of the Opposition and I agree about the principle that that report should be published by the Red Cross.

As far as Sobukwe is concerned, I have already motivated the principle. I know it is a principle which one does not like. I can also understand that hon. members on the other side will not like the principle, but I have give my reasons for detaining him at that time. I just want to say to hon. members that there has been no change in the position since the time I detained him. We must remember that in this case we had to deal with the leader of the P.A.C., the father of the offspring Poqo, an organization which sowed death and destruction while it existed, but an organization which has now, fortunately, been destroyed. But he was the leader of that organization, an educated man, a man who made no secret of his attitude and still makes no secret of it to-day, and his attitude is that if he is released he will carry on from where he left off. Hon. members can accept my word for it that that is his attitude. I have checked that over and over again. In view of the circumstances which I have outlined, and in view of what we must expect, I am not prepared to release this man to carry on from where he left off. I do not think it is expected of me to say more than that. We have already debated this matter. If there is any hon. member who wants to suggest that circumstances have changed since this man was detained, we can discuss it. But until such time as I have heard that argument, I shall let what I have said suffice.

I come to Clause 5. If there has ever been a clause which has been torn out of its context by the sensation-seeking Press, then it is this clause, and we have even had the nonsensical suggestions that I wanted to use this clause to curb Mr. Wilson and Mr. Johnson. Surely such a suggestion is ridiculous beyond utterance. It simply cannot be. It has always been the basis of all our legislation in the past—and we all know it—that one cannot legislate for people in other countries; surely that is self-evident. I never thought it was necessary for us to state that in any law, because we have never done so up to now. But I am going to do so now. I am compelled to do so now because fallacies of this type have been sent out into the world, and therefore, after the word “persoon” in line 2 of the Afrikaans text of the clause and after the word “person” in line 2 of the English text, I shall state very clearly who the persons are. The persons who will be affected are those who were placed under restrictions in this country and then fled abroad. The restrictions imposed upon them lapse. I cannot serve the restrictions on them again, because I cannot find them. But I dare not allow them to spread their propaganda here again. Perhaps I should just explain the position to hon. members; we may eliminate a great deal of misunderstanding in that way. The fact that the Press is not allowed to publish what is said by A or B is a consequence †of that person having been prohibited from attending meetings. As soon as one has prohibited a person from attending meetings, it means that nothing which he says may be published. I cannot tell Joe Slovo and Wolpe and Tambo and Bernstein and all the other riff-raff that they are not allowed to hold meetings in London. I cannot impose any prohibition on them there. Christian Action would get a fit if they could no longer attend the meetings of those people. Nor do I have the power to prevent those Christians from acting in London. Consequently I must take the power to announce in the Government Gazette that the meetings of these people are still prohibited after their restrictions have lapsed, because that is the fiction which we are creating here now, namely, that they are still subject to restrictions and that their utterances are therefore not allowed to be published. I think that if we view the matter in that way, we need not argue about it, because I do not think there is one of us who would want Joe Slovo or Wolpe or Bernstein to be quoted. I regret the misunderstanding and the fact that I did not word the provision in those terms in the Bill originally, but I never thought it was necessary to put it that way in a law, but I have learnt my lesson now, which is that we have a type of newspaperman in South Africa who would suck blood out of his grandmother who had died 100 years ago. They have sucked out those things here now. and now I have to make provision for that sort of thing.

Clause 6 is consequential upon Clause 5. It deals with people who undergo training in South Africa, and part of the clause deals with properties such as Rivonia. If we had had this clause at the time of Rivonia, we would have been allowed to confiscate the Rivonia property. I do not think there is any member of this House who, if a second Rivonia should occur in South Africa, would not be in favour of our confiscating the property. I think we owe it to South Africa to do so. Accordingly I think I need say no more about Clause 6.

Clause 7 deals with proof of the fact that a person’s name is on the register. It follows the pattern of the rules of our ordinary law of criminal procedure. I need say no more about it.

Then there is Clause 8. A tremendous fuss was made and a very great deal of misunderstanding created about this clause as well. The misunderstanding arose mainly from the fact that a “printing press” was mentioned in the clause. This is essentially an innocuous clause, Sir, but you know Parliament as well as I do. Mention a printing press and a Bantu and the session lasts a week longer than it normally should. Under those circumstances I have therefore decided rather to drop Clause 8. I can proceed with it next year.

Can the Cape Times print the Burger again?

Yes, I think that is the best thing the Cape Times has ever done. [Laughter.] I think if they did it more often, hon. members on the other side would turn Nationalist. I say, therefore, that I do not want to cause any trouble at this late stage, and particularly not on a Saturday morning. As a matter of fact, I wonder whether we could not finish before one o’clock; that is a pious hope of mine, and I do not want to take the onus upon my having occupied too much of the time of the House, and therefore I have decided to drop this clause.

Clause 9 has to be read with Clause 3. It is a formal clause and I do not think there can be any objection to it, and the same applies to the title in Clause 10.

Indeed, to my mind there is nothing in this Bill about which all of us cannot agree wholeheartedly. There would be certain persons, of course, who would be disappointed if we did that. They are the persons who have been making a fuss ever since last week-end, while there was nothing to make a fuss about. But I have enough confidence in the common sense of hon. members of this House, on both sides, to believe that we shall have a very large measure of agreement on the provisions of this Bill, and that even where we differ on them, it will not be necessary to keep on doing so until next week, as these are matters which we have discussed at great length in this House in the past and in regard to which we know one another’s views. I move.

In a previous debate the Minister took exception to the fact that I complained about the late introduction of Bills of this nature. I make the same complaint about this Bill and it does not help the Minister to say that we had a week in which to study the Bill. I pointed out that we were working under pressure. We have not got Departments like the Minister has, who can prepare all the stuff for him.

I disagree. You have the four bright boys.

Yes, that is more than you have. Do you not wish you had some? I hope the hon. member for Standerton (Dr. Coertze) heard that remark by the Minister. [Laughter.]

These measures we have before us now are becoming as complicated as the Bantu legislation. Every year we have amendments to the Criminal Procedure Act by way of General Law Amendment Bills, and also amendments to the Suppression of Communism Act, and one cannot simply read the amendments introduced by the Minister. One has to bear in mind all the other clauses of the different Acts and the provisions of the Criminal Law Procedure Bill which we dealt with earlier. They all affect these matters. The Minister and the police now have powers under a multitude of Acts under which they can take action, and it is our duty to see what is involved when we pass any new clause.

No doubt the name of this measure has a popular appeal, the Suppression of Communism Act, and the Minister made a popular appeal to-day, as one expected him to do. He knows that the Western world is fighting a cold war against Communism. Until comparatively recently the war was against Russia, but now it is against China, too. We know that China and Russia have spread their efforts to Africa, and people in South Africa are very alive to the dangers of Communism, and no doubt the communists are cashing in on the feeling of hostility towards the former colonial powers. We, as the most westernized of the African states, naturally have to protect ourselves against the spread of Communism and the machinations of the communist powers. We are in agreement on that. Supporters of both the major political parties, and no doubt most of the supporters of the minor parties, are therefore very sensitive towards Communism. When the original Bill dealing with Communism was introduced, the United Party produced its own measure as an alternative. We proposed that overt acts of Communism should be treated as treason, and that anyone convicted of such an act should receive the maximum penalty, capital punishment. That was proof of our abhorrence of the cult, not because of its theoretical beliefs but because of its practical application and because of its methods of infiltration with the object of gaining eventual supremacy: its utter disregard of the ordinary democratic rules of acquiring the reins of government: its utter disregard of the rights of the individual and its totalitarian form of government. We know, too, that the communists make use of any group which is hostile to the recognized form of government and will use such groups to bring about internal strife with the object of taking over if chaos develops. It cannot be gainsaid that there are political movements in this country which aim at overthrowing the recognized Government in order to take over the government of the country themselves. This very morning we passed the second reading of a Bill designed to deal more effectively with those who seek by way of sabotage and insurrection to threaten the safety of the State, and to deal with them as criminals. It is well known, too, that the leaders of the saboteurs and insurgents are supported by organizations. They do not operate as individuals, each in his own cause. In terms of the principal Act, the Minister has power to deal with these organizations, and when he clamps down, as he has done in the past, he bans them as unlawful organizations. I do not think anyone will even pretend that these organizations are all necessarily communist when they plan to overthrow the Government by other than legal means. They may get assistance from the communists, and I have no doubt they do, but then I think they are only too willing to take assistance from anyone. It is interesting to note that two of the extreme nationalist African leaders, one of them most brutal in his extremism, have turned their backs on Communism. I refer to Banda and Kenyatta, who were the most bitter enemies of the colonial powers and who have shown that they will have no truck with Communism. I say, therefore, that it is a mistake to brand all African nationalists as communists. When, therefore, we discuss this Bill we must keep the proper perspective and realize that we are probably not dealing with communists at all. What we have to contend with is African nationalism intent on taking over the country for the Africans.

What organizations have you in mind that should be banned which have not been banned?

That is not the point I am trying to make. I am not saying that the organizations which have been banned should not have been banned. My point is that in terms of this Suppression of Communism Act we banned organizations which are not necessarily communist organizations.

We banned four, the Communist Party, the A.N.C., the P.A.C. and the Congress of Democrats.

Yes, any party which furthers the cause of Communism and which may be offsprings from those particular groups. But I do not believe that of necessity the A.N.C. was communist.

But the report said so.

Yes, but because of the definition we have given in the Act to Communism.

No.

The Minister may disagree with me, but it is my firm conviction that most of these insurgent groups of Africans are not necessarily communists but they use the communists, just as the communists use them.

Is it your contention then that it was wrong to ban the A.N.C.

No. I am not saying that. I am saying that when we deal with these un lawful organizations we must appreciate that they are not necessarily communists, although they fall within the definition of this Act. We have to appreciate, therefore, that what these insurgent groups are doing is to use the communists in the same way that the communists are using them.

But what is your point?

The point I make is this, that when the Minister makes his appeal for support for the suppression of Communism, he is playing on the feelings of the people because he knows that Communism is hated and feared, but we must look at it from other aspects as well, from the wider angle, and not only be influenced by the common fear of Communism as such. As I proceed with my speech, the Minister will realize what I am getting at. That of course does not make these nationalist groups or the unlawful organizations to which they belong less of a threat to the safety of the State, and they have to be dealt with although they are not necessarily communists. One of the clauses to which we object is the one giving the Minister the power to prohibit the publication of statements or the writings of persons whom the Minister is satisfied advocates or encourages the objects of Communism. It is a very wide definition. Every politician must at some time or other advocate the objects of Communism.

That is news to me.

Republicanism is one. Education is another.

You have the bull by the horns now.

Let me complete my argument. We have to consider the Bill as it is before us now, and in terms of this Bill—it is not our fault that the Minister gave this wide definition—the Minister could have prohibited the publication of any statement or article if he is satisfied that it is made by a person in the Republic or elsewhere who advocates, advises, defends or encourages the objects of Communism. This would give the Minister the power to prohibit the publication of any speech of any man whose views he did not like. The Minister cannot ask us to agree to a clause of this nature being passed. He realizes now himself that as it reads now it goes too far, and so he says he is going to amend it in the Committee Stage, but when we were given this Bill this is what we were faced with. How can the Minister complain because there was criticism from outside sources? How can he complain when people outside this House criticize this clause, because this was what they had before them. The Minister must not complain to us now because he did not say in the clause exactly what he meant. The Minister also said that he never intended to legislate against people outside South Africa. He said that was ridiculous and he thought that everybody would know that he did not have the power to do so. The Minister cannot get out of it in that way. Nobody suggested that he was going to stop Harold Wilson or anybody else making speeches, but the point is that he could have stopped their speeches from being reprinted in this country. In terms of the Bill as it stood, he could stop the publication of any statement he did not like. He could merely pub-ish that person’s name in the Gazette and then his writings could not be published in the country without the permission of the Minister. I am surprised that the Minister is so naive as to think that we on this side of the House would fall for the story that he tried to put across this morning, his sweet reasonableness and that he certainly never thought that anyone could attribute to him such ideas as contained in the clause as it stood. It has been suggested that in considering this matter we must bear in mind that even the hon. member for Standerton may one day be the Minister of Justice. Just imagine what would happen if the hon. member for Standerton were to become Minister of Justice! I know that he is not so keen on banning now as he was before. Sir, I leave it at that. The law as it stands is that the statements of people who are prohibited from attending meetings cannot be published without the permission of the Minister. The Bill as it stands now, even with the explanation given by the Minister as to what he intends doing in the Committee Stage, allows him to prohibit the publication or reproduction of the statements or writings of people who when they left this country were not restricted in any way. It does not only apply to people who were prohibited from attending meetings. I cannot understand why the Minister should be so concerned about those who have left the country making statements abroad. The hon. the Minister has mentioned Wolpe and Goldreich. My impression is that once they have absconded from the country their own people despise them. Sir, perhaps we can deal with this in the Committee Stage; I do not want to go into any details, but I want to point out that people who did protest against this clause did not do so unreasonably.

We will oppose Clause 2 dealing with the disqualification of practitioners. The Minister, in taking exception earlier on to a complaint that I had made about the late introduction of the Bills, said that we had a week to study them and that he saw no reason why they should not be dealt with at this stage. But this clause is an example of what happens as a result of the delay in introducing this Bill. These measures should be introduced earlier. The Minister himself has had to say that he is going to drop this clause because we do not have the time for a lengthy discussion. That applies not only to this clause, but the same thing is going to happen with regard to Clause 8. Surely the Minister will realize now that if he had introduced his Bills earlier and had given more time both to the Opposition and to himself, both these clauses could have been discussed at length. Sir, we say that these clauses are so drastic that there must be a dire necessity for their inclusion in a Bill of this nature. If there is not this dire necessity they should not have been included. If there is a dire necessity for their inclusion, then we cannot afford to hold them over. That is part of my complaint against the Minister for introducing these measures at this late stage.

Sir, I am not going to deal with this clause because the Minister has indicated that he is dropping it, but I want to say that when this measure was first published we had strong objection to it. The Minister says that he has had no complaints from the Side Bar, but as far as I know the Law Societies objected to the inclusion of a clause of this nature in the legislation dealing with the admission of attorneys.

It was never the intention to do that. I told them that right from the start.

At any rate, I do know that they were opposed to the inclusion of a provision of this nature in the legislation affecting their profession. The fact of the matter is that this Bil, as we have it before us at the moment, does contain this clause which we say is an objectionable clause. Clause 4 empowers the Minister to detain persons who have served sentences for offences under other laws. I will deal with the details ater but the Minister referred to this as the Sobukwe clause. The Minister deals with this clause as though it affects one man only and that is Sobukwe.

He is the only one that has been detained.

Sobukwe is the only man whom the Minister has detained in the two years during which this clause has been in force, and in justifying this clause the Minister refers to Sobukwe; he says that Sobukwe has not changed his habits; that he has not changed his intentions; that he is still as bitter as he was and I have reason to believe that that is so; that the Minister believes that he has not mended his ways. I have reason to believe that what the Minister has said is correct. The Minister justifies this clause as though it applies to only one man. I would like to remind him that this clause empowers the Minister to detain any person who has served a sentence for an offence under “any other law”, the Public Safety Act, the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1953, the Riotous Assemblies Act, Section 21 of the General Law Amendment Act, which is a very wide provision, and to confine him to gaol in any area.

Has it been done in any other case since this clause came into operation?

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (North) (Mr. J. A. F. Nel) wants to know whether it has ever been done. Surely Sir, the point is not whether it has ever been done. The point is that the Minister is taking the power to do it. On the reasoning of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (North) this, clause should now be dropped because there is no necessity for it.

There is still the one man.

Sir, if they wish to deal with Sobukwe only they can deal with hint under an old provision of the Native Administration Act, because Sobukwe is an African. They do not need this measure to banish him to any particular place and to keep him in prison. What happened to Luthuli; where is he? The Government did not need a measure of this nature to banish Luthuli. I hope the hon. the Minister will bear that in mind. According to the interjection of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (North) nobody except Sobukwe has ever been restricted in terms of this clause. I say therefore that if the Minister is going to deal only with Sobukwe, let him pass a special law if he likes or let him deal with him under the many laws, under which he can deal with him. I have already pointed out that he can deal with him under the Native Administration Act. The mere fact that the Minister agrees that this clause should come up every year for renewal indicates that he himself recognizes, that it is a drastic measure that he is taking. It would not be in force unless there was a necessity for it. The Minister has* not shown us that there is any necessity for it except in the case of one man and I submit that he should take other steps to deal with this one man instead of asking us to give him this general power to detain people, who have served sentences for offences under all these other laws. We must not only look at this clause as a clause dealing with Sobukwe; we: must bear in mind all its implications.

