Mr. Speaker, I am the bearer of a message from the State President.

The Prime Minister thereupon handed the message to Mr. Speaker.

The message reads as follows—

J. J. FOUCHÉ,

State President.

19th February, 1971.

Mr. Speaker, with your leave I should like to make a statement in regard to the message of the State President which has just been conveyed to this House. The proposed Joint Sitting is in connection with the Bantu Homelands Constitution Bill. I wish to make it known that I intend introducing a Bill on the occasion of that Joint Sitting, a Bill to amend section 108 of the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act by substituting for subsection (3) a subsection to the following effect—-

1. (a) as an additional official language or as additional official languages of that territory; or
2. (b) for use in that territory for official purposes prescribed by or under that Act or later Act or by any such proclamation,

I may add that the Bill will be published for general information in the Government Gazette on the 23rd February, 1971.

When we adjourned the other day, I was replying to the statement of the hon. member for Transkei that this Bill was not a Bill that was generally being desired by the Bantu peoples and, what is more, that Chapter 1 was unnecessary. I should like to correct the hon. member and, at the same time, the hon. member for South Coast, who made a similar statement specifically in regard to Zululand. I want to correct them by saying that all the executive councils and all the territorial authorities of the Bantu people did in fact express this desire for a constitutional development, development such as that which is embodied in this Bill. They expressed this desire either directly to me or to their commissioner-general and officials of my Department. It will be useful, particularly to the hon. member for South Coast, to hear what Chief Buthelezi, chief executive councillor of the Zulus, said in a radio talk in January of this year. He gave this radio talk after he had had access to this Bill and had discussed it with us on three or four occasions. At the time he said—

Later on he said—

You see, Sir, he read the Bill more attentively than did some hon. members opposite. I have here the reactions of all the territorial authorities, but I want to content myself by only reading out one more, i.e, that of the Ciskei. This is what the chief councillor of the executive council of the Ciskei had to say—

We received the same reaction from the other territorial authorities as well.

The hon. member for Transkei went further and even said that Chapter 1 of this Bill was unnecessary. But Chapter 1 does in fact make it possible for all the territorial authorities to advance in a much more meaningful way to the Transkei stage of development, as we have already come to know it in the Transkei over the past seven years. In the case of the Transkei, as the hon. member ought to know very well, the jump was a major one, from the territorial authorities they had at that time to a self-governing area. By means of Chapter 1 of this Bill we are making it possible for an intermediate stage, so to speak, to be reached, a stage between that of the old territorial authorities and that of the present Transkei Government, which makes it possible for the Bantu peoples to advance in their legislative systems to the higher stages of self-government in a gradual and proper manner. How the hon. member can tell me that Chapter 1 is unnecessary, is incomprehensible. But what I find even more incomprehensible, is this: The hon. member says that Chapter 1 is unnecessary, but the Opposition tells us that in terms of their race federation policy all the territorial authorities can reach the political stage which is comparable with the provincial system which we have in our four provinces today. They say that under their system the provincial stage and even stages higher than that can be reached by the territorial authorities, and yet the hon. member came along here and rejected Chapter 1 in this Bill, which does in fact seek to provide the Bantu peoples with additional constitutional experience and development along the road ahead. It is merely because the hon. members did not have any arguments that we had to listen here to such small talk.

The hon. member also said that no country allowed any other state to make laws applicable to their citizens living in the other country. In this Bill there are two references to laws of other areas: whereas in the first chapter we state that the legislative councils in those areas may not amend an Act of this Parliament, we do say in the second chapter that once they have reached a higher form of self-government in the self-governing territory, they may in fact make laws on such matters as have been allocated to them, laws which may even amend Acts of this Parliament on those allocated matters. Sir, this is, to start with, an exact repetition of what has been happening in the Transkei for the past seven years. In the Transkei Constitution that very same power was granted to the Transkei, i.e. the power in terms of which they themselves can exercise by way of legislation the powers entrusted to them, even if, by doing so, they have to amend old Acts of our Parliament in Cape Town.

But, Sir, this is not a unique phenomenon either. We find it in other parts of the world as well. I want to remind the hon. member of the fact that in certain respects even the marriage laws of our own Whites are applicable in Britain to our people who get married there, whereas our marriage laws and their marriage laws differ from each other, especially in regard to ante-nuptial contracts. The hon. member ought to know that. Here in our own country, in South Africa, we have had the position over all these years that between Lesotho and the Republic, for instance, there has been an arrangement in terms of which they collect their taxes here from their people who are living here in our Republic. Furthermore, we have had the position over all these years that the Transkei has been doing the same thing here in respect of its people who are working in the Republic. After all, this is a situation which we in South Africa can create distinctively in order that it may fit in with our distinctive circumstances in view of the fact that we have here these various peoples, the White people and the Bantu peoples, who are living side by side and whose individuals are bound up with one another and move across one another’s borders. This is, after all, a situation which we can create here and which we have already implemented here with success. Of course, the hon. member does not want to recognize this development along individual lines. The Bantu dowry laws are a similar system which is also being applied by themselves backwards and forwards, on both sides of their borders, i.e. in the White area as well. What we have here, is no strange phenomenon in respect of Bantu administration.

The hon. member also went on to speak about borders. He said that the borders of the homelands were so important that consolidation had to be affected in full before the Bantu homelands could be declared to be self-governing territories within the Republic, as is being provided in Chapter 2 of this Bill. At the same time the hon. member also reminded us of the fact that the Transkei was continually asking for additional land in Elliot and Maclear and such districts. But this is in fact being done by the Transkei subsequent to its being declared to be a self-governing territory and because the Transkei knows—and the hon. member ought to know it too—that in terms of the 1936 Act one may request and obtain more land for the Bantu. In fact, the Transkei Act also contains a provision in regard to land, and I shall refer to it in a moment, when I deal with the hon. member for Durban North. But the hon. member ought to know that although the consolidation of areas is very useful— the sooner we are able to complete the consolidation of all the areas, the better— there are many practical problems of which the financing is one of the most important, problems which do not make it possible for one to dispose of all these things in a very short space of time. And for that reason we cannot delay the constitutional development and the political development of those Bantu areas until such time as the last White farm has been acquired and the last incorrectly situated Bantu Reserve has been excised. These matters can go hand in hand with one another, for there is legislation which regulates them. We have been applying it over the years with reasonable satisfaction on both sides, both amongst the Whites and the non-Whites. And there is protection for Whites in the Act and also administratively in the application thereof.

That the Transkei is now laying claim to the districts of Elliot and Maclear, is no argument. They frequently do that, often on the strength of domestic political considerations. This Government has explicitly given its reply to that request, i.e. that we cannot consider it, and if this has to be repeated, it will be repeated for their benefit.

What about Matabele?

There is a question on the Question Paper and I shall furnish a proper reply to it, but at the moment we are dealing with this Bill and, in any case, I gave a reply to this point while the hon. member’s mind was apparently wandering.

The major and important point made by the hon. member for Zululand, was that of the circumvention of this Parliament, i.e. that Parliament was being circumvented by means of the provisions contained specifically in Chapter 2 of this Bill, in which it is being provided that under the legislation before us at the moment, self-governing territories may in due course be established in the Republic by proclamation. But surely, Parliament is not being circumvented. Today, at this moment, it is after all being brought to the notice of this Parliament that those remaining areas may be declared to be self-governing territories within the area of the Republic. Surely, we are not circumventing Parliament. Instead of approaching Parliament seven times, we are now doing so once only. Here we are in Parliament now; we are asking for the principle that all those areas may become self-governing territories, and the hon. members can now say no to it.

And after that?

After that we shall implement it when the time is ripe for doing so, if Parliament says yes to it now. The hon. member ought to know that. One of the hon. members opposite advanced an equally stupid argument by saying that this Parliament was giving up its sovereignty on that point. Parliament does not give up its sovereignty if it decides on all seven of them on one occasion instead of deciding on one of them on seven occasions. On the basis of this Bill Parliament has the right to lay down that principle now. Parliament will, therefore, not have given up one grain of its sovereignty, and no future Minister implementing that provision will be circumventing the powers of this Parliament. I think this is an outrageously fallacious argument to use.

The hon. member for Zululand also spoke here about the history in regard to reserves in Natal, and he charged the Voortrekkers with things which should only be laid at the door of Sir Theophilus Shepstone and other people. He said that the British and the Voortrekkers had divided up the Zulu areas in Natal as they are today. Sir, we know who was responsible in Natal for the so-called “grid-iron policy”, the policy of cutting up areas in such a manner that they looked like the parallel bars of a grid-iron. We know where that comes from. That was not the work of the Voortrekkers. The hon. member for Zululand should not hide behind people who cannot defend themselves and who did not create these conditions. We are well aware that Natal is the product of that British colonial policy of scattering the Natives. The policy which the British colonial administration implemented there, was a very bad one, and today we are saddled with this problem. The hon. member for Albany is at present experiencing some of the consequences of the same policy in the Ciskei, where it was implemented on a much more-limited scale but, nevertheless, on the same principle. The hon. member for Zululand was also very worried about, or tried to delight in, the use of the word “possible”, which I used when I referred to “ultimate possible independence”. What is wrong with the word “possible”? To my knowledge the word “possible” does not mean “impossible” at all. I inserted that word “possible” in order to confirm that the independence was a possibility, not an impossibility or a shadow. The hon. members are always telling us that we are presenting falsehoods to the members of our party and to the public of South Africa. We are merely referring to independence as a shadow or a possibility. The hon. member ought to know that the word “possible” means “possible” and not “impossible”.

That is not definite.

Yes, it is very definite. What the hon. member may have in mind, is that sometimes the word “possible” also means “perhaps” in the English language. That is no concern of mine; I am concerned with reality.

You should have said “probable”, and not “possible”.

Oh no, “probable” implies 50 per cent of doubt.

The hon. member for Zululand also said that the Zulu people would not be able assist in designing the form of their executive machinery. They would not be able to assist in devising it. Their executive machinery consists mainly of two aspects, i.e. their Legislative Council and their Executive Council. The hon. member should take a look at clauses 2 and 5 of Chapter 1 and clause 29 of Chapter 2, and then he will see that, as regards both the Executive Council and the Legislative Council, which may be established beforehand, the necessary has to be done after consultation.

There should be consultation with the people in this House.

They must be consulted about such matters. I am consulting today with the people in this House. I have just finished dealing with that point.

But it has not yet been finalized.

As long as there are stubborn people here, I cannot finalize it, since I always have to repeat points. That I know, Mr. Speaker.

†I now want to come to the hon. member for Houghton. She said that the White and Bantu people are irrevocably bound together and are not separable. I do not know in what context the hon. member used those words, but I assume that she used them in a political context.

And in an economic context.

I can assure the hon. member—and I think she knows it—that we will have more peace in South Africa, and more friendly co-existence between the White nation on the one side and the Bantu nations on the other in terms of our policy than would be the case if the Whites and Bantu individuals were unnaturally integrated into one political body as proposed by the race federation scheme of the United Party, and especially her party’s new scheme of Saturday, to which I will refer again just now. I wish to refer to a most deplorable method which the hon. member for Houghton again applied in her speech. Referring to a certain section, she said that she disapproved of the fact that educational matters will also be delegated to these authorities and that they may decide on them, but with the approval of the Minister. The words of the hon. member were “with the approval of the Minister”. If one looks up the relevant section, one finds that it reads that they may handle those matters and may decide on them, in consultation with the Minister. There is a big difference between the expression “in consultation with the Minister” and “with the approval of the Minister”. There is still another and quite different expression, namely “after consultation”. I am talking of “in consultation with the Minister” and not “after consultation with the Minister”. This Bill reads: “In consultation with the Minister.” The hon. member for Houghton said that this Bill lays down that it will be done with the approval of the Minister. That is not correct. If this could be done with the approval of the Minister only, it would mean that I, as the Minister, will have the final say and that they could only make a recommendation. However, “in consultation” means that we must concur. I must concur with them and they with me. There is a vast difference between the two expressions. Why does the hon. member use the words “with the approval of the Minister”? I think this is a mischievous misrepresentation of the hon. member, for avid consumption by people overseas and elsewhere in South Africa. We know that there are many enemies of our country who welcome such expressions, because they can play football with them as they like.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister a question? Do I understand the hon. the Minister to say that unless he and the Bantu authorities concur, nothing can be done?

I referred to education in the list of delegations. With regard to the educational matters stipulated there, they will decide in consultation with the Minister.

Unless you agree they cannot go ahead?

We must of course concur. [Interjections.] The hon. member is not so stupid that he cannot understand the difference. If this Bill read “with the approval of the Minister” it would mean that they could take a decision and the Minister alone would finally decide the issue. That is quite different from what is laid down in the Bill.

For the information of the hon. member for Houghton I can just add that this particular section in the Schedule is to the benefit of the Bantu authorities and to the benefit of the Bantu pupils especially because it contains a guarantee for the standards of education with regard to the syllabi, the examinations and the methods of teaching.

The hon. member for Houghton also said that we know nothing about how the Legislative Council and the Executive Council will be constituted under this Bill. Those are in the main the matters in connection with which we will have consultation before those proclamations will be promulgated. There will be negotiations between the Minister and those Bantu authorities in order to formulate those stipulations with regard to their Executive Councils and their Legislative Councils. Such a proclamation will finally be tabled in this House. Parliament will have the opportunity to note its contents and even to reject it if it likes.

The hon. member for Houghton also asked me whether clause 4 of this Bill will be deleted if the Bantu territories at some time become independent. It is of course not an issue under consideration at this moment. However, the reply is quite easy. It will all depend upon the agreement entered into between us and the particular Bantu authorities at the time when independence may be considered. That is not a matter on which we have to decide today. It is not even a matter which we have to discuss today, because there should first of all be negotiations between us and the Bantu authorities in regard to this matter. This speech of the hon. member for Houghton really is a speech which, to my mind should not have been delivered, especially in view of Saturday being so near to the date on which she held this speech to which I am referring. We noticed in this morning’s Press that the Progressive Party congress on Saturday approved of a major change in their policy with regard to Bantu homelands. [Interjections.] No, hon. members must listen to what I have to say.

They rejected it.

No, the hon. member must listen. The change brought about by their change of policy last Saturday brings the Progressive Party perfectly in line with the United Party with regard to the Bantu homelands. [Interjections.] Oh yes, it is definitely so. We know the kernel of the United Party policy with regard to political matters relating to the Bantu homelands was put forward in this House last year by my hon. friend, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. He said that they can obtain provincial status and a status which will be even higher than that of the provinces. That is exactly what was said last Saturday by the Progressive Party. The Progressive Party now also envisages provincial status for the Bantu homelands and they even undertake to invite an independent homeland to return to the Republic as a province, according to the report which was published this morning. That indicates a very strong agreement between the United Party and the Progressive Party on the political aspects of the Bantu homelands. [Interjections.] If they make it possible for me, I would like to remind hon. members that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, gave an exposition last year of their race federation policy with regard to this very same issue, namely the homelands. He said that the homelands under a race federation could enjoy provincial status inside the federal state as local autonomous units. That is exactly the same thing which the Progressive Party is saying now, according to the statement this morning. [Interjections.] I do not know why both sides of the Opposition protest so much. I really cannot understand it. They should not protest so much, because it appears to me that a very fascinating political reunion between those two parties is in the offing.

*The hon. member for Albany used a very ugly expression, which in actual fact reveals his subconscious mind and that of his party. This is to be seen in his words “lasting peace and stability of the labour force”. That is the major objective to be realized in South Africa. All they see in the Bantu people is “lasting peace and a stable labour force”.

That is only one sentence of the speech.

I have read out the whole tenor of the speech made by the hon. member, and I just want to tell the hon. member that he is further back in the past than the stage of being old-fashioned. He is further back in the past than the stage of being old-fashioned if he thinks that that is the decisive consideration in political development in South Africa. The hon. member also referred to the legislation of this Parliament which can be repealed by the Legislative Assembly. He said that this was a denial of the sovereignty of Parliament. Actually, I have finished replying to this point and therefore I do not see any point in dealing with it again on this occasion.

†The hon. member for South Coast said that this Bill is conducive to the disturbing of the relations between Bantu and Whites. I fear that is not a statement of fact, but a statement of wish.

That is a disgraceful thing to say!

I want to say that it will not happen if we have the sympathetic co-operation of all Whites in South Africa and of the Bantu.

You are maudlin.

This hon. member cannot suppress his thoughts for a single moment. I do not know why he should get vexed whenever a person addresses him.

Why did you say I want to disturb the peace between Whites and non-Whites? It is a shocking thing to say. The hon. Minister should be ashamed of himself.

The hon. member said that “the Zulus have not willingly asked for the Bantu Authorities Act and also not for this one under consideration now”.

That is true.

I have already read out to the hon. member what the leader of the Zulu Territorial Authority said a month ago. I am going to read out more to this hon. member if he would care to listen. The hon. member also said that the officials of my department cannot convey to me in Pretoria the feelings of the Zulus. That is not so. If the hon. member says a thing like that, he does not know what he is talking about. My officials, including the Commissioner-General, time and again brought the messages of the Zulu people to me. Besides that, since 1966 as Minister of this department, I have had three or four visits by the Zulu leaders themselves to Pretoria apart from what I heard from them at Nongoma, in which they conveyed to me their wish to have a Territorial Authority in Zululand. It was brought to me by the late Cyprian and by Israel and was also told to me by Gatsha Buthelezi, their present political leader. My officials are also very capable of conveying messages, as they have over the years. The hon. member for South Coast also said “that the enforcement of this measure is an enforcement of a European form of government on the Bantu”. The hon. member nods his head affirmatively again. If the hon. member blames us for such a thing, what can we think and what should he then think of his own policy? Under his own policy he will bring in representatives of the Bantu and ultimately Bantu themselves right into this Parliament. Is that not a confrontation with the Western form of government in this Parliament? If this measure before us will be an enforcement of a European form of government the hon. member should also not be in favour of his race federation policy, because that also forces a European form of government on them. But what are we doing? We have given a practical demonstration in the Transkei of what we have been doing in the last seven years. There we have a combination of that which is applicable in the Western form of political administration with the traditional form of political administration as the Bantu know it since their earliest years. That is what we have achieved in the Transkei; that is what we have in mind and that is what the Bantu also want in the other territories as provided for in this Bill. There we have the Transkei where we have this combination of what is applicable and useful in the Western system together with that traditional form of government and it is working well. This system will be modified from territorial authority to territorial authority when it is applied to them.