Then, Sir, there is Clause 8 which the Minister is dropping. We were opposed to Clause 8 for obvious reasons. I do not want to go into all the details except to point out that the clause is still contained in the Bill that we are considering and when we vote for or against the Bill we vote on it as it appears before us.

As far as Clause 1 is concerned, the Minister has said that there can be no objection to it. I do not quite agree with him. It is not a clause about which there can be any bitter controversy but I would like to point out that the law as it stands now makes it an offence for a person to carry or display anything indicating that he is or was at any time an office-bearer or a member of an unlawful organization. The penalty is pretty stiff; the penalty is imprisonment for a period not exceeding ten years. It is therefore a serious offence. We are now including the words “to be in possession”. The person concerned may be in possession of a photograph showing him with a committee of some unlawful organization at a time when the organization was unlawful. He may have left the organization and forgotten about some badge which he had in his possession. When he carries or displays such a badge, he is doing something active; he is showing that he is in possession of a badge; he pins it on himself or he shows it to somebody. He may be in possession of such badge or emblem unwittingly; he may have forgotten about some badge or emblem which he had in his possession, and I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister to consider the question of bringing about some amendment to this clause to make quite sure that a person who is unwittingly in possession of such an emblem is not penalized.

Sir, we are opposed to any form of totalitarianism. We fought a war against that type of ideology and we are prepared to play our part again if called upon to do so; we stand back to no-one in our loyalty to the State, but in fighting an ideology of that kind we must beware that we do not become a like State, disrespecting all the virtues of a democracy. Admittedly a democratic state has to be prepared to act undemocratically when engaged in a war. we do not pretend that we are not part of the cold war; we accept that, but let us act within reason. Do not let us use the cold war as an excuse for riding roughshod over the liberties of our people. Sir, I repeat what I said yesterday. This measure is not a cure. The Minister has told us on several occasions that he has broken the back of these unlawful organizations. He has broken the back of those we know of but I submit that there are still organizations of this kind operating underground. The Minister has taken more and more powers, but he has failed to achieve his object of killing these organizations altogether. He is afraid of the third phase which is coming. Sir, that only goes to show that all these measures which we take are only palliatives. We need measures to deal with this situation, but these measures are palliatives.

When you talk about other organizations, to which organization do you refer?

Sir, there must be some other organizations which the Minister does not know about. There must be underground organizations with whom these people can work.

Do you know which they are?

No, I do not know of any such organizations; I am not in a position to know but I say that there must be some other organizations working underground, because these people cannot act on their own. We appreciate the danger and all I am pleading for is that this Government should realize that these measures are mere palliatives and that we must find some other way of dealing with this situation. I again appeal to the Minister to bring the law-abiding Africans on to our side to help us to fight these people. The Minister says that he cannot contain these people who come from abroad after having been trained outside of this country. They are people who have left this country to undergo training in other countries. That applies to most of them. There are no doubt others who have not previously lived in this country, but unless they can get sympathizers in this country they are no danger here, and therefore my appeal to the Government is to change its whole political philosophy.

Sir, the Minister has indicated that he will amend this Bill in the Committee Stage and remove the clauses to which we take most exception. But as the Bill now stands we cannot support it and we will oppose the second reading. Our attitude at the third reading will depend on how the Bill emerges from the Committee Stage.

I intend to move the same amendment to this Bill that I moved to the previous Bill and that is “to omit all the words after ‘now’ and to substitute ‘this day six months’ ”. Sir, my reasons for doing that are very clear. I do not know what amendments the hon. the Minister proposes to introduce at the Committee Stage, but there is one thing that I do know and that is that he is not prepared—there has been no indication to the contrary—to effect any amendment whatsoever to what to my mind is the most important clause of this Bill, which is Clause 4. There is no indication that the Minister in any way intends to delete or to amend this clause. I do not know whether the amendments which he is going to introduce to the other clauses will make any difference to my attitude to those clauses; I shall have to wait and see, but as long as Clause 4 remains in the Bill, my attitude is to oppose this Bill by lodging the strongest possible parliamentary objection at the second reading and I shall do the same at the third reading for the same reason.

I want to say a few words about the so-called Sobukwe clause, although I agree with the hon. member who has just sat down that this is not really a clause that applies to one man only. It so happens that up till now the clause has only been implemented in respect of one man. We certainly have no guarantee in the future that that is going to continue to be the position, and indeed judging by the general trends of events in this country, I predict that Sobukwe will not be the only person to whom this clause is going to apply.

To-morrow’s news to-day.

No, it is not a case of to-morrow’s news to-day but what I have noticed in this country is that our threshhold of tolerance rises all the time to these measures introduced and implemented by the Government. Things which a few years ago would have led people to throw up their hands in horror are to-day accepted in a strange, curious, punch-drunk fashion. I am quite sure, having observed that Sobukwe is now entering his third year of indefinite confinement at the will of the Minister, that there is nothing in the world to stop the hon. the Minister, when more people have served their terms of imprisonment for offences under the Suppression of Communism Act or any of the other so-called political acts, from incarcerating them and making them spend the rest of their lives on Robben Island. Nobody can predict the future. The very fact that the Minister has this power is, as far as I am concerned, utterly abhorrent and it is abhorrent because I can see no justification whatsoever for keeping a man in prison after he has served his term of imprisonment for a crime that he committed, with which he was charged and for which he was sentenced. I will come back to the specific instance of Sobukwe, but it would not make any difference to me if he were anybody else. This is a cardinal principle.

You are just repeating last year’s speech.

I am making last year’s speech on last year’s clause, which is being reintroduced this year, and therefore I have every justification for saying exactly the same thing about exactly the same clause and I will go on saying it as long as this clause is reintroduced and as long as I am in this House which will be a good deal longer than the hon. the Minister hopes and a good deal longer than that hon. member! Sir, let me just say this about this clause: This man served his sentence for a crime for which he was duly convicted in a court of law. Until he has committed another crime, and has been charged and tried in court in the normal way and sentenced for that crime, no Minister, no Government, no country, unless it be a communist, totalitarian type of country, and certainly not a country purporting to follow democratic procedures in the courts of law and having, as the Minister says, a regard for the principles of justice, has the right to keep a man in gaol after he has served his punishment. The essence of imprisonment presumably is not only punitive but rehabilitative and to bring the man back into society to lead a normal life. For this reason alone I would oppose this clause in the strongest possible way.

Let me come to the case of Sobukwe. Sobukwe was sentenced not for sabotage or treason, not for subversion; he was sentenced for incitement against the pass laws and he was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment, so the Judge who sentenced Sobukwe did not view this offence in a very serious light. Sobukwe received a sentence for three years for inciting against the pass laws. That that incitement led to the tragic events of Sharpeville and Langa, surely cannot be laid at Sobukwe’s door. It can be laid at the door of an accident, if I may put it that way; it was an accident that led to the tragedy at Sharpeville. It was not the people who were protesting against passes who fired shots into the Sharpeville crowd and the Langa crowd, but quite the opposite, the authorities. However, let us leave that aside. This man was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment. He has now served five years. According to the hon. the Minister he can stay there for the rest of his life if this Government remains in power and if this Minister is still the Minister of Justice. The Minister says that he has evidence that this man has not changed his mind in any way.

I am absolutely certain.

The Minister may well be right, I do not know, but I know that the man asked for an exit permit last year, did he not? Was that not public knowledge?

No.

Sir, if I am not much mistaken I put a question to the hon. the Minister myself on the Order Paper last year . . .

There was talk of it but it was never carried further.

But he applied for it.

Only to a certain extent.

Sir, I do not know how you can apply for an exit permit to a certain extent. Let me put it to the hon. the Minister this way: Supposing Sobukwe applied for an exit permit, would the Minister be prepared to consider it?

Frankly, as the position stands now, no.

So whether the man changes his mind or not, if he wants to leave this country and sever all connections with South Africa, the hon. the Minister is not prepared to give him an exit permit.

That is just the point; he will not give up his connections with South Africa; he will carry on with his activities from outside.

What could he do outside if he is sitting thousands of miles away?

You would be surprised.

In any case, this is the Minister’s opinion; it is certainly not an opinion which has been upheld in any court of law, and, as I say, the whole principle of this thing is abhorrent. The Minister can keep a person in gaol forever because the Minister believes that this man will continue to do what the Minister fears he might be planning to do. I might mention for the benefit of hon. members here that I do not know Sobukwe. I have never met this man.

I think you had better meet him.

Well, perhaps I should meet him. I think I might perhaps have a more intelligent conversation with him than I have with many members of this House.

I will not be surprised; you have more common ground.

I can only say that when Sobukwe was the head of the P.A.C., the P.A.C. did not preach violence. That much I do know from my knowledge of the political history of African movements in this country. The P.A.C. did not preach violence while Sobukwe was the head of it, and let me tell hon. members something else about the P.A.C. and that is that they were not communists . . .

You seem to be well-informed.

Of course I am. I make it my business to be informed about things of that kind in this country. I know that the P.A.C. broke away from the A.N.C. because of the infiltration of communists in the A.N.C. That was the original history of the P.A.C. as I read it in every book on political movements amongst non-Whites in this country.

Tell that to the member . . .

No, I am trying to tell it to the hon. member for Standerton but unfortunately he never listens to anything that anybody tells him.

You do not represent Whites any more.

I can only say that one good thing about the hon. member for Standerton and for the people of South Africa is that he is a Member of Parliament because there is the gravest danger that he might be a Judge if he were not a Member of Parliament. I would be prepared to keep him here to protect the people of South Africa from having him on the Bench. As I say, the P.A.C. broke away from the A.N.C. because of communist infiltration. Sir, the interesting thing to me is that as soon as the A.N.C. and the P.A.C. were banned, both those organizations went underground as everybody could have predicted they would do, and the A.N.C. became the Spear of the Nation, which became a pro-violence organization, which the A.N.C. was not originally. When men like Professor Mathews and Chief Luthuli were heading that organization, it was not a pro-violence organization. It was only later when the organization was banned and became infiltrated with communists that it turned to violence after becoming the Spear of the Nation.

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

That is so, but perhaps I have more knowledge than the hon. the Minister gives me credit for.

You mean a little learning is a dangerous thing.

Sir, do you think I might be allowed to get on with my speech? The P.A.C. when it was banned became Poqo which also became a pro-violence organization. Sir, this is obvious to anybody who knows anything about normal political movements. If they are suppressed, if there is no vehicle through which people can express their political sentiments, their political ambitions, their political aspirations and their political grievances, which is the most important of all, these movements go underground and become far more dangerous, and that is why other countries which dislike Communism just as much as South Africa does, countries such as the United States, have not banned the Communist Party per se. The U.S. Government certainly views it with the utmost disapproval but there it is not a banned organization. In England, as far as I know the Communist Party is not a banned organization.

What about the communists in Switzerland? They were banned in 1935.

Switzerland in any case is a country which has such a high standard of living that I do not believe that there would be any difficulty as far as Communism is concerned, and the same applies, of course, to America and to England. Both countries have taken the trouble to see that their socio-economic conditions are such for the vast masses of the people concerned that there is little danger that such organizations will ever have any power whatsoever. I simply mention that in passing. Sir, I want to say . . .

Why not say it in the Committee Stage?

Yes, I will say it in the Committee Stage. I can see that the hon. the Minister is anxious to get away, and I am too, as a matter of fact, because I have had just about as much of this debate as I can stand, I can assure the hon. the Minister. I shall have much more to say in the Committee Stage. I shall certainly oppose this clause, and there are other clauses which I shall oppose as well. Whether they will be amended sufficiently to remove my objections, remains to be seen, but as far as I am concerned, as long as the hon. the Minister takes unto himself powers which should be in the hands of the courts of South Africa, any piece of legislation that contains a clause of that kind should be opposed in the strongest parliamentary fashion and therefore I move—

Sir, what is very noteworthy about this debate is the complete lack of interest in this measure shown by hon. members on the Government side. [Interjections.] Hon. members may agree with the measure but they are certainly not supporting the Minister.

You have not advanced one decent argument yet.

Sir, I am a hater of Communism but I have the strongest objection to some of the methods of Communism being applied in a democratic state. The hon. the Minister will agree that many of the measures taken in respect of this matter give exactly the same powers to the executive of our Government as the powers taken by the executive of communist states. Sir, throughout the long history of this measure as originally passed and of the innumerable amendments to it, the Opposition has been entirely consistent. We believe that the right way to deal with these matters is by applying the rule of law. There have been occasions, in a state of emergency, where the United Party Government found it necessary to apply emergency measures; that is a different matter, but when there is a state of peace Parliament should function by putting on the Statute Book measures which are proper to a democratic state and not measures of the nature which this hon. Minister has asked us to pass from time to time. I too would like to add my protest to that of the hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes), to the late introduction of this measure. If this measure was urgent there is no reason why it should not have been introduced very much earlier in the Session. This legislation has obviously been held over till this stage of the Session to curtail debate because the Session is running to a close. If these measures which the hon. Minister wants are so urgent why could he not have come with them earlier? I am sure this legislation must have been drafted a very long time ago. If it was not then there was neglect on the part of the Minister.

The hon. the Minister protests about the interpretation placed on some of these clauses by the Press. I say the responsibility for that rests fairly and squarely on the hon. Minister because the terms in which some of these matters have been dealt with in this Bill entirely justify many of the suggestions made by the Press and what has been read into the Bill as a result of the Minister’s own provisions. Language in any Act of Parliament should be precise. It is ever so much more important that the language should be precise in a measure of this nature. The Minister has only himself to blame that there have been misconceptions as to some of the Minister’s intentions. I must say that I, for my part, have found some of the statements in the Press perhaps a little far-fetched, but on many, many matters the comment, which has done this country no harm whatsoever, is attributable entirely to the wording the hon. Minister has adopted. At this stage only Bills which are urgent should be proceeded with. It is my belief that there are not provisions in this Bill which are of that urgency. If they were urgent and the Minister considered them so then he is very blameworthy in this matter. The provisions of this Bill can obviously be better discussed in the Committee Stage. It is not necessary therefore to deal with clause by clause.

The hon. Minister has also indicated that a number of these provisions are to be dropped. I am glad that that is so. I believe that what is really wrong in respect of this matter is that right from the start this Government has adopted an entirely wrong standpoint in respect of how to deal with matters of this kind as far as this legislation and other legislation are concerned. I believe that the sooner we can get back to the normal process of the law the better it will be. There have undoubtedly been times where there has been a state of emergency and during those periods the Government could, of course, have taken emergency measures but—and this has done the country no good—what has in fact been emergency legislation has, though the acts of this Minister and his predecessors, been made a permanent part of the law of this State. I believe that the existence of these laws on our Statute Book has done this country no good in the eyes of the outside world. I believe the hon. Minister could well spend a good deal of this recess examining this legislation and seeking, where powers are necessary, to introduce powers which are subject to the ordinary rules of the law, to the ordinary jurisdiction of the courts and eliminating, to the greatest extent it is possible, the maintenance of the power in the hand of himself as an executive officer of this Government to take arbitrary action. The hon. Minister says we must give him examples of where he has abused these powers. Sir, that is not the point. The point is that these powers which are capable of abuse are contained in legislation on our Statute Book and that fact is, in my view, a blot on the fair name of this country of ours and the sooner that position is remedied the better it will be for South Africa.

I believe that at the root of this matter lie difficulties to which this country ought to face up. I believe the great Englishman, Burke, was right when he said: “I know of no method by which a people may be governed except with their consent or by the sword”. The whole aim of government in South Africa should be to bring about the position that we govern by consent, that we don’t agree that other methods are proper. I believe that it can be done. This side of the House, when in Government, will certainly see to it that it is done. If this Government wishes to improve the fair name of South Africa which we know is under attack throughout the world it should unquestionably do everything it can along the lines that I have mentioned. The problems which this country has to face in any case are of an immensely difficult nature. There is no question about it that we face a more difficult set of problems than any other country in the world. The solution of these problems is unquestionably going to test the best that is in all of us. I don’t believe that there is one hon. member in this House who believes that, by legislation of the type we have before us, we are contributing towards the elimination of the basic causes of the trouble in South Africa. If there are hon. members on that side who hold that view I wish they would get up and say so. The position is that, in the interests of the coming generation, we should all—the Government and the Opposition—-be seeking a way in which the peoples of this country can live together and in which we can provide the best in this country for the coming generation. I say that this Government is failing miserably in its efforts in that direction. One of the principal reasons for that failure is that they constantly go to this House with measures of the type of the one which is under consideration to-day.

Sir, I am beginning to despair entirely of this Government. They realize utterly that they are not solving the underlying causes with measures of this kind. I only wish they would try. The mere fact that they are proceeding with measures of this sort will in the course of time lead to the replacement of that Government by a Government which will adopt a truly South African approach to the problems of our country.

Do you think that will happen in Germiston (District)?

Yes, I believe it will. What is more I believe it will happen throughout the country. I am reminded of the worst times of the war when Winston Churchill uttered those famous lines of his over the wireless: ‘‘Say not . . .

Long is the night . . .

No. “Say not . . .

Never have so few hoped so fervently for the impossible.

I cannot get it quite right this morning, Sir:

I have no doubt that that is happening in this country. It is happening slowly, it is true, but end of the struggle is certain. I myself have no doubt whatsoever that in the course of time this Government will be replaced by another Government which will apply a different approach to the problems of this country and which, by doing that, will regain for South Africa that great name which she had in the councils of the world when this Government took over and which it has frittered away through the years it has been in government in this country.

What has been interesting about this debate is that we have not had one speaker from the Government benches. Have they not one word to say in support of this Bill? They are ashamed of it. Having regard to the Bill as it is printed I do not blame them. I have never seen even the hon. Minister so lacking in some sort of reasonable excuse for the form in which some of the clauses of this Bill have appeared. The question before the House is that this Bill, as printed with all its extravagance and strange phrases—as admitted by the Minister in some instances—should be read a second time. In other words, that we should approve of it as it stands. And as has been indicated we cannot approve of a measure such as this as it stands.

But there is another question before the House. As I understand the amendment of the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) it is: “That this day six months.” That was what I understood her to move. She moved to omit all the words after “that” and to substitute “this day six months”. I do not know what sort of an amendment that is, Sir, but I am sure you will be better able to judge what sort of amendment this is. I have only been in this House a few years but I myself have never known of such an amendment.

What are the principles involved in this Bill? There are several clauses which the Minister says he will, in the due process of procedure, withdraw. We have the principle relating to legal practitioners; there is the question of publications and the question of printing presses. I do not believe the hon. Minister stated it very fairly nor do I think he stated it properly when he said, in relation to the prohibition on persons (who had either been convicted of some offence under the Act or who were on a list determined by the hon. the Minister) from practising the legal profession, that he was not prepared to allow communists to practise and the Opposition was. I do not think states fairly what is involved in this clause.

I stated your principles and the hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes) agreed that I had stated it fairly. Is that not so?

Well . . .

Of course.

You disagree amongst yourselves.

No, Sir; we do not disagree amongst ourselves.

The hon. member for Transkeian Territories agreed with what I said about how we differed on the advocate question. I stated your party’s attitude fairly according to the hon. member for Transkeian Territories and now you say I was not fair.

The Minister was right that we differed. We differ, Sir, as he put it very succinctly, but wrongly and obviously not comprehensively . . .

The hon. member for Transkeian Territories agreed with me. Ask him now whether he agreed with me or not.

I know what happened. The hon. Minister said in relation to this clause he believed they should not practise and we believed they should.

No. I did not say that. Ask Gray Hughes.

The hon. Minister said . . .

Ask him now across the floor of the House.

Let him make his speech the way he wants to.

I am not prepared

[Inaudible.]

But he is making a fool of you and I do not want him to do so.

The hon. Minister can rest assured of one thing and that is that we are prepared to allow the law to take its course. We are satisfied with the law as it is relating to the admission of advocates and attorneys to practise. If that is what the Minister means, fine. He cannot dismiss it like this. It is not fair to present it, as he does, as simply being a question of whether communists should . . .

Ask the hon. member for Transkeian Territories whether I put it fairly or not.

Let him go on.

Is this the hon. Minister’s attitude? I have lots of time. I am not disturbed, Sir.

You are a scream!

The hon. Minister says this is a question of whether communists should be allowed in our courts or not. It is not a question of just that at all. Sir. Something much more is involved. The attitude of the Bar in his regard has been clearly stated in a statement. The hon. Minister is right that the General Council of the Bar has not issued a statement because they only issue a statement when they are unanimous. The majority of the Bars are against it and some are in favour of it. I think it is fair to state the point of view of the Chairman of the General Council of the Bar, acting on behalf of the Cape Bar and the Natal Bar. Here I have his statement—

Note well, Mr. Speaker, that they affirm their opposition to Communism and all forms of subversion. They made it quite clear as to why they were opposed to this measure, why they were opposed to Clause 2 of this Bill. The statement goes on—

The courts have no right to inquire into whether the name ought properly to be on the list and they have no discretion to admit the person or to refuse to strike him off if his name is on the list.

Although, no doubt, inquiries are made by the Minister in deciding whether or not a name ought to be on the list, those inquiries are not of the same nature as an investigation by the court would be, if it should be suggested that the nature of an organization may be such that merely having belonged to it indicates that a person is unfitted to be or remain an officer of the court, the decision of that question can, we believe, safely be left as it has been in the past, to the decision of the court acting upon full argument and in the possession of all relevant information.

We consider it to be in the public interest that decisions as to fitness to practise the legal profession should be left to the courts and not to the unchallengeable decision of the Minister or any other person however bona fide they may be.

Where courts have in the past refused admission to an applicant or struck the name of a person from the roll of advocates or attorneys on the ground that the person concerned has committed some offence, that has been done only after taking into account all the circumstances of the case. That rule applies to all offences including offences even more serious than those referred to in the Bill.

We believe that the actions of the courts and the professional bodies concerned in the past have shown that the confidence placed in them is not misplaced.

We are confident that if the information were to be placed before any court showing that by reason of his activities a person is unfit to be or remain an officer of the court, that court would have no hesitation in striking him from the roll or refusing him admission. The Bill, in this respect, makes a very serious inroad into long-established principles governing admission to and expulsion from the profession.

We believe that the effect of the Bill, if passed into law, may be to inhibit the proper performance by members of the legal profession of their duty fearlessly to present the interests of their clients no matter how unpopular their clients’ cause, and no matter how powerful or influential the opposition may be.

The independence of the profession is essential to enable its members properly to carry out their duties. It has been built up over many years under the present system of supervision by the courts.

We believe that the departure from that system which will be effected if this Bill passes into law cannot but prejudice the independence of the profession with serious consequences to the proper administration of justice.

I think that fairly puts the point of view of the majority at the Bar. It is a statement not made by a politician but by the leading member of that profession, and it is a statement which the Minister must and should give proper regard to. It is not just a question of whether the hon. Minister believes that a communist should practise or not. It is not just simply that. It goes more deeply and more principles are involved than that. We are very pleased that the hon. Minister has indicated that he will remove this clause. We obviously will not oppose its removal. I hope the hon. Minister will reconsider, before next session, the statement he has made as to whether it is advisable to continue with this and to put this law on the Statute Book.

I wonder whether, in relation to the offences listed here, if an advocate were convicted and sentenced, the court would not, in any event, strike him off on application of the Society. These are very serious offences, Sir. If the court thought them serious offences and sentenced him to imprisonment I have little doubt that he would be struck off the roll by the court as the law stands at the moment. There is another aspect I would like the Minister to think about and that is the aspect that he for ever debars the courts from exercising a discretion. The hon. the Minister himself concedes that there are certain people who are or were on a list of communists who have reformed sufficiently for the hon. Minister to take their names off the list.

Certainly. Why not?

If the man has repented why should not the courts then have the power to do so as they do in respect of any other offences. For instance, if a man is convicted for rape or robbery the door is open to him, if he can show the court that he is a reformed character, to be readmitted. But this bars him for ever from being readmitted.

I do not think anybody on that side of the House can ever question our attitude towards Communism. This is the only part in South Africa, of any consequence, which has consistently maintained the democratic principle. We have never entertained any totalitarian thoughts; we have never flirted with any totalitarian organization. Can that side say the same? What was the Ossewabrandwag? What were the Grey Shirts? Where are the members of the Ossewabrandwag to-day? Where do they sit? Where do the members of the Grey Shirts sit to-day? [Interjections.] The man who directs the operations on that side flirted, more than flirted, at one stage, with totalitarianism. It is not my judgment, Sir, but the judgment of a court. It was the judgment of a court that the hon. the Prime Minister was a tool of the Nazis and he knew it.

What is Communism to-day? Is it not totalitarianism pure and simple with the trappings of some sort of ideology? It is Nazism; it is totalitarianism, based on the concept of the big brother who is always watching. As the hon. member for Transkeian Territories has said we have to remain a democracy. Whether we fight Communism or anything else the most important thing perhaps to keep in mind is that you must remain a democracy at the same time. I think it was President Truman who said, in relation to the McCarthy Act, that he was not prepared to allow America to become a right-wing totalitarian country in fighting a left-wing totalitarian threat. This is something that we must always bear in mind. This is very important; this is basic to our approach.

In dealing with Clause 5 the hon. the Minister said the Press had said that we could ban Wilson, Johnson and various other people. Of course amongst the various people they mentioned were Chou En-lai, Lenin . . .

And the Beatles.

I do not know how you quote the Beatles; do you sing them? The Minister said that he had learnt his lesson; that he was sorry that we had a Press like this. Well, Sir, I am glad the hon. Minister has learnt his lesson if the lesson he has learnt is not to take powers which are in excess of what he needs. I hope that is the lesson he has learnt because he needs to learn it. It is no good coming along to this Parliament and introducing a Bill which is framed much wider than he needs, as he admits, and expect us to let it go through. What does he think our function is in this House if it is not to be the watchdog of the rights of every individual in South Africa, including the Nationalists. We have to watch their rights as well, because, as we have seen in this debate, not one of their members is prepared to get up and fight for those rights.

They have no right.

Yes, they may not be allowed to; I do not know. I suppose it is very difficult, when the Minister introduces a Bill which is so obviously, on the face of it, not what he intends it to be; a Bill which goes much further than he intended it to go, for them to get up. But at least the evidence is that they did not get up. It is no good the hon. Minister saying that he is sorry that we have this sort of pressman—I think that was what he said. This sort of pressman in this particular case interpreted this thing correctly. This is a bad occasion for the Minister to say he is sorry we have this sort of Press. They interpreted this Bill correctly. As I understand it his own Press said these were very drastic measures, and the fact that he could ban statements by Chou En-lai and others was one of the aspects that was raised by them as well. As the hon. member for Transkeian Territories has pointed out the hon. Minister was wrong in this respect.

I want to ask the hon. Minister something else. The hon. Minister says that he is going to move an amendment, the effect of which is to insert the words “who is or was resident in the Republic” after “person”, so that it is only persons who are or were resident in the Republic in respect of whom he had issued a ban, or whom he has forgotten to ban from attending gatherings, that this prohibition of publication is going to apply. But, Sir, in relation to people within South Africa, who are here now and will be here when the powers under this clause become effective, it seems that the interpretation which can be placed on it is that the Minister could say: I am not going to prohibit you from attending gatherings or addressing gatherings, but I am going to prohibit what you say being reproduced. This seems to be such an unusual state of affairs, it seems such an extraordinary anomaly .. .

It is not so extraordinary. Your interpretation is correct.

Would the hon. Minister indicate to us in his reply how he proposes to apply this? I am glad my interpretation is correct. I appreciate it can be applied restrictively in one way, I appreciate it can be applied liberally too (if the Minister will not mind my using such a word to describe his actions). But let us for example take Alan Paton, who is not the subject of an order. The Press may not reproduce anything he says if the hon. Minister names him in terms of this clause. But it does not ban him from going to a meeting, and his name can only be put on the list if the hon. Minister believes he is a person who furthers the aims and objects of Communism, etc., but nevertheless he will be allowed to attend a meeting and to address a meeting, and if the hon. Minister thinks that he is the sort of person who advocates Communism, then surely he should not allow him to address meetings. He should not just ban what he says from being published. Now the hon. Minister may have had something else in mind, but the example that I have given the hon. Minister is a reasonable interpretation, and I should like to know why if he wants to apply to it to persons of that sort, why he wants it in this form.

We will talk about it in the Committee Stage.

The hon. Minister when the last Bill was before this House, spoke about the criticism that this side of the House have offered as being detrimental to South Africa overseas, that we should not say things like this, that we should not criticize the Bill, because it would be reported overseas and looked at in a bad light. I find that very extraordinary that the hon. Minister feels that we should confine our criticism. I would like to say to the hon. Minister that he should apply that principle to himself and to apply it to this Bill. Then perhaps he would not introduce Bills of this kind, then perhaps he would not reaffirm year after year clauses like the Sobukwe clause. I would like to ask him, Sir, the question that he asked us: Does he not think this clause does more damage to South Africa’s name overseas than any speech made on this side of the House? What we Lave to say on this side is our opinion, but the Sobukwe clause is part of the law of South Africa, and it has the backing of the Government, and the hon. member for Transkeian Territories has indicated that he does not need it in this Act. To deal with one man, this Government is prepared to have South Africa pilloried in the halls of world opinion. I hope the hon. Minister will reconsider it just from that point of view.

Lastly, the hon. member for Houghton spoke about the P.A.C. I do not know why she appears to distinguish between the P.A.C. and the A.N.C. Sir, as I understand it, the P.A.C. was the youth movement of the A.N.C.

They split.

Whether this is so or is not so, does not matter. The P.A.C. as the hon. member for Houghton indicated, later became Poqo. When an organization has the aims and objects of an organization like this, then it should be stamped out roots and branch and we cannot have any sympathy for such an organization.

Poqo came later.

Poqo was the P.A.C. under another name, and we supported at the time the legislation to destroy this thing root and branch, because we believe in law and order. We believe that even where this Government makes mistakes and goes in wrong directions, when the state of affairs arises that there is no law and order, it must immediately be dealt with. This Bill as it is, however, is quite unnecessary for that purpose. It is framed in the widest terms. We are being asked to approve of the Bill as it stands, and as the hon. member for Transkeian Territories has said, we cannot approve of the Bill in the form it is, a bad form and a wide form as admitted by the Minister, and in those circumstances we have to vote against the second reading of the Bill.

I think hon. members who participated in the debate spoke much and covered a wide variety of subjects, but in essence there is really nothing to reply to, except in regard to matters which can be dealt with in the Committee Stage. I must, however, for the sake of the record put one thing right, and that is the accusation made by the hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell) that I misinterpreted the Opposition’s standpoint in respect of Clause 2. No, Sir, I very clearly stated what the Opposition’s standpoint was, and for the sake of the record I now want to ask the hon. member for Transkeian Territories whether that is not so. I asked both the hon. members for Transkeian Territories and Yeoville whether I stated it fairly, and both of them replied in the affirmative. That is correct, is it not?

Yes.

Does the hon. member see now? He should listen to what goes on in this House. But the hon. member pertinently accused me of having misinterpreted the standpoint of the Opposition.

The hon. member for Transkeian Territories did his party no favour when he said that in terms of the definition in the Suppression of Communism Act they sometimes propound principles which form part of the principles of Communism.

Yes, and you too.

But surely that is not true. What is the essence of the provisions of the Suppression of Communism Act? I do not know that the United Party ever made itself guilty of that. I do not know of any party which makes itself guilty of it. One can propound certain principles. The Act says so. Then one is not punishable. One can only be punished when two things are done in terms of the provisions of that Act, and the one is . . .

It says “of this Act”.

Yes, but one is not punishable in terms of this Act unless one does it “by such acts or omissions which include the promotion of disturbances and disorder”,

But I never said anything else.

Then the hon. member should not have mentioned it; then it was not necessary. One is only punishable if one propagates certain principles “which aims at the establishment of a despotic system of government based on the dictatorship of the proletariat under which one political organization only is recognized, and all other political organizations are suppressed or eliminated”.

Like the Ossewa-Brandwag?

No, it has nothing to do with that. Just ask the general who is sitting behind you, and he will inform you in regard to that matter. There is also the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan); he also knows a lot about these matters.

To condense it, we have had an “elder statesman” speech from the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker) and we have had sermons. I am glad that the Bill as it stands here evidently, in spite of the delay, is not being opposed by hon. members opposite, and the matters which are still outstanding may be discussed and smoothed out in the Committee Stage.

Question put: That the word “now” stand part of the motion, and a division demanded.

Fewer than four members (viz. Mrs. Suzman) having supported the demand for a division, Question declared affirmed and amendment dropped.

Original motion put and the House divided:

AYES—71: Bekker, G. F. H.; Bekker, M. J. H.; Bezuidenhout, G. P. C.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Coertze, L. I.; de Jager, P. R.; de Wet, J. M.; Dönges, T. E.; du Plessis, H. R. H.; Faurie, W. H.; Frank, S.; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Haak, J. F. W.; Henning, J. M.; Heystek, J.; Hiemstra, E. C. A.; Jurgens, J. C.; Knobel, G. J.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Labuschagne, J. S.; Malan, A. I.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; Martins, H. E.; Meyer, T.; Mostert, D. J. J.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, H.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, J. A. F.; Odell, H. G. O.; Otto, J. C.; Pansegrouw, J. S.; Pelser, P. C.; Potgieter, J. E.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Schoonbee, J. F.; Smit, H. H.; Stander, A. H.; Steyn, F. S.; Steyn, J. H.; Treurnicht, N. F.; van den Berg, G. P.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Ahee, H. H.; van der Spuy, J. P.; van der Walt, B. J.; van Niekerk, G. L. H.; van Niekerk, M. C.; van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; van Wyk, H. J.; van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Venter, W. L. D. M.; Visse, J. H.; von Moltke, J. von S.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, A. H.; Waring, F. W.; Webster, A.; Wentzel, J. J.