The hon. member for South Coast also said that there is nobody on the Government side, not even in the Cabinet, who in the past supported and at present supports the views of the late Dr. Verwoerd. The hon. member said it was not supported by a “single Minister, not by any Senator and not by an M.P”. He said that Dr. Verwoerd was the first man to talk of the fragmentation of South Africa. As far as the fragmentation of South Africa is concerned, if the hon. member wants to call it that, we all supported him. The hon. member is very wrong when he said that Dr. Verwoerd was the first man to have said that. May I read out to the hon. member what the late Gen. Hertzog said as far back as 1913?

Did he have a Bantustan policy?

This hon. member is now running away from his own accusations. [Interjections.] This hon. member is the marching man. He can do more than march. He can also run, especially if he has to run backwards. That is what he is doing now. The hon. member for South Coast said here last week that Dr. Verwoerd was the first man to talk of the fragmentation of South Africa. What did Gen. Hertzog say as early as 1913? I shall read to the House what he said at the time, when he was Leader of the National Party in its initial stages. This was when he had already been kicked out of the Government of Louis Botha because of the Native policies and his policy of South Africa first.

Nonsense!

He was kicked out. Do those hon. members want to tell me today that Gen. Hertzog was not kicked out of the Cabinet of Gen. Botha? Mr. Speaker, I can understand that they are quite ashamed of that …

We did not say that.

Sir, I remember that clearly because it happened on the very same day that I was born. [Interjections.] I am always very proud and very grateful that it happened on the very day when I was born, as I found out quite by accident. Sir, what did Gen. Hertzog say? Hon. members opposite are trying to shout me down so that I cannot read to you what he said. Gen Hertzog said—

Sir, there is the basis and the essence of our policy of Bantu homelands as we have it today. He was the first man in South Africa who said that we should give part of South Africa or the Union, as he called it, away to the Bantu people.

What did he say in 1925?

Gen. Hertzog repeated that time and again later.

Mr. Speaker, will the hon. the Minister please give us the reference to that speech of Gen. Hertzog?

Yes, certainly. I have many references for him. He can find the speech in this little book, which I can make available to him. [Interjections.] Sir, if they do not want to accept Dr. G. D. Scholtz as an authority on history, they can also look up the Volkstem of 21st January, 1913. They can look in the Volkstem, the old S.A.P. newspaper.

Sir, how does the hon. the Minister identify the speech made by Gen. Hertzog in 1913, which he has just read out, with the one he held in Pretoria in 1925, when he said that no Bantu …

Order!

Mr. Speaker, that hon. member would benefit an infinitely great deal if he read the many speeches which Dr. Hertzog made in the teens and in the twenties. If there ever was a person who, half a century before the time, correctly understood the basic premises of our Bantu policy, as we see it today, it was the late Gen. Hertzog. Gen. Hertzog rendered to this country, in the early years of its existence, infinite and immeasurable services, the first of which was the recognition and the stimulation of the future of the Afrikaner people. The other one was the recognition of a correct policy of separate development. The hon. member would be well advised to look up all those speeches.

†The hon. member for Zululand said the Zulus could not understand constitutional development by means of proclamation in the Government Gazette. If ever a nonsensical thing was said it is this. The fact of the matter is that the Bantu of South Africa, including the Zulus, know government by proclamation already for many decades. We especially laid that down in the Act of 1927 and since then there have been many laws by way of proclamation. Furthermore, this very Bill which gives us power to do certain things by way of proclamation they understand and they accept. I am going to read out to the hon. member what was said …

He didn’t say so.

He did and I am going to read out to the hon. member the words I noted down in Pretoria on the 19th November, 1970, while listening to the reply of Chief Buthelezi to my explanation of this Bill. [Interjections.] I think my colleague, the hon. Deputy Minister, was present …

Order! Hon. members should at least give the hon. the Minister a chance to reply. The interjections that are being made, are now becoming too numerous, and the hon. the Minister cannot reply properly. I therefore request silence.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Order! There is no need for the hon. the Minister to say thank you; all he has to do, is to proceed.

All the same, Sir, you should not discourage me from being grateful! In any event, let me explain that in August Mr. Liebenberg and other officials were in Zululand to explain to the Bantu there the basic concepts of this Bill. After that there were other consultations and ultimately they came to see me in Pretoria in November. There Chief Buthelezi told me—

This was after I extensively and intensively explained to them how the second part of the law will be drafted, i.e. with power to the State President to regulate constitutional development by means of a proclamation. Afterwards the Bill was circulated to all territorial authorities, including those of the Zulus, and from some of the replies I have received I quoted earlier in my speech. To say that the Zulus are not in favour of constitutional government by means of proclamation is consequently very far-fetched.

*I come now to the hurricane speech, a speech I want to say very little about. The hon. member for King William’s Town is sitting there laughing now because he is thinking of himself, while this is something at which he ought to hide his head in shame. The hon. member made an extremely reckless speech here; that is all I can call it—a reckless speech. The hon. member must remember that this Council Chamber is not an anthill on his farm on which he can stand and shout and shout “Listen here!” at anyone he pleases. This is a place where we want responsible statements from people who aspire to occupy important positions in the country. He said, inter alia, that those who think that the Blacks can govern the country are out of their minds. But then he and his colleagues on those benches are the first to be out of their minds because it is they, after all, who want to bring the Blacks here into Parliament. [Interjections.] Hon. members opposite do not think what they are saying. In terms of their policy of race federation they want to give the Bantu representation here and in due course the Blacks themselves must come here, as we recall from television talks and from statements made by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition himself. Even if they allege that the Blacks are so irresponsible that they cannot even govern their own areas, they are making an objectionable statement, an extremely objectionable statement. That hon. member, as well as other hon. members on the opposite side—unfortunately the hon. member for Mooi River as well—must bear in mind that as far as relationships between White and Bantu are concerned, one cannot, as the hon. member for King William’s Town did, sow dragon’s teeth. He who sows dragon’s teeth, as the hon. member for Mooi River and the hon. member for Orange Grove, as well as the hon. member for Durban North did, must realize that what springs forth axe not nymphs and pixies, but devils and dragons. That is what hon. members did. They must count their words when they are discussing matters such as these, which involve the relationship between the Black peoples and we as Whites. With this way they have of sowing dragon’s teeth, they are creating devils and dragons and not nymphs. That is not our function in this Parliament, nor is it the reason for which the hon. member for King William’s Town was elected by mistake.

What mandate did the hon. Minister receive for his policy from the White voters of King William’s Town and Albany?

The Government received a mandate to apply this policy from the whole of South Africa at a general election. I shall come to that in a moment, since there are hon. members who say that our congresses did not approve this policy.

The hon. member for Maitland also carried on to quite an extent here. It is he who said that the National Party was even keeping the Bantustan principle, from our congress. Sir, we are not keeping this from our congresses, nor do we hold secret congresses. The hundreds of branches and divisional management committees of the National Party in the four provinces and in South-West Africa are at liberty to submit draft resolutions on any point. I had a quick look through our congress papers of the sixties. In any case, I remember everything, because for the last ten years now I have been present at virtually every congress, and I therefore know about the draft resolutions which were discussed there. I have the resolutions in front of me here, but to save time, I am only going to quote extracts. The position is that at the congress in the Cape, as well as in the Transvaal, Natal and South-West Africa, where I had to give a long elucidation of policy two, three years ago, the policy of the National Party was fully ratified on each occasion, and it was even requested that we should speed up the political development as it was manifesting itself in the Transkei. The precise words are recorded here; I have them here, but to save time, I do not want to quote them now. [Interjection.] If the hon. member does not want to believe me then, I can just refer him to the resolution adopted at the Transvaal Congress, viz. (translation)—

This resolution was adopted in 1962, that is, after the Transkeian legislation.

There is nothing there about independence.

Everything is here, the whole policy as it stands. I shall read out a resolution in regard to independence as well.

Which, if any, congress of the National Party approved this policy before Dr. Verwoerd proclaimed it here in the House in 1959?

The policy was approved in principle for the first time on this new basis in connection with the 1959 legislation, because the 1959 legislation was the precursor of the Transkei legislation, and that policy, too, was approved by our congress.

Would the hon. Minister just give us an indication of where his congresses approved the principle of independence?

It was approved by far more than congresses; the country approved it at elections. We have always at our congresses presented the full implications of our policy, and they approved those draft resolutions to which I referred. But, what is more, we presented it in full to the voters at every general election. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Albany must give the hon. the Minister a chance to proceed.

During the general elections of 1970, 1966 and 1961 I made numerous speeches of this nature. I can still show the hon. member notes of speeches which I made at places such as Ixopo and Melmoth in Natal, of all places, where I set out the policy in full, right up to the independence of these areas. The hon. member need not think that we are hiding it away.

Sir, the hon. member for Maitland said that we were interfering with the territory of South Africa, and that these were matters over which peoples had already waged world wars. No, Sir, we are not interfering; we are doing everything quite openly, as I put it when I was dealing with the Citizenship Act at the beginning of 1970, when I said that what our policy amounted to was that we were establishing nations and forming countries for them. I made it clear and we are doing this everywhere; nothing has been hidden away, and we will not have a world war starting in South Africa because of that; not even a local war.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District had a lot of argumentative things to say here. He who scarcely knows what the Tswanas look like, comes along and tells me that the Tswanas had asked for independence. He had recourse to a newspaper report which he had found. The Tswanas requested development leading to the form of self-government the Transkei had, and here I have their resolution in my hand. To save time I will not quote it, but it is very clear that they asked to ascend to a higher form of self-government than that they have at present. The hon. member reads things in the Rand Daily Mail and other rags like it, and then he presents it here as the authoritative version of the resolutions. Mr. Speaker, this is also confirmed in the interviews I had with them, and the notes relating to those interviews I also have here with me, where Chief Lukas Momope said: “We are coming to you to ask for a more extensive form of self-government.” Now the hon. member claims that they asked for independence. They will ask for that in their own time, if they want to ask for it, but that is not what they have asked for now.

Then I come to the hon. member for Kensington. I have already dealt with his only important point, in regard to which he indulged in much hairsplitting here. It is that we, as he said, now want to establish Black states without a resolution of Parliament. I actually dealt with this matter when I said that all of it is before this Parliament today.

In addition the hon. member for Kensington said that an indigenous national feeling among the Bantu peoples would result in enmity and a lack of loyalty towards the Republic. No, Sir, just the opposite. What will in fact elicit enmity and opposition from the Bantu peoples, is when that party wants to keep them in subordination for ever, with a small minority representation in this Parliament. That is what will generate hostility, resentment and opposition among them. After all, not all independent states in the world are inimical towards one another. According to the standpoint of the hon. member for Kensington all independent states in the world must be inimical towards one another, which is surely not the case. No, the suppression of the indigenous national feeling among the Bantu peoples is more likely to alienate them from us and make them hostile towards us.

But talk such as this, particularly that which came from him and from other hon. members who are continually referring to Chinese alliances and dangerous Blacks who will cause a second Congo here, etc., is conditioning the Natives into hostility towards us as Whites, which is a very wrong thing for the hon. members opposite to do. I know they want to bring about the downfall of this Government party. That is their legitimate goal which they may set themselves; it is something which they may strive to attain, but then they may not unleash those irresponsible and reckless tirades against South Africa and against the good relationships between Blacks and Whites, such as those we heard here. They are not benefiting their party by doing so but are harming South Africa and our White/non-White relationships.

The hon. member for Kensington told me here across the floor of the House that there were far more non-Tswanas than there were Tswanas at Ga Rankuwa, and he expected me to reply to that by shaking my head. Sir, I am not one to shake my head; he may be one, but the true facts about Ga Rankuwa are a far remove from the allegations made here by the hon. member. But we have known him for many years in the field of journalism. I personally have times without number obtained proof to the effect that there is only one man here who can carry on with greater abandon with statistics than the hon. member for Yeoville, and that is the hon. member for Kensington. The fact of the matter is that there are more than twice the number of Tswanas in Ga Rankuwa than there are non-Tswanas.

Tell us about the non-Tswanas.

Just look at them scuttling away now. Sir, he said in the first place that there were far fewer Tswanas than there were non-Tswanas. Then when I tell him that this is an untruthful statement, they scuttle away to another topic. Sir, the non-Tswanas in Ga Rankuwa are all being accommodated elsewhere on an exchange basis, with the co-operation of the Tswana Government. We are giving this matter entirely satisfactory attention, and the hon. member need not concern himself about it. But I know he does not feel any concern about it; he is revelling in it.

Answer my question.

What does the hon. member want to ask?

Reply to my speech.

I have replied to it. I now coma to the hon member for Mooi River, who has informed me that he would be unable to be present here today. The hon. member for Mooi River recounted to me here the Biblical episode of Solomon and the cutting in two of the child, and he said the United Party was like the mother who refused to have the child cut in two. Sir, in doing so the hon member unthinkingly said something which is tremendously detrimental to them something we have been struggling for a long time to get from them by way of a public admission; for when he referred to that, he also referred to the division between the Black peoples and the Whites in the political sphere in South Africa.

In other words, when he professes that the United Party is like the mother who opposed the division of the child, a poor image which is no way relevant here, he implies that the United Party refuses to make a division between Whites and Bantu and they therefore see Whites and Bantu as one organic whole, as that mother regarded the child to be one organic whole. [Interjections.] Yes, the hon. member for Mooi River has read the Book, but he read in the wrong place and he did not read enough. The hon. member said: “An independent or self-governing area is a dead end.” I maintain that these and many other words he spoke are insulting and disgraceful words, because what we are presenting to the Bantu in this Bill, is very clearly not a dead end. In fact, that is precisely what hon. members on the opposite side are objecting to, because we are saying that this Bill may be regarded as a step in the process of development which can culminate in independence which is a possibility.

Now the hon. member tells us that this is a dead end. It is not a dead end, and to state it thus is a false desire of the hon. member. Like the hon. member for Durban North, he also spoke about the rootless and rightless people. We now know all those clichés of theirs, such as the rootless, rightless people of whom they are always talking. All of them say this. These are words they distribute among one another. It is common property to be used whenever it suits them. The hon. member for Mooi River went so far back as to hold up the example of Sparta as a small country which did not make the grade. It is not necessary for him to go back and use Sparta as an example of a small country. He can look around at the present time and use Lesotho as an example, or Botswana, Swaziland, Malawi, Gaboon, Madagascar, Mauritius, Luxemeburg, or Belgium. There are many countries in the world that in size or in population are smaller than our Bantu homelands which must be helped to develop. In what way have they failed? A small country like Belgium, which is a smaller country than these Africa states, has a seat in U.N.O. while a country like Russia, which comprises one-sixth of the surface area of the earth, also has a seat there and these two countries have equal rights there. How can the hon. member suggest that countries must all be of an equal size or must have an equally numerous population?

The hon. member for Durban Central mentioned a few points which I want to go into a little more closely. I have already dealt with certain of his points, such as those in respect of the sovereignty and of the so-called circumvention of Parliament, to which he referred. He also said that our policy that separate Bantu areas may become independent states, is not conducive to a sound labour policy. In regard to labour I want to ask where we have pursued our policy to its clearest and furthest extent? We did so with the independent country of Malawi, in respect of the labour agreement. We concluded an agreement with the independent country of Malawi to the effect that their people come to work in South Africa, and the agreement is working extremely well. Why then should a labour agreement with an independent country who went through the development with us, not also be able to work well if it were to be applied to a Transkei, a Vendaland or a Tswanaland?

There is a much larger percentage of workers from the Transkei working with us as compared with Malawi. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member can never discuss principles as an hon. friend of mine, the hon. member for Germiston, expects him to. He must not expect it of him. They do not do any synthetic thinking, only analytic thinking. They cannot see a plan in its process of development. They are always busy with a minor little component as if it were the main issue. The same applies now to the hon. member for Pinelands.

The hon. member for Durban North waxed very eloquent here about Kwa Mashu and Umlazi in particular. The hon. member did the same in regard to Umlazi as the hon. member for Houghton did in regard to the approval of the Minister to which I referred a moment ago. He referred to Umlazi as “State land”. Surely the hon. member knows that it was not State land. It was not State-owned land in the ordinary sense such as land which belongs to the Minister of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure is State-owned land. Surely the hon. member knows that it was Trust land.

Trust land?

Yes, and there is a vast difference. That is what I find so reprehensible about those gentlemen who regard themselves as eminent members of this House, namely that they are always exploiting such tiny differences in order to build up prejudice with them outside. I want to repeat now what I said here by way of interjection: That Umlazi has always been and will always remain typical Bantu land.

Well then?

Well then? The hon. member was talking now of State land, was he not? This is a distorted way of presenting it, with a view to specific objectives he wants to achieve. Now the hon. member must sit very still and listen to what I have to say to him. There is a very big difference in the facts if ever so slight a twist is given to those facts in presenting them.

I asked the other day by way of interjection, and I want to ask it again clearly now, what is wrong with having a Black country and a White country here in Southern Africa with large towns and cities which are situated close to one another on either side of the border? What is so strange about that? It is the case throughout the entire world.

Like Berlin?