Tellers: D. J. Potgieter and P. S. van der Merwe.

NOES—45: Barnett, C.; Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Bennett, C.; Bloomberg, A.; Connan, J. M.; Cronje, F. J. C.; de Kock, H. C.; Eden, G. S.; Emdin, S.; Field, A. N.; Fisher, E. L.; Gay, L. C.; Gorshel, A.; Graaff, de V.; Henwood, B. H.; Hickman, T.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Hughes, T. G.; Lewis, H.; Malan, E. G.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Moore, P. A.; Oldfield, G. N.; Plewman, R. P.; Radford, A.; Raw, W. V.; Ross, D. G.; Steenkamp, L. S.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Suzman, H.; Taurog, L. B.; Taylor, C. D.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Tucker, H.; van der Byl, P.; van Niekerk, S. M.; Warren, C. M.; Waterson, S. F.; Weiss, U. M.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: N. G. Eaton and A. Hopewell.

Original motion accordingly agreed to and Bill read a second time.

Business suspended at 12.48 and resumed at 2.15 p.m.

Afternoon Sitting

Orders of the Day Nos. IX, III, X, VI and IV to receive preference in that sequence.

I move—

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The main object of this Bill is to give effect to the taxation proposals which have already been approved by the House. It also makes the amendments in the principal Act which I announced in my Budget speech and which were discussed and explained on later occasions. In addition, the Bill was published on 21 May in a Government Gazette Extraordinary and, in order to meet hon. members still further, I once again, as I did in previous years, made available to them an explanatory memorandum.

Hardly any comment was received in regard to the published Bill, with the result that the Bill which is now before the House differs very little from the Bill published in the Government Gazette. Because the contents of the Bill are so well known and the object and effect of it have already been fully explained, I want to do no more at this stage than merely briefly deal with a few matters which are provided for in the Bill and which I did not mention in my Budget speech.

I come firstly to Clause 7, which adds a new Section 6 bis to the principal Act. This section is self-explanatory and is intended to protect South African manufacturers of cinematograph films and the owners of patents, trade marks and similar property against the danger of double taxation.

Double taxation may take place in cases where the films are exhibited or the patents, trade marks or similar property are used in countries with which the Republic still does not have agreements for the avoidance of double taxation, or where the existing agreements do not make provision for the prevention of double taxation on royalties. Urgent representations were made to me in two cases during the present Session, and the relief granted by Clause 7 should at this stage be regarded as no more than a temporary measure. The question of the taxation on royalties in general—both those going out of the Republic and those flowing into the Republic— is now being investigated. This investigation also comprises the consideration of the possible entering into of agreements with other countries or the revision of existing agreements. Negotiations with other countries cannot, however, be disposed of speedily and the only solution which could be found in the meantime was to avoid double taxation by abandoning the South African taxation wholly or in part, depending on the circumstances of the case. As I have said, this should be regarded as a temporary measure.

Then there are the amendments made in Clauses 12, 13 and 14 to the existing provisions of the existing Act in respect of the special deductions granted to industrialists and hotel-keepers in Bantu or adjoining areas. These concessions will now be extended to areas in which, in the opinion of the Minister of Finance, economic development should be encouraged. In this regard the Income Tax Act presently provides that the deductions must be granted by me after taking into consideration the circumstances of the case and the recommendation of either the Secretary for Bantu Administration and Development or the Secretary for Commerce and Industry. The reference to the recommendations of the aforementioned Secretaries is being deleted because these concessions will no longer be applicable only to Bantu or adjoining territories but also to territories with which other State Departments may be concerned. It is envisaged that in practice there will be no change, apart from the fact that the recommendations of other heads of departments will now also be obtained and considered.

Thirdly, there is Clause 15, which inserts a new Section 13 bis in the principal Act to give effect to the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry into the Hotel Industry, and which is aimed at bringing about a general improvement in the quality of hotels in the Republic with the object of encouraging tourism.

Finally I come to Clauses 28 and 29, which are intended to solve a problem which has arisen in regard to the estimates of taxable income which have to be made by provisional taxpayers. For the purpose of these estimates, the taxable income for the immediately preceding tax year is used as the yardstick. The problem arises as the result of the fact that in some cases the taxpayer has not yet received his assessment for the immediately preceding tax year when he has to make these estimates. The amendments being introduced provide that in such cases the taxable income for the last year of assessment, in respect of which an assessment was issued to the taxpayer not later than 14 days before the date on which the estimate has to be made, will serve as the yardstick.

We support the Bill, but there will be further discussions during the Committee Stage and one of the matters we wish to discuss with the Minister will be the widening of the provision for incentive allowances. Formerly there was an incentive allowance by way of increased depreciation for buildings and machinery in border areas and the understanding in previous years was that border areas were those areas which were defined in consultation with the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development. But with this amendment, the Bill refers in various places to “areas for economic development”. I think it is agreed on all sides of the House that when we are dealing with fiscal legislation the definition should be clear. I think it is unfortunate that in an Act of this kind the definition of an area of economic development should not be defined. Here we are importing into fiscal legislation a provision for an area of economic development being in the hands of the Minister. I do not think it is desirable, and it should be avoided wherever possible that definitions of what comes within the ambit of the Act should lie in the power of the Minister concerned. We know that there is contemplated not only Bantu development, but Coloured and Indian development. There are already indications of a Coloured Development Corporation, and we can see that in the very near future there will be an Indian Development Corporation, and then we will have the position obtaining that the Minister will, in consultation with the Minister of Indian Affairs or the Minister of Coloured Affairs, be required to say which area is or which area is not an area for economic development, depending on the decision of the Minister. We know that in various parts of the country certain negotiations are taking place at present. I know. e.g. that on the North Coast of Natal there are certain discussions going on with certain companies to establish an industry which will employ numbers of Indians who are seeking employment. It is easy to imagine that when these Indians are employed in this company, the company will apply for relief in terms of this section, which includes further allowable reductions as contemplated by Section 11 of the principal Act, and these deductions will be allowed to these companies by reason of the fact that the Minister, in consultation with the Minister of Indian Affairs, will define this particular industry as one falling in the ambit of economic development in terms of the new Act. The position will obtain that persons having factories almost adjacent to that, in the next village or town, will not have the benefit of these special deductions, and there will not be the opportunity for discussing the matter in detail because at the moment we have nothing tangible to work on. Our submission is that when we are considering the question of economic development, we think it is desirable that the term “economic development” should be clearly defined in the statute so that industrialists or potential investors will know the areas in South Africa in which they can consider the establishment of new industries and other development by reason of the benefits they can obtain under this statute. At present, instead of being able to know from the statute where they can develop and obtain the benefit of these further deductions, it means having discussions with the Minister’s Department and with his colleague, either the Minister of Coloured Affairs or Indian Affairs and ascertaining from them whether the contemplated development is something contemplated by this section. So it reduces the effect of this clause by making it dependant on ministerial negotiations, and I think that is unsound and unwise in fiscal legislation. I think the Minister’s Department should keep quite apart from any discussions or negotiations as far as possible. It is a collecting department which imposes taxes on the basis of certain very clear definitions. If there is any definition, that definition should be in the statute or in the regulations under the statute. It puts the Department in a very difficult position, because it is fundamental in all taxation legislation that taxation must be certain. The whole of our income-tax legislation has been built up over the years on the basis that there can be no doubt as to the incidence of taxation. If there is any doubt it is settled by appeals to the Special Court, and on a .point of law it goes from there to the Supreme Court and to the Appellate Division. But the whole history of our taxation has been in the direction of avoiding departmental negotiations. Fiscal legislation, I submit, should be certain. There should be no room for doubt or any suggestion that the imposition or the non-imposition of taxes should depend on departmental negotiations. This amendment of the principal Act goes beyond border industries and just gives a very general description, and by means of that I think we are opening a door which is unhealthy and unwise. I think that all sides will agree that approach in taxation on the part of the Government and on the part of the taxpayer is that the taxpayer tries to pay as little tax as possible and the Government has a duty to collect as much as possible. The Minister will know from his previous experience when he was in private practice and had to advise people that he had to be certain that he would not countenance the evasion of tax, but he had to advise his clients on the avoidance of tax. I think it is most unsound that in legislation of this kind we should bring the fiscus into the position of deciding on matters where the definition is not clear. For those reasons we think it is advisable that Section 6 of the principal Act should be amended. A further matter has been brought to my attention. We intend also to introduce an amendment to Section 6 dealing with the question of married women, but another hon. member will deal with the matter. To return to my main argument, I think it is undesirable that in legislation of this kind we should introduce a general definition of economic development. If the Minister wishes to have economic development as portion of the statute, it should be clearly defined. My submission is that it is not clearly defined. It runs through various clauses of the Act and the Minister should give consideration to it in the Committee Stage. We have had an advance copy of the Bill and we appreciate the Minister’s courtesy in giving it to us. The Bill has also been published in the Gazette for general information and we have had certain reactions to that and the Minister has made further amendments which are not material and da not alter the principal of the Act. We will support the second reading and discuss the details in the Committee Stage.

I want to support the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Hopewell) in his reference to Clauses 12 and 13. These allowances and privileges which were previously granted in terms of the principal Act are very far-reaching and very valuable to a person in business. We can understand the purpose of the Minister in extending the scope of these privileges to the country as a whole, and I do not think any of us have any objection to that. Previously there was some consultation necessary in that the Minister of Finance had to discuss with the Minister of Bantu Administration or the Minister of Economic Affairs before any alleviation could be given. Now that is done away with entirely and the Minister of Finance is to-day in the position where he is the sole arbiter as to the area to which these privileges can apply.

I said that in practice that position will still be retained, but that it would not be only those two departments that I consult; it may be that I have to consult with the Department of Indian Affairs.

Then why did the Minister remove these provisions from the Act? There is no requirement to consult. I have no doubt he will consult, but in terms of the Bill he is the sole arbiter as to any area which will benefit from these privileges. There are no rules or regulations or criteria as to which industry or which area should benefit. Surely the procedure should be something of this kind; that either the proposal of the hon. member for Pinetown should be accepted, or at least there should be a declaration of a general area which will receive the benefits under Causes 12 and 13. One of the essentials in taxation is that everybody should know that in a particular set of circumstances he can have the privilege and benefit of tax reduction. We do not want the situation to arise where we suddenly find that a factory is being put up in Area A which gets these benefits and nobody else knew anything about them, because there might be many other enterpreneurs who will want to erect factories under similar conditions. Those two things must be present, that everybdy knows that in a particular area you can get these benefits, and that everybody should have the opportunity of participating in these benefits.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to raise one or two matters and I hope you will not rule me out of order because they can perhaps better be dealt with in the Committee Stage, but I want to bring them to the notice of the Minister so that he can be in a position to reply to them, if not now, then at that stage. I raised the question in the Budget debate of the lump sum payment which will become due in terms of an insurance policy or a pension, which will now attract the loan levy. I want to ask the Minister whether that is what he had in mind, the position being that if one commutes a pension or one leaves a pension fund, one may be in receipt of cash from that fund. The payments to the fund have been tax deductible in the past, and except for some small allowances the receipt of the income is subject to tax. If it happens in this year that a person is in receipt of such an income, in addition to paying his ordinary tax, he will also have to pay the loan levy. I hope the Minister will give consideration to this.

The other situation which might arise is that in the payment of P.A.Y.E. or of provincial tax, you may over-pay your loan levy. Will that be refundable, and will it be refundable with interest as soon as the position has been ascertained that there has been an over-payment? When we talk about this loan levy, the Bill does not make it clear when the levy will be repaid. In Section 4 (6) it says that the Minister shall determine the date not later than 28 February 1973 after which the loan portion of the normal tax shall be repaid to the person by whom it was paid. I should like the Minister to tell us what is meant by “after”. It can be a day after, or a week, or a month, or a year, or a decade after. It simply says “at any date not being later than 28 February 1973.” In other words, you can determine the date and after that date the payment will be made, but the date is not specified. In other words you can fix a date in 1964 and it can be paid any time after that date until 1973.

The other position is that interest is payable at the rate of five per cent up to the date determined by the Minister, but there is no provision for any interest being paid after the date of determination and up to the date of actual payment, and perhaps the Minister can help us there.

There are two provisions in the Bill which are very acceptable to us. The one is referred to in Sections 28 and 29. This was a real problem which one had in regard to provisional payments and now that matter has been cleared up. The other is the fact that provisional taxpayers will now only have to make two payments a year instead of three. Then there is one last matter. Perhaps the Minister will tell us the reasons for Section 16 and the special deductions in respect of aircraft.

I just want to say a few words. I firstly wish to refer to the matter referred to by the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Hopewell), the concession made to industries which, as I understand it, are now being extended to be concessions encouraging the decentralization of industries. I think this provision is very important and it will be welcomed throughout the country if its implications are properly understood and if it is applied in a fairly liberal manner. You will remember, Sir, that we recently had a Select Committee to amend the Constitution on the question of delimitation, and that the problem with which we were faced was the continuing depopulation of the platteland, relatively speaking. Something drastic must be done to assist these areas to retain their population or to have a slight increase in population, so that those areas will become economically viable. I feel that this wider interpretation which is now given to that provision, if it is applied not only to border industries but also to the general decentralization of industries, will help in combating this tremendous problem with which we are faced. I want to say frankly that the solution we have found for it will perhaps be obsolete in a few years’ time, and that we can solve this problem permanently by systematically applying this formula. Therefore I should like to know from the Minister whether the intention is to make use of this provision in regard to the general decentralization of industries, as well as for border industries.

I want to say the same in regard to the concession made to the hotels. Our hotel industry really needs assistance. I should like to learn from the Minister whether it also applies to unlicensed hotels, because the Hotels Act makes no distinction between a licensed and an unlicensed hotel; it only distinguishes on the basis of quality.

The hon. member for Pinetown referred to the provisions in regard to married women who work and said that income-tax was payable on their incomes together with those of their husbands. During the Budget debate it was said that this concession is worth very little. I want to say that in certain cases it is not worth much, but it is particularly those cases which prove that the alleged heavy double burden was in fact not so heavy, because if these people had been penalized so much because they paid income-tax at such a high scale the difference would have been much greater than was revealed by the figures they mentioned here. But it is only at certain notches, if one just takes certain round figures and says that the man’s income is a round figure of R4,000 and the woman’s is a round figure of R3,000; that is a figure where one is just on the point of moving from one notch to the next, and there is not a very great advantage, but if one takes a figure in the middle of the notch, where 99 per cent of the public find themselves—one does not find many cases where the taxable income is precisely R7,000 or precisely R6,000; it is always somewhere in the middle—I worked out a number of them at the time, but unfortunately I do not have the figures here now because I did not know that this Bill would be discussed this afternoon—one finds differences to the advantage of the taxpayers amounting to more than R100. I think in the one case the advantage the taxpayer got was R150, and that is only one of the cases I worked out.

That is in the high income groups, but not in the low groups.

What the hon. member forgets is that our scale of income-tax is already such that a family with a few children can have a fairly high income before they pay any income-tax at all. If a family pays only RIO in income-tax, then R2 is a tremendous concession; it is 20 per cent It cannot be said that it is only the people in the higher income groups who derive benefit from it. They derive a higher benefit than the lower income groups, but they derive that benefit because they pay tax on a higher scale. They pay tax at a higher percentage of their income than the people in the lower groups. I think that point should be clear to everybody. It is only the two cases who will derive little benefit, the one because he in any case pays little, and the other case is that of the person who is just on the point where the one notch changes to the next notch, and particularly where he is at the level where the difference suddenly jumps from 10 per cent to 20 per cent. If he is just below that notch he does not derive much advantage, but if he is above it he derives a tremendous advantage from this concession. But hon. members talk here of round figures and they do not provide for the deductions provided for in the Act, and that is not realistic. Less than 1 per cent of taxpayers have incomes which amount to round figures. Most people fall in the middle of the notch and if one works it out one finds that they derive a fairly great benefit.

We have now the same extraordinary argument from the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. Van den Heever) as we have had in the past. The Minister in his Budget speech said this concession was something worth while going into; there was an injustice and his exact words were: “I nevertheless feel that the concession is justified.” Now the concession that has been given is very meagre, in spite of all the protestations of that hon. member. The facts in regard to married women’s earnings are that people are finding it difficult to run their homes unless the wife works. When she goes to work she has to make arrangements for her children to be looked after. She is put to additional expense, and for that reason there should be a definite benefit allowed in regard to the earnings of married women. The hon. member for Pretoria (Central) says that many married people do not pay tax, but with the cost of living as it is to-day they canon tafford to pay it, and he spoke about an allowance of R3 or R4, and then he spoke about R150. You only get the benefit of R150 when your joint income is about R6,000 a year. How many people who earn R6,000 a year would force their wives to go out to work? We will vote for this Bill, but obviously we will have quite a lot to say in the Committee Stage. We are not satisfied with the children’s rebates and the provisions in regard to married allowances, nor in regard to the incomes of married women, as I have just said, because the concession given by the Minister is just about valueless to the ordinary taxpayer. I think the Minister was badly advised, but it is extraordinary that the Budget speech was delivered on the day of the provincial elections, and this story about the great benefits to married couples must have been of great advantage. It will not happen next time. That is all I want to say about it now. In the Committee Stage we will move an amendment asking for relief on a definite portion of the income of married women.

I want to deal with one other point, and I want the Minister to think it over, because I think it is worth while thinking over. It is the question of export allowances. In this country we have gone ahead a lot economically and there is quite a lot of business being done overseas in regard to licensing our own patents and getting an income from selling our know-how to overseas people. This applies to a large extent to the question of producing spares for motor cars, which spares can be sold in America, not for American cars, but for the continental cars, the European cars. We can produce the spares in this country really competitively and the business is growing. I know that in a case of that kind the man gets his export allowance but we are getting to the stage where we are exporting know-how. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister will not think this matter over between now and the Committee Stage; I have no amendment to move in this matter but it is a business that is growing. Quite a lot of foreign currency is being brought into the country by the sale of this know-how, by the sale of patent rights which belong to our people. I am advised that these people under present conditions have to spend quite a lot of money on expenses trying to sell this know-how as well as their patent rights, and that on many occasions they experience difficulty in having those expenses allowed against their income. I suggest that this is a matter that is growing in importance and that it should receive some consideration from the Minister.

I do not know whether it is actually necessary for me to reply to the speech of the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Ross). We know that it is a very popular thing to say that the hon. the Minister has not assisted the married woman, or that larger allowances should be granted. But the hon. member must be practical. If these taxes are not collected, if these taxes are to be written off completely, where is the State then to find the necessary money to render all the services which it has to render? The hon. member must then make a practiacl suggestion in this connection and suggest that businessmen should be more heavily taxed. That side of the House made an accusation against the Government the other day in connection with the 5 per cent surcharge on companies. The Opposition are speaking out of two mouths to-day.

They always speak out of two mouths.

There is one point I should like to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister and that is in connection with income-tax problems which the public experience. We as accountants often find in practice that there are certain transactions in which it is very difficult to determine what the eventual result will be; whether it will be taxable or whether it falls under this or that section, and we find it necessary to discuss the matter with officials in the office of the Receiver of Revenue in order to find out what the position is. It is not that one’s client wishes to avoid taxation but he likes to know in advance what the position is, and in such cases we should like the Department to give us more guidance. Taxpayers would like prior clarity in connection with the amount which they owe the State. Accountants particularly often find it difficult in practice to advise their clients. I do not think it is necessary to set up new machinery for this purpose and I wonder whether the Department will not in the future follow the policy of making this information more easily available.

The main point which has been made here to-day relates to Clauses 12, 13 and 14. This, as the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. Van den Heever) has pointed out, is really an extension of the benefits which we have so far given only to border areas and to Bantu areas, to a wider field in accordance with this idea of industrial dispersal, i.e. to encourage growth points in various parts of the country. Hon. members say that “economic development area” is nowhere defined. Sir, that is so, if we were to define it we would make this Act very rigid indeed. This is a concession which we are granting from normal taxation and you cannot lay down a rigid definition which will require amendment almost yearly as circumstances alter. You may have an entirely new picture before you from year to year and it is impossible to have a definition of “economic development area” which is likely to last for any length of time or which will allow the Ministers concerned sufficient elasticity to encourage, where necessary, the growth of the economy.

The other point that was made in the same connection was that the Minister of Finance will now be the sole arbiter. But, Sir, there is really no change being brought about here. Under the old provision we only had to deal with Bantu areas and with border areas. The law provided that I, as Minister of Finance, should consult those Ministers, but the final say resided with the Minister of Finance, and I have from time to time done that. After all, it is the proceeds of taxation which are being eroded by these concessions and accordingly I, as Minister of Finance, have a say in the matter. If I were to leave this matter to my colleagues. I am afraid there would be nothing left! That is where the Minister of Finance comes in and there is no change in the position, because in future it will not only be those Departments which may have to be consulted. In practice I am going to consult them. I would be very ill-advised not to consult them, but I must retain the final right to say whether I am going to grant it and the extent to which I am going to grant it. I am doing that at present. I look at certain factors such as the number of people to be employed. After all, the idea is to bring the factory to the depressed area instead of bringing the depressed people to the factory; that is the whole idea so I must satisfy myself what the benefits are going to be and what the employment position is going to be. I have to have regard to the amount of tax remission which this particular proposal will entail. I have to see whether it is worth while with a view to creating more employment opportunities. Let me give an example: If I am required to make a tax remission of R 100,000 and employment is going to be created for only ten people, then naturally I must reject it. I have to look at all these things and I have to look at the extent of the relief, because the relief measures are not all applicable automatically in each case. It may be that in one case we give the incentive allowances; or we can give not the full allowance but a percentage of that allowance. In other cases we give the allowance on factory buildings. In a third case we can give it on the erection of houses for employees; in another case we can, if we regard it as necessary, give it in respect of water and power so as to compensate these areas for the higher charges they have to pay for water and power. The whole idea is more or less to equate the position between these areas and the metropolitan areas. This is naturally a matter in which only the Minister of Finance is able to see the overall picture; he has to look at the state of the economy. There may be such a change in the economy that you want to encourage as much as possible the establishment of new industries and in those circumstances you will make use of these powers up to the hilt, but where the position is rather different and where you want to retard your economic development, then I take it that a sensible Minister of Finance—and the Union of South Africa and later on the Republic of South Africa has always had the benefit of sensible Ministers of Finance—will have regard to the question as to whether it is in the interests of the economy as a whole. It may be that you will then have to act selectively and you may have to have regard to factors such as the following: What is this particular industry going to demand in the way of capital goods and further incursions on the reserves? It may be that you will have to consider what benefit it is going to bring to the country in the form of increased exports, which we want to encourage. Thirdly, what type of product is going to be produced? I am giving these examples to show that even under the present system those are things which I take into consideration. I do not act purely on a rubber-stamp to whatever recommendations are put forward by my very excellent colleagues; I have to apply my mind and exercise my own judgment. In fact, therefore, there is no change in the position. The Minister of Finance is still the key-man in this matter. I want to be at liberty to ask, for instance in the case mentioned by the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Hopewell) namely to the erection of a factory on the North Coast where the question is the employment of a number of Asiatics if necessary, I may have to ask the Minister of Indian Affairs for his opinion in the matter; whether he regards the site which has been chosen as the best site for this factory. These things are already happening to-day and there is virtually no change in the position except that with this wider view that we now take, broadening the field in which these concessions can be applicable, you cannot be dependent only on the advice of these two Secretaries. Sir, I made it perfectly clear in my second reading speech that it would still be my object to get the advice of these gentlemen, particularly the advice of the Minister of Economic Affairs. I think in most cases it will be essential.

Then there is another point that I think I ought to make here, and that is the position of the Department of Inland Revenue. Hon. members have pointed out that these are the people who have to collect the taxes and they say that they should not be involved in a matter of this nature. I want to assure hon. members that they are not involved. The Department of Inland Revenue is not involved in the question as to whether any area is an economic development area or not. These matters come before the Secretary for Finance and before the Minister and he is the one who makes the determination and not the Department of Inland Revenue which is there merely as a very effective collector of revenue. I have gone into this matter in some detail so that hon. members will know the lines along which I am thinking when they come to discuss this matter or any other matter in the Committee Stage.

The hon. member for Parktown (Mr. Emdin) has raised the qusetion of over-payment, made by way of provisional tax or employees’ tax. He wants to know whether these over-payments will be in respect of tax inclusive of the loan levy. I want to assure the hon. member that we have no intention for this purpose of segregating the loan levy from ordinary income tax.

The hon. member also referred to Clause 4 (6) and the meaning of the words “after that date.” Well, what is meant is that it will not be before that date, and I think it obviously means as soon as possible after that date, but if I were to say “as soon as possible after that date” the hon. member would come along and say, “How long is ‘as soon as possible’?”, and I would not be able to answer because it depends on many circumstances. The object is to make the repayments as soon as possible and no interest will be paid between that date and the date of repayment. Hon. members will realize how much administrative work would be involved in calculating interest up to a certain hour on a certain date. We will fix the date; interest will be calculated up to that date and the repayment will be made as soon as possible after that date. I do not know whether the hon. member expects interest to be paid not only up to the date on which we send off the money but up to the date on which the taxpayer receives the money?

An excellent idea!

That, of course, would be impossible administratively.

The hon. member also raised the question of the concession granted to the owners of aircraft. Sir, year after year we have had repeated requests from the Association of Chambers of Commerce—and I have been approached through my colleague, the hon. the Minister of Transport. What we have done now has been to accede to this request. What it amounts to is that these people want to know why they are treated differently from the owners of ships. We then said, “You have a point there; there are certain differences between the two. We will take that point into account but in principle we are going to treat you in the same way as we treat the owner of a ship.”

*The hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. Van den Heever) said quite correctly that the taxation concessions in regard to married women were not as little as hon. members pretended. Hon. members of the Opposition make this mistake: They take a certain case and then say that the person concerned is granted relief to the extent of only R4, but they forget that it perhaps represents a 50 per cent reduction on the taxation he would have paid. I want to mention a few cases. It is not the globular sum which counts. The question is what percentage the concession granted to the taxpayer is of the taxation he would otherwise have paid. The hon. member quite correctly stated that the tax people pay in many instances is so little that we cannot grant a large exemption, because otherwise we would not only be giving back to them the whole amount of the tax but even something in addition to it. Let me just mention a few examples. Take the case where a man and his wife have a joint income of R2,500, the man earning Rl,500 and the wife R1,000. Under the existing system they would have paid R51; that is all. Under this system they pay R47. Hon. members point out that it is only R4, but it is R4 on R51; it is therefore 8 per cent of what they would have paid otherwise that they now get back. Take the case where the joint income is R4,000, where the husband earns R2,800 and the wife R 1,200. They would to-day pay R184; they will now pay 176, or in other words R8 less. It does not sound much, but it is again approximately 4 per cent less that they pay. Take the case where the joint income is R5,000, where the husband earns R3,000 and the wife R2,000. Under the present circumstances they would pay R278; under the new system they will pay only R262, a saving in taxation of R16. It does not seem much, but it is a reduction of approximately 6 per cent. Hon. members should look at the percentage reduction, because the taxation is in many cases so low that we cannot make the revision higher.

Furthermore, hon. members pointed out that a married woman who works must hire somebody to look after her children and the house. In this regard I want to point out that the rebate of R34 per child is equal to a reduction of between R400 and R500 on the taxable income. Hon. members can work out for themselves what this rebate means. I therefore do not think that there is much substance in that point which hon. members raised.

The hon. member for Pretoria (Central) also asked me whether the special concession for hotels would also apply to private hotels or unlicensed hotels. If those hotels are graded they will also receive the special concession. We grant it to graded hotels. We cannot give it to every boarding house, but if a boarding house is of such a high quality that it can be graded we are prepared to give it this special concession also.

The hon. member for Pretoria (Sunnyside) (Mr. Van Zyl) asked whether the Internal Revenue Department could give certain guidance to taxpayers. I cannot reply to that now but I shall go into it and let the hon. member know later what we can do in this regard.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

I move—

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Section 5 bis of the Industrial Development Act of 1940 provides that the Minister of Economic Affairs may, with the approval of the Minister of Finance, guarantee loans which the I.D.C. enters into on behalf of Sasol. That loan, the principal sum and the interest, is guaranteed. The loan may not be more than R.24.000,000. This Bill now proposes that that power be extended further so that the I.D.C. may also borrow money for its other activities and that the principal sum and the interest and the other costs in connection with it may be guaranteed by the Minister of Economic Affairs after having obtained the approval of the Minister of Finance. The difference now, however, is that the I.D.C. may for its other purposes not borrow more than R30,000,000, and that that money which is guaranteed will only be loans raised overseas. In the case of loans on behalf of Sasol, there are no limitations in regard to where the money may be borrowed. Here, however, the money can only be guaranteed, i.e. the principal sum and the interest and the costs in connection with it, when the money is borrowed overseas. The maximum amount is R30,000,000 and no larger amount may be borrowed without the approval of Parliament. I just want to say that at the moment the I.D.C. has good opportunities for borrowing money overseas. When they enter into these loans overseas and the loans are guaranteed by the State, they can obtain those loans on very favourable terms. By putting this provision into the Act, we want to give the I.D.C. the opportunity to borrow money at favourable terms overseas with a State guarantee. I just want to point out that this is no new principle in our legislation. We have, for example, as a State already guaranteed R500,000, or we may do so, for Sasol if it wants to borrow that money for its own purposes; the State has already guaranteed R 1,500,000 for Foscor, and as hon. members know Escom is financed by loans guaranteed by the State. These are the main provisions in this Bill, namely that the I.D.C. is empowered to borrow money overseas to a maximum amount of R30,000,000 and that the State may guarantee the principal sum, the interest and the costs incurred in connection with it.

We will naturally support this Bill, which allows the Minister to arrange guarantees up to R30,000,000 for foreign loans, but I was hoping that the Minister would tell us in his speech what sort of business he had in mind outside South Africa. As I say we are going to support the Bill, but I want to ask the hon. the Minister to give us one or two examples of what he has in mind with regard to the purpose for which these guarantees will be used.

I thought as well that this was perhaps going to be some new development; that perhaps the Minister had in mind establishing another Sasol where oil would be produced from coal for strategic reasons, as we said the other day. Naturally this is consequential on what has been done before in this House in guaranteeing loans but there are two questions I should like to ask: Why can Sasol, which is supported by the Government and financed by the Government, borrow money more advantageously than the Government itself? Is it because we are able to say to financiers overseas that we guarantee that the money will be used for this purpose? But the Government’s word should be sufficient guarantee. It is very difficult to see why the Government should be a guarantor when it can in fact be a borrower. That is the first question. The second question is whether the charges attaching to such loan and the charges attaching to such issue—the first is in sub-section (1) and the other in sub-section (2)—are basic charges, agents’ charges or commission?

Are those raising charges, commissions? Would it not be possible for the Government to borrow the money and advance it to Sasol? Would that not be a better way from the taxpayer’s point of view? I would like the hon. the Minister to indicate that to us.

Finally, could the hon. the Minister tell us whether the Government have in mind establishing another factory to produce oil from coal? That has been canvassed a good deal in the country in recent years.

In reply to the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Ross) I want to say that there is nothing definite that we have in mind at the present moment. The I.D.C., as a large financing institution, always borrows money, just as any other financing institution does. If we can get money from overseas at this stage, instead of borrowing it here, we think it would be to the advantage of the country and in the interests of our reserves. We have no real definite project in mind. These are just general borrowing powers to add to the finances of the I.D.C. I hope that satisfies the hon. member.

In reply to the three questions asked by the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore), I just wont to say, firstly, that the Government could, of course, have borrowed that money as well. The Government borrows money on its own. But I think it is a very devious procedure if the Government has to borrow the money, then to lend it to the I.D.C. who in turn lends it to Sasol. It has to be voted in Parliament; Parliament may not be in session. I think that would be a rather roundabout way. Why should the Government always borrow and lend the money to the I.D.C. if the I.D.C. can borrow direct?

The second question of the hon. member’s was whether the Government had already made a decision about another Sasol. We have not considered the matter yet. At the present moment we are not even considering it.

Who are the underwriters for this loan?

This is not a definite loan. It is just to make it possible for the I.D.C. to make loans. Various opportunities present themselves in Germany, France and other countries. There are insurance companies, finance houses, banks and so forth. Nothing is definite yet.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

I move—

That the Bill be now read a second time. The Parliamentary pensions scheme as it exists at present is inflexible and does not lend itself to adaptation to changes in salaries which may principally be ascribed to the following:

1. (a) The calculation of a pension at a fixed amount (at present R75) for every year of service;
2. (b) the collection of contributions at a fixed monthly amount, viz. R12, and
3. (c) the provision of a maximum pension which bears no relation to the salary which a member receives.