No, Berlin is not the same. Berlin is the handiwork of that hon. member and his henchmen. It is a creation of the victor. Umlazi is also a quite different matter. We have here in our own country examples of this although, relatively speaking, not on such a large scale as elsewhere in the world. Where is Maseru and where is Ladybrand situated? They lie cheek by jowl. This has always been the case. Are Fouriesburg and Ficksburg not situated vis-à-vis Lesotho? Where is Mafeking located in comparison with Botswana? We already have this everywhere in South Africa on a smaller scale. But, as I said the other day in my interjections to the hon. member, go to Europe and see what things look like there where France and Germany adjoin. The cities glare at each other across the borders. This has been the case for years and for centuries. It need not always lead to enmity. That will depend on the spirit of the people and of the governments in those same cities and areas which adjoin one another.

You can always build a wall.

Mr. Speaker, those hon. members have a wall complex.

The hon. Whip can always keep quiet.

The hon. member referred to section 3 of the Transkei Constitution Act in a context which does not hold water. Section 3 of the Constitution Act of the Transkei relates to the addition of White land to the Transkei. The consultation in regard to the addition of such land which must be finalized in this Parliament by means of a resolution, has nothing to do with the comparable proclamation we are discussing here in terms of which new Bantu governments will be established. The comparison he draws with section 3 of the Transkei Constitution Act is quite irrelevant therefore, even if he is called a juridical expert in South Africa by his own colleagues.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Orange Grove is the other hon. member who carried on to such a tremendous extent here and who spoke about the Communist Embassy in Umtata. This is a disgraceful way of discussing these matters. If the hon. member has nothing to say, he should rather keep quiet.

Is that an impossibility?

If the hon. member regards it as a possibility, remarks such as those made by him are more likely to expedite than prevent it.

That is what can be done under your policy.

No. That is what I always find so reprehensible when I say that the hon. members must not in their statements condition our Bantu peoples to do harmful things which they do not themselves want. A statement such as that conditions people to do harmful things. We want to condition people to do good things. The hon. member and his other colleagues ought not to make such statements here.

The hon. member asked whether Parliament would be consulted if the Transkei or any other Bantu area should also want to become independent. But surely there is no legislation before this Parliament in terms of which any of these Bantu areas will be made independent. The hon. member should know very well that to make any Bantu area independent, this Parliament will have to be approached. Surely that is very clear. Surely what is at issue in this legislation is not the attaining of independence. When the hon. member for Orange Grove spoke about independence, he was actually talking about a subsequent piece of legislation which will have to be brought before this Parliament. He was not talking about the Bill which is now under discussion.

Question put: That the word “now” stand part of the motion.

Upon which the House divided:

Tellers: G. P. C. Bezuidenhout, P. C. Roux, G. P. van den Berg and H. J. van Wyk.

Tellers: R. M. Cadman and J. O. N. Thompson.

Question affirmed and amendment dropped.

Motion accordingly agreed to and Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

In this Bill a total amount of R3,999,450 is requested, of which R3,482,000 is needed for additional operating expenditure and the remaining R517,450 for additional capital expenditure.

Particulars of the additional appropriations required under the various heads of the estimates appear in the Estimates of Additional Expenditure that have been laid upon the Table. The additional funds are necessary to provide mainly for salary improvements introduced on the 1st January this year and the Department’s resultant higher pension liability, higher maintenance costs and other additional expenses that have to be met during the present financial year.

I should like to explain that approval for the new building work, for which a nominal amount of R50 is requested, is necessary at this time to obviate delay in calling tenders. The position with regard to the additional amount of R400,000 under the sub-head “Purchase of Land”, is that the Department’s planning requires that transfer of the sites for which it is intended should be taken as soon as possible.

It does not appear necessary that I go into further details at this stage. I can assure the House that it is necessary in the public interest that the expenditure for which the additional appropriations are requested, should be incurred during the present financial year.

Mr. Speaker, as is customary, this side of the House have no intention of conducting a lengthy debate on the Second Reading of this Additional Appropriation Bill. In his speech the hon. the Minister, and I want to thank him for the courtesy of supplying me with a copy of it beforehand, indicated certain particular items and explained why these items were in the schedule. I believe that these items can better be discussed during the Committee Stage when the schedules are put. If I therefore do not reply to the hon. the Minister on the particular issues that he mentioned in his speech, he will understand that the occasion to do so will arise very soon.

I would have appreciated it, however, if the hon. the Minister could have given us a general picture of why he wanted these additional amounts at this present moment. According to the latest published financial statements of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs in the Government Gazette of 12th February, the income for the first nine months of the current book year at the moment exceeds the expenditure, in the Post Office, by almost R20 million. We know that the Minister has the usual right of transferring savings on one sub-head to another sub-head, and in the light of this one would have thought that it would not be necessary for the Minister to ask Parliament for such a substantial additional amount. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister can give us some idea of the general financial position and tell us why, in view of the profit of R20 million the Post Office already shows for the first nine months, it is necessary to ask for such a large additional amount.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is customary for us to discuss the prospects for the coming year on the Main Estimates. I think the most fruitful way of discussing Additional Estimates is to limit ourselves to the items for which the additional amounts are being requested. I therefore want to ask leave to reply to these matters when the Main Estimates come up for discussion.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Chairman, I realize that we are not allowed to discuss general policy under such an Additional Appropriation Bill; consequently I just want to ask the hon. the Minister the reasons why certain amounts are being requested here. I do not want to mention all the amounts given here. I shall just refer to a few of them. In the first place, I would have liked more details in connection with the additional amount of R1,774,300 which is being requested in respect of salaries, wages and allowances. Secondly, I would have liked more details in connection with the item “Miscellaneous Expenses”. I would be glad if the hon. the Minister would explain why an additional amount is now being requested for this. As the hon. the Minister knows, there is a total of 31 items under the head “Miscellaneous Expenses”. I am sure he will be able to tell us which of these 31 items are covered by this additional amount of R64,500.

In this particular schedule there is only one other matter on which I should like some additional information, i.e. why there is an increase of R160,000 in respect of our contribution towards the development of communication satellite systems. After having received a reply from the hon. the Minister, I may have further questions to put to him.

Mr. Chairman, I gladly accede to the hon. member’s request that I should furnish particulars in regard to this additional expenditure. As far as the extra expenditure under sub-head A is concerned, it is related to the total increase of R4,259,000. That amount will be met partially from a saving of R2,484,900 on other sub-heads, and the remaining R1,774,300 has to be voted. The increase is mainly due to the improved salary structure which came into operation on 1st January.

Concerning the next question, in regard to sub-head E—“Miscellaneous Expenses” —I should like to give the following details: Additional provision is required mainly in respect of losses arising from pending third party claims which still have to be paid, levies and registration fees in respect of Bantu employees, and increased contributions to the Unemployment Insurance Fund as a result of more persons having been taken into service and the improved salary structure, respectively.

Lastly, the hon. member wanted more information in connection with sub-head S—“Contribution towards the Development of Communication Satellite Systems”. The details in this respect are as follows: The increase in the contribution is due to the fact that since August, 1969, when the original estimate of South Africa’s contribution for 1970-71 was prepared by the Interim Committee of the International Telecommunication Satellite Consortium, the international body has decided, because of programme adjustments, to incur considerably higher expenditure than had previously been envisaged for the period April, 1970, to March, 1971. The contribution made by South Africa is, 0.269462 per cent of the total contribution of all countries which are signatories to the agreement to share in the world-wide communication satellite system. The contributions to be paid by member countries are calculated by the Interim Committee and controlled by a special financial committee of member countries.

I trust that these particulars will satisfy the hon. member.

I am satisfied as far as the Minister’s explanation of sub-head A is concerned, i.e. about salaries, wages and allowances. We are naturally happy that there has been this increase. I am sure that further aspects of this matter will be further discussed during the Budget Debate. Perhaps the hon. Minister can give us an indication of the amount these adjustments amount to during a full year.

Regarding miscellaneous expenses, there are 31 items and he did not deal with all of them. As far as items 17 and 24 of sub-head E are concerned, the original estimates are being increased but as the hon. Minister has indicated, for this there are sound reasons. I am, however, a bit more doubtful about the increase of R160,000 being requested for Comsat. While expressing doubts I want to make it quite clear that we agree 100 per cent to the underlying principle of Comsat. All I am concerned with at the moment is what we are going to get for this R160,000. The Minister mentioned certain things. He said that in August, 1969, it was decided—I take it by the board of Comsat—that the contributions of the different countries should be increased. He mentioned, inter alia, programme changes which have made this additional amount necessary. I am satisfied with the general principle that where more is demanded of all members of Comsat South Africa too should make the additional contribution. However, the Minister owes this House an explanation about the part South Africa is playing in these program adjustments for which an additional R160,000 is now being asked. After all, we have two international communication satellite systems, Intelsat III, at the moment—22,000 miles above the Atlantic Ocean and above the Indian Ocean. Channels have been allocated to our country, channels that we can use today and in future when television comes. We are paying for these and, what is more, we are now being asked to pay an additional amount of R160,000. There are more than 60 earth stations already and more than 50 countries making use of this system. But we are not yet doing it. That is why I feel dubious about this request for an additional R160,000 of the taxpayers’ money while the money is not being used. I want a clear indication from the hon. the Minister exactly what we are going to get for this additional R160,000 from the magnificent opportunities being offered by this fantastic satellite system, a system we have been ignoring all over the years.

Sir, I want to stress the aspect raised by the hon. member who has just sat down. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister to tell us whether this is part of the agreement of leasing entered into with the various countries for the use of these particular satellites. There is no doubt that this form of communication is something to which a young country like South Africa can well lend itself, particularly because we have the excellent opportunities of a satellite on either side of the country’s borders—one over the Indian Ocean and one over the Atlantic Ocean. I do think that we should get a little more detail of the uses to which we have put it. Perhaps we should also know whether this expenditure is purely part of our expenditure under a leasing agreement and that we need not necessarily use it. It would be a great pity. But if we do use it, then perhaps we should get some information from the hon. the Minister so that we can know what is taking place with regard to the future development of our world communications.

The first question asked by the hon. member for Orange Grove in connection with salary increases, related to the total amount involved. The amount is R18 million.

Over one year?

Yes, over one year.

In connection with the question of satellite stations the position is that our present cable is still adequate for the services we require in this field at the moment. This agreement was in fact entered into with a view to future requirements. We have to meet our obligations now already in order to receive the benefits when we eventually require them. Perhaps it would not be advisable for us to wait until we need it someday, because then they might tell us that there is no room left for us. In actual fact this is therefore a kind of insurance policy which we have to take out as far as this service is concerned, in order to provide for the future.

I thank the hon. the Minister for his reply. Can he perhaps tell us what he means by future requirements? These satellites are used for telephones. The hon. the Minister said that we have the cables, and I want to accept this, although I understand that we are making partial use of the satellites for transmissions from the Azores to other parts of the Northern Hemisphere. What are these other future requirements? There is only one other future requirement or purpose for which the satellites can be used— the hon. the Minister is smiling, because he knows what I am going to say now— and that is television. Is this the case? Is this the future requirement to which he referred? I should very much like to know from him. He should not just smile; he may as well tell us.

I understand that this system can be used for numerous things. It can even be used for television, but at the moment we are thinking in terms of the possible expansion of our own telecommunications, telephone and telex requirements, which is so large that this will mean a great deal to us.

Schedule put and agreed to.

Schedule 2: Capital Services:

I just want to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister to two items. The first is the item concerning the purchase of land. I should like to know what the purpose of this item is. The second item refers to buildings. Under “Buildings” I find that a particular building is described as a new training school (local) for Post Office technicians. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister whether that is to serve Pretoria alone or whether it is to be a training school for the rest of the Republic; whether it has in fact been built; when it will become operative, if it is being built, and whether it will be for the training of Whites, Coloureds, Indians and Natives or for the training of White technicians alone?

In respect of subhead (3) the particulars are as follows: The additional provision is intended for sites which become available and of which the department must take transfer as soon as possible, as the acquisition of suitable sites is a prerequisite for proper planning.

In respect of the item “Buildings” the particulars are as follows: The gross saving on this subhead amounts to R1,074,000, which is reduced by an amount of R50 in respect of the new service which is required to be voted. The saving will meet excesses on other subheads. The saving arises from the shortage of labour and material in the building industry delaying the execution of services. The increase in building costs has been taken into account. The voting of a nominal amount of R50 for the new building work is required in order to avoid delays in planning. As far as the purpose of the training centre is concerned it is mainly to meet the needs of the Transvaal.

I am not quite satisfied with the reply the hon. the Minister gave in regard to this additional amount of R50 being asked for buildings. In his second-reading speech—and he repeated it now—he stated that a nominal amount of R50 is requested, if necessary, to obviate delay in calling for tenders. Now I realize that one wants to obviate delay in calling for tenders as much as possible, but you will recollect, Sir, that in all main and additional expenditures where a nominal amount is asked for of R50, which is the customary amount, it is stated for which particular building it is asked. Even if plans are made for buildings two or more years ahead, a nominal amount of R50 appears on the Estimates, additional or main, but there is an indication of what building it is for. Here we are being asked to vote a nominal amount which can expand into millions of rands in future, and we would like to have some indication from the Minister as to what buildings are being planned for which this nominal amount is being asked.

In regard to the new training school for Post Office technicians, that is a new amount. This side of the House naturally has no objection to further training facilities being provided for post office technicians; in fact, we welcome it. We think this is a belated amount which should have been voted a long time ago. As my hon. friend said, it is long overdue. Could the hon. the Minister indicate whether at this particular training school there will be facilities not only for the training of Whites but also of non-Whites, whether Bantu, Indian or Coloured? I believe there are plans in the Post Office for a limited form of training to be given to people who assist technicians in the Post Office, and perhaps the Minister could indicate to what extent this will tie in with the whole system of the training of technicians. Will this college also be used to train and to orient technicians brought from abroad to work in the Post Office in order to teach them more about our methods and systems?

This nominal amount of R50, as printed in the schedule, is in respect of the new training school for Post Office technicians, which, as I have stated, is mainly for serving the Transvaal. The inclusion of such an amount is the customary way in which one initiates a matter.

Is it only for this building?

Yes. I gladly reply to the questions asked by the hon. member in connection with the groups to be trained. I want to inform him that the Cabinet recently approved of our taking further steps so that, apart from Coloureds and Indians who are to be trained, a subject to which I have already replied by way of questions put here, Coloureds will be trained here in the Cape at a place to be established, and Indians will be trained in Durban for serving their respective townships.

In what capacities?

As telephone mechanics. This is actually work which falls in a category between the labourer and the technician, and it comprises the installation of telephones in homes as well as the joining of cables leading to the homes. This is quite a big task and it requires a good deal of labour. The Coloureds will be trained for these purposes at the place I referred to. The Indians, on the other hand, will be trained in Durban. As far as the Bantu homelands are concerned, approval has also been granted to start training Bantu to do similar work there for their own people. It goes without saying that this will alleviate our manpower position to a very large extent.

Is this work which is at present being done by Whites?

Yes, at the moment this work is still being done by Whites.

Will Coloureds be able to work under Whites in White areas, or is this not envisaged?

It is intended that Coloureds should be trained to be used in their own areas—and it is quite clear how vast these areas are. One foresees the day when the non-Whites will start becoming telephone conscious. Then this is going to cause us more difficulty than we are experiencing at present with the provision of telephones. Surely the practical and the right thing to do is to train those three groups now, so that they may assist in the provision of telephones in their own respective areas.

Are the White technicians satisfied with the policy?

Yes. The Postmaster-General approached the trade union in regard to the matter. He discussed it with them and laid down the explicit condition that they were going to be used in their own areas. They are satisfied with that.

Schedule put and agreed to.

Mr. Chairman, I move the following amendment, as printed in my name—

Mr. Chairman, in regard to this clause, namely the definition clause, I have one difficulty in respect of which I would like some clarity from the hon. the Minister. I refer to the definition of “child” in paragraph (v). This definition is something quite new in pension legislation dealing with the question of pension rights. In view of the definition of “dependant” in paragraph (viii) which defines “dependant” as meaning the widow or child of a deceased member of the pension fund or of the superannuation fund, it is important that we get further clarity in regard to this definition.

The definition of “child” in paragraph (v) refers to a child born out of a customary union of the member of the pension or superannuation fund or out of a marriage —the normal type of marriage—whether or not such customary union or marriage subsisted on the day of such member’s death. We have raised this question during the Second Reading with a view to obtaining further clarity in the case of a child of a deceased member of the pension or superannuation fund, i.e. its standing to claim as a dependant in terms of this section.

The clause clearly states that there is a proviso that the child in such circumstances must also meet certain requirements. One of these requirements is that the child has not contracted a marriage or is not a partner in any customary union. The child must not have attained the age of 18 years and must not be self-supporting. Sub-paragraph (d) mentions too that this child must be one designated by the Secretary as a child for the purposes of this Act. I would like to know from the hon. the Deputy Minister the reasons why it is necessary to have a stipulation that a child must also be designated by the Secretary as a child for the purposes of this Act. It would appear that this is an added proviso which is somewhat different from that embodied in other legislation of a similar type. Here, of course, we realize that we are dealing with a type of pension and superannuation fund, which is specifically for the employees of Bantu authorities. Here the question arises of extending the dependant’s right to claim as a dependant in terms of this definition, where the child is over the age of 18 years and, as often happens as far as Bantu are concerned, is still attending a school in a full-time capacity and is therefore not self-supporting. The hon. the Minister did indicate during the Second-Reading debate that it was possible, that in terms of regulations there might be a means of seeing that that particular child would still be able to claim as a dependent of a deceased member. However, it would appear that it is clearly stated in paragraph (b) that a child must not have attained the age of 18 years. I would therefore be grateful if the hon. the Deputy Minister could give further clarity with regard to that definition.

Whilst dealing with this clause, I would also appreciate further clarification from the Deputy Minister as far as the definition of a widow is concerned on page 8 of the Bill, clause 1 (xxviii), where a widow is defined as follows:

Here we realize that there is a difficulty in the definition of a widow, as far as the widow is concerned, where a member might in terms of Bantu custom have more than one wife and consequently several widows, as to whether these persons who were dependent on the member, would be fully covered in terms of the definition of a widow as we have it before us in this Bill. We realize that this could entail a great deal of difficulty in defining a surviving female partner, as put forward in the clause that is now before us, to see whether persons married in terms of their customs would be covered by this definition and qualify as widows on the death of a member of the pension fund or of the superannuation fund.