I should also like to point out that the scheme in its present form is illogical and inconsistent in various aspects. So, for example, members occupying certain official posts, whose salaries vary according to the post occupied, receive the same maximum pension. Such a member with a higher salary even in some cases receives a smaller maximum pension than a member filling an official post to which a lower salary is attached.

In order to improve the benefits and to bring them more into line with the salaries and to ensure that in future they will keep pace with changes in salaries, and also to remedy the anomalies, the following has been decided—

1. (a) In respect of ordinary members:

   1. (i) that the pension be calculated on the scale of one-thirtieth of the member’s average annual salary during the last four years of his service, multiplied by his number of years of service, not exceeding 22¾ years;
   2. (ii) that the maximum pension be limited to 75 per cent of the aforementioned average salary;
   3. (iii) that contributions be paid at the rate of 5 per cent of a member’s salary until he has contributed for a period of 22¾ years;

2. (b) in respect of officials:

   1. (i) that, provided an official has had more than nine years and six months’ service, his pension will be calculated at one-thirtieth of the annual average salary he would have received for the last four years of his service if he were an ordinary member, multiplied by his number of years of service, but not exceeding 22¾ years;
   2. (ii) that the present scales and the basis on which special pensions are paid be retained, with the exception that, as hon. members will see in Clause 10 of the Bill, a number of official posts are now added to which a special pension was not attached formerly.
   3. (iii) that the total of the pensions (ordinary plus special) however be limited to 75 per cent of an official’s salary during the last four years of his service, provided, however, that if the total of such a person’s salary during any other period of four years amounts to more than the total of his salary during the last four years of his service, the maximum be limited to 75 per cent of the larger average salary;
   4. (iv) that an official contribute at the rate of 5 per cent of the salary of an ordinary member, but that, as the position is at present, he stops contributing as soon as he has achieved the maximum pension payable in his case, provided, however, that he contributes for a minimum period of ten years.

The effect of this new scheme is that an ordinary member will now after ten years’ service receive a minimum pension of R 1,3 3 3 per annum, instead of the present R750 per annum, and that his maximum pension after 22¾ years’ service will be R3,000 per annum instead of the present R 1,500 per annum after 20 years’ service. It may interest hon. members to know—I have gone into the position somewhat—that if a general election is held next year, at the usual time, only 16 out of the 160 members of this House will qualify for the maximum pension. That is an indication of the great turnover in Members of Parliament which continually takes place. At every election many fall by the wayside. Many of the members with less than ten years’ service do not come back and they receive no pension. It is only those members with 22¾ years’ service who will be entitled to the maximum pension.

The pensions of future widows will also be increased automatically because the present scale of two-thirds of the member’s pension is being retained. It has also been decided to increase the pension of a member who at any time occupied the position of Prime Minister to R 10,000 per annum, as is now being provided in Clause 9 of the Bill. The new scheme will come into operation only as from a current date and will therefore not apply to members who have already retired, unless they become members again. I also want to point out that members will not have to pay contributions at the increased rate in respect of any period of service before the date on which this Act comes into operation.

These are the main provisions of the Bill which we have approved of after consultation with members on both sides of the House, and I trust that the House will accept it as such. [Interjection.]

Order! Are two Ministers, talking at the same time?

No, Sir, only one Minister and one aspirant. As hon. members will notice from the Schedule to the Act, this Act has already been repeatedly amended since 1951, and it has therefore also been decided to make use of this opportunity at the same time to consolidate these Acts.

On behalf of this side of the House I want to extend our support to this legislation. As the Minister has said there has been consultation—the proposals have been submitted to us. It is evidence of our times that more and more time of the individual is taken up in public service. As the Minister has said no person gets a pension until he has had at least ten years’ service and he only gets the maximum pension if he has had 22¾ years’ service. The duties of public life are such, Mr. Speaker, that more and more demands are made on men in public life. They have less and less time to devote to their private affairs. In the case of the majority of members of this House they have little or no opportunity after 22| years’ service in this House to go back to another vocation. This Bill in some measure ensures that we do not have the sad cases we had in the past when men, who had given a lifetime to public service, have had to appear before the Parliamentary Pension Committee, and have had to disclose their private affairs with a view to their request for a pension being acceded to by Parliament in acknowledgment of their public service. This puts this matter on a sound basis.

It also provides for increased contributions by members. It also makes provision for widows of members of Parliament. I think nobody here will deny that the wives of members make the bigger sacrifice in many cases. Their homes are disorganized. They have to make great sacrifices in the public interest; they do not get the publicity and in many cases their lives are torn in two in that they have to give attention to public life and a certain measure of attention to their domestic life. This is not an occasion which calls for much discussion and for these reasons, and those given by the hon. the Minister we accept the second reading of this Bill.

The hon. the Minister said he consulted everybody of this House. That is perfectly true, Sir, he has consulted me as well. [Interjections.] Well, I am a member of this House whether the hon. Deputy Minister likes it or not. I told the hon. Minister that I nad considerable reservations about this, largely on the same basis that I objected to legislation two years ago which allowed Provincial Councillors to become members of the Parliamentary pension scheme to the extent that they could count one half of their years of service in the Provincial Council for pensionable purposes in parliamentary service. I am afraid that that objection still holds. The increased benefits are now going to be extended to those members who were previously M.P.C.’s and who have now joined the ranks of parliamentarians and may count half their years of service in the Provincial Council towards this -considerable increase in the pensionable amount which this House is going to allow them. I don’t believe, in any case, that Provincial Councillors should have been allowed to join our scheme. They do not devote their entire full-time to their duties as Provincial Councillors, and, although I agree with what the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Hopewell) has said, namely, that M.P.s to a large extent to-day have to devote almost all their time to their parliamentary duties, this does not apply to Provincial Councillors, with the exception of the members of the Executive Council who, I believe, should be entitled to the same rights when they join this House. But M.P.C.s certainly are not on the same basis. They spend two or three days a week, possibly 25 or 30 days in the year, attending to their Provincial Council duties. There is nothing to stop them during the rest of the year, from attending to their ordinary private affairs, with the exception, as I have said, of the members of the Executive Council. That is my one objection.

My other objection is that though I believe that same increase in pensions might be warranted—because the pensions were certainly low—this is a pretty steep increase. As far as ordinary members are concerned the starting pension of R750 is to go up to Rl,400 and the maximum pension which used to be Rl,500 is now to go up to R3,000. In the case of Cabinet Ministers, the maximum pension is as much as R7,000. That is also practically double what it used to be. That is a pretty steep rise considering the rise that was given to civil pensioners this year, which was certainly something, but not anything like the steep rise which is being given to M.P.s and M.P.C.s.

It might be said that this will encourage people to stand for Parliament who would perhaps otherwise not be able to do so. But this is retrospective; it counts back for the 22 years’ service people have already served. People come to Parliament knowing full well what sacrifices pubic service demands of them. They apparently elect to come here in a full knowledge of the conditions. For those reasons I think this Bill goes too far as far as the additional amount is concerned. Secondly, I did not agree with the inclusion of M.P.C.s on the basis of half their provincial service for Parliamentary purposes. That is all I intend to say.

It was of course to be expected that the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) would be opposed to this measure. I do not know whether any measure has ever been before this House which had her support. She has an opposition obsession. It is also very easy to talk when one is well off. It is very easy to talk about the public service one must perform for the sake of the nation, but all these people are not rich. It would be a sad day for this country if Members of Parliament were to be only well-off people. We particularly want the poor man also to be represented here. If we want a person to render this nation a service we should at least look after his widow. Several members of this House are dependent only on their salaries as Members of Parliament. If they die, and no provision is made for their widows by way of a pension, then those widows will not have anything to live on, unless they approach the Select Committee on Pensions. I think this increase is fair and justified. Many Ministers have to give up their profession the day they become a Minister. I have lost more as the result of giving up my businesses in order to become a Minister than I gained in the form of my ministerial salary. There are colleagues who are, for example, advocates, and ordinary members who are doctors. Just ask the hon. members who are doctors whether they can still keep their practices going. Can a member who is an advocate keep his practice going? He must give up everything for the sake of the service he renders to the public. He is not here in his own interest, but to render a service to the public. I think this increase in pension is quite justifiable. Everybody in this House is not rich and we must also look after them.

I have already pointed out that if there is an election next year, only 16 members will be able to qualify for these terrible maximum pensions to which the hon. member refers— 16 out of 160! It is only a few exceptions who will qualify for the maximum pension; only in exceptional cases does a man have 22 years’ service. A Minister must also have 22¾ years’ service as a member plus about 15 years’ service as a Minister before he can qualify for the maximum pension. I see no objection to this. I think it is quite justifiable and I am sure the public outside will understand and support him. I am prepared to go to any consituency to explain and to defend this matter. I know the hon. member will receive a lot of publicity because she is the only one who opposes the Bill, but that will not have the slightest effect on the voters.

Motion put and agreed to. (Mrs. Suzman dissenting).

Bill read a second time.

I move—

We accept the amendments put forward by the hon. the Minister. I have an amendment to the same Clause on the Order Paper which I now wish to withdraw in favour of the following amendment which I move—

To add the following sub-section at the end of the Clause:

1. (3) In determining whether or not the registration or cancellation of registration or making available of a drug is in the public interest, regard shall be had only to the safety, quality and therapeutic efficacy thereof in relation to its effect on the health of man.

This new sub-section meets what we have felt from the beginning was a great weakness in the Bill, namely, that it could possibly have permitted unscientific reasons for the refusal to register or cancel such registration of a drug. We felt that in a Bill of this nature only scientific and purely medical reasons should have consideration. We have discussed this with the hon. the Minister and he has seen our point of view which I am sure will give great pleasure to all doctors and all those who handle drugs.

I just want to say that there may be a difference of opinion between us in regard to the desirability or not of this matter, but we respect the feelings of the hon. member for Durban (Central) (Dr. Radford) and we accept the amendment, particularity because we want to cooperate in having this Bill passed this Session.

Amendments put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 3,

I move the amendment standing in my name—

1. (a) at least one but not more than two persons who shall be medical practitioners who have the speciality of physician entered in the appropriate register contemplated in Section 15 of the Medical Act;
2. (b) at least one person who shall be a medical practitioner engaged in general medical practice;
3. (c) at least one person who shall have a special knowledge of the action and application of drugs for human use;
4. (d) at least one person who shall be a chemist and druggist;
5. (e) at least one person who shall be an officer of the Department of Health;
6. (f) not more than two other persons one of whom shall be a toxicologist.

I do this for the specific reason that I want a more definite board to be established. I would like to see the Minister appoint those people who are nominated here in this Clause. There is a great similarity between the original Clause of the Minister’s and my amendment except that I want it to be imperative; I want “shall” to be substituted for “may”. I realize that it creates difficulties. At the same time I should like to see the people I have listed in this amendment to be substituted for those the Minister has, the difference being that the Minister has more lattitude as it stands here than I have allowed him in my amendment.

I am quite willing to accept the amendment of the hon. member except for paragraph (f) which states “not more than two persons, one of whom shall be a toxicologist”. This amendment will mean that the council can never be constituted and will never be able to function unless one can find a doctor, a chemist and druggist, a specialist, a pharmacologist and a toxicologist to serve on it. Toxicologists are so scarce in South Africa that it may not be possible for us to find such a person. I shall be pleased if the hon. member will not insist upon the inclusion of paragraph (f). For the rest, I accept his amendment.

I am pleased that the hon. the Minister has pointed this out to me. I realize the difficulty of obtaining the services of toxicologists to do this type of work.

With leave, amendments withdrawn.

I now move—

In line 47, to omit “may” and to substitute “shall”; and to omit paragraphs (a) to (e) of sub-section (2) and to substitute the following paragraphs:

1. (a) at least one but not more than two persons who shall be medical practitioners who have the speciality of physician entered in the appropriate register contemplated in Section 15 of the Medical Act;
2. (b) at least one person who shall be a medical practitioner engaged in general medical practice;
3. (c) at least one person who shall have a special knowledge of the action and application of drugs for human use;
4. (d) at least one person who shall be a chemist or druggist;
5. (e) at least one person who shall be an officer of the Department of Health.

Perhaps I have not followed the proceedings very well. I just want to make sure whether the substitution of the word “shall” for the word “may” is also included.

It is included.

I just wanted to make quite sure because it appears to me that similar problems may arise if we use the word “shall” instead of the word “may”, because the State President may not be able to obtain the services of these people.

I just want to point out that the hon. the Minister has accepted it.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 5,

I move the following amendment—

To omit sub-section (1) and to substitute the following sub-section:

1. (1) The Council shall elect from its members a chairman and a vice-chairman, the vice-chairman to act as chairman during the absence of the chairman.

I hope that the hon. the Minister will be as reasonable over this request as he has been up to now. This is going to be a statutory body, largely composed of professional men and some professional men, or many professional men don’t make very good chairmen. On the other hand, others do, and there may even be reasons for not having a professional man as chairman. I can well believe that a competent layman, specially a civil servant or someone of that nature, could well act here as chairman, and it is a great advantage for the council to elect its own chairman. Statutory bodies as a rule work reasonably together, and the hon. Minister with the best intentions of the world might easily select one who is not a good chairman, on the other hand, most of these people will know each other, and they should from among themselves be able to select a chairman, just as easily as they can select a vice-chairman.

I do not know why Clause 5 (1) should be amended. I feel that the State President will take the trouble to find a suitable chairman and vice-chairman. It does not mean to say that the chairman or vice-chairman cannot be a professional man. They may perhaps be just as good chairmen as other people, lawyers, for example, but I hope that the hon. the Minister will not accept the amendment because only yesterday we accepted the same principle in connection with the National Welfare Board. There was no objection to the chairman being appointed by the Minister. There are many pieces of legislation in terms of which boards are established, the chairman of which is appointed by the Minister of the Department concerned. This is not a new principle and so I shall be pleased if the hon. the Minister will not accept the amendment.

I want to support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Durban (Central) (Dr. Radford), and in doing so I wish to refer to the opening remarks of the hon. the Minister in his second-reading speech (Hansard, Col. 5334)—

And then he went on to say—

I submit that if prominent persons are appointed, they will be appointed on their merits and on their ability and these prominent persons will naturally have some knowledge of each other before they meet for the first deliberation in the council. I feel that if this body is to be as independent as the hon. Minister envisages, the council should have the prerogative of appointing its own chairman and vice-chairman.

I shall really appreciate it if the hon. member for Durban (Central) (Dr. Radford) will consider withdrawing this amendment. The fact remains that although one can argue that every person will not make a good chairman, the opposite can also be true. We all expect the council to be a very eminent and specialized council and the chairman of that body will have to be an eminent person with outstanding ability and characteristics. I am quite sure that because of the responsibility of the State President we need not be afraid that the wrong person will be appointed as chairman, although the danger always exists when a body chooses its own chairman—I do not say that this will happen, but it can—that there may be a certain amount of string-pulling and irregularity here and there, and the council might find itself with a chairman who for the specific purpose of this Bill is not the most desirable person in as much as he may perhaps not be such an active person and not be so concerned about the work. I feel rather strongly about this matter. I feel that we should leave it to the State President to appoint the chairman so that we may be sure that we will have an energetic and also a capable chairman of this body.

I also feel that it would be better to leave the appointment of the chairman and the vice-chairman to the State President, because provision is made in this Bill for an executive committee, and I presume that the chairman and vice-chairman will act as members of this executive committee and they will be sitting regularly once a month. Therefore you will have to find two people who would be prepared to give more time to the functions of this board than normally might be the case, and I think that the State President would be in a better position to find such people who are willing to sacrifice their time to serve not only on the board but also on the executive committee. For that reason I would like to support the clause as it stands and would call on the hon. member for Durban (Central) not to press his amendment.

I should perhaps just point out to hon. members that the council is not a democratic body in the sense that it is not the medical profession and the pharmaceutical profession which choose the members. The State President appoints the members and he selects them from the communitv. He chooses each one after careful consideration but he also chooses them for their particular characteristics. There will be two key persons on this council on whom everything will depend, namely, the chairman and the registrar. As far as these two persons are concerned we must be absolutely sure that they are the best men. It is true that when the State President appoints members, he will also consider whether a person will be suitable to act as chairman. As the hon. member for Durban (Berea) (Mr. Wood) has said, every person does not make a good chairman. Good chairmen are scarce. A good chairman is a man who has a great deal of energy and who devotes a great deal of time and study to a matter. It appears to me to be necessary, or rather, obvious, that the State President in selecting these people by means of all the machinery at his disposal, must be able to select the right man. He will be better able to select the right chairman than will be a group of persons consisting of doctors, chemists and druggists, pharmacologists and members of the Department, people who may perhaps not know one another very well. For this reason it appears to me to be very important that the chairman must be the right person and I hope that the hon. member will not insist upon his amendment.

Amendment proposed by Dr. Radford put and negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

On Clause 9,

I move the following amendment—

I wish to point out a slight difference in this amendment from the amendment in the name of the hon. the Minister. In my amendment it is suggested that the appointment of these individuals to the executive committee should all be made from people who are registered under the Medical, Dental and Pharmacy Act, section 22, the idea being that people who are registered under that section of the Act, are medical practitioners, dentists, chemists and druggists, people who are trained and by virtue of their training deal mainly with drugs for human use. I believe it is the feeling of this side of the House that people who have to administer the Drugs Control Bill should in fact be people who have been specifically trained in the use of drugs for human use.

I wish to move the following amendment—

I appreciate the attitude of the hon. member for Durban (Berea) (Mr. Wood). I am merely improving upon it. The persons whom I am proposing also fall under his provision but while he has provided that a doctor, a dentist and a chemist and druggist can be appointed, I want to improve upon it by proposing a specialist in medicine and a pharmacologist as well.

With leave of the Committee, amendment proposed by Mr. Wood withdrawn.

Amendment proposed by the Minister of Health put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 10,

In sub-section 10 (1) (c) it is stipulated that the Drugs Appeal Board shall have a pharmacologist as one of its members. I should like to bring to the notice of the hon. the Minister the definition of a pharmacologist which I have managed to find. It would appear that this word is a little bit difficult to define. According to my definition a pharmacologist is “one skilled in pharmacy” and “pharmacy” is defined as “the science of preparing, compounding, and dispensing drugs and medicines.” I feel that the pharmacologist on this Board should be a suitably qualified chemist and druggist.

It is quite true, as the hon. member (Mr. Wood) has said, that the definition of a pharmacologist is not really given convincingly anywhere. I want to refer the hon. member to Clause 3 (2) (c) which reads as follows—

This refers to a pharmacologist. The definition of a pharmacologist is in actual fact simply—

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 12,

I move the following amendments standing in my name—

The Snyman Commission Report referred to this particular aspect of the appointment of a council, and in its recommendations it specifically stated that the Registrar of this council should in fact be a chemist and druggist. This Bill does not make any specific provision for the adoption of that recommendation, and I feel that a chemist and druggist by virtue of his training and general experience would fill the position of Registrar with distinction and efficiency. I feel, Sir, that this Council will deal with many aspects regarding the control of drugs. I believe that a chemist and druggist would play a constructive part as regards for instance drugs and formulation, marketing, packaging, manufacturing, and in advertising, matters with which the Council will necessarily have to deal.

The second portion of the amendment refers to additional duties being assigned to the Registrar. I feel that the existing clause would be improved if the words “subject to the approval of the council” were added to the clause. I believe, Sir, that the Registrar may find that he has a great deal of work to do, and nobody but the council will really be able to appreciate his involvement in the work of the council. I am of the opinion, therefore, with due respect to the hon. the Minister, that if the Minister feels at any time that the Registrar should undertake extraneous work, it should be after consultation with the council to ensure that such additional work will not be to the detriment of the work of the council.

If the hon. the Minister accepts the hon. member’s amendment, namely, in line 3, after “Drugs” to insert “who shall be a chemist and druggist and”, which amounts, to the fact that the registrar must be a chemist and druggist, then I foresee one difficulty. This post will of course have to be advertised. But if no chemist applies, it will mean that no appointment can be made until such time-as this measure is again amended by this House. I understand that the salary attaching to this post is considerably lower than that earned by a chemist and druggist to-day. To tell the truth, I doubt very strongly whether any chemists and druggists will apply for the post. They will prefer to remain in their chemist shops where they can make far more money. I really foresee a great deal of trouble if the hon. member’s amendment is accepted,, and I would prefer to see the clause remain as it is. If a chemist does apply, the hon. the Minister does of course have the discretion of appointing him or otherwise. But, as I have already said, I doubt whether any chemists and druggists will apply. The registrar need not necessarily have professional knowledge of or have been trained in pharmacy. He should rather be a person who can do administrative work. I shall be pleased therefore if the hon. member will withdraw his amendment.

I feel that if the registrar should have a particular knowledge of drugs, then the incumbent of this post should preferably be a doctor or a pharmacologist, because. Sir, a doctor will be able to form a better judgment in regard to tests which have already been carried out in connection with drugs which are forwarded for registration purposes. But the difficulty which I foresee is that if such a highly qualified person is appointed as. registrar, he will have to be paid accordingly. Nevertheless, I want to suggest to the hon. the Minister that a doctor should fill this post in preference to a chemist and druggist, because I feel that he will be better able to study and analyse the bibliography of a drug, the effect it has and the clinical tests in that regard, and will therefore be better able to report to the executive committee or to the council when it meets. If, however, it is felt that it would not be practicable to appoint so highly qualified a person, I think that it should be left to the discretion of the hon. the Minister to appoint the person who in his opinion is most suitable for the post.

Perhaps I should point out two problems in this connection. In the first place, the function of the Registrar is of course very important because he will have to prepare the work for the council. But at the same time he also has to carry out the instructions and the findings of the council. In other words, his duties will to a large extent be of an administrative nature. When one considers a body of high standing like the Medical Council, one finds that its Registrar is not a doctor but a lawyer. In the same way, the secretary of the Pharmacy Commission—which is a body of high standing—is not a chemist and druggist but also— if I remember correctly—a lawyer.

Make provision then for a juris registrar of the council.

I want hon. members to realize that one may sometimes obtain the services of outstanding people who are chosen by doctors to fill a certain post, outstanding people who are not medically qualified themselves, and it will be a pity to restrict the Minister in this respect. Hon. members can rest assured that the Minister will appoint only the best man because he wants to make a success of the council. That is why I prefer to have the necessary play in this regard so that the best man can be appointed. He may be a medical man; he may be a doctor—and if this is so, so much the better. He may be a pharmacologist or he may be a chemist and druggist. I want to point out further to hon. members that the registrar is an official of the council. The council has no funds, however, and so its officials have to be paid by the State. In other words, the officials will be public servants. It follows therefore that the person who will be appointed as registrar will be an official in the service of the State, even though he is appointed on a contract basis. And if he is a public servant, he falls under the Public Service Act. That is why it is unfortunately impossible for me to accept the hon. member’s amendment which is to the effect that he will always have to act with the approval of the council.

With leave, amendments withdrawn.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

On Clause 14,

I wish to move the following amendment—

Hon members will note that this amendment is not the same as the one standing in my name on the Order Paper.

I wish to move the amendment standing in my name—

To add the following, sub-section at the end of the clause:

1. (4) The provisions of sub-section (3) shall, with effect from the date upon which regulations promulgated under paragraph (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 55 come into operation in relation to all drugs, not apply to any drug unless the active components of such drug have been registered under this Act.

Provision must be made for every eventuality. The amendment moved by the hon. the Minister refers to drugs which are prohibited, as well as drugs in respect of which registration has been refused. Therefore, a vacuum exists in respect of drugs which are not prohibited and for which application has not yet been made. Provision is not made for such drugs. If my amendment is accepted it will mean that when regulations are made in terms of Clause 23 (c) (i), this aspect will also be covered. This will mean that no chemist and druggist will be able to make use of a component of a drug which is not registered. I want to express the hope that the hon. the Minister will accept my amendment and that my explanation has been clear.

Amendments put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 15,

I move the amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 16,

I move—

In line 43, to omit “for any reason’.’

This is particularly necessary now in view of the change which has been made to Clause 1. I trust the hon. the Minister will accept my amendment because the clause will then look neater and contain no unnecessary words.

I am prepared to accept it.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 17,

I move the amendment standing in my name—

In line 72, after “notice” to insert “of registration”.

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 18,

I move—

In line 11, after “appears” to add “and shall in all other respects be not less conspicuous than such trade name or brand name”; in line 13, after “the” to insert “active”; in the same line after “volume” to insert “or by unit”; in line 25, after “appears” to add “and is in all other respects not less conspicuous than such trade name or brand name”: in lines 29 and 30, to omit “components thereof by weight or by volume” and to substitute “names, as determined by the council, of the active components thereof and the weight or volume or number of units of such components”; to omit all the words after “druggist” in line 39 up to and including “signed” in line 40 and to substitute “in accordance with a direction given”; and to add the following paragraph at the end of sub-section (3).

1. (c) if such drug forms a portion of the original contents of a package which is labelled in accordance with the provisions of this Act and such drug is taken by a chemist and druggist from such package and is sold by such chemist and druggist for the treatment of a particular person and is supplied to or on behalf of such person in a package which bears a label stating the name and address of such chemist and druggist, the number allocated to such drug under section 15, directions in regard to the manner in which such drug should be used and the name of the person for whose treatment such drug is sold.

I wish to move the amendment standing in my name—

Firstly, I would like to say that there are many aspects of the amendment moved by the Minister which I find to be a great improvement on the original wording of this clause. I am very glad to see, e.g., that due cognizance has been taken of the recommendations in regard to trade names and approved names and that in the various sub-sections provision has been made which I believe to be equitable in regard to the form in which registered medicines may be advertised and in regard to the manner in which the brand name or the approved name may be used in connection with the advertisements. I believe this is very important not only for the manufacturer but for other people involved in the distribution and in the purchasing of medicine that this provision has been clarified in this manner. I want to quote a very enlightened view which was given by Mr. John C. Hanbury in a publication in Britain, entitled “Manufacturing Pharmacy in an Expanding Economy”. I believe it puts the question of brand names and approved names in the true perspective. The article says this—

So I am pleased that the Minister has accepted the representations made to him in this regard. There is now some clarity and I believe a great deal of equity in the manner in which the names could be used. I am very pleased, too, to see that the Minister has decided when he lays down the conditions in the clause, that the composition of the registered medicine in question should state the formula by weight, volume and unit of only the active ingredients. I think that is an improvement. I do not think it is of any particular interest to anybody to have to read in an advertisement or on a label that certain flavourings or colourings have been used in the preparation advertised.

Another matter which causes me some satisfaction is the suggestion of the Minister to include the term “names as determined by the Council.” That is a wise provision. It will do away with any form of abuse and I believe that in regard to this an abuse has existed. I believe that sometimes advertisers have imposed on the credulity of the public which reads their advertisement. They give names for very simple medicaments to give the impression that their particular preparation contains some very rare ingredients. I want to quote a very simple example to show how this amendment will help to overcome this abuse. Take the ordinary ingredient, phenol, which is known by the household word of carbolic acid. It could also be referred to as hydroxic benzine and as hydroxic cyclohexatrahene. I believe it would not be in the interest of the people who read these advertisements if names as simple as phenol are expressed in complex chemical terms. But then I am afraid I cannot go any further with the Minister in regard to this clause and that is why I have moved my amendment that in line 29 there should be a fullstop after “time”. The object is to preclude from an advertisement in writing the provision that the components thereof by weight or by volume or by unit, as the Minister has now amended it, are to be stated immediately before such name or after such number. I believe that this is a form of discrimination which should not appear in this clause dealing with advertisements. As far as I am concerned, the understanding of “advertise” means that now when a proprietary medicine or a registered medicine is advertised on commercial radio, it can be advertised with its name and number and the properties it professes to have. I do not see the necessity for laying down, as is done in this clause, that no person shall in writing advertise any such drug unless the whole formula is included in the advertisement. I do not wish to repeat the argument I used in the second reading. I believe that this clause will react to the detriment of the small man who wishes to advertise in a small way a medicine which he has submitted to the Council and which has been approved and the advertisement for which has also been approved. I believe that this irksome provision of having to state the formula in full in an advertisement is an undue hardship and an undue expense and in the case of the small man particularly it could have the effect of increasing the price of the medicine. If a manufacturer in a small town wishes to advertise in the local newspaper, he may have to pay so much per word, and that will add considerably to the expense o£ the advertisement if it has to include the formula.

There are many other aspects which I feel we must take into consideration, and that is how this provision will affect many existing advertisements and many accepted methods of advertising which have been carried out in the past. One particular example which comes to mind is the common practice of many firms to deliver by motor cycle scooter which has at the back a box advertising the name of the particular organization and perhaps advertising a medicinal product of their own. As the Bill reads now, it will be necessary for the whole formula of the medicinal product to be stated on the box at the back of the motor cycle. That is impracticable and I do not think it is really necessary for the public to see the formula in that form. It is true that many firms advertise their products by providing their employees with overalls on which is sewn the name of the product. So it means that if a man wishes to advertise a medicinal product, he must have the uniform embroidered with the formula of that medicine. Another aspect which I believe could involve a great deal of inconvenience and expense is the question of the various advertising pelmets which appear in many businesses, whereby in the window of a business premises you find a certain patent medicine advertised, like a brand of aspirin. It means that where those pelmets are detachable they will have to be removed and repainted and they will have to embody the registered number and the formula of the active ingredients of the preparation which is advertised. If one painting is on the window itself it will involve an even more difficult and expensive operation. I do not believe that the slight benefit which may be gained by this suggestion that the advertisement should include the formula is worth the terrific disorganization which will exist in the whole industry concerned with the distribution and sale of medicines. There are other aspects, too, which I believe the Minister should take into consideration. [Time limit.]

I should like to say a few words about this, because it would appear that the clause needs some clarity. I can well appreciate the difficulties mentioned by the hon. member for Berea (Mr. Wood). On the other hand. I would also like a little clarity if we are going to exclude this insistence on advertisements. What will happen to the advertising of a drug which is important to the doctor? We have to bear that in mind as well. If we do not do something about advertising and keeping it under control, it is quite possible that the information which the doctor should have in dealing with a drug or medicinal substance will not be made known to him. I think the word “advertising” is not quite clear. I would say that if he uses specific methods of advertising it would not be necessary if the medicinal substance is advertised in some place in the chemist shop instead of on his window, if he did not want to go to the expense of putting the whole formula on the window. It would be ridiculous to put down the whole formula of A.P.C. Powders, but there should be a place in the shop where one could see what A.P.C. is. The ordinary person coming in would be able to say to the pharmacist: May I please see what the formula of A.P.C. is, because if there is phenacetin in it I do not want to use it. He should have the right to know that. The same applies to the doctor when he is receiving information regarding a medicinal substance. I would like to see the formula in those pamphlets. I think it is imperative, but it is difficult for the Minister to specify how the advertising is going to be restricted or how it is going to be made imperative. I think it needs a great deal of thought. These points raised by the hon. member for Berea should be considered. We have two lines of thought here, one where it is imperative that the doctor or the user of the substance should know, and the other is the inconvenience that repetitive stating of the formula will give rise to. We will have to sort out how to do it. The other thing is this. If we are going to insist that in newspaper advertisements the formula should be given, the same should apply to other forms of advertising like over the radio. I think at present the best we can do is to accept the amendments put forward by both the hon. member for Prinshof and the Minister and then try to fit in at a later stage the suggestions made by the hon. member for Berea. There are difficulties and I think we must try and sort them out.

I should like to thank the hon. member for Rosettenville for his suggestion and his accommodating attitude. Obviously there are so many varieties of advertising, so many different places where things can be advertised, that it is very difficult to make provision for it in a law. That is why we are leaving it over mainly to the regulations under Clause 35. I hope that will meet the objections of the hon. member. If there are "hardships we will be only too willing in future to amend the Act.

I have listened to the Minister with interest. I understand he feels that by regulation any difficulty which we have could be overcome. If it is the intention to overcome the difficulties I have outlined, and I have several more. I will not go into the matter in greater detail. I am just worried that as it stands it could affect the small man to a great extent if this hardship were placed on him by means of his advertising through the written word. In view of the Minister’s explanation, I withdraw the amendment I have moved.

With leave, amendment proposed by Mr. Wood withdrawn.

Amendments proposed by the Minister of

Health put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Clause 19 put and negatived.

On New Clause to follow Clause 18,

I move—

That the following be a new Clause to follow Clause 18:

1. 19.

   1. (1) No person shall sell any drug unless it complies with the prescribed requirements.
   2. (2) The council may by notice in writing require any person who manufactures or sells or administers or prescribes any drug or on whose direction any drug is administered to furnish it, within a period stipulated in such notice, with any information which such person has in his possession or which such person is in a position to obtain regarding such drug.
   3. (3) The council may, if so requested by any person to whom a notice under subsection (2) is addressed, extend the period stipulated in such notice.

If this proposed clause is agreed to, it will mean that the council will at all times be aware of what is going on in regard to drugs, and I think that it is the duty of persons selling drugs to comply with those requirements.

Amendment put and agreed to.