I should very much like to reply to the hon. member’s questions. I think that it would be best to begin by explaining to the hon. member that the necessary provision for these specific cases will be made by way of regulation in terms of clause 5 of this Bill. I want to say to the hon. member at once that we intend to use the same provisions as apply in the case of the Public Service Pension Act as a basis for the promulgation of regulation powers here. In respect of dependants, the Public Service Pension regulation reads as follows—

In particular I want to draw attention to the following—

In other words, “any other relative or person” who is dependent upon such a person for maintenance. By way of the same paragraphs (a) and (b) we will make provision for individual cases as well by means of a regulation in terms of this Bill. Having said this, and having now laid the foundation in terms of which this will be done, I can reply to the questions of the hon. member for Umbilo very easily.

In respect of the definition of a child which is given in clause 1 (1) (v), I want to point out that this, since reference is, inter alia, made in paragraph (b) to a child which “has not attained the age of 18 years”, and (c) “is not self-supporting”, refers to the special benefits for such a child. In the regulations provision will now be made for beneficiaries. I am using the word “beneficiaries” in a qualified sense. I am not using the word “dependants”. Nor am I using the word “child”. I am talking about beneficiaries. Since this Bill therefore refers to the special benefits and the regulations make provision for the beneficiaries, it will therefore be possible to make provision for a child over the age of 18 years who may for example be studying. I made very certain that this is correct, because the hon. member asked during the Second Reading already whether it would be possible in terms of this Bill to make the necessary provision in the case, for example, of a beneficiary who is in fact a child who is studying, but who is 20 years old and who actually, in terms of all interests in such a pension matter, ought really to qualify if the person who was supporting him were to die. The Department of Social Welfare and Pensions, as well as the legal advisers, gave me the assurance that this is in fact the case because, so they say, this definition of a child does refer to special benefits, but in the regulation powers, which are stated very widely, there is in fact the necessary authorization to regard such a person over the age of 18 years as a beneficiary and that the necessary provision can therefore be made in the Bill for that type of case. That, then, is my reply in respect of the hon. member’s first question.

In respect of the second question put by the hon. member, I want to point out that in terms of the customary Bantu union, the hon. member must bear in mind that it is very possible, and does in fact often happen that in a customary union one man has four, five or six wives. Now we are, as I said during the Second Reading debate, obliged to strike the necessary balance somewhere. If for example such a Bantu has five wives and has four children from each, we cannot make the necessary provision for all 20 children. How can this be done now? It can only be done by means of the provision which is being made in subclause (v) (d), namely “… has been designated by the Secretary as a child for the purposes of this Act”. The Secretary will then have to use his discretion in terms of Bantu law in regard to which there are already various court decisions, in order to determine which children of those four, five or six wives will be designated as being children for the purposes of this legislation.

That will be difficult.

That will be very difficult. I readily concede that point. But the hon. member must now bear in mind that we are not dealing with Whites where it is much easier to draw the necessary lines, but that we are dealing here with Bantu. We must, as I have already said, try to strike the necessary balance. I can give him the assurance that, while it seems difficult on the surface, it is in practice not really as difficult as all that, because there is much method in the way in which Bantu law is being applied among the Bantu themselves. Therefore we think that it will not be impossible to do this. However, I concede, at the same time, that it will not be too easy.

The same explanation applies to the third question put by the hon. member. This deals with a widow and the definition of “widow” as it appears in clause 1 (xxviii). There the position is precisely the same. In terms of a customary union it may happen that a man has four, five or six wives. In terms of Bantu law and custom it will then be determined which one of those four, five or six has a legitimate claim. In case all five or six have a legitimate claim in terms of Bantu law, it will have to be dealt with as such. This is also a case which will be difficult to deal with, but we can do nothing but make specific provision for this by way of this Bill. The question to which I have now replied is the last question put by the hon. member in regard to clause 1, and I shall therefore let this suffice.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 2:

Mr. Chairman, I move as an amendment—

To omit paragraph (c) of subsection (1); and to omit paragraph (c) of subsection (2).

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Clause 3:

Mr. Chairman, I move as an amendment—

Mr. Chairman, we have no objection to the amendment which has been moved by the hon. the Deputy Minister. Indeed, we welcome the amendment in view of the fact that it does clarify to a great extent one of the difficulties we have experienced prior to this amendment. It concerns those persons who are in the employment of a body or authority which is taken over by the Bantu authorities and who then have to become members of either the pension fund or the superannuation fund by compulsion.

However, there is one further aspect in regard to this clause to which the hon. the Deputy Minister could give further attention. If you look at subsection (7) of this clause you will realize that those who are, for example, in the employment of a municipality or another local authority and who are already existing members of a pension fund or a superannuation fund will by necessity be compelled to become members of the new authorities’ pension fund and the new authorities’ superannuation fund, depending on whether they are in permanent employment or not in permanent employment when they are taken over by a Bantu authority. Therefore, it is important to see that these people who do not have the right to elect to remain a member of the existing superannuation or pension fund, should be fully protected. The hon. the Deputy Minister’s amendment does meet this to a certain extent, seeing that it intends to protect those rights by clearly saying that the benefits shall not be less favourable than those benefits they would have enjoyed had they remained members of the previous fund to which they had belonged. However, in terms of subsection (8) there is one word which I think requires greater clarification. This reads—

Here the word “substantially” is the one which requires some clarification. It depends on the interpretation of this word whether the benefits which they were enjoying in terms of the previous pension fund or superannuation fund to which they had belonged are “substantially more favourable” or whether they are just “more favourable”. The question who will define the words “substantially more favourable”, is very important. In subsection (8) it is stated that the Minister may direct that special benefits, subject to the regulations, may be paid to such persons. This is now of course going to be amended by the amendment of the hon. the Deputy Minister, namely that benefits must not be less favourable than if the persons concerned had remained members of the previous fund. However, it is at the discretion of the hon. the Minister to direct whether benefits may be paid. The thing that concerns me is whether the conditions and benefits are going to be substantially more favourable or merely more favourable. I would suggest that to give greater clarity to this section the hon. the Deputy Minister could perhaps consider the deletion of the word “substantially” so that the subsection would read “of which the benefits are more favourable than the benefits payable in terms of the regulations in corresponding circumstances out of the pension fund” of which they are compelled to become members in terms of this clause. I would be grateful if the hon. the Deputy Minister could give consideration to that point.

Mr. Chairman, before replying to the hon. member in regard to the use of the word “substantially”, I should like briefly to sketch the background as to why a Bantu cannot be allowed a choice here to remain a member of the one fund if he transfers to the other fund. The hon. member must bear in mind that we are dealing here with Bantu from all over the Republic and with a great variety of Bantu who are now going to become members of this pension fund and superannuation fund. My Department, as well as the Department of Social Welfare, decided after a very thorough discussion, that since this pension fund and superannuation fund will in the near future, so we hope, be transferred to the territorial authorities, it was going to create great confusion among those territorial authorities if we allowed a Bantu at this stage to choose whether he wants to remain with his old fund or whether to transfer to this new pension fund or superannuation fund. The first reason is therefore that we are afraid to create confusion, and for that reason we were therefore unable to allow a choice. At this stage the administration involved will also be very difficult We are dealing here with Bantu from all over the Republic and if a choice is allowed, it will make the administrative work very difficult. The second reason is that we are aware that some of the funds to which Bantu today belong, are poor funds. For that reason, too, it was very difficult for the department which I have already mentioned to allow a choice. The third reason is perhaps the most important. It is desirable that a strong pension fund be built up as quickly as possible. This it will be difficult for us to do if we allow the members a choice to remain with any fund of which they were formerly members. The hon. member must bear in mind that we are dealing here with Bantu, many of whom are not so well conversant with these matters. If the pension fund and superannuation fund therefore offers considerably better advantages, some Bantu will purely out of ignorance remain with their old funds. As the hon. member knows, there are other factors as well which are involved here. Personally I would have liked to have seen, and I also initially thought, that they should be allowed a choice as we will do in other Bills of this nature. The officials of the two departments had to go to much trouble to convince me that it was better not to allow a choice.

The question as to whether the word “substantially” should be inserted, was also something which was argued about at length. We were told that if only the words “more favourable” were inserted, the problem would be one of knowing where to draw the line. The officials of the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions then pointed out that this fund would then be reduced to one working with cents. The word “substantially” has therefore been inserted in order to prevent the possibility of working with only a small difference of one cent or so. I want to tell the hon. member that I am very sympathetic towards him in regard to this matter. I think, however, that we should leave the Bill as it is, and allow that word to stand. I want to give him the undertaking that with the application of this matter we will take particular note of this—and it is really the spirit of this Bill—that a person should not be worse off when he transfers from the other fund to the pension fund. “Substantially” will therefore have to be interpreted as the hon. member has suggested, and I agree that we should apply this clause very carefully and reasonably. I hope the hon. member is satisfied with this explanation.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Clause 4:

Mr. Chairman, I move—

In lines 32 and 33, to omit “and on such conditions”.

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to. House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments.

Mr. Speaker, with the leave of the House, I wish to make the following short statement: Following an exchange of views, the British Government informed the South African Government that an export licence for Wasp helicopters will be made available should an order be placed. The South African Armaments Board will accordingly, on the instructions of the South African Government, take the necessary steps to acquire seven Wasps for the South African Navy.

Hear, hear!

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Before the commencement of the Agricultural Credit Act, 1966, loans were granted to owners of land by the Minister of Water Affairs for the construction of a water work in terms of the provisions of the Water Act, 1956. Consequently such loans were subject to the prevailing State interest rates as determined by the Minister of Finance from time to time in terms of the Financial Adjustments Act, 1917. Chapter 9 of the Water Act makes additional provision for the granting of a subsidy in respect of the costs of a water work, and where the costs do not exceed R60,000 the subsidy is limited to R3,000, or a third of the costs of the works, whichever is the lesser amount.

The introduction of uniform measures for the granting of credit by the Agricultural Credit Board in terms of the Agricultural Credit Act has resulted in loans for the construction of water works also being granted in terms of the latter Act. The chief object of this Act is the introduction of measures for the granting of assistance, on a uniform basis, to farmers who are dependent upon the State for their credit needs, and provision is also made in it for a uniform, subsidized interest rate of 5 per cent (for South-West Africa it is 4 per cent), the compulsory consolidation of all departmentally recoverable farming debts and the benefits of free registration of mortgages and exemption from stamp duties in respect of all security documents, as well as exemption from transfer duties where agricultural land is purchased with the aid of assistance.

The introduction of those uniform measures was, however, not meant to take over the financing functions of other credit bodies or to compete with them, and on the basis of a principle it is determined what category of farmers can come into consideration for assistance in terms of the Agricultural Credit Act. With due regard for the aforementioned benefits involved in the granting of assistance, use is made of the so-called means test in the selection of applicants. The means test does not apply, however, to instances where assistance is granted in the interests of the nation, for example in the granting of loans for the preservation of livestock, the provision of water, conservation of the soil and the erection of dwellings for non-White farm labourers.

The fact that a loan for any amount can be granted to a person in terms of the Agricultural Credit Act for the construction of a water work on the recommendation of the Minister of Water Affairs, and that sometimes this is a considerable amount, entails that such a person not only receives a subsidy, as provided in the Water Act, but also the benefits of the subsidized interest rate of 5 per cent, which means that on any amount of the loan owing from time to time he also saves a considerable amount in respect of interest. The prevailing State interest rate is 8 per cent.

As I have explained, the subsidized interest rate of 5 per cent is indeed a special concession to the farmers less endowed with capital. It was therefore not the intention that it should apply without restriction to all loans for the construction of a water works, works that are already subsidized and in the normal course of events are of immediate benefit to the farmer, unlike soil conservation works. Measures for granting loans from State funds for the construction of water works, as embodied throughout the years in the Water Act and now incorporated in the Agricultural Credit Act, are indeed necessary, but there must be certain restrictions on the payment of interest on such loans. Clause 3 of the Bill now before you therefore proposes an amendment of section 15 of the Principal Act to provide that if such a loan exceeds a certain amount, as determined by the Minister after consultation with the Agricultural Credit Board, and the board states it as a condition in the granting of such a loan, the amount owing from time to time in that respect will be subject to the prevailing State interest rate. In the granting of a loan that exceeds the specific amount, the board will therefore be able to subject an owner of land, who is not normally dependent upon the State for financial assistance, to the condition that the loan will be subject to the prevailing State interest rate.

Statistics indicate that in the past very few individual loans greater than R20,000 were granted for the construction of water works. In respect of 117 loans granted during 1963 to 1967, 94 were for amounts of up to R5,000, 13 for amounts between R5,000 and R10,000, five for amounts between R10,000 and R20,000 and five for amounts greater than R20,000. From 1967 to 1970, 898 separate loans were granted. 778 of these were for amounts of up to R5,000, 88 for amounts between R5,000 and R10,000, 29 for amounts between R10,000 and R20,000 and three for amounts greater than R20,000. One can therefore foresee that only a few loans will be subject to prevailing State interest rates in terms of the suggested provision.

The amendment proposed in clause 4 has to do with the settlement of cases under the Land Settlement Act, 1956. Section 60 (1) of that Act provides that the Minister of Agriculture may cancel a land settlement lease if a lessee has not complied with certain conditions or has been guilty of certain contraventions. Section 60 (2), on the other hand, provides that the Minister shall forthwith have to cancel any lease if the lessee concerned has failed to pay all amounts due by him by way of rent interest and installments of purchase price on his holding in respect of four consecutive years.

Although the Land Settlement Act was repealed by section 51 of the Agricultural Credit Act, which came into force on 1st October, 1966, the provisions remain in force for the settlement of leases contracted under that Act before it was repealed. At present the department has a number of cases in which a lessee has already failed to pay all the rent, payable in terms of the Land Settlement Act, for four or more consecutive years, or where the lessee has paid the rent and exercises the right to purchase, but subsequently for four or more consecutive years, has failed to pay the interest and installments of the purchase price and requests—

1. (i) in terms of section 35 of the Land Settlement Act to be exempted from residence and/or occupation and/or to exercise an occupation having no relation to his farming or his holding; or
2. (ii) in terms of section 47 of the Land Settlement Act, to sub-let his holding or cede his interest in the lease; or
3. (iii) assistance by way of a loan in terms of the Agricultural Credit Act in order to pay the outstanding rent or interest and installments of the purchase price in respect of his holding; or
4. (iv) assistance in terms of section 11 (b) of the Agricultural Credit Act, i.e. for the consolidation of amounts recoverable in terms of the Land Settlement Act and other Acts repealed by section 51 of the Agricultural Credit Act.

As has been explained, the power of the Minister to cancel a lease under the circumstances referred to in section 60 (1) of the Land Settlement Act is permissive, and indulgence may be granted in respect of transactions permitted in terms of the Act. However, the question has cropped up whether the provisions of section 60 (2) are mandatory, i.e. whether the Minister is compelled to cancel the lease forthwith as soon as a lessee has failed for four consecutive years to pay all amounts due by him by way of rent, or by way of interest and installments of the purchase price of the holding. This would mean that under the circumstances referred to the Minister would no longer be empowered to make any concession with respect to exemption for residence or occupation, or to cede rights under the lease, and, in addition, that the granting of assistance in terms of sections 10 and 11 of the Agricultural Credit Act, i.e. by way of a loan for the payment of overdue or outstanding debts or the consolidation of debts, will not be able to prevent the compulsory cancellation of a lease in terms of section 60 (2). With a view to removing the doubts, the legal advisors were approached for their opinion, and confirmation was received that section 60 (2) must be interpreted as being mandatory.

The Agricultural Credit Act was passed in 1966 with the chief object of introducing comprehensive measures for granting assistance to farmers and making the consolidation of debts possible with a suitable loan term for the repayment of debts. It is therefore felt that it must be possible for land settlement lessees who are four years or more in arrears as a result of setbacks in their farming which are beyond their control, to be assisted under the existing measures, without the compulsory cancellation of the lease coming into effect in terms of section 60 (2). Since the Land Settlement Act has already been repealed, provision is now being made for the supplementation of section 51 of the Agricultural Credit Act with retrospective effect from 1st October, 1966, in order to interpret section 60 (2) of the Land Settlement Act as permissive; in other words, that the Minister may, and not must, cancel a lease if a lessee has failed to pay all amounts due by him by way of rent, interest and installments of purchase price on his holding in respect of four consecutive years.

This side of the House will not oppose this change to the Agricultural Credit Act; there are, however, certain points we should like to bring to the hon. the Minister’s attention. The first is this: This legislation proves to us that it has become necessary that more prosperous farmers will have to be assisted when they want to tackle certain water works. I want to point out to the hon. the Deputy Minister—he realizes this himself, of course—that there are many farmers who do not receive assistance from the Department of Agricultural Credit, farmers who are not prosperous. They are betwixt and between as far as their financial position is concerned, and I think that the fact that the Minister is prepared to grant them loans at an 8 per cent interest rate is fair under the prevailing circumstances, but at the same time I must point out to the hon. the Deputy Minister that it is not fair to the farmer under the prevailing circumstances where they are all faced with a difficult situation through already having to pay an increased interest rate to commercial banks and other financial institutions. When they tackle such a water work they would be decidedly fortunate to get hold of a loan at an interest rate of 8 per cent. We therefore welcome this concession, but we nevertheless want to point out that Agricultural Credit’s interest rate is normally 5 per cent here and 4 per cent in South-West Africa. It seems strange to us that in helping people it is impossible to do so at the present Agricultural Credit interest rate.

The second point I want to bring to the hon. the Deputy Minister’s attention is this: Why must this legislation be made of retrospective effect from December? The hon. the Deputy Minister unfortunately did not explain this, and I hope that in his reply he will tell us very clearly what reasons gave rise to the decision to make it retrospective from December of last year. Our attitude on this side of the House is that when Agricultural Credit matters are discussed we ought to restrict ourselves as far as possible to the present interest rate of Agricultural Credit.

As far as the last clause of the Bill is concerned, clause 4, where the hon. the Minister is granted the power to cancel a lease, it is a decidedly good concession that is being granted, and we on this side of the House appreciate it, because we realize that there are people that hire land from the State, whether it be on the more densely populated settlements or on other agricultural land, who have been through a very difficult time in the past few years, and if the hon. the Minister sees his way clear to helping these people and not cancelling their contracts we on this side of the House would distinctly welcome it. With these few words I want to support the Second Reading.

I want to follow up on what the hon. member for Newton Park said. What is not clear to us, is in a case where a person has to negotiate a loan and is unable to obtain that loan from Agricultural Credit at an interest rate of 5 per cent, but where it is a bigger loan, in respect of a work which not only benefits the individual but also the country as such, why in terms of the legislation he has to pay State loan interest that amounts to 8 per cent at this stage. Another point I should like the Minister to look at is this. It is laid down that if the board makes such a provision he will pay 8 per cent interest on such bigger loans, and if the board does not, he still pays the 5 percent. This is clearly defined in the Act, but it is not clear to us why it is left to the board to determine from time to time whether a person must pay 8 per cent for a bigger loan for a water work according to State loan interest rates, or whether he should pay 5 per cent according to what the board shall determine from time to time.

As my colleague said here, in the constellation we have today, it also seems quite a reasonable rate of interest to us that a person is able to obtain money for a water work at 8 per cent. But it seems to us as if it would have been much more appropriate if the interest rate as such were fixed. If we cannot do this at the same interest rate that Agricultural Credit can, i.e. 5 per cent, it should be laid down that it will be 6 per cent, if the State feels that it cannot do it for 5 per cent and that it must be a bigger interest rate. This has always depended on what the interest rate for State loans will be. In other words, loans that have been negotiated at various times can carry various interest rates. I should like the hon. the Minister to reply and say what problems are involved in such additional, bigger loans carrying a specific interest rate that is defined in the Act, and why it must be 8 per cent and not a lesser interest rate where there are few of these works. Even if there are only 3,000 of them exceeding the R20,000 mark, it is still to the benefit of the country as such and not to the benefit of the farmer or the individual alone. Why is it subject to State loan interest rates and not to a particular interest rate laid down in the Act? If they must be greater than those of Agricultural Credit, why must they be so much greater that they exceed those interest rates by 3 per cent?

Mr. Speaker, I should also like to ask the hon. the Minister a question or two. I am not quite clear as to the maximum amount of a loan that is granted to an applicant. In cases of certain farmers that are perhaps struggling under the very difficult situation in which the farmer finds himself today, a loan at 5 per cent in excess of the amount that the Minister lays down, might be of great help in rehabilitating a particular farmer. I would plead that in a case like that the hon. the Minister should adopt a flexible attitude in defining the maximum amount a farmer can get at the interest rate of 5 per cent.

Mr. Speaker, the principle as initially contained in the Agricultural Credit Act is that the 5 per cent is laid down as an interest rate that is subsidized by the State. That is the principle. Now this Bill could create the situation where a man must pay more than the 5 per cent laid down, i.e. at prevailing interest rates that are not subsidized. The position is that some farmers can qualify for these specific loans, but their financial position is such that it is not necessary for them also to pay the 5 per cent subsidized interest rate. The hon. member asked why the Agricultural Credit Board must determine the interest rate. This is the case because the Agricultural Credit Board is the body that is in a position to be able to determine whether a person can indeed qualify for a subsidized interest rate or not. That board is the only body that is in a position to determine this interest rate.

It would be very unreasonable if a person must be subsidized at an interest rate of 5 per cent if he is financially able to pay the prevailing interest rates laid down by the State. It would be unreasonable in respect of those persons who cannot pay that interest. I think this is the gist of the matter.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. members for Walmer, Newton Park and East London City touched upon the problem of interest rates. We are aware of that. However. the hon. member for Bethal summed the position up correctly. The Agricultural Credit Committee investigates these cases individually and makes a recommendation to the Agricultural Credit Board. This is in the case of a person who is not financially in a position to pay more. These are however, mostly in respect of smaller works. The scheme is only applicable to water works approved by the Department of Water Affairs. Now the hon. member for Newton Park asks why this has been done with retrospective affect. We had a case in December, for example, of a farmer wanting to set up a water scheme. But that farmer was a prosperous farmer. In my opinion he could have tackled the project on his own. Now one asks oneself whether he should have let this scheme come to nothing while we could help him at an interest rate of 8 per cent. 5 per cent is the subsidized interest rate. The Department of Water Affairs told him that they had determined that the scheme was economically justifiable and that he would recompense himself. It was a water scheme for irrigation purposes. That is where the whole matter originated. Those cases must be dealt with individually. Let the one person pay 5 per cent. But one surely cannot give the prosperous individual subsidized interest as well. If, after completion, a scheme appears to be a paying proposition such a person is entitled to a rebate in respect of income tax. It is regarded as a capital work erected by him. I wish we could give everyone 5 per cent interest. But this is not realistic and fair. We have now, however, got our footing in being able to help these people. Previously they could get no help from the Department of Agricultural Credit.

†The hon. member for Walmer asked what the maximum was for which a farmer can qualify. There is no maximum. If the Department of Water Affairs approves of a loan because a scheme is an economic proposition; the loan may amount to R250,000. One thing, however, must be remembered. There are some schemes worked out by the Department of Water Affairs that are subsidized up to 30 per cent and more. Those are not schemes such as these we are discussing. I now refer to irrigation schemes for groups of farmers. Some time ago we had one for seven farmers which was subsidized by 33 per cent.

*I must thank the Opposition for their support of this measure and the amendment of the law, because it is for the benefit of the farmers. I also think they understand that not everyone can be given subsidized interest, because this would cost us too much money. The farmers are already very glad of this concession.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

That the Bill be now read a Second Time.

As a result of the increasing use of radioactive isotopes and X-rays in the field of medicine, commerce and industry, great concern was expressed through various organizations and individuals regarding the possible dangers to which this could give rise. Cases were quoted where the users, especially of X-ray apparatus, did not take adequate precautions to safeguard their personnel as well as members of the public against excessive radiation.

However, the extent of the dangers to which the public were exposed was not known. Consequently the Government decided in 1959 to appoint a commission under the chairmanship of Prof. S. F. Oosthuizen, president of the South African Medical and Dental Council and professor of radiology at the University of Pretoria, to investigate the whole question of the dangers arising out of X-rays and other ionizing rays.

The commission investigated the matter thoroughly. Information was obtained by means of verbal and written evidence, inspections in loco and a comprehensive study of all available literature on the subject as well as of legislation in force in South Africa and 38 other countries. The commission found that in 32 of these countries legislative provision already existed for controlling radiation and that in the remaining six countries the introduction of appropriate legislation was contemplated. So far as South Africa is concerned existing legislation was found to be entirely inadequate.

The commission found that excessive exposure to radiation emanating from radioactive isotopes and X-ray apparatus could cause lesions, and that cases of lesions from X-rays had in fact occurred in South Africa.

In December, 1965, the Cabinet approved of the introduction of legislation to deal with the situation. Shortly thereafter, however, it was learned that it was intended to tighten up control over radioactive isotopes by means of the amendment of the Atomic Energy Act. This was in fact done during the 1967 session, so that all that remained to be done so far as the commission’s recommendations in this respect were concerned, was to provide for the exercise of proper control over X-ray apparatus. In this regard the commission found the position in South Africa to be alarming. In point of fact its investigations revealed that the majority of X-ray installations in the Republic do not comply with the minimum safety standards and constitute a danger to those who operate them as well as to the public.

Legislation to deal with this situation was prepared for introduction during 1968, but was not proceeded with as the Medical Council wished to give further consideration to certain aspects of the legislation. The council has recently indicated that it is satisfied with the present proposals. In the meantime the developments in respect of rays emanating from the electro-magnetic spectrum, other than ionizing rays, have been so great that it has become necessary to make provision for controlling, as the need arises, not only X-rays, but also all rays emanating from the electro-magnetic spectrum, such as ultraviolet and infrared rays, microwaves, radio frequency waves, laser rays, infrasonic, ultrasonic and magnetic fields.

Investigations have shown that the above non-ionizing radiation waves are capable of producing not only physical discomfort, but burns of the skin and deep tissues, cataracts of the eye and retinal burns.

Microwave use has developed rapidly in the last decade and includes the following—

1. (i) microwave transmitters;
2. (ii) domestic microwave ovens;
3. (iii) commercial microwave ovens;
4. (iv) microwave diathermy units;
5. (v) radar on pleasure boats;
6. (vi) stationary radar; and
7. (vii) industrial microwave heating units.

Both microwave ovens and radar equipment can cause genetic changes and microwave ovens can also cause cataracts. The use of microwave ovens for both domestic and commercial purposes is expanding rapidly and it is imperative that safety standards be laid down for the manufacture and operation of these ovens. In view of the importance of this aspect the South African Bureau of Standards has already drawn up standards in respect of microwave ovens.

The Bill before this House takes the form of enabling legislation designed to give the Minister the power to promulgate regulations in regard to a variety of matters which are necessary for protecting all concerned from the dangers to which I have already referred.

It provides for the licensing by the Secretary for Health of electronic products and premises on which any such product is installed, the requirements with which such products or premises must conform, the prohibition of the use of unlicenced electronic products or premises, controlling who may operate such products, the prescription of the duties of persons in charge of such products or premises, the precautions to be taken for protecting the health of any person in control of or employed in connection with any electronic product or of any other person who may be exposed to radiation emanating therefrom, for the inspection of electronic products or premises on which any such products is installed, the submission to the Secretary for Health of statistics and reports on such products and premises and for the appointment of committees to advise the Secretary for Health on any matter concerning any electronic product. Further, the Bill contains a comprehensive definition of the expressions “electronic product” and “radiation emanating from an electronic product”. and provides for consultation with the Medical Council before any regulation providing for the control of any electronic product for diagnostic or therapeutic use on man is promulgated.

The regulations for controlling the radiation emitted from electronic products will of necessity vary from product to product. For example, control of X-ray equipment will include the licensing of the building housing the equipment, the monitoring of the radiation received by employees, and the safety of the public who may be exposed to radiation from X-rays when visiting institutions where X-ray sources are operated. In other non-ionizing radiation electronic products control will consist of strict standards of manufacture of the electronic products incorporating built-in safety devices which make it impossible to operate the electronic product and so endanger the operator if all the safety devices are not operating.

Many of the investigations of the biological damage caused by non-ionizing radiation are still in the initial stages and it is difficult to predict the extent of possible genetic and tissue damage. Only when these investigations have been completed can the health hazard to the population be properly assessed and the necessary legislation promulgated. However, because of the possible genetic hazards that can affect future generations, we cannot take any chances in the meantime and are thus taking steps to control the present uses of electronic products.

As already mentioned the Bill has the support of the Medical Council. Inclusion of this measure in the legislative programme is also supported by the Atomic Energy Board, the Department of Labour and the Department of Health.

There can be no doubt that the institution of control over electronic products in the manner provided in the Bill is urgently necessary in the interest of the health and welfare of the public of South Africa and I accordingly trust that the Bill will be adopted without opposition.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is high time that a Bill of this nature was brought to this House, whereby the uncontrolled and unrestricted use of electronic products, which has been happening up till now, because the restrictions and regulations have become outdated, can be stopped. After this Bill passes through this House, we will for the first time have records of why electronic products are being used, where they are going to be used, and on whom they are going to be used. The hon. the Minister pointed out that safety measures such as are contemplated in this Bill, are absolutely necessary. We all agree with him. I am pleased that he has taken note of the possibility of electronic products affecting those people who do not even come in the direct line of the electronic products. X-ray apparatus may be installed in a building and people passing repeatedly through the corridor of that building could easily be affected by the X-ray machine. It is good to know that all these matters have been adequately gone into and that the various bodies which are interested in the therapeutic and diagnostic uses of electronic products are taking all these matters into consideration. I would like to say to the Minister he must make sure that unauthorized persons are not allowed to use machines which may cause damage by cumulative effect. Some of these massage machines which are being used, which appear to be ordinary electrical appliances are being used indiscriminately and without any control. They may, by cumulative effect, cause damage to tissues. I wonder if it is not possible for us to have another opportunity at a later date of investigating such machines and if necessary, restricting the use thereof.

The premises where the machines are being used at the moment or will be used will come under the inspection of, I hope, trained inspectors. I would like to suggest to the hon. the Minister that these inspections should be done frequently. It is not good enough to have an inspector going around every six months to a building or to a hospital where such machines are installed. I think that these machines and the environs of the machines should at the very least be examined monthly. I am pleased that provision is being made for the keeping of statistics. It is only in this manner that we will be able to learn the usefulness and the abuses of these machines. I am particularly concerned about the effect on tissues and glands where such machines may be used by the inexperienced indiscriminately. I feel that this subsection which deals with statistics should be carefully watched and every person who receives treatment, should be instructed to report any untoward effect caused by the treatment, to the person who is in charge of the institution.

I do not think that I need to elaborate any further on the value of this Bill. We on this side of the House will support it and we hope that the hon. the Minister will not be burdened with too many amendments. We also hope that this Bill in itself and the regulations arising out of this Bill will be sufficient to look after our population and to do away with any hazards which might possibly be caused by electronic equipment.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased with the attitude of the hon. member for Rosettenville and we are grateful that they are supporting this matter together with us. To me this is quite a historic day in the development of medical science in this country. If we open this Bill in front of us, we shall find that it is a Bill amending the Public Health Act of 1919. If we read it in the High Dutch translation, we really come to realize how far medical science has advanced in the past 52 years. It is characteristic that one has to read here in what is almost a strange language, the language of 1919, of an “ ‘elektronisch produkt’ een produkt dat vervaardigd of gemonteerd is en wanneer het in werking is uitstralingen van een elektronisch produkt voortbrengt of bij ontstentenis van doeltreffende beschutting of andere voorzorgmaatregelen zou voortbrengen”. Then we really come to realize that medical science is one of those sciences which have made the most progress in the past half century.

This radiation, and I am glad the hon. the Minister explained it so clearly, has a twofold effect. This protection is firstly for the people who undergo treatment and secondly for those who handle the equipment. In 1919 we did not know what a radiograph was. In 1919 we did not know what an ion or a radio-active isotope was. Today, as the hon. the Minister made so abundantly clear to us, radio-active isotopes are used by many institutions in diagnostics as well as in the treatment of certain diseases. I am very glad that the hon. the Minister also mentioned that this radiation is being carefully investigated, not only its immediate reactions and harmful effects, but also what the effects may be in future. I am also glad that research will be continued. Fifteen years after the explosion of the atom bomb on Hiroshima certain conditions emerged in Japan of which nothing had been known during those 15 years. In the same way we can expect certain conditions caused by excessive radiation to emerge, not in the first generation, but certainly in the second or third generation.

The hon. member for Rosettenville also mentioned other instruments which are operated by electric power. I do not want to anticipate matters, but I think that provision is being made in other legislation for the standardization and utilization of certain other instruments which are used as therapeutic devices. We on this side of the House are very grateful for the support from members opposite. We can only express the wish that the effects will be minimal and the control maximal, because there are so many factors in medicine of which we have no knowledge at present. Furthermore, we hope that this legislation will only promote the health of the human body.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the hon. member for Rosettenville, because the provisions of this Bill go very far. As was pointed out by the hon. the Minister its implications will be felt in industry as we know it today. We know that the infra-red drying lamps used on motor car paintwork and a number of other instruments and machines do emit radiation. One really does not know what effect some of these machines have. At one stage in the past it was said that even the lights in this House could have an effect on people. In the old days one could have one’s feet X-rayed before buying shoes. Dentists often take X-rays of one’s teeth. Up to now we have always had the very effective Factories Act which looks after workers. I know that strict measures are taken when machines emitting radiation are used. In this regard I think of arc-welders, for example. Where workers use arc-welders they have to be screened. We also know that X-rays are used in the aviation industry where components are inspected for metal fatigue and possible cracks. It therefore has far-reaching effects. It is a protection for the workers who use these machines. The only thing that worries me is that the Minister has not mentioned whether or not industry has been consulted about this Bill. Here I want to point out that, in terms of the licence for which provision is made, the person using various machines would have to have some sort of qualification. However, a person putting up a set of lamps to dry out paint work would not need to be highly qualified. One could use a labourer to do such work. Supervisory qualifications would probably be required, but I can see that when this Bill comes into effect and the regulations are framed, industry will have to examine the position and put its house in order. There can be no doubt that this Bill is going to be very far-reaching. In fact, as far as industry is concerned, it will be even more far-reaching than we think, because every day new machines are coming on to the market and one really does not know what effect they may have on the persons who operate them. Although the Minister has already had consultations with the Minister of Labour, I hope that they will consult with each other further in regard to the use of the Factories Act. It is a very useful Act which covers workers in many ways, and I hope that it will be able to play its part when it comes to the application of this particular measure.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Salt River made specific reference to the industries also involved in this matter. The fact that industries are involved will explain to hon. members why this legislation has been so widely defined. The reason is that we want to make all kinds of apparatus which can possibly be used in industries, in the medical profession, or wheresoever, subject to the provisions of this Bill.

The hon. member also pointed out that several years ago one could have an X-ray photograph taken of one’s foot in a shoe store prior to buying a pair of shoes. That is so, but I do not think one still finds shops like that today. The reason for this is that we have been holding out the prospect of this legislation. Therefore I do not want to regard this Bill as a measure to be applied with the laws of the Medes and the Persians. I want to regard it as legislation which has two other aspects, and these are perhaps the most important. One is that it brings to the notice of unsuspecting people the possible source of danger which certain apparatus may be. Secondly, it acts as a deterrent. When apparatus which may be harmful is used, such use will be terminated long before the Act is actually applied.

The hon. member also spoke of co-operation with the Department of Labour. I can give the hon. member the assurance that we also desire very close co-operation with the Department of Labour. The hon. member is not correct when he refers to the qualifications which will be laid down for persons who operate such apparatus. This Bill does not provide for the qualifications having to be laid down, for very obvious reasons. The furthest we are going is to enable the Minister in the new section 133 (A) (1) (e) to make regulations “prescribing the duties and responsibilities of any person in control of any electronic product …” The qualifications cannot be stipulated here. The qualifications for persons in the medical and other professions who control and use this type of apparatus are covered by other legislation. In the industry we rely on the sound co-operation of the industry itself. We assume that they will not place persons in control of expensive apparatus who have not been trained for the job. Accordingly no provision is being made in this Bill for laying down qualifications.

The hon. member for Brentwood drew our attention to the use of Dutch in this Bill. I am pleased he did this because the department has now started the consolidation of the whole of the Public Health Act, a prospect which has been held out on previous occasions. The High Dutch sections will be translated into Afrikaans at the same time. The hon. member can understand that this is an enormous task. We have for some considerable time been trying to find staff who have legal training to deal with this work. It is one of the ideals I cherish myself, and my department as well, not only to bring this legislation up to date, but to consolidate it.

Then the hon. member pointed out the tremendous progress—greater perhaps than in any other sphere—which had been made in medicine. It will make hon. members realize how great the responsibility of the Government is to afford the public minimum protection at least with regard to apparatus, minimum protection with regard to the premises or buildings, but also minimum protection with regard to the person who operates this apparatus. I have already pointed out in reply to the hon. member for Salt River that this minimum protection is to be found in various things but, inter alia, in the minimum qualifications and training of such a person, for which provision is being made in other laws and which will come up for discussion in the next Bill on the Order Paper and in others.

The hon. member for Rosettenville underlined the importance of this legislation. I think it would be impossible to overemphasize the importance of this legislation in the times in which we are living. The hon. member referred to persons who come into contact with radiation from such apparatus, not directly perhaps, but unconsciously, by entering a building for instance, not knowing that apparatus such as this has been installed in the building. This is why we are hereby assuming control over the premises and the building as well, in order that we may protect all possible persons and not only those who work with apparatus such as this.

Then the hon. member referred to the importance of inspection and made certain proposals. Hon. members will understand that the question of inspection is a very essential matter, but one which is influenced by the availability of inspectors who have been properly trained. We will undoubtedly take the necessary steps to have the people properly trained. I only hope that the State will be able to find and keep a sufficient number of them.

Then the hon. member also referred to the obligation which can be imposed with regard to statistics. This is specifically being done because, as I indicated in my Second-Reading speech, there are still many things concerning which we do not have all the information and which will, of course, emerge from the statistics which are made available to the department by the different bodies.

Mr. Speaker, I thank hon. members on both sides for their support and especially the hon. members who spoke.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

That the Bill be now read a Second Time.

With the exception that the proposed new section 39C of Act 13 of 1928 (clause 7) has been amended by the law adviser, this Bill is exactly the same as the Bill to amend the Medical, Dental and Pharmacy Act which was introduced last session but which had only had its first reading when Parliament was prorogued.

Section 39C as originally drafted debarred any person other than a member of a particular profession supplementary to medicine, and in certain circumstances a doctor or a dentist, from performing in a prescribed area any act specially pertaining to such profession. In this regard sight was lost of the fact that the activities of certain professions supplementary to medicine overlapped to some extent. This, for example, is found in the case of physiotherapists and masseurs. Section 39C, as now drafted, provides for contingencies of this nature.

The primary object of this Bill is to effect certain important amendments in the Medical, Dental and Pharmacy Act in relation to the regulation and control of the various health services professions supplementary to medicine; the removal of restrictions on the professional activities of medical practitioners and dentists who hold certain foreign qualifications; the prohibition of the treatment of cancer by persons other than medical practitioners and dentists and the tightening of control over the sale or supply of instruments and apparatus intended for use in connection with the diagnosis, treatment, prevention or relief of physical defects or disease in man.

Other amendments envisaged in the Bill concern representation by the South African Nursing Council on the Medical Council; the procedure to be followed by the Medical Council in connection with disciplinary inquiries; the imposition of penalties arising out of such inquiries and action by the Medical Council against registered persons who become addicted to potentially harmful drugs. The remaining provisions of the Bill deal with the relaxation of the existing restriction in regard to the carrying on of the business of a chemist and druggist under a personal name in certain circumstances and the exemption of toothpaste containing not more than the prescribed amount of fluorine from the requirements of the Act relating to the labelling of poisonous substances.

Having summarized the principles contained in the Bill, I now propose to deal with the various items in some detail.

In so far as health services professions supplementary to medicine are concerned, the position is that for many years the need has existed for statutory recognition and control over those members of these professions who are accepted by the Medical Council as qualified and competent through training and examination to perform defined public health services.

The need for regulation and control of such professions has been accentuated during recent years by advances in medical science. The ambit of general health care has widened to such an extent that it has become virtually impossible for a general medical practitioner to be proficient in or to cope with the treatment demanded in all fields of health care. Thus the tendency has been towards specialization in the many diverse fields. Consequently health care services have crystallized into a team effort.

Allied professions such as pharmacy and nursing are already under statutory control, but this is not yet the case with certain other vitally necessary professions, such as optometry, physiotherapy, radiography and psychology, to mention but a few.

Many of these professions have instituted training courses at advanced technical colleges or at university level as well, with qualifying examinations recognized by the Medical Council. They have further voluntarily submitted to registration and control by the Medical Council, in accordance with the provisions of section 32 of the Act which provides for registration and control on that basis. I may just underline the fact that under section 32 there can only be voluntary registration and not compulsory registration. There are, however, no statutory measures to protect the public and the professions concerned against exploitation and competition by unqualified persons who set themselves up as practitioners in many of these professions—more often than not by blatant advertising.

Negotiations with responsible bodies representative of these professions regarding the adoption of appropriate legislation to meet this situation have been in progress for some time under the aegis of the Medical Council. These negotiations have now reached the stage where agreement in general has been reached on the basic principles in that regard as contained in the Bill now before this House.

The present position regarding control of para-medical personnel is that in terms of section 32 the Medical Council may establish registers in respect of any profession referred to in that section and register persons who pass examinations prescribed by the Council or who, in lieu thereof, hold diplomas or certificates recognized by the Council. Persons registered in this manner are subject to control by the Council. However, they are not compelled to register, and those persons Who do in fact register with the Council, do so of their own free will.

The Bill does not disturb the present position regarding voluntary registration. It, however, envisages the eventual prohibition of the practice of any particular profession by persons whose names do not appear on the register kept by the Council in respect of that profession. The first step towards the attainment of this objective is the setting up of professional boards for the respective professions supplementary to medicine, with the object of promoting high standards of professional education and conduct amongst members of those professions. Provision in this regard is made in clause 2 of the Bill which provides for the establishment of such boards by the State President on the recommendation of the Medical Council. However, before making any recommendation in this regard the Council is required to consult representatives of persons whose names appear on the register kept by it in connection with the profession in respect of which the board is to be established. Where the professional activities of two or more professions are so closely related that separate boards for each profession would be illogical, the Bill provides for the establishment of one board to serve the professions concerned. For example, it might well be decided to establish a single board in respect of optometrists, orthoptists and dispensing opticians, because they mostly do the same work.

Clause 2 also provides for the constitution, powers, functions and duties of these boards to be prescribed by the State President by regulation. However, certain aspects which are regarded as essential for the proper functioning of any board are circumscribed in the Bill itself. Thus any regulation relating to the constitution of a professional board must provide (a) for at least one member to be a member of the Medical Council; (b) for the election of the majority of the members by persons whose names appear on the Council’s register in respect of the profession in question, and (c) for at least one medical practitioner or dentist who has special knowledge of the profession concerned to be a member of the relative board. Further, in addition to performing duties prescribed by regulation, clause 2 requires a board to report to the Medical Council on any matter referred to it by the Council, but the Chairman of the Board may attend meetings of the Council as of right where such a report is considered, and while attending the meeting he has all the privileges of a member of the Council. Clause 2 also confers on any professional board the right to make to or through the Council representations for the making, amendment or withdrawal of any rule or regulation of concern to it, and provides further for consultation with the board before any such rule or regulation is made.

In general the professional boards envisaged in the Bill will function as advisory bodies to the Medical Council in regard to matters affecting the profession or professions in respect of which they have been established. Consequently, provision is made throughout for consultation with the relative board on all matters affecting it or the profession concerned. In addition to the provision in this regard contained in clause 2 to which I have already referred, I wish to invite attention to the requirements in this respect laid down in clauses 5, 7, 13, 15 and 19 in relation to the erasure of a name from a register; the definition of the scope of a profession in respect of which a board has been established; the registration of persons who do not possess qualifications referred to in section 32 but who satisfy the Council regarding their competency in the field in which they have practised for the past five years; the prescription of acts or omissions which constitute improper or disgraceful conduct; the consideration of complaints regarding the amounts charged for professional services and the prescription of annual fees payable by persons registered under section 32 of the Act.

Apart from performing such functions as may be assigned to them by regulation under clause 2, such as for example the preparation of syllabi and curriculae, regulations regarding the conduct of examinations, ethical rules and so forth, clause 12 of the Bill confers on professional boards similar functions in regard to the holding of inquiries into charges of misconduct by members of the profession concerned, to those possessed by the Medical Council in respect of medical practitioners and dentists, but with this difference—a board is not empowered to impose penalties on the person charged if it finds him guilty. In such cases the board must advise the person charged and the Council of its finding and the penalty which it recommends should be imposed. It must also furnish the Council with the minutes of the proceedings of the inquiry held by it.

After the person charged is given an opportunity of making written representations to the Medical Council, the Council must review the matter in the light of the minutes of the inquiry held by the board and any representations made by the accused.

The Council may reject or accept the Board’s finding and may in the latter event impose whichever of the penalties prescribed by section 42 of the Act it deems fit. In lieu of or in addition to any such penalty it may impose a fine not exceeding twenty rand.

Having dealt with the question of the establishment and functions of the proposed professional boards in some detail, I shall now turn to what might appropriately be referred to as stage two in our efforts to place the various health services professions supplementary to medicine on a sound footing.

This latter stage is concerned with matters relating to the restriction or prohibition of the performance by unqualified or inadequately qualified or unregistered persons of acts specially pertaining to any particular profession.

In this regard the Bill firstly provides for the definition by the State President by regulation, on the recommendation of the Medical Council, of the scope of any profession supplementary to medicine by specifying the acts which shall be deemed to be acts specially pertaining to that profession. As mentioned previously the Council must first consult the professional board concerned before making any such recommendation. Moreover, if there is a difference of opinion on the matter between the board and the Council, the latter is required to bring that fact to the notice of the State President. The provision in this regard is contained in the first part of clause 7—that is, in proposed new section 39A (1).

In accordance with the customary practice in connection with legislation designed to restrict or prohibit the performance by inadequately qualified or unregistered persons of acts specially pertaining to a particular profession, the proposed new section 39A (2) of the Act gives such persons who have for the past five years been earning a living by practising a profession in respect of which a board has been established, an opportunity of registering under section 32 of the Act. However, before being accepted for registration they must pass an oral and practical examination to the satisfaction of examiners appointed by the Council on the recommendation of the relative board. Further, their applications for registration must be submitted to the Council within six months after the date on which the board was established or such longer period as the Council may allow, and the application must be supported by a certificate of good character from the board.

Possibly the most important provisions of the Bill affecting health services professions supplementary to medicine are contained in proposed new sections 39B and C., which have as their objective the eventual total prohibition of the performance for gain by unregistered persons of any act pertaining to a profession referred to in section 32. In this regard provision is made whereby the State President may, on the recommendation of the Medical Council and if he is satisfied that in any area the facilities for obtaining the services of persons registered under section 32 of the Act in respect of any profession are sufficient for all classes of the population, declare such area to be a prescribed area in which no person who is not registered under section 32 in respect of the profession in question may for gain perform any act pertaining to that profession, except in the special circumstances which I mentioned in my opening remarks. Moreover, the State President may define by regulation the acts which unregistered persons may perform for gain in areas which have not been proclaimed as prescribed areas. These restrictions naturally do not apply to the performance by medical practitioners or dentists of acts specially pertaining to their respective professions. I might mention that similar provisions are contained in the Nursing Act of 1957. So far as chiropractors are concerned hon. members will no doubt have observed that they are being dealt with in a separate Bill. I may just mention that I am consulting with representatives of the chiropractic profession and perhaps we can come up with something which satisfies them.

The remaining provisions of the Bill which affect the performance of paramedical services provide for consultation by the Medical Council with professional boards before a name is removed from a register established under section 32 (clause 5); the imposition of penalties for pretending to be registered under section 32 when not so registered (clause 8); the prescription of acts or omissions by persons registered under section 32 which constitute improper conduct; consultation by the Council with the relative professional board when considering complaints regarding fees charge by persons registered under section 32 and the prescription of annual fees to be paid by persons registered under the same section.

Mr. Speaker, I trust that the explanations which I have made so far will have given hon. members a reasonably clear picture of the objects of the Bill in so far as health services supplementary to medicine are concerned. Personally I feel confident that I can state without fear of contradiction that what we now propose in this regard constitutes an important milestone in the development of the health services of the Republic. I may say that there has been a clamouring for this for many years, emanating not only from the Medical Council but from most of the paramedical health services. I think the time has really come when we can no longer delay this particular step in providing them with some form of not only statutory recognition but also, if the State President so promulgates, imposing compulsory registers.

In regard to the question of the relaxation of restrictions on the professional activities of persons possessing certain foreign medical or dental qualifications, the position is that in terms of section 22 (1) (a) of the Medical, Dental and Pharmacy Act, no foreign qualification may be prescribed as entitling the holder to register and practise in the Republic unless—(i) the qualification in question entitles the holder to practise in the country in which it was obtained, i.e. the reciprocity provision; (ii) persons holding South African qualifications are entitled to practise in that country without further examination (in other words there must be reciprocity between the Republic and the respective foreign country in regard to the recognition of qualifications for purposes of registration); and (iii) the Medical Council is satisfied that the possession of the foreign qualification in question indicates a standard of professional education not less than that prescribed for medical practitioners or dentists in the Republic.

Provision is, however, made in section 22 (2) (a) for exemption from compliance with subparagraph (ii) of paragraph (a) of section 22 (1)—that is from the reciprocity requirements—of persons possessing foreign qualifications prescribed under section 23 or such other qualification referred to in section 22 (2) (b) which in the opinion of the Medical Council indicates a satisfactory standard of professional education.

Persons who are registered under section 22 (2) (a) are only entitled to practise, and this is important because this is what is being changed now—(i) for an initial period of five years and thereafter for such period as the Council may determine; (ii) in respect of such area or areas as the Council may determine; and (iii) subject to such restrictions in respect of their professional activities as the Council may determine, in other words a restricted practise.

The relative regulations restrict the practising by persons registered under this section to full-time service of the State, provincial administrations, universities and scientific institutions and missions.

Considerable dissatisfaction has for some time existed on account of the fact that there is no provision in the Act for persons registered under section 22 (2) (a) who have rendered efficient service over some years, of obtaining unrestricted registration other than by acquiring a South African medical degree after at least three years’ study in the Republic. This dissatisfaction is understandably even greater when the persons concerned hold a degree prescribed under section 23, which when held by a South African citizen entitles him to unrestricted practice in the Republic.

In addition to the pressure for the removal of the restrictions imposed in terms of section 22 (2) (a) in suitable cases from persons directly affected, representations have for a considerable time been made by the Department of Immigration in this regard. In this connection I might mention that the immigration authorities are only prepared to issue temporary residential permits to persons registered under that section.

After thorough investigation of the position, the Medical Council has recommended that provision be made for the removal of the restrictions imposed on a foreign holder of qualifications prescribed under section 23 of the Act, subject to the following conditions—

1. (i) he must have been registered for at least two years and have practised at a hospital or similar institution in the Republic for at least two years, of which at least one year must have been at a hospital or other similar institution approved by the Council;
2. (ii) he must submit a certificate from the head of the latter hospital or institution stating that he was found to be professionally competent and of good character; and
3. (iii) he must satisfy the Council regarding his knowledge of the laws of the Republic relating to the practice of his profession and as to his proficiency in at least one of the official languages of the Republic.

In so far as holders of qualifications referred to in section 22 (2) (b), other than those prescribed under section 23, are concerned, the Council has recommended that they too should become eligible for the removal of restrictions imposed on them, provided that in addition to complying with the aforementioned conditions, they pass an examination prescribed by the Council for the purpose of determining whether they possess knowledge and skill which is not lower than that prescribed for medical practitioners or dentists in the Republic. Hon. members will note that we are dealing here with two categories of people, namely those that have to sit for an examination and those who are not required to do so.

The question might well be raised as to why persons holding degrees prescribed under section 23 are not also required to sit for a professional examination. The reason is that no degree may be prescribed under that section unless it indicates a standard of professional education not lower than that applicable to South African qualifications, whereas the other qualifications referred to in section 22 (2) (b) need only indicate a satisfactory standard of professional education.

Provision for giving effect to the Council’s recommendations is made in clause 3 of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I now go on to refer to the proposal contained in clause 6 of the Bill which is aimed at curbing the activities of unqualified persons who profess to be able to treat and cure cancer.

It is indeed tragic that in spite of the advances that have already been made and are continuing to be made in regard to the treatment of cancer, there still exists the cancer sufferer or the person who fears that he has cancer, who through ignorance or unjustified fear of the necessary medical treatment, seeks the aid of the so-called cancer curer rather than that of his doctor.

Treatment, usually at considerable cost to the patient, by these unqualified persons frequently has maiming and tragic results, more particularly delay in seeking proper medical treatment before the condition has reached the stage where it can no longer be cured or arrested. It is really sad to know that these things are taking place daily in our midst, while the best treatment known to medical science is readily available at our hospitals, and free of charge if necessary.

For many years—and this is rather important—the National Cancer Association of South Africa has been active in bringing these facts to the notice of the public as well as to cancer sufferers in general.

In spite of these efforts, coupled with those of the Department of Health and others, little progress has been made in combating the activities of these quacks.

In the circumstances both the National Cancer Association and the Medical Council have urged that action be taken without delay to eliminate this danger.

Provision has accordingly been made in clause 6 of the Bill to prohibit any person, other than a registered medical practitioner, from diagnosing or treating any malignant condition or from offering to or holding out that he can diagnose or treat such a condition, or from holding out that any article, medicine or apparatus is or may be of value for the alleviation, curing or treatment of cancer.

I sincerely trust that the measures now proposed will have the desired effect. In this connection it will be noted that the words “for gain” in relation to treatment, etc., have not been used in this instance. They have been omitted deliberately, as these charlatans, and I make no apology for referring to them as such, invariably manage to circumvent the law when prosecuted for performing acts pertaining to that of a medical practitioner, by pleading that they made no charge for treatment. They of course have other methods of fleecing their unfortunate victims.

A matter which has for some time engaged the attention of the Department of Health concerns the quality and value from a medical point of view of certain instruments and apparatus purporting to be of use in the treatment of human ailments.

Section 83 (b) of Act 13 of 1928 confers on the Minister the power to prescribe standards of accuracy in respect of thermometers or other instruments or apparatus used or intended to be used in connection with the diagnosis or treatment of physical defects or disease in man, and also to prohibit the importation into or the manufacture, sale or use of such articles in the Republic which do not comply with the prescribed standard.

The Act, however, does not provide for the prescription of standards in respect of other qualities, such as efficacy, something which experience has shown to be urgently necessary in the public interest. A glaring example of the need in this respect is to be found in the case of certain types of respirators which are widely advertised for use in cases of emergency, but which in practice have been found to be quite ineffective. These totally unsatisfactory articles which are used in cases of emergency, have already been found in ambulances. It would indeed be superfluous to stress the obvious danger to the public created by such a state of affairs. Similarly, hearing aids have been found to be ineffective or unsuitable for the person to whom they have been sold.

In other cases entirely useless articles, purporting to be effective in the treatment or relief of human ailments, are foisted on the public. In this connection I have with me here a circular which was recently sent to me—of course not by the seller of the article. I shall read it so that hon. members can see for themselves the sort of thing that is going on and the need for putting a stop to it. It reads as follows—

It is quite obvious that there is no value in this whatsoever. Yet this is being circulated amongst the public.

I now come to clause 18. Clause 18 is designed to extent the Minister’s powers to enable him to prescribe standards in respect of any quality and also to enable him to prohibit the manufacture, sale or supply of any instrument, apparatus or other article, even if no standard therefore has been laid down, if he considers this in the public interest from a health point of view.

Section 2 (5) of the Act provides for the nomination by the South African Nursing Council of two of its members as members of the Medical Council. In terms of the Nursing Act, Act No. 69 of 1957, the members of the Nursing Council consist of persons registered under that Act as well as persons who are not registered. It could thus occur that a lay person is nominated to represent the Nursing Council on the Medical Council. Consequently, the Nursing Council has requested that this anomaly in the Act be remedied by providing that the persons nominated by the Council as members of the Medical Council shall be persons who are registered under the Nursing Act. In other words, nurses shall represent the Nursing Council on the Medical Council. The request is logical and is supported by the Medical Council itself. Provision for giving effect thereto has accordingly been made in clause 1 of the Bill.

The disciplinary powers of the Medical Council in respect of persons registered with it, are contained in Chapter IV of Act 13 of 1928.

Section 41 of the Act confers on the Council the power to institute inquiries into allegations of improper or disgraceful conduct against registered persons. The procedure to be followed in this connection is laid down in sections 42 and 45 of the Act and the regulations made under section 42.

A person who after inquiry by the Council is found guilty, is liable to one or other of the following penalties—

1. (a) a caution or a reprimand or a reprimand and a caution; or
2. (b) suspension for a specified period from practising or performing acts specially pertaining to his profession or calling, or
3. (c) erasure of his name from the register.

In this regard the Council has requested that provision be made for penalties imposed by it to be reduced to writing, in order to ensure that the accused and any other person or organization concerned has a permanent record of the Council’s finding. Provision in this regard is made in clause 9 of the Bill.

The second amendment contained in clause 9 concerns the appointment of a legal assessor to be present at disciplinary inquiries. The existing position in this regard is that section 42 (4) of the Act empowers the Council itself to appoint such a person. This is frequently inconvenient as the Council usually only meets twice a year. Consequently, at the request of the Council, provision has been made for the legal assessor to be appointed by the President of the Council or the chairman of the relative committee if the inquiry is being held by a committee of the Council. This is just a practical arrangement which has become necessary. Thirdly, clause 9 affects the present position whereby the Council may terminate the suspension by it of a person from practising before the specified period or restore a name to a register by providing that, where it considers this advisable, it can attach such conditions as it deems fit to the termination of suspension from practice or to the restoration of a name to the register. This proposal has the advantage that it enables the Council to make the person concerned furnish concrete evidence that he has mended his ways by serving what might appropriately be referred to as a period of probationary practice, before being given the right to resume practising unconditionally.

Another amendment requested by the Council in relation to disciplinary inquiries, is that it be granted power to postpone sentence or the application of a penalty imposed by it, subject to compliance to such conditions as it may deem fit. This principle is, I might mention, embodied in section 352 of the Criminal Procedure Act, Act No. 56 of 1955. The adoption of this proposal in respect of which provision is made in clause 10, has the advantage that in suitable cases a doctor who has transgressed could be allowed to continue to practice for such period and subject to such conditions as the Council might determine, knowing full well that if he does not comply in all respects with those conditions he will either be required to come up for sentence or the penalty already imposed will be put into operation. On the other hand, if he complies in all respects with the conditions imposed, he would be at liberty to resume practice in the normal manner.

Under section 45 of the Act, the Registrar of the Council acts not only as pro forma prosecutor in cases of disciplinary inquiries, but also as secretary of the body, namely either the Council or a committee of the Council which holds the inquiry and passes judgment. Further, the members, or at least some of the members, of the committee which has in the first instance to decide whether the facts at its disposal shall prima facie be evidence of improper or disgraceful conduct, are invariably members of the body, namely the Council or a committee thereof, which must investigate the matter and pass judgment thereon. For obvious reasons this duality in respect of the Registrar and the members of the Council can create the impression that the Council acts as both prosecutor and judge in the same case. After careful consideration of the matter, the Council has recommended that the disciplinary procedure laid down in section 45 of the Act and the relative regulations, should be amended in order to eliminate any possible identification of the judicial body with the prosecution. Provision has been made in clause 11 of the Bill in this regard.

Section 81 (1) of Act 13 of 1928 empowers the Medical Council to take disciplinary action against a doctor or dentist who becomes addicted to any habit-forming drug. However, its power in this regard does not cover those cases where a doctor or dentist becomes addicted to a potentially harmful drug, something which experience has shown does in fact occur. Consequently the Medical Council has requested that section 81 of the Act be amended so as to rectify this gap in the law. The adoption of this proposal would be in the public interest. Provision has accordingly been made therefor in clause 16 of the Bill. The opportunity is also being taken of rectifying the omission of the word “regularly” from paragraph (c) of section 81 (1) in the English text.

The South African Pharmacy Board has for some time pressed for the modification of section 76bis of the Act which prohibits the use of a surname as a part of the name under which the business of a chemist and druggist is carried on, unless such surname is the name of the owner of the business or of a director of the company concerned. Further, the right of a firm to carry on business under the name which it was using at the time the relative provision came into force, is protected. The original object of section 76bis was to prevent a person who is not registered as a chemist and druggist from misleading the public by creating the impression that he is in fact a chemist and druggist and consequently so place the trust in him which the public normally places in a chemist and druggist.

Experience has shown that the provisions of section 76bis handicap companies who carry on business as manufacturers, distributors and importers of medicines. These companies have no direct contact with the public through retail trade and a situation such as that referred to where the public is misled would thus not arise in the case of such companies: yet we find that pharmaceutical firms which are well known internationally are prevented from trading under their own names in South Africa in those cases where the name under which they normally trade would contravene section 76bis of the Act. If for example the well-known South African firm of Rembrandt wished to manufacture pharmaceuticals in South Africa, it could not do so under its own name.

In the circumstances the Pharmacy Board has requested that the Act be amended so as to make the provisions of section 76bis applicable to retail chemists and druggists only. This change has also been advocated by the Treasury in the interests of the Republic’s economy. Provision has accordingly been made in clause 14 of the Bill to give effect to the Pharmacy Board’s representations.

Finally I shall deal with the question of the addition of fluorine to toothpaste. No. 35bis of the present regulations under the Food, Drugs and Disinfectants Act, Act No. 13 of 1929, prohibits the inclusion of fluorine in toothpaste. On the recommendation of the Dental Association of South Africa as well as of the Director of Pathological Services, it is proposed to amend the relative regulation in order to permit the presence of not more than 1,500 parts per million of fluoride-ion in toothpaste.

The object of this proposal is to enable those persons who wish to use toothpaste containing fluorine as a preventative measure against dental caries to do so. This of course also applies to dentists who wish to prescribe it. In this connection I wish to stress that the addition of fluorine to toothpaste will not be compulsory.

Further, the draft regulations provide that toothpaste containing fluorine shall be prominently labelled “Fluoridated Toothpaste”. In terms of section 82 of the Medical Dental and Pharmacy Act, Act No. 13 of 1928, preparations containing fluorides are classed as poisonous substances, and the containers are consequently required to be labelled “Poisonous—Dangerous”. Now, if toothpaste containing fluorine as proposed, and which incidentally is not poisonous or dangerous when used in the minute quantities envisaged, is not exempted from the provisions of section 82 of the Act, the whole object of the amendment of regulation 35bis would be defeated as nobody would be likely to purchase toothpaste which is labelled “Poisonous— Dangerous”. It is accordingly proposed to exempt toothpaste containing not more than 1,500 parts per million fluoride-ion from the labelling requirements of section 82 of Act 13 of 1928. Provision in this regard is made in clause 17 of the Bill.

Several of the amendments proposed, more particularly those relating to the regulation and control of health services, professions supplementary to medicine, the removal of restrictions on the professional activities of medical practitioners who hold certain foreign qualifications, the prohibition in relation to the treatment of cancer by unqualified persons and the tightening up of control over the sale or supply of instruments, apparatus, etc., are of considerable importance from a public health point of view. Where I now move the Second Reading of this Bill, I sincerely hope that I shall have the support of the whole House for this rather important measure as far as public health is concerned.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister has been good enough to give us a very detailed explanation of the many facets of this Bill. I agree with him that there is no part of this Bill which is not important. I hasten to say that the formation of the professional boards, particularly for the para-medical services, is perhaps paramount. Here we have a difficulty in that we do not know how far the provisions of this Bill go. We have here legislation which seeks to prohibit a group of people from practising their calling. It would appear, on the face of it, that this Bill may also prohibit the activities of these people. I refer, Sir, to the chiropractors. When the Minister replies I should like him to tell us whether it is his intention to exclude the chiropractors from the provisions of this Bill. If it was his intention to do so, would it be possible for him to introduce an amendment, which would then have the agreement of both sides of the House? I must say that up to now we are not at all satisfied that these people are excluded from the provisions of the Bill. We on this side of the House do not wish to take away the livelihood of these people who have been giving a service to many of our population for many years. We shall, however, return to this matter later and discuss the matter again if it becomes necessary. Other speakers on this side of the House will also raise the matter.

As far as I know from those with whom I have been in contact, the legitimate members of the para-medical services are indeed pleased that this legislation has been introduced. They want boards to be formed. They wish the Medical Council to look after their interests and to be interested in their activities. They want ethical standards to be established so that all people belonging to these para-medical services will have pride in their professions. In addition, with the establishment of these boards, with the establishment of their ethical standards and with the control they will have over the members of their professions, I feel, that they in turn will have better and closer relationships with the medical profession.

It is going to be a slow process, but I hope that those people who are interested in the formation of these boards will put their own house in order as soon as possible so that they can make the necessary representations and the Medical Council will know who wants a board and who does not want a board. I want to emphasize one thing here which may be in the minds of certain people. I think that there are people who feel that the South African Medical and Dental Council is some strange body that only want to see doctors and dentists and pharmacists allowed to practise. I do not think that that is altogether true. I do not think there is any basis for it at all. We have been inundated with telegrams and petitions and circulars and we have been subjected to lobbying by people who wish chiropractors, for instance, to continue to practise.

I do not know about the other members of this House, but of the 11,000 odd doctors who have been practising in this country, I do not think any one has made any move to encourage the members of this House to prohibit chiropractors from practising. They have left it to the good sense of this House. The hon. the Minister has not said whether the Medical Council has used its influence in this connection at all. That is something which we can perhaps deal with later on but I want to put the matter straight. Doctors can look after themselves. They have their own associations; they have their own council. It is quite surprising, in spite of the snide remarks which are occasionally made about doctors, what great strides the medical profession has made over the years and how much help and increasing help they have given to the public especially in recent years. We must not think therefore that these little innuendos which are thrown at the medical profession from all sides have any effect at all. The doctor will continue to do his duty to the public. He is there to help. Most doctors, of course, hate to see patients going to people who are destroyers of health and not healers. Whether they destroy tissue in one part of the body or in the whole body, I still condemn these quacks as destroyers of the body. It is the doctor who is always there to repair the damage that has been done by the unqualified and the ignorant. Sir, I leave that matter there.

I want to say a word or two about those people who will come under the control of boards which are not registered, particularly the physiotherapists. There are many, many physiotherapists who have taken on the name of physiotherapist but who were previously labelled “masseurs”. They call themselves masseurs. These people have been practising for very many years, some of them for 30 or 40 years, and they have provided a very good service, especially to athletes and so on. They will now come under control, but they have no qualifications; they have no university degree; they have no college diploma. They want to enjoy the protection of a board. According to the Bill, as I see it, these people will be given an opportunity after a certain period to write an examination.

I do hope that the Minister’s advisers will make these examinations a matter of form for these people because it is going to be very difficult for a man of 50 or 60 years to go back again and to start learning all the technical terms that are used and to learn something about the latest apparatus that is being used, and which he himself has no desire to use. He is the man who rubs you down after a rugby match but feels that he is also performing a professional service, and I think a great deal of leniency should be shown towards these people who want to join their colleagues who have a higher degree of education and who, I am sure, would be willing to take these people under their wings and perhaps even encourage to do a little more study.

With regard to the question of doctors who have been coming into this country and who do not enjoy reciprocity, we have here a matter that needs very, very careful consideration. I am pleased that the Minister has now relaxed some of the very stringent regulations which prevented these people from helping out with the great shortage of medical personnel that we are experiencing at the moment. I hope that these doctors who come here will realize that we want them, that we do not want to restrict their practice, but that we only want to bring them in line with doctors who have qualified at universities in this country or at universities in countries which have reciprocity with our universities. We should in fact go out of our way to encourage more of these people to come here; they are providing an essential service for us, a service which in many cases cannot be provided by our own people.

I want to say a word or two about the restrictions which are going to come into being as a result of this Bill with regard to those people who profess to be able to diagnose and cure cancer. I stand with the hon. the Minister and with my medical colleagues in this House who say that there is nothing that should be condemned more than the laxity with which these people have been allowed to practise, if you can call it “practise”. They have bluffed people into believing that they are curing cancer; they have called small innocent growths cancers; they have put plasters on these little growths and caused cancer through their ignorance. Many, many people have spent hundreds and thousands of rands on useless and, unfortunately, also very dangerous attention given to them by these people. I am very pleased that the Minister is now bringing in legislation under which these people can be curbed and punished and their activities stopped.

There is one clause about which I am not sure. I am not sure how it will affect the unregistered person in the para-medical services. I understand that the Minister will now bring into being prescribed areas in which registered persons will be allowed to practise. What happens in the unprescribed areas? I am not sure what is going to happen there. It would appear that a physiotherapist, for example, who is unregistered and who is practising in a prescribed area, may be told that as from the 15th of next month there will be sufficient registered and qualified people in that prescribed area and that if he wants to continue practising as a masseur or as a physiotherapist, he will have to go to an unprescribed area and open up a practice there. Perhaps the Minister will make a note of this and tell me what the position is. I am not sure why he should be deprived of his living in an area if he is going to perform the same service in an adjacent area.

Clause 7 will apply there.

Will the Minister tell us whether such a person will actually be removed from his work in a prescribed area and told to go to an unprescribed area? How will this work?

He will not be removed.

I am sure the Minister will deal with this when he replies but I am perturbed that people who have been practising for many years will now suddenly find themselves deprived not of their profession but of the site on which they were practising.

He says they will not be removed.

I think that those are the main points. I think we are all pleased that now one will be able to buy fluoridated toothpaste and also that the Minister will see that the machines which are brought into our country from overseas are machines which really can help in the diagnosis and in the treatment of illness and that when those machines do come in they will have to comply with a required standard. This is most important. As the Minister knows, we have had an awful lot of rubbish coming in here, which is supposed to help people but which is really useless and just a money-making racket; a lot of people were robbed, and the gullible are always ready to fall for it.

I think with those remarks I want to tell the hon. the Minister that our attitude towards this Bill in the main is that we will support it, but we will be very careful to take note of what the Minister says in regard to those clauses which may prohibit a chiropractor from earning his living.

As a member of the medical profession, I am particularly grateful today for this Bill which has been submitted to this House after many a long year. I think there are two things in this Bill which one calls to mind very clearly; in the first instance, the actual position occupied by the South African Medical and Dental Council and the S.A. Pharmacy Board in regard to the protection of the South African population. I think one should put this very clearly. I think the public outside often confuses the Medical Council with the Medical Society. The Medical Society is a professional society for the medical profession on a par with the Dental Society which is trying to promote the dental profession and is carrying out scientific research into that field. As against that, there is the Medical Council, a statutory body composed of medical men, dentists, nurses and lay members, and it is pre-eminently the body to protect not only the medical profession, but also the public of South Africa. The measure before this House today mainly serves the purpose of showing to what extent the Medical Council is protecting the public.

The second matter which is of the utmost importance here and which we should decide for ourselves, is to what extent the Government should empower the Medical Council to protect the public. In other words, the question is whether every person or individual should not merely be left at liberty to do what he likes as far as his own health is concerned. If he wants to go to just any person to be treated for anything, should he not simply be left at liberty to do so? Should he be allowed to have full say over his own body? I think this Bill indicates clearly to us that the Council and the Department of Health cannot simply wash their hands of it; they have a responsibility towards the public as well. The most important way in which the Department of Health, through the Medical Council, can protect the public to a very large extent, is to require of certain people who practise certain medical professions or para-medical professions, to comply with certain requirements for registration. In this way every medical practitioner must obtain certain qualifications, reach certain standards and follow certain syllabi and courses before he can be registered as a medical practitioner. For this reason we have this measure before this House today and for the same reason I am pleased about the support from the Opposition. We have now gone so far as to provide further protection to the public in that the possibility is being created for the registration of the para-medical services as well, because, as the hon. the Minister explained so clearly, this no longer is work which can be done by one man. It requires teamwork to treat a patient today. For that reason it is so very essential for the Medical Council to have powers to ensure that not only one member of that team is properly qualified, but that the whole team is properly qualified.

The second question which arises, is whether a person should not simply be allowed to go where he wants to. I would be the last person to tell people that they cannot go to a specific place, or that they may not go there. But if one has had the perhaps doubtful privilege of having had patients in one’s care who landed themselves in the hands of the so-called cancer doctors or cancer quacks at some stage in the past, then the reply to that second question is a definite no; the State cannot evade its responsibility in this respect. The State is obliged to protect the patient for his own sake from this own decisions. The reason for this is that these so-called cancer quacks are totally unscrupulous people, and the poor unprotected public outside do not know to what they are exposing themselves. They do not know the consequences of what they may be going through. Those extra two or three weeks, or a month or perhaps six weeks, for which a member of the public has put himself in the hands of these cancer quacks, may be the very period that causes that patient’s death. It is a privilege for me to be able to support this Bill today, especially in regard to the so-called cancer quacks. For that reason, as far as this Bill is concerned, I am altogether in favour of these paramedical services being registered. Let me state very clearly that I had not intended talking about chiropractors here today, but I think the hon. member for Rosettenville mentioned the name here and for that reason I have no choice in the matter of broadly outlining my own point of view in this regard. I am not one of those people who thinks that other people should not have a place in the sun as well. I am not one of the people who believes that not a single chiropractor has been properly trained. The only thing I am saying, is that there is a considerable number of them who have not been properly trained. The only thing I expect, is that we should obtain legislation—and I hope the Minister will succeed in effecting the necessary amendments to the proposed legislation along with the chiropractors association so to enable these people to get their own affairs in order—for affording the public protection in this respect as well. You see, Sir, there is no point in our talking among ourselves and saying that this one did this for one and that one did that for one, that that doctor made one so ill and that that chiropractor helped one. In my first year as a practitioner, a good friend and worthy colleague from the Western Transvaal told me an interesting story. The story concerned a young doctor who had been called out to a farm to attend to Oom Jan. Oom Jan had a strangulated inguinal hernia. As a young doctor, he struggled for two hours or longer but he could not cure the strangulation at all. He then told Oom Jan that he had to take him to hospital so that an operation could be performed. Oom Jan, however, did not see his way clear to consenting to an operation. Like so many elderly people, Oom Jan then said, “Doctor, in that case I must die, but I shall at least die in one piece.” The doctor spoke to Oom Jan’s wife. She said, “Doctor, if Jan says he does not want an operation, that is that”. The doctor then simply gave Oom Jan a lot of pain-killing tablets, to treat him as best he could. After that he departed and waited at his home for the announcement of Oom Jan’s death. Ten days later, however, he met Oom Jan in the street. He said, “But, Oom Jan, you ought to have been dead by now”. To this Oom Jan replied, “Yes, doctor, I would have been dead, but shortly after you left, my old friend Carel arrived.” The doctor then asked him what had happened. He replied that he had told Oom Carel what was wrong with him. He told the doctor that Carel had two big sons, called Piet and young Carel. Carel then ordered young Carel to fetch two ox-riems. Then they tied these to his feet, threw the two riems over the collarbeams, hauled him up and left him hanging like that for two hours. He then said that, with his head hanging two feet from the ground, the hernia disappeared with a clicking noise after two hours.

I have told this curious anecdote so as to illustrate that it will serve no purpose if we were to reproach one another. I do not think any hon. member in this House would have expected of me as a doctor to have suspended Oom Jan from the collar-beams. In that case Oom Carel probably was a better doctor than I am. I do not believe either that that hon. member would expect the Medical Council to register Oom Carel as a medical practitioner. I believe we should find ways and means of helping these people. I am referring to the chiropractors. We must help these people to get their own affairs in order.

There is another point in this Bill about which I feel extremely happy as well. A year or two ago, when the Department of Health still was very verkramp, there was a tremendous agitation about a report on the fluoridation of water. As a result of agitations, telegrams and sermons, a tremendous agitation was launched against this report. People would allegedly be poisoned, and it was also maintained that it was contrary to the religious beliefs of certain people. The particular health aspect, i.e. that of tooth caries, was completely overlooked. The possibility of children’s teeth and the growth of their teeth benefiting from the application of a minimal quantity of fluorine to drinking water, was completely overlooked. For that reason I am pleased, without forcing people to use fluoridated water, that certain people who realize the value of fluoridation, are being given the opportunity, through the agency of the Dental Association, of using this toothpaste which is to be labelled “fluoridated” and need not be labelled “poisonous.” I believe that in years to come we shall find that this toothpaste containing fluoride, irrespective of which firm made it, will have exceptional value in advertising and selling that make of toothpaste. Each individual will be at liberty to make use of this medical knowledge which has existed for years.

The only other clause to which I should like to refer here, is the one in regard to the slackening of restrictions imposed on overseas colleagues who have studied abroad and have come to South Africa as immigrants. I believe this is a long-felt need as doctors who come to South Africa as immigrants have regarded this as, one can almost say, an insult. It has very often been found that when a highly qualified doctor or specialist comes from overseas, he is obliged to work in a hospital for a few years and to repeat the last three years of his clinical studies in South Africa at a medical faculty. Immediately afterwards, he is appointed as a professor in one of the subjects. This is a situation which appears to be rather incongruous. Subsequently provision has been made for the Medical Council to grant these people certain concessions, so that they may work in certain prescribed places. What this actually amounts to is that these people may work only in Government hospitals. The fact of the matter is that these people have produced excellent and distinguished work in Government hospitals and have even trained students, but one nevertheless not allowed to be in private practice. I believe that in this new arrangement, for which provision is being made in these several clauses, we have the possibility of obtaining more colleagues from overseas, colleagues we need very badly at this stage. I believe that they will be most desirable people, because the condition remains that they must practise in a hospital for two years, of which one year must be in a prescribed hospital, that they must produce a certificate from the superintendent of that hospital and that they must pass in a language test and in a test on South African medical laws to prove that they have the required knowledge of such laws. It is my privilege to give my support to this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, a great deal of public interest has arisen as a result of the introduction of this particular bill. We know, as the hon. the Minister has explained to us, that the bill was introduced during the last session and that it evoked an outcry from members of the public, which I, during my brief nine years in the Chamber, had not experienced before. When it became known that this bill would be re-introduced, the same reaction from members of the public was evident. Although this bill has many facets, I believe that, primarily, the one aspect which has caused the greatest concern is the clause which deals with the formation of professional boards. Firstly, and clearly, I think one must say that anything which will eliminate quacks and quackery will be welcomed by both sides of the House. But in so far as chiropractors are concerned, I believe we should make it quite clear now, that this matter must be dealt with on a certain basis. I listened with great attention to what the hon. the Minister said. He gave a very detailed exposition of the various clauses of this Bill. But when it came to the question of chiropractors—I think I took the hon. the Minister down verbatim—he said: “As far as chiropractors are concerned, I have consulted with them. Perhaps I will come up with something that will satisfy them all.” With respect, I suggest that this House cannot legislate on the basis of “perhaps”. Therefore, I wish to make it quite clear at this stage that we on this side of the House will move an amendment during the Committee Stage that will ensure that chiropractors will be excluded from the terms of this Bill.

The hon. the Minister, when he dealt with this particular aspect of professional boards, indicated certain sections of professions related to health services. If I remember correctly, he referred to the health care services and mentioned optometry, physiotherapy, radiography, psychology, etc. But I believe, from the very terms of this Bill, that the scope is very much broader than this, because in clause 2 of the Bill it says quite clearly—

And that is the Medical Council—

It then goes on in that strain. The fact is that the Medical Council, acting in the interest of the public, should make recommendations that certain boards should be established. With due respect to the Medical Council, is the Medical Council or the medical profession in this particular instance, able really to judge objectively, what is in the public interest? I ask this in all seriousness, because the very fact that they are judging this question of professional boards in the public interest is a matter, too, which has a direct personal effect on their own financial interest and their own professional activities. I believe that certain people who, I think, are justifiably in a position to be recognized by certain of these boards, could to a certain extent operate in competition with the medical profession, and operate legitimately.

The point that disturbs me is that the medical profession or the Medical Council as such, has this right in the public interest. In clause 4 (1) it is made quite clear that the council may establish and keep registers of persons practising any other profession which has as its object the treatment, prevention or relief of physical defects or disease in man.” To me that is rather broad. I want to ask the hon. the Minister if in his reply he would give some indication as to the scope and the number of boards which possibly could be formed in the interest of the public. I accept the boards to which he referred, but I raise other matters. I ask what is the position with regard to chiropodists, masseurs and many of the other health services. I can think of at least ten different health services which could be regarded as playing an important part in connection with the whole aspect of treatment in South Africa. I believe it would be fair to this House if the hon. the Minister would give some indication as to what he feels in regard to these other people. There are the homeopaths, there are the naturopaths, there are the herbalists. Even at the risk of sounding facetious, which I am not, there are the Native nyangas and medicine men who also have as their object “the treatment and prevention or relief of physical defects and disease in man”. Is it the intention that these people should come under some form of control in the interest of the public?

I feel, as the chiropractors themselves have been the object of such publicity, that it would be right at this stage to refer briefly to the circumstances which have led, I believe, in part to the submission of this particular section of the Bill. If we go back we find that in 1961 leave was granted to introduce a Bill, which I believe was a private member’s bill, to deal with the question of chiropractors and to give them their own special council which would have been able to control the profession and ensure that no quacks could operate under the name of chiropractors and be let loose on the public. Various other matters were dealt with in that Bill. I believe that at that time there was a great deal of support for that measure from the South African Federation of Trade Unions Co-ordinating Council, the Steelworkers Union and the Mineworkers Union, because certain medical aid schemes at that time were not prepared to accept services of chiropractors, while many of the employees of the firms which provided the medical aid schemes, felt that this was something which was necessary in the interests of their members. There were objections by hon. members of this House who were in the medical profession. When the suggestion was made that the matter should be referred to a Select Committee there was one objection and consequently in terms of the Rules of the House at that time, the matter was precluded from being referred to a Select Committee. It is interesting to note that the objection came from the previous hon. member for Turffontein, Mr. Badenhorst Durrant. Apart from his objecting for two or three consecutive years, as far as I can see, he did not make any attempt to enter the debate. Then, in 1962, more or less a similar procedure was adopted when the then member for Pretoria West, Mr. Van der Walt, also sought to introduce a private member’s Bill whereby chiropractors as such would receive some recognition and whereby their practice would be put under some satisfactory control. It is interesting to note that an amendment was moved during the Second Reading of Mr. Van der Walt’s private members’ Bill to the effect that it be read “this day six months”! This amendment was moved by the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark, the present Minister of Health. I feel that, considering developments which have taken place since then, the hon. the Minister could be somewhat biased in regard to chiropractors as such.

Then we had this commission to investigate the question of the chiropractors. I believe this commission was not as objective as it could have been. Anyone who has read the report, which only became available after the Bill was tabled, will agree that they had closed minds on certain aspects. As evidence against the activities of chiropractors, they say that the medical association sent out a circular letter to 50 or 60 general practitioners and that from the replies it came to light that apparently in 47 cases the treatment received from chiropractors had been detrimental. If 50 to 60 letters were sent to the members of a profession which is now represented by approximately 11,000 medical men, how can the report be objective? In dealing with this particular aspect I will try to be objective and I will deal very briefly with the matter. There are approximately 120 chiropractors in South Africa. If they were to send out a questionaire I wonder how many replies they would receive which would indicate that a considerable body of medical men themselves avail themselves of the services of the chiropractor. Not only do they avail themselves of the services of chiropractors, but they also send their wives and their families to chiropractors. This is done in their own good judgment and consequently I believe that this is almost a form of hypocrisy in so far as their condemnation of chiropractors is concerned. I wish to quote from a letter which I received recently from a man who would be regarded in high esteem by every member in this House. This is what he said—

That is the one case, but these professional boards will deal with many other people who provide some service in so far as supplementary health services are concerned. I ask the hon. the Minister again whether he would be able to give some indication as regards these people, the herbalists, naturopaths, osteopaths, chiropodists, dental mechanics, pharmaceutical technicians, native medicine men and others.

When we refer to this Bill we find that quite a number of clauses are concerned directly with this question of the creation of professional boards. The hon. the Minister has explained to the House the import of many of these clauses. In so far as clause 7 is concerned I have one reservation, namely in regard to the decision on “the scope” of the professions. As I understand the clause the Medical Council will define the scope of the various professions. I know that in many of the clauses of this Bill there has been the question of consultation and that the Medical Council will consult with these bodies. But at no stage does it say that there shall be any agreement. It is just consultation. Literally, as I read it, after consultation, if the Medical Council still feels that in the interests of the public they should recommend that boards should be formed and that registers should be kept, that will be, in fact, what will take place. When it comes to the question of scope, I believe that this is a very important aspect. If there is a difference of opinion here there will be no basis of negotiation. All that will happen is that the Medical Council will advise, I think it is the State President and make mention of the fact that there was opposition on the question of scope.

There is another aspect that also falls under clause 7 and that is in regard to the proposed new section 39C, namely the question of the prescribed areas. I believe I understood the hon. the Minister correctly when he detailed the implications of this particular clause, but I am a little concerned in this case for my own profession. As I understand the clause, the prohibition will apply to those registered under section 32, those whose scope is defined under section 32, and it will also apply as stated specifically in the Bill to the calling of medical profession and that of dentists. I want to ask the hon. the Minister if he would tell me why the chemist and druggists are excluded from this because, as I see it, the medical practitioner has a statutory right to dispense under certain conditions. Certain of the other people who will now fall under registration under section 32 could also be regarded as being able to supply medicines in a prescribed area, whereas as I see it, no chemist and druggist will enjoy the right extended to a medical practitioner or to a dentist. The particular groups to which I refer could here again be the homeopaths who do supply medicines and the herbalists who also supply medicines. If we are going to have these prescribed areas where apparently a chemist and druggist could be excluded, because he is not specifically mentioned, I should like the hon. the Minister to clarify this matter.

Then, as a matter of interest, I think one should refer briefly to clause 8 which specifies the penalties for professing to have professional qualifications. I want to say quite clearly again that I believe that anybody who professes without justification to undertake any sort of healing or remedial work, should be under very strict control and should be punished. But is the House generally aware of the fact that the penalty for “professing” in the Act as it stands, was merely a R40 fine? Now this fine has been increased five-fold to R200. There is also an optional and/or 12 months’ imprisonment. I am not suggesting that this should be done away with. I am just pointing out to the House that this is a big increase in the sentence.

Reference has already been made to the question of the cancer quacks and the fact that this bill should outlaw them completely. No man of sane mind would not welcome this provision, because I believe everyone of us has at some time or other had experience or known of people who have suffered great pain and inconvenience, and sometimes fatal results as a result of the activities of various, perhaps well-meaning, but improperly trained cancer quacks.

I want to deal briefly with clause 17, which amends Section 82 of the Act. The only really appropriate matter here is the question of the fluorides. I am very glad that the provision now made in this Bill will permit the manufacture, promotion and sale of toothpaste containing fluoride in South Africa, because here, as a result of the present intention of Section 82 of the Act, it has not been practicable, as I see it, to manufacture these products. We have fallen behind other countries of the world, who in their wisdom have seen the advantage of incorporating fluoride in toothpaste. Today, not only is it big business, but in many of the Western countries of the world, it seems as if the fluoridation of toothpaste has become something which is very popular with the public and which I believe the public is only taking advantage of because they believe or have found from their own experience, that fluoride helps in the elimination of or prevention of dental caries. We find that in the United States, according to the latest figures which are available, namely for 1967, 36 per cent of the toothpaste market represented toothpaste containing fluoride. In Canada the figure was 37 per cent, in Australia 26 per cent, in Sweden as high as 58 per cent and in Finland 63 per cent. Even in Rhodesia, one of our near neighbours, 17 per cent of the toothpaste on the market contains fluoride.

The Minister made very comprehensive reference to the question of the amending of Section 76bis. I raise this point, too, because, although I believe that it is a matter which can be discussed in a more detailed manner in the committee stage, I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he thinks it will really serve his purpose when he specifies those bodies operating solely for the manufacture and sale of drugs and medicine, and whether it will not exclude some of the very firms to which he has referred. Owing to diversification under present economic conditions, these firms have now broadened their scope and they now handle cosmetic ranges and other items.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 23 and debate adjourned.