On Clause 20,

I move the amendment standing in my name—

To omit sub-section (1) and to substitute the following sub-section:

1. (1) No person shall—

   1. (a) publish or distribute or in any other manner whatsoever bring to the notice of the public or cause or permit to be published or distributed or to be so brought to the notice of the public any false or misleading advertisement concerning any drug; or
   2. (b) in any advertisement make any claim to the effect that the therapeutic efficacy and effect of any drug is other than that stated by the council in terms of sub-paragraph (ii) of paragraph (a) of section 22 or state or suggest that any drug should be used for a purpose or under circumstances or in a manner other than that stated by the council in terms of sub-paragraph (iii) of paragraph (a) of that section.

; and in line 50, after “under” to insert “paragraph (a) of”.

I just want to say how much I welcome this amendment, because I believe it strengthens the position considerably and the public will be protected from certain types of undesirable advertisement. This amendment by the Minister will make the whole clause easier to implement. There are some questions, however, which I want to put to the Minister, because they involve my interpretation of what a drug is defined as in the Bill. Will this clause eventually mean that it will affect toilet preparations and the manner in which they are advertised; will it control cures for baldness, acne or dandruff, and will it have the effect of limiting the claims made for various toothpastes, particularly medicinal claims, claims which I believe have been a little in excess of the actual performance of the ingredients in the toothpaste, where it has been quite obvious that advertisers have taken advantage of the public in putting forward claims that they have no means of substantiating? I would like the Minister to clear up one point also in regard to the amending clause as I read it. I take it it means that the wording of advertisement will be fairly strictly circumscribed because it will be mainly in the form in which the claims accompanying the application for the registration of the drug is submitted to the Council. That is a point the Minister could give us clarity on, and I should like to hear "his views.

I want to know what the position will be of those substances which are sold and have very little medicinal value but are claimed to have a curative effect of some sort. Some of the breakfast foods, for instance, are advertised as having an effect on certain functions of the body. They do not contain any medicines, but it is claimed that they perform certain actions. Will those manufacturers of breakfast foods be exempted from this control? I cannot find any provision made for them. There is an appeal, of course, and they can appeal to be exempted, but one would like to avoid their going to the Drug Control Board and asking for an exemption because in their advertisements they say that this type of cereal gives you an evacuation every 24 “hours or something like that. It does not fit in with the Bill and yet they have to apply to the Drug Control Board for registration.

That is a very important aspect, but if the hon. member looks at the definition of “drugs”, it says that this Act applies to all drugs. Now a drug is a substance or a mixture of substances which is sold for use in the diagnosis, treatment mitigation, modification or prevention of disease. So obviously if a manufacturer of a cereal claims medicinal properties for his cereal, he falls under this definition and his only solution is to avoid making such claims. The moment he avoids it, this Act will have no application to him, or else he must apply for exemption, but I think the safest thing for him to do is not to include any such claims in his advertisement. I think the same answer applies to the questions raised by the hon. member for Berea in regard to cosmetics. It all depends how these things are advertised. If they are advertised so as to fall within the definition of a drug, then obviously that definition applies.

Amendments put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 21,

I move the following amendment—

To omit sub-sections (1) and (2) and to substitute the following sub-section:

1. (1) No medical practitioner shall prescribe or use any unregistered drug except for bona fide test or clinical research purposes; Provided that the council shall within seven days after the commencement of such test be informed in writing by such practitioner as to the purposes of such use of such unregistered drug.

The reason is to draw the attention of the Minister to the fact that all research work need not be carried out in an institution such as a hospital. When I first read the printed clause, it appeared that the general practitioner, either singly or as a group, would be excluded from using unregistered drugs for experimental purposes or clinical trials, as we call it. The Minister will know that there is a movement afoot to-day among group practitioners who do not have entree to a hospital because they they are not on the staff, but they do excellent work. They have among them in the group probably a physician who does general practice and a surgeon doing surgery and two or three general practitioners. They are guided towards research work because of the multiplicity of cases they receive. In moving my amendment, I wanted to draw the attention of the Minister to the fact that I felt these people did not want to be excluded from experimental work. The Minister’s amendment in a way meets my fear that they would be excluded because he includes not only the institution but the individual as well. The difficulty is in the delay caused when applying for permission. Before these doctors or their clinic start working in a particular direction, they will have to get permission from the Drug Council to use a particular unregistered drug. There may be a long delay because, as has been pointed out, this Drug Council is going to be inundated with work especially in the beginning. They have to register and regroup all the drugs and meet all the applications. It may take two or three years before they get all that work done, and during that time they get applications from groups of general practitioners for permission to use unregistered drugs. I want the Minister to understand that these are not irresponsible people. They have made up their minds that they want to do a particular type of research in their practice. As the Minister knows, some of this research has already been written up in journals. If I can have the assurance of the Minister that there will be as little delay as possible as soon as application is made to the Council in writing, I shall be glad. It is not as if these people work in hospitals where cases come from all parts of the country. They practise in one area and they want to strike while the iron is hot. When they get a series of cases, they want to work on them and they do not want to wait another six months. If I can get this assurance from the Minister I will be quite willing to withdraw my amendment in favour of the Minister’s.

This is a most important amendment. The clause as it stands can handicap the research worker. It can delay his work and make it much more difficult for him. It is most important that there should be every reasonable facility given to the research worker. I want to say that it is not in terms of the research worker in the laboratory or the institution which I plead for, because there is no difficulty. I plead for the individual worker. I know that there is a widely spread idea that there is no research being done to-day by the individual. That is not true. There is a good deal of individual research going on but, unfortunately or fortunately, depending on how one looks at it, it is minor research, it is not earth-shaking research; it does not lead, perhaps, to the discovery of what is proclaimed to be a wonder drug, but it is recognized by the profession as original research; it is much appreciated and is great value. The results are published in medical journals and the doctors earn about it there. I know that there is an idea even in the Minister’s Department that it is only in the big pharmaceutical laboratories and in the big hospitals that research is undertaken, but the history of the past shows that some of the greatest research in the world has been done by individual general practitioners. The whole of modern heart knowledge hangs on the fact that a small general practitioner outside Manchester was prepared to go through life quietly for 25 years carrying on with his private practice. He completely revolutionized the treatment of diseases of the heart. He was knighted for it, and he was ultimately recognized for what he was, but he had done this as a general practitioner. I have personal knowledge of a man who practised in Durban who for some reason or another thought that a certain plant which grows in Cape Town just as much as it does in Durban had certain medicinal qualities. He had it investigated and it was established that this particular plant does contain properties which control diabetes within limits. It never took a great place in the treatment of diabetes because soon after that insulin was discovered, which was a better form of treatment, but the fact remains that within my own lifetime I have known of man who have made revolutionary discoveries working by themselves. This clause, unfortunately, will tend to hamper that type of worker. It will mean that he has to ask permission to start; in some cases it will mean that he will perhaps not be able, for example, to take the flower of the foxglove plant and carefully infuse it with alcohol and to give it to patients in certain doses. He will probably have the greatest difficulty in getting this council to give him an answer quickly. Sir, although I am not so keen on quoting America, I want to say that in America a research worker does not have to ask for permission. Those people employ a staff of 3,000 on their Drugs Council.

Order! The hon. member is going very far afield. He must confine himself to the Bill.

The point is that these people should not have to ask for permission to undertake research. Sir, I hope that the hon. member for Rosettenville (Dr. Fisher) will not withdraw this amendment of his, and if he does withdraw it I will remove it, because I think it should be enough for the man who wants to da research to inform the council immediately he proposes to do it, and it is for them to exercise the right which they have to stop him if they wish to do so. I understand from the Minister’s staff that there is some difficulty about obtaining the drug, which is, of course, a legal question, but it is the principle that I want to raise with the hon. the Minister. I hope he will give it his consideration and that he will perhaps bring forward some amendment in the Other Place to ensure that there will be no delay. The fact that the man who wishes to undertake research has to obtain permission may hold him up for months. The hon. the Minister, with the best will in the world will not always be the Minister of Health. The best of the drugs that he registers will not give him eternal life nor will it keep him in office eternally. I hope therefore that he will give serious consideration to the question of framing some sort of amendment which will ensure that there will be no delay.

I move the amendment as printed in my name—

I very much appreciate the remarks made by hon. members opposite. I think we are just .as loathe to introduce control as they are, but unfortunately provision must be made for some sort of control. We get responsible medical men, as we get responsible men in all professions, but unfortunately we also get irresponsible men. We have to choose between -a slight amount of control to protect the patient and just leaving it to irresponsible persons to harm the health of patients. That is the choice that faces us. Unfortunately we have no option. I can only say that we will obviously try to eliminate delays. At any rate the hon. member has the satisfaction of knowing that eventually the Department of Health will be responsible for the organization and for carrying out the executive duties of this council. People will always be in a position therefore to appeal to the Department of Health to remedy the position where any delay occurs. I think that is about the only safeguard that one can guarantee, namely the safeguard of a big Department which is there for the public benefit and which is always at the disposal of hon. members and of the public.

As far as the points raised by the hon. member for Rosettenville (Dr. Fisher) are concerned, we appreciate the tremendous difficulty of registering 25,000 drugs. It cannot be done within the space of a day nor even in a year. We therefore made certain amendments to the Act in terms of which drugs will be registered in categories; we decided to take three or four or five categories and to deal with them over a period of a year or longer. While one category is being registered, all the other categories will still be free to be used by practitioners, so there will be practically no delay because they will have this vast number of drugs, which have not yet been registered, at their disposal, for the purpose of conducting experiments. Initially I am of the opinion that there will not be much cause for discontent with regard to possible delays. Eventually, as the administration gets into its stride and as the Department functions Better, I am sure that delays will be avoided as much as possible.

I just want to correct a statement made by the hon. the Minister. He says that there is at present no control. There is very stringent control over the actions of doctors, much stronger control than the control that his Department will exercise. I refer to the control exercised by the Medical Council which takes action against doctors who act irresponsibly. Medical practitioners have been cautioned over and over again for irresponsible conduct. It is provided in the ethical rules that people shall not undertake work for which they are not qualified. Doctors are not going to be irresponsible in a matter of this kind. They know very well that if they act irresponsibly, they will promptly be called upon to account for their actions.

Amendment proposed by Dr. Fisher put and negatived, and amendments proposed by the Minister of Health put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 22,

I move—

In line 7, to omit “and”; in line 8, after “druggists” to insert “and the person who applied for the registration of such drug”; in lines 18 and 19, to omit “in connection with their professional activities”; in line 23, to omit “and” where it occurs for the first time; and in the same line after “druggists” to insert “and the person who applied for the registration of such drug”.

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 23,

I move—

To omit all the words after “person” in line 29 to the end of the clause and to substitute “to return any quantity of such drug which he has in his possession to the manufacturer thereof or (in the case of any imported drug) to the importer concerned or to deliver or send it to any other person designated by the council”; and to add the following as sub-sections (2) and (3) at the end of the clause:

1. (2) The council may by notice in writing direct any manufacturer or importer of any such drug who has in his possession any quantity thereof (including any quantity returned, delivered or sent to him in pursuance of a direction under sub-section (1)), or any other person to whom any quantity of such drug has been so returned, delivered or sent, to deal with or dispose of that quantity in such manner as the council may determine.
2. (3) No person shall sell any drug which is the subject of a notice under sub-section (1) which has not been set aside on appeal.

I move the amendment as printed in my name—

To add the following as a sub-section (2) at the end of the clause:

1. (2) The owner of any drug destroyed by virtue of the provisions of sub-section (1) may claim from the council an amount equal to the cost of the drug to such owner.

Sir, I realize that the disposal of banned drugs will be a problem and I realize that the amendments moved by the Minister will probably clarify the existing clause, but I feel that this particular question of the loss which may be incurred right throughout the pharmaceutical distributive trade is a matter which deserves sympathetic consideration. After all, it may well occur that a drug has been registered by the council and has been in use for a long time and then suddenly further information becomes available which indicates that there is some danger in using the drug. It would mean then that it has been distributed through many points of distribution right throughout the country, and many people would be involved in financial loss if it were suddenly withdrawn from sale and returned to the manufacturers. I appreciate that many of the manufacturers do accept their responsibility in this matter, but in the past they have accepted the responsibility as a result of their own scientific findings that the drug that they are marketing may in certain cases have certain undesirable side-effects. In this particular instance the responsibility has been taken out of their hands. The banning of the drug has been effected by the council itself. The hon. the Minister suggested that the council was not going to be a very wealthy body. Sir, when one looks at the clause which we are going to consider a little later on and sees that the registration fee is up to R100, and when one bears in mind that the Minister has been talking about the registration of 25,000 drugs, it is clear that the council will have certain financial resources. In those circumstances I believe that it is in the interests of people who do suffer a loss, through no fault of their own, but as the result of possibly an unwise decision by the council, that they should be able to recoup their financial loss to some extent.

I would just like to remind the hon. member that it often happens that a drug, which is initially considered to be innocuous or to have certain advantages, eventually proves to have serious disadvantages. Take the famous case of thalidomide. Thalidomide was supposed to be a very safe drug. Eventually it was proved to be one of the most dangerous drugs ever marketed because of the deformities it produced in children. Supposing that happens and that the State says, “That is a dangerous drug and we will have to have it destroyed immediately,” it would be very unfair to expect the State to bear the loss while allowing the firm who sold the drug and who had an opportunity of making enormous profits out of it, to keep the profits made by it. I think that would be rather a leonine partnership. In this case I think it is much fairer that the man who accepts the possibility of making profits should also accept the possibility of suffering a loss.

Amendments proposed by the Minister of Health put and agreed to.

Amendment proposed by Mr. Wood put and. negatived.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 24,

I have an amendment standing in my name on page 451 of the Order Paper. Notwithstanding the merits of that amendment I want to say that by reason of the hon. Minister’s willingness to meet the contentions of this side of the House in earlier clauses, I do not intend moving that amendment.

I move the following amendments—

To insert the following paragraph to follow paragraph (c) of sub-section (1):

1. (d) contemplated in Section 23,”;

in lines 46 and 47, to omit “not being a decision contemplated in Section 23”; and inline 59, after “(1)” to insert “(not being a. decision contemplated in sub-section (1) of Section 23)”.

Amendments put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 26,

I move—

To omit sub-section (3) and to substitute: the following sub-section:

1. (3) An inspector shall, before he exercises or performs any power or function under this Act, produce and exhibit to any person affected thereby, the certificate referred to in sub-section (2).

Sir, I move this amendment because provision has been made for inspectors to be given certificates and I believe that they should be displayed to anybody whose premises or activities they are inspecting before they proceed to inspect. I believe that if my amendment is accepted it will create a better atmosphere in human relationships. I think it would remove suspicion and eliminate resentment in the mind of both the inspector and the person inspected. The hon. the Minister was good enough to accept the suggestion in a previous Bill which came before the House this Session and I trust that he will see his way clear to accept this amendment as well.

The proposal of the hon. member differs so little from the provisions of the Bill that I wonder whether he would not be prepared to leave this clause as it is. I cannot see any real reason for the insertion of these words. I cannot see that it will make any real difference in practice.

I feel, having had some experience of this matter, that it would make for easier administration, because when a new inspector comes to a new area, he walks into premises and says: “I am an inspector, I wish to see your records.” He is not bound to produce any form of identification. He has the identification but it remains for the individual whose records or premises are being inspected to ask for it. I believe that that does create a difficulty. I know that speaking for myself I would always be diffident in asking an inspector to produce some form of identification because it might produce a spirit of antagonism. The inspector would feel immediately that he is not being believed when he says that he is an inspector. Well, there are clauses in the Bill which lay down penalties for the disclosure of information. It shows that much of the information which inspectors may be called upon to investigate is of a confidential nature to many people who own drugs and who operate in terms of this Bill. I feel that this is just a means of ensuring that no bogus inspectors can possibly operate and obtain information which could be valuable to competitors, and to other individuals who are also interested in the distribution of drugs.

In order to please the hon. member, I will accept it.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 29,

I move—

In line 66, after “ twenty-three” to add ‘‘or contravenes the provisions of sub-section (3) of that section”.

I move—

In line 62, to omit “Section 19 or subsection (1) of Section 20;” and to insert the following paragraphs to follow paragraph (b):

1. (c) contravenes the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 19 or fails to comply with a notice issued under sub-section (2) of that section; or
2. (d) contravenes the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 20;

Amendments put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 35,

I move—

To insert the following paragraph to follow paragraph (b) of sub-section (1):

1. (c) providing for the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 14 to come into operation in terms of sub-section (2) of that section in respect of any specified drugs or classes or catagories of drugs;

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On new Clause to follow Clause 36,

I move—

That the following be a new clause to follow Clause 36:

1. 37. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Act contained, the provisions of this Act shall not apply in respect of any drug or any quantity of any drug which is manufacturered in or imported into the Republic solely for the purpose of export from the Republic and is not used or disposed of for use in the Republic and in respect of which the council has granted a certificate that it is satisfied in regard to its quality, purity and safety.

Agreed to.

Remaining Clauses and Title of the Bill put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments.