When the House adjourned yesterday I was busy drawing the attention of the Minister to the fact that in the list of omissions the names appear of voters who are still entitled to be placed on the Voters’ Roll. We find that in almost all the voters’ lists people who have been living at a certain address for an appreciable length of time, in that constituency, long enough according to the requirements, still appear on the list of omissions. There are cases in my own constituency, and I also found cases at other places. In some instances the lists are hopelessly muddled. There are instances in my constituency where the man is registered in the constituency and the wife in another constituency, with the result that when these people go to the poll they find that one or two of the family may vote, while the names of the others do not appear. We are robbing these people of their greatest right, namely to cast their vote at an election. There is a great hiatus today, and therefore we say that the voters’ lists are in a muddled condition. That can be improved to a large extent by the biennial registration. At various by-elections which took place I found that numbers of voters come to the poll, they have their card saying that they have handed in the form to the election official, but still they do not appear on the Voters’ Roll. They received no notice from the polling officer that they had filled in the form effectively, and therefore they could not go to the revision court to see that their names appear on the list. As a result of that, many people were robbed of their vote, and that is something to which the hon. the Minister should also devote his attention. One finds that especially in the urban constituencies. There is a continual change of address in those constituencies. One finds their names on the roll but one does not know where they are. Many of them cannot be traced at all. Then again one finds instances, numbers of cases, of absent voters living in adjoining constituencies. As you know, they cannot vote by post, for example, on the Rand, in an adjoining constituency. The only way of then getting them to the polling station is to fetch them by car. The result is a terrible waste of petrol and tyres and depreciation of cars. The costs are sometimes very high, but it is the only way of getting these people to vote. By means of the biennial registration this position can be alleviated. If people have departed from a constituency and are living in another constituency, and they are there long enough to be registered there in accordance with the law, they can then be registered in the new constituency at the biennial registration. For that reason the biennial registration will to a large extent help to improve the position. It will also cause many voters who are today not registered to be registered. There is a large degree of laxity at the usual interim registrations, because there is no obligation. Many people are not on the roll, but if one has a biennial registration most of them will come on the roll. Officials have now been appointed by the Minister who are busy dealing with the registration, but it is not satisfactory. I think the Minister himself will admit that the costs in connection with these officials is high, and yet the work is not being done satisfactorily. There is differentiation between the country and the city, which is a new cause of friction. I agree with the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. F. C. Erasmus) that it is quite unreasonable. The rural constituencies have the same quota of voters as the city. Why the discrimination? The Minister will have to admit that it is unjust. Rather do away with this group of officials and give us the biennial registration, and one will find that the great majority of the voters will have themselves registered. As soon as it is announced that there is a biennial registration people will be afraid of the fine which can be imposed, and in order to avoid that, the large majority of people who are entitled to vote will have themselves registered. The increased costs of which the Minister spoke will then not exist; it will not be as high. As regards the paper shortage, we know that there is a shortage, but if on the other hand we see how paper is being wasted in certain divisions—the hon. member for Moorreesburg has referred to the use of paper here—it is a difficulty which we can surmount. We must not allow a little paper to stand in our way when we are dealing with such an important matter. I wish to emphasise what I said yesterday, namely that one can do no greater injustice to a citizen of South Africa than to rob him of the opportunity to cast his vote. In general the Afrikaner is proud of his vote, and we wish to encourage it. The citizen ought to take an interest in the welfare of the country, and he can do it in only one manner, and that is by making his cross and by casting his vote on election day. I mentioned a number of cases in order to prove to the Minister that the situation is not satisfactory at all. I do not want to expand on that, but the situation is entirely unsatisfactory and the democratic right to cast their vote is being denied the citizens. I therefore want to propose—

I second the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say at the outset that a great deal of the criticism of my friends in the Opposition is justifiable criticism. The present Voters’ Roll is in a deplorable state. There is no question about that. I am not apologising for it. But what I am going to do is to see, in the near future, that you have a Voters’ Roll which will always be up to date.

But that will only be in 1947.

No, it ought to be ready in May next year if Parliament passes the Continuous Registration Bill. The reason for it is this, that in 1943 there were difficulties in regard to staff, paper and typewriters, and the difficulties in 1945 are much worse. I went into this matter very carefully with my Department because I realise—I do not want members on the opposite side to think that they are the only people who complained about this; members on this side are equally perturbed and disturbed—that the present position was unsatisfactory. We are going to bring the present Voters’ Roll, with the supplementary rolls, up to date as soon as possible, in order to have the rolls in satisfactory condition under present conditions as far as we possibly can. The difference between biennial registration as pointed out by the hon. member for Westdene (Mr. Mentz) and a supplementary registration, is that the biennial registration is a compulsory registration. If voters do not register they can be fined. But the supplementary registration was provided to enable people who have changed their address in the meantime to transfer from one area to another. Criticism was levelled at the fact that in some of the towns special registration officers were appointed, but none in the country. I have enquired into that matter, and find that it is a thing which has been going on for years. In the towns they have allowed and have had special offices on account of the large number of people who transfer, as the hon. member for Westdene has pointed out. They are registered on the Voters’ Roll and probably change then address three or four times. Under this continuous registration the responsibility will be upon them to notify their change of address in order that the registration may be kept up to date. I do not know that I can say any more in connection with the matter. No one regrets more than I do that we have to postpone this until we get continuous registration. It cannot be undertaken.

It is not impossible.

It is absolutely impossible under present conditions. They cannot get hold of the staff, because as you know the whole country has to be traversed. There are difficulties in connection with the matter and I was satisfied, after dealing with the matter with my Department, that the only thing to do was to postpone the 1945 biennial registration and have the complete registration next year in conjunction with the census that is taking place. The hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. F. C. Erasmus) complained about the delay in this matter coming before the House. I would just like to remind hon. members that one of the first Bills which should have been dealt with by this House was this Bill. He made representations that I was anxious to know what would happen in connection with the amendment of the Electoral Bill, but I had to go to hospital and that is the reason for the Bill coming on at this particular moment. I also agree that there is a duty on us to see that the right which everyone possesses to be on the Voters’ Roll should be given, and that is what I have in mind. Today the position is very unsatisfactory indeed. I am not attempting to defend it, but I am unfortunately a victim of circumstances. But I am determined to see that the Voters’ Roll in the future will be up to date and that one will always be able to have 99 per cent. of the people in a particular area on the Roll, and the Voters’ Roll will be available at any moment without first having to be corrected.

What about the complaint by the hon. member as to the discrimination between the urban areas and the country areas?

I have dealt with that already. To be frank, this was new to me when I heard it, but I have tried to explain it. But it is a practice that has been going on for a long time. Owing to the change of address they have had these special offices, and they say that in the country these changes do not take place to anything like that extent. But it is still not satisfactory. Take a constituency like that of the hon. member for Westedene, for example. I would not be surprised if in his constituency today, it being an urban constituency, 60 per cent. of the voters are not on the roll. The position is unsatisfactory but unfortunately we have to wait until next year before puting it into order, and I hope my hon. friends will help to see that we should have a Voters’ Roll which will always be up to date.

Question put: That the word “now”, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the motion.

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—61:

Abbott, C. B. M.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Bawden W.

Bell, R. E.

Bodenstein, H. A. S.

Bowker, T. B.

Burnside, D. C.

Carinus, J. G.

Cilliers, H. J.

Cilliers, S. A.

Connan, J. M.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

De Kock, P. H.

De Wet, H. C.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, R. J.

Faure, J. C.

Gluckman, H.

Goldberg, A.

Hayward, G. N.

Hemming. G. K.

Henny, G. E. J.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Higgerty, J. W.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hopf. F.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Lawrence, H. G.

McLean, J.

Madeley, W. B.

Maré, F. J.

Morris, J. W. H.

Mushet, J. W.

Oosthuizen, O. J.

Pocock, P. V.

Raubenheimer, L. J.

Robertson, R. B.

Russell, J. H.

Shearer, O. L.

Shearer, V. L.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Steenkamp, L. S.

Steyn, C. F.

Stratford, J. R. F.

Sullivan, J. R.

Tighy, S. J.

Tothill, H. A.

Trollip, A. E.

Ueckermann. K.

Van Onselen, W. S.

Visser, H. J.

Warren, C. M.

Waterson, S. F.

Wolmarans, J. B.

Tellers: G. A. Friend and W. B. Humphreys.

Noes—27:

Bekker, G. F. H.

Boltman, F. H.

Bremer, K.

Brink, W. D.

Conradie, J. H.

Dönges T. E.

Erasmus, H. S.

Grobler, D. C. S.

Klopper, H. J.

Ludick, À. I.

Luttig, P. J. H.

Malan, D. F.

Mentz, F. E.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Stals, A. J.

Steyn, A.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Strydom, J. G.

Van Niekerk, J. G. W.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Vosloo, L. J.

Warren, S. E.

Werth, A. J.

Wilkens, J.

Tellers: P. O. Sauer and J. J. Serfontein.

Question accordingly affirmed and the amendment dropped.

Original motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time; House to go into Committee on the Bill on 29th March.

The Minister has introduced a Bill which will cause many difficulties. The drafting is so ambiguous that I feel obliged to draw attention to the first clause. That reads—

It amounts to this, that a religion of which the divine services are held on other days than Sundays, as for example in the case of the Sabbatarians or the Jews, receives the opportunity to publish banns on a day other than a Sunday. I am prepared to help them in those circumstances. But this clause is drawn up in such a way, if we read the two sub-clauses together with what I read here, that it may have any meaning. It means that for example the English Church can also publish banns at public services in the middle of the week. Something should be done to clarify the matter, or else it will mean that all the churches— because all of them also have public divine services on week days—can publish banns on any day of the week. In the second place I should like to know from the Minister why he is making a further change in order that Sabbatarians, Jews, etc. may receive greater privileges than the other religions. The other churches must publish banns on Sundays during the Divine Services for three consecutive weeks. The reason for that is to publicise the marriage thoroughly. Now the Minister is making provision that in the case of the other religions they can either publish the banns during divine services, or for a period of three consecutive weeks they can put a notice in a conspicuous place in the church or in any other building. Which other building? It may be a school building or a hall, and it can be put up in a place where people cannot see it, although it is in a conspicuous place in that building. If the Minister wants to do that, why does he not abolish marriage banns entirely? I looked at the Bill and tried to draw up amendments but it seems to me that unless one changes the whole thing one cannot rectify it by means of amendments. I feel that if one church has a right to put up a written notice, the other church should also have the right, or neither of them should have the right. I therefore propose the following amendment—

The object of reading the banns is to make it widely known that the two parties are going to enter into a marriage, so that people who want to raise objection will have sufficient time in which to do so. If we make this change, I am informed by a parson of the English Church that they will be able to announce banns on any day on which they hold a special service, because all the services are public services, and they can select an occasion when the least number of people are present. The wording of the second condition contained in paragraph (b) namely—

I sympathise with the hon. member in respect of the first part of his speech, because I too think that the clause is not very clearly worded. I know what the intention of the Bill is. At present in two of the provinces no provision whatever is made for such denominations as hold their principal service on a day other than a Sunday. That is why this Bill was brought in. Whether the intention is clearly carried out in the drafting of the clause is another matter. There is point in the first part of his criticism. Take the Jewish community; they hold daily services as well as the Sabbath service, although the former are not so well attended. I think the clause would be made clear if before the word “public” the word “principal” is inserted, because the subsidiary services, the daily services, are not so well attended, but the principal service on Saturday is well attended. It will only be on the day the principal services are held. That will also apply to the criticism in regard to the Christian churches, because their principal day is on the Sunday. With regard to the hon. member’s second amendment, I think that would be very confusing, because looking at the English text it reads as if he wants the banns to be posted up on the church and every other building. That means that if a church has 30 buildings in that particular area, the banns will have to be posted on every one of these church buildings whether the services are held daily there or not. I think it would be better to leave the word “or”, because the intention is quite clear.

Read the Afrikaans version.

I was reading the English version. I know that what is intended is that sometimes a building is used because they have not a proper church. If the service is in a church the banns would be posted there; if it is in a building that is not a church but which is being used as a church, they would be put up there. But according to the hon. member’s amendment judging from the English version they would have to be put up on every building used as a church during the week even if there is a church there as well. I should like to move the insertion of the words—

It appears to me that the hon. member who has just sat down did not quite follow my amendment. It seems to me that the hon. member is dealing with the wrong “or”. I moved that the “or” should be deleted and “and” substituted between the two sub-clauses, and not the “or” in the last line of the second subclause. I feel that it is unreasonable that the Christian churches should not receive the privilege now granted to the othter religious denominations, and for that reason I think that the Minister should accept my amendment.

This Bill does not affect the position of the Christian churches which hold their services on Sunday. It has been merely introduced to deal with Seventh Day Adventists. The banns are published ….

I know the banns are published, but you can do either the one or the other, either publish the banns or put up a notice in the church, and that privilege the Christian churches have not got.

They would have to recite them and that would take a long time.

Yes, they would have to recite them.

I have no reason for not accepting the amendment of the hon. member for Cape Town (Castle) (Mr. Alexander) in order to remove any doubts, because the Mohammedans have their service on Friday, Jews on Saturday, the Seventh Day Adventists on Saturday and the Christian churches on Sunday. That is what was in mind.

I know what your intention is, but you made it so difficult to understand that it became necessary to clarify it.

In your own church these banns are published in the church, or they can be put up in a magistrate’s office.

You cannot put up a notice outside the Dutch Reformed Church. You have to read the banns. You are now giving these other people a privilege that the Christian churches have not got.

I think we are quibbling about terms that do not matter. The object of the Bill is to give the congregations I have referred to the same rights as are conferred on Christian churches who publish their banns on Sunday.

You are giving them greater privileges.

You must either confine it to the one, or exclude the other.

I have no objection if you exclude the second one.

It is suggested that sub-section (b) be deleted altogether. That brings it into line with the practice that exists. I think the hon. member is right. I would not object to that if it is moved.

I do not think the word “weekly” should be omitted. That is the provision in the original Act. It seems to me that the idea is that the most important public service held should be chosen. I therefore think that the word “weekly” should be retained. It will then mean that the most important public service of the week should be chosen. The most important public service of any denomination is of course held on a fixed day. The Dutch Church and the English Church have Sunday; the Sabbatarians and the Jews, Saturday; and the Mohammedans Friday. But they are still weekly days, and therefore we should retain the word “weekly”.

I am prepared to withdraw the second part of my amendment —to omit the word “weekly”.

With leave of the Committee the second amendment proposed by Mr. Alexander, was withdrawn.

I have now a little more information in reference to sub-section (b). The Bill as drawn should stand because I understand that in the Jewish church they do not publish the banns but put them up.

That has always been the case.

Then you would be compelling them to do something they have not done.

I have no objection to giving all the liberties to every church. If a man is a Jew he is entitled to his religious views but what I want the Minister to understand is, I am not prepared to allow a privilege to be given to one church and not to the other. I do not think it is fair, or that he can ask me to do so. The Jewish church can publish the banns during the service, and because they do not choose to do so they should not have a privilege my church has not. If you alter the general law to give one church the right to publish its banns by posting up a notice you must give the same right to the other churches. I know the magistrate puts up a notice on the door, outside his office, but I have heard him read the banns also. So I take it he is subject to both these courses so far as he is concerned. But in the churches they have not the right to put up a notice, in the ordinary Christian church, and they have only the reading out of the words. So the position is simply this that you are giving a privilege to one church which you are not giving to another. If you want to give them the same privileges as the Christian church by just changing the time to some other day, then you should say: Well, they get the same privileges as all the other churches, but the difference is that they do it on another day. Now, in the past they could not do that because they had to publish it on a Sunday, which is not their day of worship. If it is made on a Saturday I do not see why they cannot publish it the same as any other church, although I do not know much about the Jewish church. But if they want to publish it I do not see why they cannot do it, although I say it makes a difference because it does not get the same publicity; but if they change it all the other churches must do it.

I am informed that clauses (a) and (b) is the law as far as it affects the churches. It is entirely in accordance with the present law for people whose banns are published in public

There is no privilege being granted here to the Jewish community at all. From the earliest days of government in this country a provision such as the Minister is making here was provided for the Synagogue. It was a law made by the Govemor-General-in-Council, and a special proclamation was issued by the GovernorGeneral-in-Council shortly after Union, as far as the Cape is concerned, making this provision. It is only by some mischance—I do not know how it happened—that the provision did not apply in two of the provinces. I may say that as far as publicity is concerned, there is no place in the world where such publicity is given to marriages as in the Synagogue. There is a big notice-board in front of the Synagogue.

Outside the Synagogue?

No, it is in the building, but as you come into a Synagogue there is always an open space before you walk into the space where worship is held. There is a big notice-board and all these banns are put on that notice-board, and everyone who enters the Synagogue cannot possibly avoid seeing the notices. Therefore, as far as publicity is concerned, they get all the publicity in the world. That is the publicity given, and not only is it there on the day when the Sabbath services take place, but it is very much more public than to read out the banns in the building. It remains there permanently and everyone who enters the Synagogue, whether on a weekday or on the Sabbath, can see it. There is all the publicity in the world, and that has always been the custom. We are not asking for a special privilege at all, but it is just that we want the same thing in two of the provinces where the position was not clear; we want the position to be made clear in those two provinces. Things will continue in future as they are now, except that in those two provinces the matter will be regularised.

I do not agree with the hon. Minister. He does not tell me that this is in fact the existing law. He says: “I am informed that is so.” I have the Bill before me here and I am sure that no provision is made in the law enabling a Christian church to post up a notice inside the church and that it is then not necessary for it to read the banns. That is what is done here. Unfortunately a large proportion of my time this morning was devoted to a Select Committee and for that reason I did not have sufficient time to study the Bill thoroughly.

First amendment proposed by Mr. Alexander put and agreed to.

Question put: That the word “or” in line 13, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the clause,

Upon which the Committee divided:

Ayes—60:

Abbott, C. B. M.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Bawden W.

Bell, R. E.

Bodenstein, H. A. S.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowker, T. B.

Burnside, D. C.

Butters, W. R.

Carinus, J. G.

Christie, J.

Cilliers, H. J.

Cilliers, S. A.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis A.

De Kock P. H.

De Wet, H. C.

De Wet, P. J.

Dolley G.

Du Toit, A. C.

Faure, J. C.

Gluckman H.

Goldberg, A.

Hayward, G. N.

Hemming, G. K.

Henny, G. E. J.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Higgerty, J. W.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

McLean, J.

Madeley, W. B.

Maré, F. J.

Morris, J. W. H.

Mushet, J. W.

Oosthuizen, O. J.

Pocock, P. V.

Raubenheimer, L. J.

Robertson, R. B.

Russell, J. H.

Shearer, O. L.

Shearer, V. L.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Steenkamp, L. S.

Steyn, C. F.

Stratford, J. R. F.

Sullivan, J. R.

Tothill, H. A.

Ueckermann, K.

Van der Byl, P.

Van Niekerk, H. J. L.

Van Onselen, W. S.

Visser, H. J.

Warren, C. M.

Wolmarans, J. B.

Tellers: G. A. Friend and W. B. Humphreys.

Noes—28:

Bekker, G. F. H.

Boltman, F. H.

Bremer K.

Brink, W. D.

Conradie, J. H.

Dönges, T. E.

Erasmus, H. S.

Grobler, D. C. S.

Klopper, H. J.

Le Roux, S. P.

Luttig, P. J. H.

Malan, D. F.

Mentz, F. E.

Nel, M. D. C. de W.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Potgieter, J. E.

Stals, A. J.

Steyn, A.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Strydom, J. G.

Van Niekerk, J. G. W.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Vosloo, L. J.

Warren, S. E.

Werth, A. J.

Tellers: P. O. Sauer and J. J. Serfontein.

Question accordingly affirmed and the amendment proposed by Mr. S. E. Warren dropped.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

The remaining Clauses and the Title having been agreed to,

House Resumed:

The CHAIRMAN reported the Bill with an amendment.

Amendment considered.

Amendment in Clause 1 put and agreed to, and the Bill, as amended, adopted.

Third reading on 29th March.

I served on the Select Committee which dealt with this Bill. I understand that no objections were put in, and therefore I will not propose to amend the Bill, but I should like the Minister to understand that I do not like the contravention of the rights of owners. I should just like to say that I was very disappointed with the Select Committee. Of course I was there alone; there were six or seven Government supporters. I had to come to the House and the committee continued while Parliament was sitting. There was no necessity for the hurry, because the Bill has been printed for a long time.

I cannot allow the hon. member’s remarks to stand unchallenged. I just want to say that as regards the provisions of this Bill they were approved of by the interested parties concerned in Oudtshoorn. They are the people in the last instance who had the last word to say in connection with it. Even the amendments to which the hon. member wanted to object were approved of by the parties concerned in Oudtshoorn. The board was here and they put their case, and I promised them that we would accept their suggestions.

I regret that the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) has just left his seat, but I cannot allow to pass unchallenged the accusation he made against the manner in which the Select Committee of which I was the chairman conducted its work. As I understand the rules of the House it is the primary duty of a member when he is appointed to a special Select Committee to attend the activities of that committee regularly, and if it is to the convenience of seven members of the committee to continue with the activities and one member objects to it, without giving a good reason why we should consider the convenience of that one member and ignore the wishes of the other members, I think it is unreasonable of that member, because at that particular time he did not get his way, now to object to it in full Committee of the House. The objection of the hon. member was that he had no time to study the Bill. He said that he could only read through it in the train. The names of the members of the Select Committee were announced in the House about a month before, so that the hon. member had more than sufficient time to devote his attention to the provisions of this Bill. I therefore wish to give the House the assurance that a reasonable opportunity to make themselves acquainted with the details of the Bill and to contribute towards the activities of the Select Committee were given to all members of that Select Committee. I therefore feel that the objection raised by that hon. member has no foundation and is not quite just and reasonable.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 9, on the motion of the Minister of Lands, certain amendments were made in the Afrikaans version which did not occur in the English version.

I regret not being present a moment ago when the hon. member for Ermelo (Mr. Jackson) spoke, but I did not request it for my own convenience. I felt that at that stage it was unnecessary to continue with the sitting of the Select Committee, and that it was unreasonable towards the country.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On the Preamble,

On the motion of the Minister of Lands, an amendment was made in the Afrikaans version which did not occur in the English version.

Preamble, as amended, put and agreed to.

On the Title.

I move—

Agreed to.

Title, as amended, put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

The CHAIRMAN reported the Bill with amendments and specially an amendment to the Title.

Amendments considered.

Amendments in Clauses 1, 2, 3, 4, omission of Clause 5, amendments in Clauses 6, 7, 8, 9, in the Preamble and the Title, put and agreed to, and the Bill, as amended, adopted.

Bill to be read a third time on 3rd April.

I move—

This is a Bill which is being introduced to give special facilities for divorce in the case of war marriages, if I may call them that. It is limited legislation because it will only be applicable to marriages entered into after 6th September, 1939, and it will also terminate at a period after the war to be determined by the Governor-General-in-Council. It will thus come to an end as soon as the reason for the marriages disappears and the troops from other countries have returned to their countries. A large number of marriages took place. The wife takes the domicile of the husband, and when the husband returns overseas, to Great Britain or to one of the other Dominions, the wife is in a difficult position. In many cases the girls were married here to soldiers of Great Britain and other Dominions, and in a number of cases they were maliciously deserted and have no other alternative but to go overseas and to bring the matter before the courts in England, or else to initiate very costly proceedings of which they are incapable. The object is to give these people who are in that position the right to obtain a divorce in this country.

Why is the period of five years after the war fixed?

We must give them the opportunity; there may be cases where they will come together again and we must give an opportunity for that. It is better to make the period rather lengthy than to make it too short, because the object is to help people who got married and were maliciously deserted. The jurisdiction of the courts in the Union or in South-West is not affected, except in so far as expressly mentioned in this Bill. There is of course still the other matter, the other difficulty, that foreign courts only recognise divorce which is granted in the place of domicile where the marriage was contracted. They had certain difficulties in Great Britain and they have already passed legislation to make provision, where the marriages were contracted in the Dominions, to have reciprocity and to recognise divorces as far as the Dominions are concerned. Our Bill also contains the provision that we will recognise the courts of other countries as regards these divorces, on condition that they recognise ours. I consider it essential to have legislation of this nature. The war period is an abnormal period, and where one has to do with what I might perhaps call abnormal marriages, it is essential to introduce such legislation. It will alleviate the sufferings of many people. It is done in every country. Perhaps some of our soldiers also went overseas and were married to girls there, and of course reciprocity will be given. I hope that the House will help me in having this legislation passed.

I must say that the Government recently has continually busied itself with the married life of the nation. It seems to me that it is the only matter important to them and which counts with them. But the peculiar part of it is that they are busy breaking up family life. I thoroughly appreciate that there are cases of strangers who came here and married South African girls and then left without fulfilling their further obligations. But this Bill is too wide and I want to ask the hon. the Minister to meet us here and to determine in the committee stage that it will only be applicable to soldiers. According to this Bill anyone who was married in that period can receive the relief, whether he was a soldier or not. If he were a businessman who came and was married here and afterwards does not want to fulfil his obligations, he can receive relief under this Bill. I think that is not right. I see that the hon. Minister is desirous of helping the girl in cases of hasty marriages contracted during war time with soldiers, but I do not think that he should make it general. That would be wrong. Then there is another matter. This Bill will create many difficulties in connection with the process of law, the serving of papers and documents; that must also be determined. The court will want to know whether documents have been served. Then there is another point, and that is the question of what will happen to the children, if children were bom of such a marriage.

If the hon. member moves it, I will be prepared to send the Bill to a Select Committee before the second reading.

If there are children bom of such a marriage and the court orders the defendant to pay an amount of money in respect of the children, how will that be regulated? But I want to move—

I second.

Agreed to.

Motion, as amended, put and agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, before you place the next order before the House, will the House permit me to make an announcement?

Is it in connection with the Bill?

Yes. The announcement is—

In explanation of the delay, I should like to say that my Parliamentary Secretary is unfortunately ill, and that accounts for the announcement.

Sixth Order read: Second reading, Workmen’s Compensation Amendment Bill.

I move—

I may say at the outset that representations have been made that the explanatory memorandum which I have issued to the House is of such an extensive character that it requires explanation itself, and in consequence of those representations I have agreed to give hon. members opposite the right to move the adjournment immediately I have made my opening remarks in order that they may first of all study the Bill—which I hope they will—and secondly study the memorandum to help them to study the Bill, and then ask me for any explanation of the explanation. That is as clear as mud, and my hon. friends will be able to understand.

The usual thing.

In moving the second reading of the Bill I will recall to hon. members the intense interest that was taken in the Bill, which was a tremendously new and vast departure from established practice. I take this opportunity once again in looking back to express my gratitude to hon. members for the very kind way in which they received this momentous piece of legislation, and the kindly way in which they helped me to pass it through. I take it what will be wanted by hon. members is merely a brief review of the operations of the Act so far as we have been able to accomplish things. It will be remembered we were faced with tremendous difficulties in bringing the Bill into operation as an Act. In the first place, there was an acute shortage of staff, clerical and otherwise.

Business suspended at 12.45 p.m. and resumed at 2.15 p.m.

I was outlining some of the difficulties which confronted us when we first started to put this Act into operation. I am doing this not to appeal for sympathy but in order that the House may be able to appreciate th difficulties we had in the first place, and the fact that it has been such a stupendous success despite all these difficulties. We experienced a shortage of staff and here again my thanks are due to all of my colleagues in the Cabinet and their staffs, their heads of departments, because they all released, I will not say gladly, but certainly with a certain amount of alacrity, quite a number of their senior officials to help us out in this matter: and I owe a debt of gratitude not only to them for releasing these individuals, but also to the work performed by these individuals. Then, after we had coped more or less successfully with the staff shortage—and incidentally may I mention that at one time, in the beginning of things, we were operating with no less than 50 per cent., of temporary staff, and even to this temporary staff my feelings of appreciation go out, and here I want to say that the success of this new undertaking in breaking fresh ground has been very largely due to the devotion of the staff which helped us to carry it to the stage which has been reached today—the question of accommodation came in. Such a gigantic enterprise requires to be accommodated and in the beginning we had no home, but only the temporary accommodation which those Pretorians who are in the House will appreciate was the old Magistrate’s Court of Pretoria. Hon. members will realise then the housing difficulties we suffered under in the initial stages of our great enterprise. Files and records were placed higgledy-piggledy everywhere, not easy of access ….

And eaten by the rats.

No, they were not eaten by rats, because they were so frequently in use that we did not allow the rodents time to nibble them, and I think that that diet was not very attractive to the rodents. It was cheese they wanted.

Cheese-paring.

No, there was no cheese-paring. But here again I have to thank one of my colleagues. The Minister of Public Works came to our assistance and he and the Secretary for Public Works gave their gigantic aid in the task and in record time up went our building and we were in occupation and we are now old residents in the eyes of the public. However, that disposed of the difficulty. I want to pay an especial tribute in passing to two of the pioneers of the enterprise, namely the ex-Commissioner, Mr. Tobias, who worked wholeheartedly and made a success of things, and Mr. Durant, who helped me to pilot this Bill through Parliament. Now, other statistics are not available, but I would like to mention the record of accidents that we have up to date. I assure the House that they are not complete. The total accidents reported for the year 1943 were 102,839, and for 1944, 118,353, making a total, within our purview, under the insurance companies and ourselves, of 221,192. It is an alarming figure and it showed how dangerous most occupations are, especially the engineering and the building occupations. The responsibility for compensation for these accidents was allocated as follows: Accident Fund, £119,822; Mutual Associations which were engaged when we passed the Act, £72,407; Exempted Municipalities, £6,368; South African Railways and Harbours and Government Departments, £32,595, making a total of £231,192. I do not think, although I have it here, and in view of my physical disability to talk for very long, which very many of you are glad to hear, I am sure, that I need not give details, and I hope you will excuse me from going into the details and allow me to reply to the debate when it is completed. So if you will permit me I will not deal with these details which are before me. I will proceed immediately then to the provisions of the Bill. May I, before I do so, remind the House of what were the three great important points I made when I was asking the House to agree to this new departure in Workmen’s Compensation. You will remember what those points were. Firstly, the abolition of profit being made out of the sufferings of injuresd workmen and their dependants, the first great reason for my introducing this Bill and asking you to pass it. The second great point I raised was the reduction of the expense and profit ratio to the amount of disability paid. The third was rehabilitation. Now, of course, the Act does immediately dispose of profits. The State is not interested in making a profit out of its injured workmen or out of anyone else, and in consequence that now does not obtrude itself. The second point upon which I made great play, as you will remember, was the reduction of expense and profit ratio to the amount of benefit. It will be remembered that the insurance companies— and I am not attacking them but am merely stating this for the satisfaction of the House—could never work on any less ratio than 35—65. In other words, the Administration and profit expenses amounted to 35 as against 65 paid out in benefits. We have already reached what I claimed we would be able to reach, 86—14, or 14 expenses and 86 in benefits, or 14 per cent. and 86 per cent. of the whole. Now, I do not claim that we will continue at that. I expect we will. I expect the possibility of our being able to reduce the ration in favour of the beneficiaries. But I am content, even if we increase the amount a little. We are in a state of flux, in a period of investigation. We are beginning our effort and we are not as yet in possession of sufcient data and experience to be able to be definite on that. I am very much encouraged by the circumstances I find. The third was rehabilitation. It was no part of the insurance company’s business or duty to rehabilitate; we never asked them to or expected them to. But I claim this is a responsibility that should rest on our shoulders, and it is one we expect. Rehabilitation takes two forms; economical, and medical or surgical, in other words making the injured body whole as far as we can. To that end, as I foreshadowed when I introduced the Act, we are building up a reserve fund. All these things we claimed to do or aimed at doing have been accomplished. I hope the House, as a whole, whatever the political opinions of hon. members may be, will join with me in rejoicing over what this Act has accomplished. I turn to the provisions of the Bill. Hon. members have before them the explanatory memorandum and they claim I should explain the explanatory memorandum. I shall not do that in advance but wait until hon. members have questioned me, and I shall then attempt to remove any doubts they may have in their minds to the best of my capacity. The chief object of the Bill is to remove certain defects which have revealed themselves in the course of administration. They are not of very great moment, but they require alteration. We are not undertaking a general revision of the Act. Nor am I endeavouring to improve the benefits under the Act, except here and there as will be apparent to hon. members who study the Bill. I hope if a grateful country and circumstances admit of my being here next year, I shall then be in a position to ask the House to help me to increase the benefits, keeping within the capacity of the fund itself to pay. There are one or two amendments which extend the scope of the Act in a minor way. They will be found in Clause 2, where the new paragraph (a) bis. enables employers and certain classes of workers who are excluded from the definition of “workmen” to make special application to the commissioner to apply the Act. This, I think, will come home very closely to my farmer friends. We have received many requests from the farming community for them, the farmers, to be allowed to insure against all accidents with their workmen. That shows the rather invidious and dangerous position they were in. They had to insure workmen who might be engaged around machinery, but as for the rest, they did not have to do so. That was unfair to the workers in the first place and to the farmer in the second place, because ultimately the farm worker had recourse to his employer under the eommon law for compensation in the case of an accident when he was not working with machinery. In order to remove any possible misapprehension hon. members may have that we are perhaps forcing this insurance on the farming community, I told them it was entirely permissive. If a farmer wishes to insure we are prepared to take his insurance. Hitherto we have not had the power. They can insure whom they like. Of course, if they do not already know what an excellent institution this is, it will not be very long before every farmer in this country will, of his own accord, insure all his workmen against all accidents in this, the best of all insurance associations. I do not propose (hon. members will forgive me on account of my disability) to go deeper into the memorandum. I am prepared to accept a motion for the adjournment of the debate for a fortnight in order to enable hon. members to study the memorandum and bombard me with questions when the time arrives.

It is clear from this Bill that we should be very careful when we steer Bills through this House, because here we have the Minister, four years after he introduced the Bill and after it was adopted, coming with a whole bunch of amendments. At that time we warned the Minister that he should be careful and we asked him to accept a considerable number of amendments from this side of the House. Now the Minister finds that he has to amend the Bill in several respects. We are very glad that he has given us an opportunity during the next fourteen days to examine the implications of the numerous amendments. Important amendments have been proposed and we should like to have the opportunity to go into them thoroughly. We are grateful for this helpful attitude, and I propose—

I second.

Agreed to.

Debate adjourned; to be resumed on 11th April.

I move, as an unopposed motion—

I second.

Agreed to.

I move—

This is a very small Bill and I do not think I need detain the House long on it. As hon. members know, during last year we made a considerable alteration in the service conditions of railway servants. Their pensionable emoluments were improved, their leave provisions were improved and their working hours were considerably shortened. The result of that is that in connection with our Superannuation Fund and Service Acts it is necessary to bring them into alignment with what has been done administratively in respect of service condition improvements. As the Bill itself is a little difficult to follow I prepared a memorandum for the information and edification of the House, and I think that memorandum makes the provisions of the Bill quite clear.

They seem to want memorandums on memorandums.

Section 1 deals with the question of the monthly pension contributions of daily paid members of the staff who are members of the Railways and Harbours Superannuation Fund established in 1912. These are calculated on a 26-day month. That is to say the individual pays into the Fund a contribution based on 26 times his daily pensionable rate of pay. The pension contributions payable by the artisans, that is the hourly paid members of the staff, are worked out on a basis of 208 hours per month. Since it was decided with effect from September 25th of last year to reduce the working hours of the artisan staff from 48 hours to 46 hours, it is necessary to reduce the figure of 208 to 200. This is arrived at by multiplying the number of weekdays in a month by seven and two-thirds, that being the daily equivalent of the new daily hours of duty. The staff therefore get the benefit of the fraction, 26 times 7-2/3rds amounting to 199⅓. But for the purpose of convenience we have levelled this up to 200 hours. That is to say, they get the benefit of two-thirds of an hour. Unless this alteration is made, hourly paid artisans would be in a privileged position over all other members of the staff so far as pension contributions are concerned. Section 2 deals with leave conditions. Under the recent alterations a fortnight’s non-accumulated leave per annum has been established as a right and not, as hitherto, as a privilege for all officers and employees. When this was a privilege the worker had earned no leave, but now that it is a right he is entitled to be paid on retirement, or on his services being terminated after January 1st, 1945. Now we come to Section 3. Owing to the substantial increase in the pensionable emoluments due to the staff owing to their higher wage rates, we have to revise the whole position of the Pension Fund. It is calculated that we have thrown an additional liability on that Fund of something approximating £3,000,000. As you know, the Pension Funds of the railways are regarded as being actuarially short of the necessary amount they should stand at, and so in addition to the substantial amounts the Administration pays every year to bring up the Pensions. Fund to a thoroughly sound condition, they will have in future to pay something more. But it was part of the agreement with the staff associations that the staff themselves would contribute a flat increase of a half per cent. per annum; they agreed to add a half per cent. per annum to their contributions on account of the fact, of course, that they were getting considerably more pay. That half per cent. amounts to £90,000 a year. But this also involves the amendment of the Act to bring this figure into line with the figure agreed between the Administration and the staff as to what their contribution to this increase should be. Section 4 deals with the necessity for securing uniformity of pension benefits for employees. At present there are employees drawing a monthly wage calculated on the basis of 26 times the daily rate of pay with extra payment for weekday overtime. In addition there are employees who receive in their monthly pay an additional payment of three days’ wages for or in lieu of overtime; employees who have to work overtime where it cannot be assessed have that compounded in their wages by an allowance of three days on their pay to cover that. Their wages are then calculated on a basis of 29 times, not 26 times the daily rate; that is to say they are paid a consolidated monthly wage. Members of our police staff are also paid a consolidated monthly wage, but in their case the monthly wage includes both weekday overtime and a certain amount of Sunday time. The pensionable emoluments of the monthly paid staff and the police staff are now being defined as being 30 times the amount of the daily rate of pay applicable to each individual. That is a uniform application of the principle to all employees. This will secure complete uniformity of treatment as between all employees. They will all be paid on the same basis. This has also been agreed to by the staff associations, and is indeed very largely their work. In the past there has been some misunderstanding as to what constitutes pensionable emoluments in cases where the monthly rate of pay has no corresponding daily rate. This has now been rectified by defining the equivalent daily pensionable emoluments of every monthly rate of pay. We are defining arbitrarily the equivalent of the daily pensionable emolument for every monthly rate of pay. Employee members of the staff who are contributors to the New Fund have, with effect from October, contributed on this uniform basis. There is therefore no need any longer to retain the expressions “full pensionable monthly emoluments” or the “equivalent daily pensionable emoluments”. These expressions are in consequence being deleted from the principal Act. It is also necessary to bring the hourly paid staff, that is the artisans, into line with the new conditions since hourly paid members of the New Fund contribute on the basis of 240 times their hourly rate of pay. I am now dealing with the 1925 Fund, where the monthly rate is based on 240 times their hourly rates of pay. Since the hours of duty of artisans have been reduced from 48 to 46, a daily average of 7⅔rds, the figure of 240 is reduced to 230. This change is necessary to obviate artisans contributing on the basis of a 31-day month as against the 30-day month applicable to all other employees. The position is really quite a simple one but it is one of those positions perhaps a little difficult to explain with complete simplicity because it involves a number of rather complicated calculations. But I hope I have said enough to make the position quite clear. I would stress this, however, that every one of these conditions is in the interests of either better conditions for the workers, or, where some section is not getting better conditions, they are being made uniform with all the other sections. I think in the circumstances I need do no more than formally move the second reading.

At the outset I should like to say that in general we cordially support the drift of this Bill and also its contents, the amendments. We welcome it. The amendments on the whole make for an improvement of the service conditions of the staff. Any measure designed to improve the position of the staff will always be received with sympathy, and the Minister can always count on our full support for measures to make the conditions of service as good as possible. There are only a few small observations I would like to make. One is the point we mentioned last year and on which I should like to dwell shortly. We ask the Minister to consolidate all the Acts, all the amendments. It is difficult enough for us who have knowledge of railway affairs, and of what is in progress, to discover what the position is, but it is absolutely impossible for the staff to work with them. It has become chaos. There are Acts and amendments from 1912 to 1945, over a period of 33 years, and almost every year an amendment is introduced; there have been so many alterations and amendments, and alterations of the amendments, that one sometimes does not know where one stands. Last year we asked for consolidation of the legislation, and the Minister was good enough to promise he would give it his serious consideration. We hope that during next session he will bring forward consolidating legislation. I can give him the assurance that we on these benches will greatly appreciate it. A second subject that I wish to broach is that the Minister has made a big improvement in respect of the service conditions of the staff by giving the officials their leave as a right to which they are entitled and not as a privilege, as has hitherto been the case. That is an important alteration. This is the first time since Union that the right has been acknowledged as a right and for that we should like to express our appreciation. I should only have liked to see the Minister go a little further and to lay down that every official would be entitled to demand this right from his employer every year. We know there are officials who at the expense of their health have to work for years before they obtain leave. I know of officials who have worked twelve hours a day for 365 days in the year over a period of three and four and even six years before they could obtain leave. It can be realised that in ordinary circumstances no man’s health can be maintained if subject to such a strain, and it is principally men who have very responsible work to do, station foremen or station masters at outside stations. They do not have Sundays or public holidays off, they are on duty all the time and they cannot demand their leave. The leave accumulates but the leave means nothing to a man should he die or should his health break down. I would like to see the Minister stipulate that an official is entitled to demand his leave. I will give a striking example. I shall not mention the man’s name, but I am ready to pass it to the Minister; the man is a station master who has worked for four years on a very busy station, from 7 o’clock in the morning till 7 o’clock in the evening. It is stated that he gets two hours off for meals but he can never take them. In all this time he has been unable to obtain leave. His father was very ill and his mother was very ill. One of them died. He could not obtain leave. But on the other hand you have a highly placed official and assistant general manager who in less than two-and-a-half years has enjoyed leave on six occasions, and his total period of leave amounted to about eight months. It seems to me that men in positions of authority can get as much leave as they like whenever they like and more than they really need.

Is he still on leave?

Yes, since the 1st December. One would think that a man who occupies such a responsible position would during the present period remain more constantly at his post. But during this period he has had eight months leave. I feel that things are not right and that the lower paid sections of the Minister’s staff are being treated shabbily. We must take advantage of these opportunities to draw the Minister’s attention to the position, because otherwise he apparently would not know about it. I do not believe that it has been brought to his notice by the department, but now that we have directed his attention to it I trust that he will go into it. I know of members of the train staff who on account of pressure of work are on duty 45 and 50 and even 60 days in the month. No man’s health can stand up to having to work 50 or 60 days in the month; and they cannot get leave they ask in vain for leave. Consequently I wish to express the hope that the Minister will go a little further and will lay down that the officials have the right to demand their leave every year. Otherwise the amendments in this Bill are fair and we welcome them and do not wish to make any further comment. There is just one other matter that I want to draw attention to. He has given considerable increments to many of the staff. There are some of his staff who have a comparatively high income but many of his staff have more salary and less income. That sounds rather curious. More is being paid them in fixed remuneration, but then so much is being deducted in all sorts of ways that their income has been really reduced. Their income is being affected because their pensions contributions are higher. Personally I welcome it. It is a good measure provided the man receives a higher pension. If he receives a higher salary naturally he will have a higher pension, but the Minister should know that all these higher salaries do not necessary signify increased incomes for these people. Many of the staff find it difficult with their present income to satisfy all their needs. With these few thoughts I merely wish to say that we on this side of the House give our hearty support to this Bill.

It has taken us rather by surprise that we should have come to this Bill today. It is true it is on the Order Paper, but as two contentious measures appear on the Order Paper before this Bill, namely Nos. 6 and 7, we never imagined in the slightest that we would reach this Bill today. We know that one item is standing over at the request of the Minister of Labour. Personally I had hot the slightest idea that we would reach this Bill today and this places us in a somewhat difficult position. I personally have received numerous complaints from members of the staff which I should have liked to mention to the Minister, and I am not now in a position to do so. I have not the necessary notes, because I did not think that we would reach this item. I should only like to emphasise cordially what the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Klopper) has stated in regard to the improvement of the conditions of service. If we turn to the improvements I can assure the Minister of Transport there are various items in those improvements for which I personally pleaded, and I am thus very grateful that he has found it possible to effect these improvements. I have in mind especially the fourteen days leave; this is a benefit for which I am very thankful. From the day I entered politics I felt that an injustice was done to the lower paid officials and that they should be met. Then I turn to the working hours. I recall very clearly that some years ago when the Factories Act was introduced we on this side of the House urged on the Minister of Labour that the railway staff should also be brought under that legislation so that they could enjoy the reduction of working hours from 48 hours to 46 hours. We went further and advocated that the working week should be 44 hours. But seeing that we could not get the 44 hours we were absolutely in agreement to make it 46 hours all round, and we hope that the time for the 44-hour working week will now arrive. But while we are considering the working hours I should like to bring the position of the cleaners to the notice of the Minister. I have not got my notes with me, but so far as I can recall some of these ciearners have to work about ten or eleven hours a day. I speak under correction, but I want to ask the Minister to enquire into the position and to see whether an improvement cannot be brought about in reference to the working hours of the cleaners. I clearly recall that it was mentioned to me the hours were not less than ten. They have to work that number of hours instead of the revised hours. There is one other small point, and it is the following. I think that the public in general, as is reflected in the Press, have been under the impression that the railway staff have received an increase of 12½ per cent. That is really not the case. The Minister gave an incidental explanation to members of Parliament. It appears that the 5 per cent. temporary responsibility allowance has been calculated in the increase so that the increase in reality is the equivalent of 7½ per cent. But the outside public do not know that. The public are under the impression that the railwayman has now had an increase of 12½ per cent., though we know that really it only amounts to 7½ per cent. The hon. member for Vredefort has also referred to the fact that on paper these people have received an increment, but in effect they are actually receiving less than appears on the record. It has been brought to my notice, and again I have to rely on my memory, that one person is receiving 3s. a week or a month less in cash than what he obtained before the increases. I accept that these are exceptional cases I am mentioning here, but then we ought to go into the position in order to ascertain whether there are such exceptional cases, so that all anomalies may be eliminated. Of the 12½ per cent. increment, or rather of the 7½ per cent., something must be deduced in respect of two further items. There are heightened contributions to the sick fund and heightened house rent. The general public are also in ignorance of this. I know that various railwaymen have said to me they have to pay a larger amount for rent but they are still living in the same houses. They have to pay an, increased sum by way of contribution to the sick fund, but they are entitled to precisely the same services as heretofore. I would be the last person to hinder the Minister when he is instituting improved conditions of service, but I think he ought to realise that the 12½ per cent. does not appear so nice when we deduct the 5 per cent. and on top of that the increased payments in respect of pensions, rent, sick fund contributions, etc., while these people are not being provided with better houses or enhanced facilities under the sick fund. When we take this into consideration the increment does not look so rosy. I only want to say again that today I am in a position of not being able to deal with the various complaints that have been brought to my notice, in detail, and I hope that in the Committee stage I shall be in a position to do so.

After hearing the Minister referring to this as a simple measure and that it is in the interests of the employees, I am surprised at some of the comments made from the Opposition benches. The hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Klopper) states that he is hoping that the Minister will try to consolidate these Pension Acts, from 1912 onwards. But I think no individual member is more cognisant of the fact than the hon. member for Vredefort, that these amendments arise as a result of the generosity of the Minister of Railways in improving conditions of service, and therefore the old pension laws cannot be consolidated, but they may be amended.

Do not be stupid. That is no argument.

I am sure that there is no necessity for an hon. member referring to stupidity when it seems to me that the stupidity is on their side, but I will say this, that this amendment is in the interests of the railway employees. Remarks have also been made about leave, that a certain high official had as much leave as six times in 2½ years. The hon. member for Vredefort, when he was a Government servant, had as much leave as six times in twelve months, but I presume that he realises that there are certain reasons for an official often going on leave. When he was in the Government service he took leave pretty frequently but it was for the purpose of representing his fellow men and not going on holiday. Likewise the Assistant General Manager to whom he refers possibly finds it better and in the interests of the service to take leave say three days at a time. I want to Say that there is no railway servant today who may get more than two months’ leave per annum. If he does, it is on a doctor’s certificate, and there is no man in the railway service who cannot get leave in a period of twelve months. In the case of the Assistant General Manager there may have been very good reasons for it. I think that the railway servant is treated very generously in times like the present and there is no discrimination in regard to leave between the lower and the higher official, and I defy the Opposition to tell me of a single official in the railway service who does not get his annual leave. The members over there profess to represent the “underdog” but by doing as they are, they do their case a lot of harm. I again wish to emphasise that leave facilities are fairly generous and not only generous to the higher officials but also to the lower officials.

I should like to thank hon. members for the reception they have given to this measure and for the assurances of good will and support towards it. I regret, like the hon. member for Albert-Colesberg (Mr. Boltman), that the Bill has come on much more rapidly than was expected. I may say that it gave the Minister a good deal of work to do in a short time to discover what the Bill was all about himself, just before he came to the House. I therefore sympathise. I will act on the suggestion, if I may, that if there are any points hon. members want to discuss they can be brought up at the third reading. I think the third reading is more appropriate than the committee stage, because the committee stage limits hon. members very much to technical aspects and I am quite prepared to hold over the third reading for that purpose. In regard to the question of the consolidation of Railway legislation, which the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Klopper) raised, I would emphasise this, that the Service Acts for 1912 and 1925, were actually reprinted to embody amendments up to 1940 and brought completely up to date, so that you really have, in effect, a consolidated measure as far as these Service Acts are concerned, except for such amendments as have been made since 1940. But I would like to tell the House that I am endeavouring at present to strengthen the legal section of the S.A. Railways, and if I can arrange that, I will have more opportunity of going into the work of consolidating measures than I have done in the past. The difficulty of a Minister of Railways is that he has no time unless he has qualified staff who can handle these things, to devote time to them personally, but I feel that if We can strengthen our legal section, the question of consolidation may make more progress, and I am entirely in favour of consolidation myself. I appreciate the point made by the hon. member for Vredefort that leave should be granted every year. He will agree, I think, that in the last few years that has been very difficult to accomplish because we have been short staffed and continually overburdened. The tradition of service which is so much part and parcel of the Railway Administration and is so much in the minds of railway servants makes them say that they would rather see that the service continues than that they should go on leave, but as times become more normal—I do not think the time is far off when they will become more normal—it is my set purpose to try to arrange for more leave for everyone every year. The hon. member for Vredefort will know, at least, that since I assumed office I have done a good deal to help to establish that on a better footing, not very successfully, I admit, but then that was because of circumstances beyond my control. The hon. member for Albert-Colesberg raised the question of the application of the Factory Act to railwaymen, but I would point out to him that if you do apply the Factory Act to railwaymen, you could only apply it to railway artisans, and that is the reason why, when the Factory Act was introduced, I considered it an unsatisfactory Act to apply to the railways, not because I was not prepared to give the same improved conditions to the railwaymen, but because one cannot just select one class of railway servant and give him better conditions than other categories receive. What happened was that when the Act became law we appointed a committee consisting largely of the staff itself to go into the conditions of the Factory Act and to see how far these conditions could in fact be applied not only to artisans but to all railway servants, and the findings of that committee were, as you know, adopted by me, I will not say 100 per cent., because there were one or two conditions that we already had which were better than what was provided for in the Factory Act, but they were adopted by me to the extent of 95 per cent., and so not only do we have the Factory Act applied to the railways today but we have the Factory Act applying to every section of the workers, instead of only to the sections covered by the Factory Act itself. The question of the 5 per cent. and 7½ per cent. increase in salary—I think that is hardly a fair way of looking at it. If your income is doubled tomorrow you will pay probably three times the income tax you are paying today, but you cannot say that your income is not actually doubled just because you are paying increased taxes. It is doubled in spite of what you pay in increased taxation. That is not the way to regard an increase in pay or income. It is quite true that if income goes up liability in a variety of directions goes up with it. That applies here. I think I raised the pay of the workers enough, and of course that affects the amounts of rent rebate and the amount which may be due on pensionable emoluments. That follows because his income is now larger, but I think it is unfair and almost ungracious to talk of a wage increase by starting to see what comes off first and then to say that I am not giving a worker an increase of £5 a month, but an increase of only £4 15s. Of course I admit that the 5 per cent. allowance, the 5 per cent. war allowance, was consolidated. That was consolidated in the increase, but remember this, that that 5 per cent. was not a pensionable emolument. It could have been taken away at any time, as it was only a temporary war allowance. I have now consolidated it in the pay for pension purposes, so that the worker is very much better off than he was before. I do not think that any other point was raised which I am called upon to reply to.

What about the hours of work of cleaners?

Oh yes, with regard to cleaners I am not quite clear on that particular case, but I take it that they are railworkers. Now, railworkers work the same hours as the graded staff with whom they are working. If it is proved that all our cleaners are working 11 hours a day I shall have the matter looked into. I am not quite clear whether it is only a special case or whether it is a regular state of affairs, but if it is anything like a regular state of affairs I shall certainly have it investigated. There is the difficulty as I pointed out before that we have the greatest difficulty in obtaining European labour at present, and it may be that carriages have to be cleaned where we are short-staffed, where some men are off sick and cannot be replaced, and that the cleaners have to work long hours in order to get the trains to go, but I will have the matter looked into, if that will satisfy the hon. member.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

House to go into Committee on the Bill on 29th March.

I move—

Representations have again been made to me that these matters are being rushed. I do not know how it happens that way but I want to assure hon. members of this, that there is no desire—rather, the desire is there but there is no intention—in this Bill, to impose socialistic conditions upon the country or upon this House. It is a very simple measure, but certainly it is far-reaching in its consequences in that now for the first time we have a registration of workers. That is essential in view of possible contingencies immediately and in the future after the war. That is all it is designed to do. It is a very simple thing. Now, the Bill has been the subject of consultation with all interested organisations, lawyers, trade unions, and the Labour Advisory Council. The principles contained in the Bill have received general support and criticisms of individual provisions have, in the main, been met. The criticism has been offered from some quarters that the Bill does not go far enough.

Hear, hear.

Do you agree with that? Then I need go no further. That is anticipatory support. But it has been criticised for not going far enough in that it does not compel employers to notify their labour requirements to the employment, office, and to engage their labour through the same agency. In addition, the power to transfer labour from so-called “depressed areas” to areas where there is full support, has been proposed. It is not the intention to take such far-reaching powers in this Bill. Now you know just where I stand. The objects of this Bill are twofold, namely (a) to make it compulsory for all unemployed persons (defined as “workseekers”) to register with employment offices or labour exchanges, as they are sometimes designated, and to require employers to notify such employment offices of the engagement or termination of services of all persons employed by them; and (b) to repeal the Juveniles Act, 1921, and to provide for the establishment of Juvenile Affairs Boards for any area or for any class of juvenile. The Bill applies to the State as well as to private employers, but private householders and farmers do not need to notify the engagement or discharge of staff. I do not see why they should not, but that is a concession to your prejudices. I feel that if employment offices render good service, employers will make use of their services to an increasing extent without any compulsion. The Bill has been designed to allow of the application of its provisions step by step as the machinery for its administration is built up. A considerable network of employment offices is, of course, already in existence. The Department of Labour has conducted employment offices for Europeans and non-Europeans, other than natives, on a voluntary basis since the Department’s inception. In those areas where the Department has not established offices the local magistrates act as its agents and the Department is grateful to them and to the Department of Justice for the work they have done.

I have never heard of a magistrate who ever assisted in finding employment for people.

Then my eulogy is wasted. But I cannot retract it. I will let it stand. Juvenile Affairs Boards have functioned in conjunction with the Department’s employment offices in many centres and have given willing service in the interests of the youth. Now, the reasons for the Bill are the following: Complete registration of unemployed persons and the notifications required from employers will enable employment office machinery to function much more efficiently than it is able to do at present. It will, for instance, be possible at any time to ascertain simply and accurately the extent and nature of prevailing unemployment on the one hand and the trend of employment on the other. As a consequence employment offices will be in a position to give suitable advice to unemployed persons and the Department will be in a better position to advise the Government on steps to be taken to deal with an unemployment problem. This problem acquires added importance by the decision of the Government to proceed with a general unemployment insurance scheme, as it will assist the administration of such a scheme. This will be of great interest to the House. I am sure. It will be a very comprehensive scheme, I can assure hon. members in advance, who will await with interest the introduction of this Bill.

During this Session still?

Yes, during this Session, as part of our rehabilitation movement and as part of our determination to cope with possible unemployment, and I can foreshadow that for the first time we are providing unemployment benefit for many thousands of workers who hitherto have not been considered, and I refer particularly to native workmen in industry. It was considered desirable to incorporate the provisions of the Juveniles Act, suitably amended, in this measure, otherwise there would have been an overlap. The Juveniles Act of 1921 allows of the establishment of boards in respect of European juveniles only. There are a few Coloured Juvenile Advisory Boards functioning at present but they are non-statutory and interested organisations have urged that statutory provision should be made for these boards. The present Bill allows of the establishment of statutory boards to deal with the interests of any specified race, European, coloured, native and so on. The main provisions of the Bill provide that the Bill will be administered by the Department of Labour. Clause 2 provides that the Minister may by notice in the Gazette apply the Act to any area in respect of any specified class of workseeker within that area. “Class of workseeker” may mean European, coloured or native, or may refer to male or female, adult or juvenile. If a Juvenile Affairs Board has been established under Section 13, the provisions of the Act apply in the board’s area in respect of the class of juvenile workseeker for which the board caters. The Act shall not be applied in respect of native workseekers nor shall a Juvenile Affairs Board for natives be established except after consultation with the Minister of Native Affairs. It is proposed, in the early stages at least, to make use of the machinery which exists in the Department of Native Affairs and in municipalities under the Natives (Urban Areas) Act for the purpose of registration of natives for employment. The ultimate control of these functions will vest in the Department of Labour but full use will be made of such assistance as the Department of Native Affairs can offer. Representatives of native interests on the Advisory Council of Labour have urged that the registration of natives for employment should be divorced from registration for pass fees. This suggestion will receive serious consideration when opportunity offers to translate it into practice. Clause 3 provides for the appointment of employment officers by the Minister for any specified class of workseeker in an area to which the provisions of the Act have been applied. Clause 4 stipulates that every workseeker to whom the Act applies and who has been unemployed for a period of more than one week shall furnish the employment officer concerned with the prescribed particulars. The employment officer must then issue a registration card to the workseeker. Workseekers who are members of a registered trade union or contributors to an unemployment benefit fund need not register with the employment officer, as the said union or fund is required by Section 10 to furnish the revelant information to the employment officer. “Workseeker” is defined as a person over the age of fifteen years who—

1. (a) is unemployed or not bona fide engaged in any business, trade, profession or other remunerative activity, or is not a pupil or student at an educational institution or who, having completed a course of study at one institution is not awaiting admission to another institution; and
2. (b) is capable of employment and is mainly dependent upon employment or on some other person, other than the husband or reputed husband of such person, for his means of subsistence,

but does not include a male person over sixty-five years of age or a female person over sixty years of age. I hope my lady friend over there will appreciate the difference. This means that all persons over the age of fifteen years and not more than sixty-five, in the case of a male, or sixty, in the case of a female, who are capable of and available for work are regarded as workseekers. No child who is still required by law to attend school can be a workseeker. A good many members of Parliament would fall into that category. “Workseekers” are further divided into two categories, viz:—“Juvenile workseeker” who is under the age of eighteen years; and “adult workseeker” who is 18 years or over. Clause 7 requires an employer, to whom the Act applies to notify the employment officer when he engages ‘any person over fifteen years of age if the period of employment is for not less than one week. He must likewise notify the termination of service of any such person.

Order order.

Was it worth interrupting me for that? I always thought that a member was out of order if he passed between Mr. Speaker and the person who is then speaking. The hon. member can pass geographically between Mr. Speaker and myself without obstructing our respective vision—so go on! Clause 8 places the onus on the guardian to furnish the information required by an employment officer in respect of a juvenile workseeker. Juvenile Affairs Boards require to obtain certain information about the school careers of juvenile workseekers who come to the employment office for assistance. In the case of schools under the Union and Provincial Education Departments, this information will be obtained as a result of the co-operation which exists between the Department of Labour and those departments. Some school principals have in the past supplied very valuable information in connection with school-leavers which has been of great assistance to the employment officer in obtaining suitable work for the juveniles concerned. In the case of private schools, it has been necessary in Clause 9 to make it compulsory for principals to submit the required information as there is no other means of obtaining the information if the principal of a private school refuses to co-operate. An employer may be required —Clause 10—to furnish any further prescribed particulars. This will enable the Department of Labour to call for such employment statistics from any industry as may be required for a particular purpose. The clause also provides that secretaries of management committees of unemployment benefit funds and secretaries of trade unions must furnish prescribed particulars concerning unemployed contributors or members, as the case may be.

The persons insured or the trades union members need not give these particulars.

No they are called upon to give the particulars, and they give it. Clause 11 allows persons who do not fall within the definition of workseeker to register voluntarily for employment, e.g. males over sixty-five years of age or females over the age of sixty. Persons who are in employment but desire a change of occupation may also register. The duties of an employment officer are set out in Clause 12, viz: (a) to keep records of workseekers; (b) to conduct an employment office for workseekers; and (c) to provide vocational information and advice. Clause 13 provides that the Minister may establish a Juvenile Affairs Board for any area and for any class of juvenile e.g. separate boards may be established for Europeans, coloureds, and natives respectively. Clause 14 contains details in connection with the constitution of Juvenile Affairs Boards. A Board shall consist of not less than six, and not more than eighteen members, as determined by the Minister; of these one-third shall represent employers; one-third employees, and one-third educational and social interests. The Minister may vary these proportions provided that he maintains equality between employers and employees. Clause 16 provides that the Minister may dis-establish a board or if a board has failed to perform its functions may vest such functions for a time in an officer. Before dis-establishing a board, the Minister must consult any organisation having a material interest in the matter. The duties and functions of a board, contained in Clause 20, are briefly, (a) to keep records of juvenile workseekers; (b) to conduct an employment office for juvenile workseekers; (c) to provide vocational information and advice; (d) to exercise a general supervision over juvenile workseekers in its area; (e) to report on its own initiative or at the request of the Minister on any matter concerning the employment, training, welfare and supervision of juvenile workseekers. The remaining provisions of the Bill are of a routine nature. The improvement of employment services contemplated in this Bill should prove of inestimable value to South Africa in any period of unemployment or other emergency. The measure must therefore appeal to hon. members as being very simple, as very necessary and as very desirable, and it should therefore be passed without any further comment.

It is regrettable that on such a day as this the hon. Minister should come along with such legislation as this. I want on this side of the House to express our sympathy with the Minister in regard to his state of health. We have known him for many years in this House, and we can see that the Ministser does not feel happy about having introduced this legislation as he would like to have done. So I think it will also meet with the Minister’s approval if we are not over hasty in pushing through this legislation. I can understand that the object of this Bill is to effect compulsory registration of unemployed persons. The institution of compulsory registration for unemployed is accompanied by a definite acceptance by the State of the responsibility for providing employment. The Bill is consequently not so simple in its essentials as the hon. member made out, and with the leave of the Minister I should like at this stage to move—

I second.

I want to meet the wishes and the requirements of all the hon. members provided it fits in with the business of the House. I have consulted my colleague who is next on the Order Paper and he is quite willing, and in order to allow members every opportunity of studying this Bill, which does not require much study, I am prepared to accept the adjournment.

Motion for the adjournment of the debate put and agreed to.

Debate adjourned; to be resumed on 11th April.

I move—

The question of the relationship between dental mechanicians and dental surgeons has been considered by Parliament on various occasions. It was hoped that on the occasion of the passing of the Medical, Dental and Pharmacy Act in 1928, this question would be finally settled. Events, however, have proved those hopes not to be realised. This Bill is an attempt once and for all to settle this question and to provide definite specific amenable working conditions for those engaged as mechanicians in the dental craft and to provide for the proper relationship between members of the dental profession and the members of the mechanicians’ union. The three main features of this Bill are contained in Clauses 3, 22 and 16. Clause 3 of the Bill, Sir, provides for the establishment of a Dental Mechanicians’ Board as a corporate board as from a date to be fixed by the Minister. If this provision is accepted by the House, then for the first time in the history of dentistry in this country, we will have a body set up by statute which will be empowered to regulate the affairs of dental mechanics, a body which will confer, as it were, a status, a charter, upon the trade or calling of dental mechanicians, and will regulate the members of that calling. Clause 3 sets out the personnel of the board. The personnel is intended to provide for equal representation of dental mechanics on the one hand and dentists on the other hand, with an independent member appointed by the Minister from the Public Service who would act as chairman for the first twelve months. The six non-official members would consist of one employer dental mechanician, two employee dental mechanicians and three dentists. It is not necessary for me at this stage—it is a matter that can be raised in Committee, if necessary—to deal with the provisions of Clauses 4 to 10. They relate to the work to be carried out by the Dental Mechanicians’ Board. They provide, for instance, for the election of a chairman after the first twelve months of the life of that board. They provide for the control of meetings, for the holding of special meetings, for quorums, the appointment of a registrar and secretary. These are all matters ancillary to the appointment to the board itself. An important provision to which I now wish to draw the attention of the House is Clause 3 of the Bill itself which sets up a statutory board and is, of course, a marked forward step in the relationship between dental mechanicians and members of the dental profession and one which, one hopes, will pave the way for a smooth, amicable, relationship between employer and employee and, one hopes, bring about that spirit of conciliation and co-operation which is so necessary in this profession. Clause 22 of the Bill provides for a new body. Clause 22 provides for the setting up of a Dental Mechanicians’ Labour Committee. It has been felt by the Department of Labour that the board to be established under Clause 3, would not appropriately be given power to deal with disputes that might arise between dentists on the one hand and dental mechanicians on the other hand, and it was suggested that we should establish this new statutory machine, that we should have a committee as a creature of Parliament to deal with matters relating to working conditions, apprenticeship and possible disputes that might arise from time to time between employers and employees.

Before you go any further, will you be good enough to tell us whether this Bill meets the case put up by the dental mechanicians who are not employed by dentists? Will you explain that to us?

I will come to that point when I come to deal with Clause 16 of the Bill, on which there has been a certain element of controversy. So far as I am aware the proposed establishment of a board and the proposed establishment of a Dental Mechanicians’ Labour Committee has the approval—if not the complete, unanimous approval—the approval of the vast majority of the mechanicians concerned; and it would be strange if it were otherwise because these provisions are undoubtedly designed to serve the best interests of the mechanicians.

But there are certain mechanicians who are not employed by dentists.

Provision is made for them to be on the board. There are dental mechanics who are employed directly by dentists. Provision is made for them to have representation on the board. There are other persons who are not directly employed by dentists. They are, in effect, contractors who are mechanics. Their calling is the calling of dental mechanics, but they contract for that work. They receive orders and they do piece work. They may subcontract to other dental mechanicians and provision is made for the contractor, the dental mechanician contractor, having representation upon this board. As I was pointing out, the position of the Dental Mechanicians’ Board would not in the opinion of the Department of Labour enable it to deal satisfactorily with labour problems, and so Clauses 22 to 26 of the Bill have been inserted in close collaboration with the Department of Labour. It is specified that the constitution and functions of the proposed Labour Committee, would be in conformity with the requirements of existing labour legislation. It is provided that this committee, when established, would automatically be able to function as an industrial council under the Industrial Conciliation Act, No. 36 of 1937. The Minister of Labour will be primarily responsible for the administration of these provisions, and he naturally will have to have full and frequent consultation with the board where necessary and will have to consult them in regard to the appointments to be made to the committee. Certain appointments to that committee are made by the Ministser of Welfare and Demobilisation and then provision is made for permanent liaison between the Labour Committee and the Mechanicians Board by the provision that the chairman and the registrar of the Dental Mechanicians Board will also be chairman and secretary of the Labour Committee. Section 27 of the Bill is ancilliary to Clause 22 and it provides that in conformity with the provisions of Clause 15, in terms of which the Apprenticeship Act will cease to apply to apprenticeship in the work of a dental mechanician, it is proposed that the Labour Committee should be endowed with the powers of an Apprenticeship Committee under Act No. 37 of 1944. In view of the fact that the board is entrusted with the task of registering dental mechanicians and in view of the fact that the board is empowered to take certain disciplinary measures if necessary, if there are contraventions of the provisions of the Act, it is, of course, necessary to amend the existing provisions of the Medical, Dental and Pharmacy Act of 1928. The Medical Board at the present time has jurisdiction over dental mechanicians. It has the task entrustsed to it of administering disciplinary procedure in relation to those dental mechanicians who may one one occasion or another contravene the provisions of the Act, but as the task of regulating the trade and calling of dental mechanicians is now going to be taken from the Medical Council and placed under a body in which the men themselves can run their own affairs ….

No, that is wrong.

That is so.

As the matter is now going to be placed in a body in which there is going to be equal representation of the mechanics and the dentists, with a chairman to be appointed by the Minister, in other words, as it is going to be placed in the hands of a body on which the mechanics have far greater representation than they have indirectly at the present time on the Medical Council, it is necessary for the Medical, Dental and Pharmacy Act to be amended so that the provisions relating to contraventions should now be excluded from that Act. Those necessary amendments— consequential amendments—following upon the setting up of this Board, have been set out in a white paper which is before hon. members, and it is not necessary for me to go into any of the details at this stage. Clause 16 of the Bill has become known as the Repair Clause and its provisions constitute an attempt to close up the gap which exists in the present legislation. The dominant clause of the existing Act, the Medical Dental and Pharmacy Act is Clause 35. In terms of that Act it was made an offence for any person not registered as a dentist to do certain things, inter alia, to make, repair or supply any artificial denture or other similar dental appliance if for the purpose of such making, repairing or supplying any impression or bite is taken or any trying-in or fitting is done in the mouth by any person not registered as a dentist. It is quite clear from a reading of the debates which took place in this House and in the Senate on the occasion of the introduction in 1928 of the Medical, Dental and Pharmacy Act by the then Minister of Public Health, the present Leader of the Opposition, the hon. member for Piketberg (Dr. Malan), that Parliament at the time thought that the provisions which were inserted in Section 35 of the Act would be sufficient to close up the gap. The aim was to ensure that where work was done, work in the nature of repairs to dentures, work involving the fitting of artificial dentures work very often of a highly complicated character, it should be done by persons qualified to do so. It was suggested in those early days that there was a danger and menace in the provision as such and also to the general public in allowing non-qualified persons to carry on this particular activity. It was a menace to the public because it is certainly a deterrent to any young man who spends years qualifying for the profession of dentist, if at a subsequent stage he finds that the work on which he had spent many years to qualify, was allowed to be performed by unqualified persons. That was recognised by the then Minister of Public Health when he introduced the Act. On that occasion he said this—

Now, of course, we can train them—

The object was clear, i.e. that it was the intention of Parliament at that stage to close the gap and not to allow unqualified persons to do what was held and considered by all those competent to judge, to be skilled work. The distinction drawn by Parliament or the distinction which Parliament sought to draw on that occasion, can be described as the distinction between inter-oral and extra-oral work. Any work to be done in the mouth was the sole prerogative of the dental profession. Dental mechanics would do work outside the mouth. That was a qualification in respect of the field delimited in respect of dental mechanicians. Their field consisted of extra-oral work, but Section 35 of the Act made it quite clear that they may do extra-oral work only if that does not involve the taking of impressions or bites or any trying-in or fitting in the mouth. In other words, the work to be done, the field left to the dental mechanic, is the field of repair, the physical act of carrying out certain repairs in a certain way. If dental mechanics confined themselves to that there would have been no gap to close up and no necessity for the introduction of Clause 16 of the Bill. But it is obvious on the evidence that has been adduced, that certain persons at any rate are taking impressions and carrying on work insde the mouth while they are doing these repairs. It is evident if persons are allowed to set up on their own and confine themselves to repair work, without that work being under the supervision of a dentist, they must be contravening the law. It is the considered opinion of the experts— there have been cases in the courts—that contraventions have been taking place. Now it is suggested that as Clause 16 will deprive a mechanic of doing any work, even though there is no intra-oral work, that vested right is being taken away, and Parliament is being a party to a deprivation of rights. I want to say at once that Parliament never lightly takes away rights that exist, and I am fully conscious of the importance of this clause and the responsibility which rests on the shoulders of hon. members when being asked to vote for it. As far as I am concerned, I am prepared, when the Committee stage comes, to leave Clause 16 to the open vote of the House. After full consideration I am satisfied, in the interests of public health in this country, that Clause 16 is essential, and I shall personally vote for it. But I realise the responsibility that rests on hon. members. I am prepared to leave it to the open vote of the House, and it will be for hon. members to satisfy themselves whether this clause is essential. The Government have had petitions from the dental students of the Witwatersrand University. We have had petitions from the staff of the University, from two other universities, and from a number of other bodies, all pointing out if the Dental Bill is to be on a sound basis, if we want to attract young men into the dental profession in South Africa and to meet our health needs in this respect, this gap has to be closed up, and the only way to close up the gap is to refuse to allow a dental mechanic to do any form of extra-oral work except under the supervision or instruction of a dentist. It may be there are certain persons who are prepared to conform to the law, and to carry out repairs without making impressions. They are asked to make that sacrifice in the interests of the profession as a whole. It is so much better in the interests of both the dentist and the dental mechanic that there should be an agreement and that they should both work in amity and a spirit of conciliation. It is, of course, fundamental in this Bill that the mechanics where necessary, where a case is made out, must be given better conditions of service. In the past they have had no machinery. They now are given the machinery with all the sanctions the Industrial Conciliation Act carries. Their status is improved. They are given a charter, and if it means that a certain section will have to make a slight sacrifice, I would ask the House to consider very carefully whether that sacrifice is not essential in the interests of the community as a whole.

What sacrifices are the dentists making?

A dentist, before he is qualified to practice, has to undergo a severe course of training. He has to have years of training to qualify. The dentists, as a profession, have agreed to these provisions dealing with the setting up of a board with the powers of the Industrial Conciliation Act. They have agreed to the principle of wage conciliation as between employer and employee, and it seems to me they have been prepared to approach the matter from the proper angle—the angle of co-operation as between the two. These provisions to which I have referred are the main provisions of the Bill. When we come to the Committee stage there are certain other items which may engage the attention of hon. members, and it would be more appropriate for me to deal with them then. Having pointed out the one element of controversy which does exist in the Bill, I repeat I am prepared to leave it to the individual judgment of every individual member of this House. My own view is that in the interests of the profession, in the interests of the employer and the employee, Clause 16 is an integral portion of the Bill and should be passed.

I am very glad of the opportunity of being able to rise, in connection with a matter involving the health of the nation, and to give the Minister the fullest support which we could possibly give him in connection with the Bill which he has handed in. Before we go over to discussing it, it is perhaps necessary to put the matter in its right perspective to the House. Now there may perhaps be hon. members who think that I am supporting this Bill because of my own personal interest in the Bill or in the adoption thereof. I want to give the House the assurance that since I have been in this House—seven years —I have not practised. I have no longer a practice. And were I to lose my seat in this House at the next election—which is very, very unlikely—I would never return to the drudgery of practising dentistry for the public. For that reason I am speaking as a person who has absolutely no personal interest in the Bill, except that with my practical experience gained in the past, I am perhaps in a better position than many other hon. members, whose profession is not dentistry, to express an opinion. I want to repeat that I am very glad that the Minister has handed in this Bill. The Minister explained that the Bill is not something new, it is not something which has been sprung upon us without the public outside and the dental surgeons as such being afforded a good opportunity of studying what is being proposed here. There are some members of this House who endeavour in all sincerity to judge the case on its merits, and who have gained the impression that a percentage of persons are being robbed of their rights by this Bill, that they are being made martyrs, that rights are being taken away from them which they enjoyed in the past. There is not one clause in the Bill which gives people, who earlier on performed certain work, less rights to carry on business as did the previous Act, the existing Act. But there is a loophole in that Act which is used to act in conflict with the spirit thereof, and it is that unlawful practice which this Bill will put an end to. This House must now decide one of two things. They must decide whether a dentist who has enjoyed a university training is necessary or not. If the House should decide that dentists need not go to the university to take a grade which in many respects is very difficult, then I think it will be a very unhappy day for our country. Hon. members in this House, who have enjoyed a medical training, will admit that in order to become a dentist—I understand that it is also the position in South Africa now, but it is definitely the case in Edinburgh—you have to work hard to obtain a degree. If the House is of opinion that it is necessary, in the interests of the health of the nation, for such a person to undergo this training, then hon. members must support this Bill. Otherwise they can vote against it. Then the universities can be closed as far as dentists are concerned, for then any person will be allowed to practice as a dentist if he has had a little practical training outside. There is no happy medium. When you talk about denistry, you are not discussing a pot of konfyt. You cannot say that it only costs 6d. to make a pot of konfyt and charge the man 2s. 6d. If you want to become a dental surgeon you must go to a university and spend a lot of money to obtain a degree. We do not want to say much on this side of the House, for we do not want to obstruct this Bill, but I take it that there are some hon. members who would like to be well-informed on the matter, and that is why I hope you will bear with me if I make a few remarks to corroborate what the Minister has said. In the first place the Minister told us what the intention was in 1928 when the Bill was introduced. The House felt unquestionably that the dental surgeons should be protected against unjust competition. If one were to go to a hospital and the temperature of a patient had to be taken, I do not think there would be one person in this House who could not read a thermometer, but nevertheless you would leave this to a trained person to fill in the temperature chart under medical supervision, for it is of the greatest importance to watch the temperature of the patient closely. Why should it be left to a medical man if anybody can read the temperature? Because often the life of the patient depends on what must be done after reading the temperature. You must have medical knowledge and it is not only sufficient to be able to say what the temperature is. You must have medical knowledge to know what should be done under certain circumstances. In this case where we are dealing with denistry, it is not a matter of little consequence, for you are handling an organ which has much to do with the health of humanity. In 1928 the Minister told us the intent and purpose of the House. I can only say that all political parties definitely felt at the time that denistry should be protected. I have here certain quotations from Hansard of 1928 which were made by the then Minister of Public Health, who is now the Leader of the Opposition. The hon. Minister of Public Health has already quoted from them. I would just like to read out something from the speech of the late Senator F. S. Malan who spoke on the matter in the Other Place. He belonged to the Opposition in those days, and I would just like to quote what he said—

…. is the same in both cases, namely to draw a definite line of demarcation between the work of dental surgeons and that of dental mechanicians. The line which I am endeavouring to draw is that all work performed on the mouth of a person should be done by a qualified dental surgeon, but the work of making plates can be performed by a dental surgeon or a dental mechanician.

Both sides of the House felt that the dental surgeons should be protected. Senator N. J. de Wet who at that time occupied a very high position, spoke about members who were against such legislation, and he said that if there were dentists who asked too much for their services, it was not a matter which affected the principle of the legislation. I would like to refer hon. members who are not sympathetically disposed to this Bill to what Senator De Wet said. Whatever a dentist charges, has nothing to do with the principle of this Bill. If the public outside feels and the House feels that dental surgeons are making excessive charges for their services, then there is the right place and the right way of correcting this. Here a principle is at stake, and it is whether a dentist should be a trained person or not, or whether any person can practise as a dentist; then, whether the work of dentistry should be done by a qualified person. The matter of charges is quite something else. But while we are on this point, I would like to explain what occurs in practice. It has been mentioned what dentists charge for a set of teeth, and now I would like to point out that there are various practices. You find this in connection with the medical profession and practically any kind of profession. A Harley Street specialist works up a practice for a certain group of people a certain public. I do not say this is not right, but it is the practice—it does happen. Now he charges those people a higher fee, while the middle class or poor man pays very much less. There are people who are just as well qualified as a Harley Street specialist and who perhaps only charge half or less of what the specialist asks for the same work. Therefore I hope that when it comes to dentistry that point will be taken into consideration. The impression is created that dentists are exploiting the public, but I deny it. The Minister introduced the matter well. There is one point on which I differ from him, and that is that he wants to leave Clause 16 open to the free vote of the House. I do not think he should have done this, but on the other hand I am almost glad about it, for I think the Minister will be surprised to see how many of us will wholeheartedly support Clause 16. I want to come to another aspect of the matter. There are certain people who are termed martyrs under this Bill. It is contended that they will be martyrs if this Bill is to go through. I think those people have never been better off than they are now. But I met these people in an adjoining room. And I explained to them that it is my wish never again to have anything to do with dentistry, and that, I had no interest in the Bill—I had come to meet them with an open and unbiassed mind to discuss the matter with them on its merits. And what did I find? I would like the Minister to listen, and I am saying this here in public. I put questions to these people, not with the intention of catching them out, but with the idea of obtaining information, and there is only one thing which will satisfy them, and that is that they should be allowed to practise in just the same way as dental surgeons. They do not only want to do repair work, they want to see the whole Clause 16 and the whole Bill cancelled, with other words they want to be allowed to carry on with their unlawful practice on a lawful basis. I hope that hon. members will give an unbiassed judgment on this matter. There are some of them who have violated the law and who have been punished. Now they come and say: “Look at the injustice which is being done us.” People who have already served imprisonment, perhaps on account of offences, come and say that rights are being taken away from them. I challenge any hon. member to mention anything in this Bill which deprives them of any rights which they enjoy under the existing Act. I will tell you where there is a difference between the existing Act and this. Bill. The Bill says that if a set of teeth should break, then they should be repaired under the supervision of a dentist. You will perhaps say that the dental mechanicians should be allowed to do this. Yes. But why are they being deprived of this right? Not because it is a paying proposition to repair a set of teeth, but it is being denied them because it is the way in which these people who are not dentists come into contact with the public, and they go from step to step and later on take an impression of the mouth and make the teeth themselves. I asked these people whether they were of intention to make cheaper sets of teeth for the public. I asked this in the presence of witnesses. The answer was: No, we are not going to extract teeth. What you must do, is to ask more for the extraction of whole sets of teeth, and then we will ask a little more than we have done in the past for our work, and the public will pay the same.

And you say you are disinterested?

I explained that I have no personal interest in the matter. I am afraid the hon. member did not understand what I said. I hope I will be permitted to read out what a prominent professor of the Witwatersrand said in connection with this Bill, what he said as regards the significance of the Bill for public health, and what it will amount to if things are allowed to go on as they are today. I have the remarks in English and will read them in English, then the hon. members will perhaps understand them. I will, however, repeat that I have no dental practice whatsoever and no interest in any other dentist’s practice in South Africa. I have only studied for dentistry. I am speaking without prejudice. I would like to read what Prof. Middleton Shaw says about the Bill, and I would like to read the full account for it covers concisely practically the whole content of the Bill—

Following, however, on the decision of the Government to consider introducing legislation that would stop illegal dental practice and place the craft of the dental mechanician on a sound basis, there were 17 students at the Dental School of the University of the Witwatersrand, and, if the Mechanicians’ Bill is passed, an even larger number is expected in 1945. Provided, therefore, the detrimental activities of illegal practitioners of dentistry are terminated, the future outlook is bright. There should soon be an adequate number of dentists to meet every dental need of the community and the standard or quality of dental treatment is certain to improve enormously.

We know that professor.

I just want to bring the facts before the House. Here is a man who knows what he is talking about. He is a professor at the university, the only one of its kind in South Àfrica.

Is he a Nationalist?

This Bill has nothing to do with politics. The Minister has not introduced it from a political point of view. But I as a Nationalist support it because it is in the interests of the health of the nation. When such a measure comes before this House, I am prepared to support a United Party Minister. I quote further—

I want to say to the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. McLean) who has repeatedly interrupted me, that at the moment there is no such person as a mechanician. Anybody can paste a notice on his door to the effect that he is a mechanician for it is not defined in the Act. I will read further what Prof. Shaw has to say—

That is untrue.

I will finish reading what Prof. Shaw says—

Our friend from Port Elizabeth has perhaps not much confidence in these people. It would appear to me that he is insinuating that these people who express an opinion on the subject know very little about dentistry. Perhaps the House will permit me to quote further the particular persons or bodies who support the Minister’s Bill. If this should also prove amusing to the hon. member, then I really do not know what I can quote further. In the first place this Bill is supported by the South African Medical Association; in the second place by the South African Association of Trained Nurses; in the third place by the. South African Association of Pharmaceutical Societies; in the fourth place by the Medical Board; and in the fifth place by the South African Universities. I want to conclude. In the Committee stage we will perhaps be able to say more about the various clauses, but I want to conclude by asking the Minister of Public Health if he has ever handed in a Bill pertaining to health matters when he has enjoyed such good company; and whether he has ever tried to improve anything in connection with the public health when he has enjoyed the unanimous support of people dealing with the health of the nation? For that reason I trust that this House will accept this Bill with one accord and will not put a question mark against this measure. I am disappointed that in the year 1945 it is still necessary for the Minister or other persons in this House to plead in favour of the Bill to people who are educated and who ought to know what the health of the nation means because they are opposed to it. We are dealing here with a profession which before the war and during the war has rendered infinite services to public health, and which will continue to do so in the future. For that reason I want to congratulate the Minister on this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I am not rising with the idea of offering opposition to the Bill itself because I myself think that with the remarkable development that is taking place in South Africa, of which we may very well be proud, changes have to be made. I remember a condition of things when I was a boy in Cape Town when you could not get a training for the calling of advocate, but had to go overseas. Although they could be trained by private study there was no proper method of doing it except by taking degrees at the University of South Africa, which was not a teaching university, and most of the men who became advocates, with the notable exception of men like Sir James Rose-Innes, had to go overseas. In those days if you wanted to become a doctor or a dentist you had to go overseas. In fact, that has only been remedied quite recently. Today we have the remarkable fact, which is of the greatest satisfaction to every true South African, that you are able to obtain your professional training in South Africa both in medicine and in dentistry.

And it is more expensive too.

I would also like to say that anything which improves a profes sion and prevents illegal practice is in my opinion good, and to my mind as regards the position of our young men, if a necessary branch of their profession is taken away from them, it would meet with my opposition. Any attempt to take away from the dental profession what belongs to them would meet with my opposition. There is this difficult question which arises, however, and I would like to say a word on it. It is not the first time that this matter of the dental mechanic, as he used to be called, but the dental mechanician, as he is now called, is being discussed. There was a Bill introduced by the late Governor-General when he was Minister of the Interior. The present Leader of the Opposition introduced a Bill in 1928 which was amended various times in various respects. At that time I was in the House and on the Select Committee and I know what it is about and I must say that it does seem perfectly fair that it has been proved quite clearly, and as a matter of fact it is a legal question decided by the highests courts of the land, by the Appellate Division, as I pointed out in 1928, that if anyone interferes with the mouth, if a dental mechanic takes an impression or does anything in connection with teeth, except making them, he is considered to have broken the law. Now, as was pointed out by the Minister, and the Minister candidly admits, as long as a dental mechanic confines himself to repairs, without going in for diagnosis, or doing anything in the patient’s mouth, it was quite legal for him to do so. But it is said they went further and diagnosed. As a legal matter it seems to me quite clear that any dental mechanician should confine himself to repairs and should do nothing to the patient, should not diagnose and should not fit teeth, and if he does not do these things you cannot prosecute him. That some of them have broken the law we know. We know it from the newspapers. We see these cases in the courts. They go beyond their powers. The moment they interfere with the patient‘s mouth and fit the teeth, even if they take an impression they break the law. I am not in favour of people who break the law. They should be prosecuted and not encouraged, but the point still remains that you cannot pass a law taking away the rights of those who did not break the law. I say that provided they confine themselves to repairs alone, as laid down in the 1928 Act, that right should not be taken away at any rate before you have given them a hearing. The Minister has not indicated whether this Bill is going before a Select Committee and it would be an unheard of thing for Parliament to take away the rights of anyone before giving him a chance to state his case. [Interjection]. Do not let my friend lead me off the trail. I think I have dealt with him efficiently already. I always take the line that where there is an existing right, that right should be respected and you certainly should give those people whose rights are being attacked an opportunity of stating their case. I am not saying this with the idea of defeating the Bill. I say the matter should go before the Select Committee first. It is not a Select Committee which would take up much time. It is a specific issue, whether there are rights here which are being taken away, and one should give the people concerned an opportunity of stating their case. That should be done by Select Committee, and you can impose a time limit saying that the Committee must report by a certain date, and the Bill would still become law during this Session. I do hot want to defeat the Bill. I only want to say that everything should be done fairly. That is one respect in which their rights, if any, can be respected. The Minister did not say anything about a Select Committee but I would have been glad if he had proposed that the Bill be sent to a Select Committee before the second reading, because the difficulty is this, that the principle as embodied in this Bill, is that existing rights are taken away, and it may be that the Select Committee, when it deals with the matter, will find itself up against this proposition, which many Select Committees have been up against—and I have personal experience of it—that you want to amend a certain section but cannot because you are then trying to alter the principle which was accepted at the second reading. I doubt whether you can deal effectively with this matter by sending it to the Select Committee after the second reading; it should be sent before. That will deal with the point. I have no sympathy with anyone who breaks the law. I am only speaking on behalf of those who do not break the law and who will not have an opportunity of breaking the law. You cannot legislate on a point like that. There are crimes committed in the country in spite of laws, and it is an offence to practise as a dentist without being licensed as a dentist. That is one point. But there is another point. It is something which might appear to be outside this Bill altogether, but the Minister has brought it in. There is a very efficient organisation called the S.A. Dental Trade Association. They are not dentists. They are not mechanics. They are the people who in the past imported dentists’ requirements. They are not dentists, but they must have something more than the layman’s knowledge about dentistry and dental materials. They say they have a right as traders who traded for a long time, and they are highly skilled, but under this Bill their rights are taken away. It is only dentists or a registered dental mechanician who has the right to import these things under the Bill without a permit. Surely these people have a right to put their case before a Select Committee before their rights are swept away by Sections 19 and 20. I will not take up the time of the House by giving great details with regard to these things, but I could. They have very important duties to perform. They import the stock used by dentists, not only teeth but dental instruments and materials, a very highly specialised trade, with specialised staffs, so that a dental surgeon who is working at his chair, and the dental mechanician may have the supplies they require. For wartime medical requisites control these articles handled by this Dental Trade Association have been grouped and the groups of commodities referring to them amount to 340. Each individual group of things required may run into from 20 to 150 articles. For example, hand instruments, forceps for extracting teeth are two. All these things, grouped together, scientifically classified, are in the hands of this association. Their only business is the sale of teeth and instruments and materials. That is going to be forbidden.

They can do it, but they will need a permit.

That is so. They will have to have a permit, but they do not need a permit today. They are unrestricted at present and there has been no abuse. I would like to ask any hon. member of this House to show that this trade has not been magnificently managed in the past, I have not heard any complaint in the past. I have not heard of them breaking the law. They have done their work perfectly well and have performed a necessary service to the community. Why is it taken away? Why should other people get it without a permit while they must have a permit? The Minister has not dealt with this at all in his speech. Why are these people put into that position now for the first time? This is called a Dental Mechanicians’ Bill. They are not covered by the words of the title. It is a matter which may be raised later on. I do not know. I know that the people concerned with this trade in Cape Town are men for whom the public have the greatest respect, men of the greatest integrity whom I know personally and I am perfectly sure that not a word can be said about them.

You would be interested if I bring a letter here of what was done by them.

I do not know to whom you refer but I am speaking about the S.A. Dental Association, 41, Burg Street, Cape Town. I doubt whether you can say a word about them.

No, I was not referring to them.

I do not know what individuals may be doing, but I say that we have no business to set aside a course of proceedings which has been going on from time immemorial, that people can introduce a Dental Mechanicians Act and these people look at two clauses of it and find that their livelihood has been taken away. That is another respect in which I think enquiry by a Select Committee would be very useful. The hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. Van Nierop) suggested that the only thing which would satisfy the dental mechanicians was if they were allowed to become dentists without passing examinations. I doubt whether any member of this House would support that proposition that men without training should enter a profession. I certainly would not. I do not know whether the hon. member was serious.

The mechanicians did not ask for that.

The member for Mossel Bay said so. He said they told him that the only thing which would satisfy them is to come on the roll of dentists. That is what I understood him to say and I am bilingual. That is why I say that the Minister would be wise if he sent this Bill to a Select Committee before the second reading, because after the second reading there will be the complication that the hands of the Committee may be tied. Let us by all means protect our young men who are qualifying as dentists in that important part of their work which affects them. I have had no complaint to find with dentists. I have been a rather frequent customer and I have had dentures put in and know from my own experience that even if you go to a dentist you cannot expect that the denture, however well it fits, will remain perfect for the rest of your life. We know that the mouth changes and a perfectly fitting denture today from the best dentist in the country may require to be refitted again in a few months. I also realise as the result of my own experience that if anyone who is not a skilled dentist interferes with a man’s mouth and takes an impression there may be very serious consequences because it requires the utmost training and skill. The manufacture of a denture is one thing but working with a patient’s mouth is quite a different matter, and I quite agree that as the law now stands the mechanician should be confined to repairing dentures and no more. But I do not think that the right can be taken away until cause is shown and so far no cause has been shown and one should at least hear their case before taking away their rights. I think that the position of the board supplying materials should be left as it is. For these reasons, just to ensure that a square deal be given all round to those affected by the Bill, I urge the Minister to let the matter go to a Select Committee before the second reading.

I think this is one of the most unfortunate Bills that has ever been put before this House.

Neatly put.

In my own mind I characterise it as an iniquitous Bill.

They will still leave us with some teeth.

One can only come to the conclusion that it is devised to establish the dental surgeons strongly in their position, but it seems to me it is actually enslaving everyone who works for the dentist in the capacity of a mechanician. I have not been in contact with dental mechanicians excepting the deputation who came down, and the same applies to dentists. But from what I have heard on both sides, and from what I have read in the Bill, I consider that the dental surgeons are out to establish their position at the cost of the mechanicians.

In what way?

At the cost of their mechanicians. Mr. Speaker we will take one of the features of the Bill, the subscriptions to this board that is being set up. I did not understand last year that all the medical men in South Africa were compelled to contribute to the funds of the Nurses’ Association. The nurses themselves paid their own fees. Why should the dentists pay the fees of this Mechanicians’ Board? What earthly right have they to contribute to the fees of this board? This is supposed to be a Dental Mechanicians’ Bill, not a Dental Surgeons’ Bill. It is stated to be a charter for the mechanicians and not for the dentists.

But they are employers. They have to pay.

But why should the dental surgeons pay? It is supposed to be 50-50 for mechanicians and surgeons. The mechanicians deny this. They say it is 6 to 1. So far as I can see, at any rate, it is unbalanced and it is not 50-50. Then again, one or two provisions of the Bill put unmounted teeth in the same category as diamonds. No one may import them or hold them or acquire them without a permit from the board and if in any court case the question of unmounted artificial teeth arises and there is a conviction, these artificial teeth are forfeited to the State. Imagine that, for unmounted teeth. What has the State to do with it? It is quite irrelevant. What has the State to do with artificial teeth?

The State has to do with the health of the nation though.

What has that got to do with it?

If you had no teeth you would see what it has to do with it.

The Bill takes away certain rights from people who enjoy a privilege. The Minister states that they should sacrifice something for the health of the country. But what does the dental surgeon sacrifice? Absolutely nothing. He is merely making sure that a very lucrative part of his profession is retained for him, and that no one can infringe upon it under any circumstances. Now, that is the position as I understand it, and all these dental mechanics are asking Parliament is that they should be allowed to put their case before a Select Committee. They do not ask for anything else but the privilege of putting their case before a Select Committee of the House. In consequence of that and of my reading of the Bill I move—

I second the amendment. Mr. Speaker, I have never seen the hon. Minister so uncomfortable as he was this afternoon when he introduced this Bill.

You do not look very comfortable.

I will make the hon. member uncomfortable before I am finished. We have been in the grip of the group which are responsible for this Bill from the beginning and we have been taken unawares this afternoon. Most of us are young members—or rather young members of Parliament—and we are not so well acquainted with procedure as those who are going to steal a march on us, or who are trying to steal a march on us in this Bill. Unfortunately I have prepared certain notes regarding this Bill, and I should like to know whether it is permissible for me to put in the notes I have got and certain quotations, which are very important, notes which will counteract the statement made by the hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. Van Nierop). Unfortunately I have not got them here, and I want to know whether I can put them in in the morning. One hon. member wants to know whether I will adjourn the House so that I can get my notes. I will accept that. But I have never during my 40 years of public life, experienced a position like this, a position I want to place before hon. members and before the country. It is this. We have a body of men who are employers, at least so the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Dr. V. L. Shearer) says. In any case I have never known a body of employers to be so anxious to increase the wages of their employees. Never! Why? I ask the hon. member for Mossel Bay, who is himself a dentist. Why do you want a Parliamentary Bill to raise your employees’ salaries? You know full well that you want to take away from these men who have spent five years in training in regard to making dental sets, the right to do anything at all unless dentists tell them what to do. I want to know why it is that today one can go to these dental mechanicians and get a set of teeth.

It is illegal.

I want to know why it is illegal.

Because the law says so.

The law is an ass in this respect. At the present time in Cape Town mechanicians are paid £2 10s. to £4 10s. for making a set of dentures. And what do the dentists charge the people in Cape Town for the dentures made at these prices sixteen guineas to twenty-five guineas, and the only thing they do is to take the impression? We are told that it is dangerous for dental mechanics to take impressions, yet one of the very highest authorities in the country has told us that taking a dental impression is a mechanical action which requires no scientific knowledge.

Who is he?

He is an authority on dentistry and has a number of letters after his name. It is very peculiar that the first man to support the Bill is a member of the Opposition and a dentist.

He is not a dentist.

Of course you are a dentist.

But I am not practising.

Mr. Shaw of the Witwatersrand University told us in Committee what the hon. member for Mossel Bay has told us now. I would not mention this if the hon. member for Mossel Bay had not mentioned it, because it is to my mind a most dastardly statement. He said that there were three cases of cancer per week, known cases, caused by badly fitting dentures, and he blamed the mechanicians for it. I challenge Prof. Shaw, I publicly challenge Prof. Shaw ….

Do that outside; you cannot give a public challenge in this House.

I challenge Prof. Shaw and I challenge the hon. member for Mossel Bay to give the details of these cases.

What are you accusing the professor of in your challenge?

I am asking the professor to prove publicly that three cases of cancer a week have occurred and that the mechanicians have been responsible for these cases.

Are you suggesting he is misleading the House?

I am suggesting he should prove it—and please do not try your lawyer tricks on me. The dental mechanicians are paid from £2 10s. to £4 10s. for making a set of dentures.

You said £2 10s. just now.

I say again £2 10s. to £4 10s. and I repeat that the dentists for taking one impression charge from sixteen guineas to twenty-five guineas. That is the main point at issue. Anyone who has any sense of proportion must of necessity object to this extraordinary charge. It’s a ramp.

What has the price of the denture got to do with the Bill? Have you read the Bill?

Yes, and I can read you too. I say there is no other profession in the world which acts like the dentists. They get other men to make the dentures and they take at least four to five times the payment they give their man for making these dentures and that’s a fact.

[Inaudible.]

I think the hon. member for Durban (Point), being a dentist, would be wise to keep quiet.

I will get you a dentist to make you a set of teeth for £7.

I am prepared, after reading this Bill and after reading all the evidence placed before me, to go to any quack—the dentists call them quacks—to any of these dental mechanicians and get a new set of teeth ….

Being a Scotsman, you would.

I should like to know from the Minister why he brought this Bill forward and not the other Bill that was sent in by the mechanicians. We do not hear a word about that

What was that Bill?

You know what I am asking about, it is called the Prosthetic Bill. That Bill protects the craftsman. I say that the Minister will be acting very unfairly if after the information he has received in regard to this Bill, he does not send it to a Select Committee before the second reading. After all, these men have a point of view, they are entitled to have that point of view heard, and if it is not heard then so far as this side of the House is concerned, I say we will be doing them an injury. As a matter of fact some of us are prepared to vote against the Party on this matter. I trust, Mr. Speaker, I will still be able, if this course is allowed, to put certain facts before the House tomorrow, and I trust that the Minister, with his usual fairness, will allow this Bill to go before a Select Committee.

I too am in the unfortunate position of being a dentist. I had not the slightest intention of speaking on this Bill, but this afternoon while the hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. Van Nierop) was speaking and while the hon. member who has just resumed his seat was on his feet, I came to the conclusion that though there are hon. members who have talked a good deal about health services and who have represented that they are concerned over the health of the nation, they make fun of it when a measure in the interests of public health comes before this House. I think that the majority of hon. members have public health at heart, but the interjections and observations we have heard today reveals on what a level the dentist is placed. With all deference I want to ask whether you noticed with what derision certain hon. members always refer to a dentist or an advocate or a doctor. If we want to take measures in the interests of public health in South Africa and in the interests of the prestige of the dentist, this is the time to do it. There are apparently hon. members who take up the attitude that the dentists are trying to obtain certain rights with a view to making money as best they can, and robbing the public.

I never said anything like that.

I should like to exclude the hon. member, but there were addresses from other hon. members and interjections in the sense that dentists are trying to obtain rights with a view to exploiting the public. I believe I shall never again practise, but I want to add to that that still less would I allow a son of mine under existing circumstances in South Africa to train to become a dentist. I do not want to go into the reasons, because hon. members may then say that I am indulging in personalities. I should like, however, to come to the Bill. In regard to the motion to refer the Bill to a Select Committee and the allegation of the hon. member that the dental mechanics have not yet had an opportunity to present their case, I should like to refer to the fact that last year the Bill was withdrawn by the Minister on representations from them. Someone asked why the Minister had not brought forward their proposed Bill. They drafted a Bill themselves, they were consulted. There is one thing which does not appeal to me in this Bill. I am not one of those who wants to take away vested rights. I want to say that frankly. But I also have some knowledge of what is going on and the practice that has been followed. I know that anyone who tries to make a livelihood at repairing detures cannot pay for his lodgings at the end of the month. You cannot make a living by repairing dentures. The same sort of thing applies in every calling. There are certain things that a doctor does, such as for instance an operation, for which he is paid well, but there are other things for which he is paid less because he takes his patients into consideration. The same applies to dentists. If the dental mechanics had to make a living by repairing dentures they would never be able to make ends meet. From a financial viewpoint any dentist desires that the dental mechanic should do that work. It is not profitable. What is the position, however? In England they were confronted with the same difficulty and they had to make a law. Why? Because those dental mechanics used that right as a loophole to practise illegally. That is the whole position. I wish that personally I could take hon. members to the places where this illegal practice is going on. No dentist goes there and he does not feel like going to the police to make a charge against the man. The result is that it just goes on. When I look to the general public and the interests of the general public, I feel that it is necessary to take these steps and to deprive these people of opportunities to engage in these malpractices. If it is possible to meet them, provided the illegal practice is eliminated, I shall be in favour of doing them justice. I go further. I am even prepared in respect of those who have the ability—it is only a very small number of them—to give them the opportunity to come on the register. Other hon. members may differ from me, but I myself would be prepared to do this. I should like now to say something which I would rather not have said, but which is perhaps necessary after the speeches that have been heard. I know a dental mechanic who is a decent fellow and who is competent, and I asked him whether he would be content if I moved that a few of them should come on the register. Then he said: “Oh yes, and then I shall help to suppress the illegal practice that is going on in South Africa.” It is clear, as you will see from this, that it is a matter of their own interest on the part of these people. Those of us who know what is going on do not want to do an injustice, we want to take the interests of these people into consideration, but that is the position. The hon. member for Cape Town (Castle) (Mr. Alexander) spoke about the “dental traders” and said that in the future they would need a permit, but if he will read the Bill he will find that they have not been placed in an unfavourable position. They only have to get one permit, and then they can import what they want to, there is no obstacle of any sort. It is not the case that they must have a permit for everything they import. They only get a permit for the whole, and then they can carry on their trade as they do today and the public can get the articles from them. I do not want to hurl reproaches nor do I wish to give offence, but I can produce documentary proof to show to what people their goods are being delivered. By their delivery of these goods the illegal practice is being encouraged. I choose not to produce the proofs, but I could present accounts to show what is going on. I do not, however, hold with throwing mud. There is one more point that I should like to touch on in connection with what the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. McLean) said. He took up the standpoint that there is no class of people in South. Africa who rob the public to the same extent as dentists, because the dentist only takes an impression and he pays the mechanic £2 10s. to £4 10s. while he pockets £16. The hon. member is I believe a schoolmaster, or professes to be one. Does he not know in the first place that material is needed. Does he not know in the second place that if you want to send a lad to study as a dentist—I myself was five years overseas—the training costs £1,500 to £2,000 inclusive of keep, and when the lad returns instruments and requisites have to be purchased, and you will not be able to obtain modern equipment today under £1,000. Those are all expenses that have to be incurred. Now the argument is that the dentist allows the mechanic to do the work but the dentist gets payment. What is the position of members of Parliament and Ministers? A Minister receives £2,500 and clerks do their work for them. Will you also say that the Ministers are robbing the public. But let us come to the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South). The Ministers do some work after all, although they are not addicted to it to the same extent as the clerks, but the hon. member does no work and he gets £700 a year and then he leaves at home the notes of a speech he had to make in the House. If you ask an attorney to draw up a marriage contract he charges you £5 5s. and the piece of paper on which it is written is worth perhaps only a few pence. We can go on arguing in that way. You consult an advocate who has to defend you in court, and he may ask you £50 for the first day. That hon. member will perhaps argue that it does not cost him anything, but where has he bought his advice? When, one examines a profession and one has knowledge of what the people have to study then one will not measure their services as one would trading goods; one cannot measure them like rice and potatoes and such commodities that one buys over the counter. It seems to me there is an idea in the House that we are dealing with goods that can be traded. This afternoon I have just risen because I felt that in the atmosphere of this debate I should say something; because to a certain extent I have lost interest in the dental profession, and I will certainly under present conditions not allow any of my children to study to be dentists if I keep in mind the financial gain.

I want to support the Minister in this Bill.

But you are a doctor.

I am a doctor; the hon. member is quite right. I am not a dentist. It is quite true that this Bill was in a different form before the House last year, and although the hon. member for Cape Town (Castle) (Mr. Alexander) made a very strong plea that this Bill should be sent to a Select Committee, I am afraid I cannot agree with him for the very simple reason that I do not think there is a single member in this House who has not had memoranda from the dental mechanicians as well as from the dental technicians. Every member has had a memorandum fully setting out the case of the interested parties, and I take it every member has had an opportunity of reading it fully and has not forgotten his notes at home. I think the hon. Minister has been perfectly fair in saying that the contentious clause of this Bill is Clause 16, and I think it is fair to the House and I think it is fair to all parties concerned in this legislation that Clause 16 be left to the open vote of the House. Nothing can be fairer than that. I do not see what the members who oppose this Bill can hope to gain by sending the Bill to a Select Committee. Everybody in the House knows what the dental machanicians stand for and what they want. Every body in this House should know it. They have been furnished with memoranda from the interested parties, and if they do not know what the dental mechanicians want, they are not really interested in this Bill. I just want to make this quite clear. The Minister has spoken of the advantages of this Bill, not only to the dental mechanician, but also to their status. After all, we know that all dental mechanics are not properly qualified as such. This Bill will give them status. The Bill insists upon proper apprenticeship. This Bill gives them a board in which they themselves will have a say in the training of apprentices, a status which they have not had before. Is it that these mechanics do not want status? I should have imagined that any body of technicians would have been only too pleased to accept status conferred on them in a Bill of this kind.

It is loaded.

If it is loaded, it is peculiarly loaded in favour of dental mechanicians in the fact that here they have a minimum wage laid down for the first time in their history. I know of many dental mechanicians in the country, who used to work for £12 to £15 per month, and I know of many dental mechanicians who have worked on their own and who have not earned enough for their daily bread, and here for the first time of their existence they get not only a status but they will get what, in my opinion, is a very fair initial salary, and what is more they will come under the Industrial Conciliation Act.

If it is such a good Bill, why are they opposed to it?

I can tell the hon. member why they are opposed to it. I think they are opposed to it because many of them are practising illegally today—illegally according to the Bill that was passed in 1928, because there happens to be a loophole in that Act, and therefore they are probably making more money than they are in a position to make legally. Whether or not they have acquired a prescriptive right, that is a matter for the House to determine.

Why are you afraid of a Select Committee?

I am not afraid of a Select Committee, nor am I afraid of dental mechanicians. I am pointing out the provisions of the Bill. I just want to tell the House that in evidence given before the National Health Services Commission it was made very plain, not only by the Dental Society of. South Africa, not only by all the universities of South Africa, but it was made plain by lay bodies that gave evidence before the commission that there is a great dearth of dental surgeons in South Africa. They do not number more than 700 today.

There is a great dearth of medical men too.

Yes, I am prepared to admit that, but not to the same extent pro rata. The numbers of students entering the university to take up the profession of dental surgery are dwindling instead of increasing. If, as the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. McLean) pointed out, that dentistry is such a marvellous thing, why is it that the public of South Africa are not flocking to send their sons to the universities to qualify for the dental profession?

But the profession should not be commercialised.

No, the profession should not be commercialised, but it should give the man a fair living,’and evidently parents do not think that the dental profession offers a fair and decent living to dentists.

They are making a fortune today.

I can only say that unless this Bill is passed and the relationship between dental surgeons and dental mechanics or technicians is put on a legal or firm basis, we will have the same state of chaos that we had in the past in dental surgery. All the preventive work, which is the most important part of dental work, can only be done by dentists.

None of it can.

I do not take much notice of the interruptions of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) because I not only think he has left his notes at home, but also his grey material. In Clause 16 or this Bill especially, a hard and fast basis is laid down for the relationship between dentists and dental mechanicians. It is not only a protection for the dental mechanicians or dental technician; I admit it is only a protection for the dental surgeon, but what is more important, it is also a protection for the public; and the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South)—I nearly said the pedagogue from Port Elizabeth—should, if he is a protagonist of the public interest, at least recognise that merit in the Bill. I agree with the Minister that this Bill, subject to certain minor amendments which can be moved in committee, is an excellent Bill. I do not see any necessity for this Bill to be [ sent to a Select Committee.

Why not?

And I hope that the members of this House will closely study this Bill in all its clauses, and will agree that this Bill is a good Bill.

It would appear to me that the main objection of the opponents of this Bill is to Clause 16 and the taking away of cehrtain rights that dental mechanics have today of doing repair work for the public as a matter of right. If we will just concentrate for a few moments on that point, as far as these objections are concerned, we may perhaps make some progress. From the knowledge I have, it would appear that any dental mechanic who hopes to make a living out of direct repair work for the public, is putting forward the claim which, I imagine, can never be substantiated. My own knowledge is this, that it helps him in whatever other work he is doing for the public. Therefore it would seem to me that a section of the dental mechanics, because there is a substantial section that favours the Bill, and have asked us put the Bill through—are opposed ….

Give us the figures.

We have had any number of memoranda sent forward by the people concerned, and if by this time we do not know the pros and cons of this Bill, we never will know them. I must give credit to all interested Parties for having fully informed this House of their views in regard to the provisions of this Bill. I do not see that a Select Committee will serve any purpose because the whole of the objection is based on Clause 16 and the right of the mechanic to do work for the public direct. If one were to accept the position for one moment that it was the intention of the Legislature to have such a state of affairs, it would have been much more clearly stated in the Act. It is only in recent years that this position has arisen that certain dental mechanics have taken advantage of the loophole which was left in the Act. Speaking from my recollection of the speeches which were made in this House when the Medical, Dental and Pharmacy Bill was introduced in 1928, it was accepted quite clearly that it was not in the interest of the public, that it was not in the interest of any section that an unskilled person should undertake any work in the mouth. Clause 35 of that Act intended to protect the public, but in recent years, owing to a decision in the magistrate’s court, certain dental mechanicians have suddenly discovered that they can act direct with the public in repair work only and there is no doubt that this practice can lend itself to illegal work, as it is doing today. I may say in that connection that it is not always easy to bring a case of this description before the court, and one cannot quite follow the arguments of the hon. member for Cape Town (Castle) (Mr. Alexander) in that respect. It would take an army, not of police, but of traps to get down to the fundamental difficulties in this case. You could never do it otherwise. Again I want to put this point to the House, and that is that although I would agree to the statement made by the hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. van Nierop) that many cases of cancer have occurred as a result of the present state of affairs, I would say that that has also happened in the case of qualified dentists, so I do not exclude them. But I would say that the job of fitting dentures is the job of a qualified dentist. A dental mechanic, in doing certain types of work may find certain straightforward cases, and in that case, he can do the work well. But frequently a case comes along that requires very careful manipulation, very careful attention and that is where the damage is done—and very often irreparable damage as far as the unfortunate patient is concerned—if an unqualified person is allowed to do the job. I would point out that as that is the only objection, I do not see that it will help the House in the least to send the Bill to a Select Committee. Then I come to the next point made by the objectors to this Bill. We are told that £2 10s. to £4 10s. is the amount paid by dentists to the mechanics for the work. The dental mechanic can get his £2 10s. or £4 10s.; the dentist simply puts the teeth in the mouth of the patient and he charges £20 to £35. That is what I understood the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) to say.

I did not say £35. I said £16 16s. to 25 guineas.

I accept the hon. member’s figure. I have heard other people suggest, however, that the charge is £25 to £35, according to the address of the dentist. If this Bill goes through the dental mechanicians will have a stronger trades union than any trades union I know. They will have that because there will be compulsory membership. They will then be in a position to say to the dentists: “You will have to pay us not £2 10s. or £4 10s. for the job we do, but you will have to pay us on a fair basis.” If this Bill is passed, it will raise the status of the dental mechanician and he will be in a position to put to the dental profession generally the conditions under which he proposes to be engaged in his particular work. I know it is sometimes said: “Why should the dental mechanician only be able to supply dentures on order through the dentist.” It is suggested that he should have the right to sell direct to the public. Of course, the answer to that question is that it has been found in every progressive country in the world, that it is essential in certain types of work where great skill is required, to employ ancilliary staff. This Bill seeks to protect the public and there is no other way in which the public can be given protection.

They want to share in your profits as dentists.

It is not a case of sharing the profits. It is a question of fixing a fair price for the work done by the dental mechanician. The dental mechanician is not sharing in the profit. The dental mechanic does a specified job and in return for that he gets £2 10s. to £4 10s. I consider that if this Bill goes through the dental mechanic will be in a stronger position to demand better terms.

Under what clause?

I must ask hon. members to cease interrupting.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, but I do not mind these interruptions, because it only goes to show that some members have not studied the position and are not aware of the implication of the Bill before us. It has been suggested here that this Bill is loaded. We cannot say that the Bill is loaded, in so far as the setting up of the board is concerned, because those dentists who are on the board must of necessity be people who have their own workshops or who are making dentures themselves. Some dentists contract with other mechanics and these contractor mechanics will have their representation on the board, of course, but it is undoubtedly the mechanical work that is represented on that board. I can only suggest that this Bill is a Bill which, in my opinion, is going to do justice to the honest dental mechanic; it is going to do justice to the people and to the customers of the dentist; it is going to ensure that we can place the responsibility on the dentist for the work done. In the interest of the public, it is essential that they be protected and they can only be protected by the knowledge that there is a highly trained expert who will finally approve of that job, who will finally say that the type of fitting is in order. That protection the public can never get by dealing with the dental mechanician only.

They can get that protection now.

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) says that the public can get that protection now, but the technicians who are opposed to the Bill deny that. The hon. member for Cape Town (Castle) says that the dental mechanicians are doing legal work and that you have no right to take it away from them. But you cannot have it both ways. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) suggests that this work is being done direct for the public, and the sooner it is stopped, the better it will be for the public, the better it will be for the profession and everyone concerned.

It is said that the Lord helps those who help themselves. The House on this occasion is being asked to help dentists who are not worthy of the support which they are asking from this House, and the reason why I say that, is because the dentists themselves are responsible for their failure in the past to put the whole practice on such a sound footing as would have eliminated the illegal practices which no doubt have been practised in past years in South Africa. There is a serious warning that should be conveyed to this House in the very name and in the very style of the Bill itself. When a Bill seeks and pretends to protect someone other than those who are really seeking protection and who are seeking to entrench a right, that fact in itself is sufficient to cause members to analyse the Bill and to ask themselves: “Why is it by name and by nature such as to pretend to protect someone else, rather than to give protection to those who are asking for the protection of this Bill.” Unquestionably this is not a Dental Mechanicians’ Bill; it is a Dentists’ Bill. It is a Bill promoted by the dentists themselves, a Bill seeking to entrench their rights and in a criminal manner seeking to deprive dental mechanicians of the right to sell their labour in a free and open market.

On a point of order; is it in order for an hon. member to say, in effect that it is criminal action on the part of this House to pass any measure?

The hon. member must not use the word “criminal” in connection with the introduction of any measure in this House. The hon. member must withdraw that.

I withdraw it, Sir. May I say then that it is a shameful act?

That is equally bad. The hon. member must withdraw it.

Then I withdraw that also.

Just call it bad.

May I say then that it will be unwise on the part of the House to pass a Bill which seeks to debar dental mechanicians from selling their labour in a free and open market?

But the labour provisions in this Bill were put in by your own Minister.

I do not readily accept the suggestion made by the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Dr. V. L. Shearer). I say that there are Acts on the Statute Book, the Industrial Conciliation Act and the Apprenticeship Act, which give the dental trade and industry the same rights as those enjoyed in any other industry to set up an industrial council and to set up an apprenticeship committee. All the provisions are there and can be enjoyed by the dental trade in exactly the same manner as other trades and industries. Ï say it is misleading for the Minister to suggest to the House that this Bill and this Bill alone provides measures by which an industrial council may be set up for the trade or that an apprenticeship body can be set up to enrol and control apprentices in the trade. I say it is the fault of the dentists in this country that they have not made suitable provision for the entry of apprentices into the trade of dental mechanician, and they alone are responsible for it. It is their responsibility for bringing about this chaotic state of affairs which exists today, and if they are not able to put their own house in order, they are not justified in coming to this House and asking this House to put its stamp of approval on a measure whereby they seek to deprive dental mechanicians of the right to sell their labour in a free and open market. Let us say there have been illegal practices on the part of some dental mechanicians. Some dental mechanicians are undoubtedly making dentures direct for the public; everybody knows it, it is perfectly true; it has happened in the past, but I say that if the dentists were at all interesed in the trade of the dental mechanicians, if they were at all interested in the welfare of dental mechanics, there have been plenty of opportunities for them in the past to organise the industry in the same way as other industries have been organised, and in that way they could have prevented illegal practices. You can draw a parallel—and I could quote chapter and verse—of other organisations and other industries which, through the procedure of the industrial conciliation machinery, have established industrial councils and have appointed the necessary agents through industrial councils to successfully stop illegal practices in those particular industries. Some reference was made in the course of the speeches of different members of this House to the fact that dental mechanicians, by reason of the fact that some of them were employers of labour are precluded from the opportunity, within the terms of the Industrial Conciliation Act, of being so registered either as employers or as employees. I say that is not correct. I say it is perfectly possible for them to do as it is done in the bespoke tailoring trade. In the bespoke tailoring trade you have those who are referred to as the middlemen: operating tailors employ others to work in their workshop, to do the jobs for big tailoring establishments. Those people are tailors themselves, employing other tailors in the same manner as some dental mechanicians employ other dental mechanics to do work for dentists. They are defined as middlemen. It is true, in the ordinary sense of the word, that they are neither employees nor employers, but the Industrial Conciliation Act makes provision whereby such persons referred to as middlemen may be suitably governed and controlled in terms of the Industrial Conciliation Act, and the dentists could have done exactly the same thing. They could have used the organisation of an industrial council to stop the illegal practices which go on. One can show parallels with many other industries. I myself am a signatory on behalf of the hairdressing trade to an agreement which through the operation of the Industrial Act stopped illegal practices, such as doing work outside. This has been done and it can be demonstrated that these mal-practices can be prevented, not by resorting to police traps and police activities but merely by the employees or the employers or persons interested so organising their affairs that they will eliminate illegal practices. The dentists can do it in co-operation with the mechanicians if they are truly desirous of doing so. They do not need a new Bill, but could have made use of Acts which are already on the Statute Book, and if they do not do that I do not think they are entitled to come along and ask this House to pass a Bill which will deprive dental mechanics of rights which they enjoy. Now, what is the position of dental mechanics? The dentist goes to the university and pays his fees to learn his profession, and likewise the dental mechanic has to apply himself either for a period of apprenticeship defined in the Apprenticeship Act, or by lengthy service to fit himself before he is a qualified mechanic, and when he reaches that position he is entitled to be able to sell his skill in the best available market, and no House of Assembly is justified in attempting to deprive him of this right. When I refer to my own signature being appended to an industrial agreement for the hairdressing trade, it is to point out that there the employees in the hairdressing trade voluntarily surrendered their right to work for persons other than those who are members of the Employers’ Association. The whole position of a closed shop is that employees voluntarily surrender their rights to sell their labour in an open market; by reciprocal agreement they limit themselves to a prescribed market, to persons who are members of the Employers’ Association. They do it on the basis of an industrial agreement, and here is the point: Once that industrial agreement lapses and is no longer in operation, the employees revert to the previous position in which they are at liberty to sell their labour in the open market, and if the dental mechanics go along to the dentists of South Africa and say that they are prepared to negotiate an agreement with them; they are prepared to negotiate a wage regulating instrument on special conditions of service, wages, and rights, and they are prepared to limit the extent to which they sell their services to those who are members of the dentists’ organisation, well and good, but once that agreement lapses the employees should be entitled to revert to their original position in which they can sell their labour on the open market. But that is not the case here. The dentists are asking that the mechanicians should be prevented from selling their labour except to registered dental practitioners for ever and anon, and I say that is wrong and unjust. No dental mechanic who has seriously considered the welfare of dental mechanics in South Africa in general can justifiably lend himself to a position in which he surrenders that right for ever, and is compelled by law for all time to sell his labour to those who are registered dental practitioners. It is not in the interests of the mechanicians that any mechanic should be for ever and anon prohibited from selling his labour in the free market. If he does that he is not acting in the interests of the mechanicians as a whole. He might be serving his own particular interest by doing something which he believes to be right, but he is certainly not acting in the interests of the whole body of mechanics in the country, and of the future of the dental mechanics’ trade. I have had considerable experience in negotiating wage regulating instruments in the name of employees, and I have no doubt in my mind that if this Bill goes through the dental mechanics will be cutting their own throats. I say that the dental practitioners are no more than human beings. I say that the dental mechanic has a right to sell his labour in the open market, to do repairs for the public, and that is a bargaining instrument in the hands of the employee, but once that bargaining instrument has been surrendered —and it will be surrendered immediately this Bill is passed—and he is deprived of that right, his ability to get decent agreements and conditions from the dental practitioners is gone entirely, and he is dependent solely on the dental practitioners, acting as gentlemen, to give conditions of labour which they consider to be satisfactory. But dental practitioners, or any other employers, however gentlemanly they might be in their everyday life, cannot be trusted in the future always to act in exactly the same manner as they would under conditions where there is a permanent lever in the hands of the employee, and I ask the House not to accept provisions in a Bill which already exists elsewhere and which dentists can make use of, as such is already on the Statute Book. I ask this House not for ever in the future to deprive the dental mechanicians from the only permanent lever they have in their hands, their free labour, with which they can press for reasonable wages and working conditions in future, and I submit that this House should declare to the country and to the dentists: “Go and do as others have done. The Acts and the provisions are there on the Statute Book to rectify the position and to do away with the mal-practices which are going on, and you can do it through the establishment of an industrial council. All the machinery is there. Go and do what others have done. Make use of the machinery as others did, in your own interests and in the interests of the employees and others who work in the trade. Do as the hairdressers and the tailors have done. Regulate the conditions under the Industrial Act and eliminate the mal-practices, but do not ask the House for ever to deprive the mechanics of the right to sell their labour in the free market, by way of a Bill which seeks to further the interests of someone else.” That is an old technique of the Nazis. When the Nazis want something they do not say it is to their interest to get it, but they say it is for the interest of someone else. So the dentists today have sought to pass a Bill in this House which they say is in the interest of the dental mechanics. But it is purely in the interest of the dentists themselves.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to console myself in the belief that the views that have just been expressed by the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Wanless) are views which are not shared by the rest of the members of his own Labour Party.

There is a split in the Party.

Because I regard his speech as a reflection upon his own Leader, the Minister of Labour. May I just say that the hon. member has rather used the phrase time and time again in his speech: “Why should not the mechanics be allowed to sell their labour in the open market?” I would rather suggest to the hon. member that probably the main object of this Bill is to allow the mechanic to sell his labour on the open market, but not in chaotic market as it exists today, and which would exist if this Bill is not passed. The other point I wish to make in regard to that hon. member is this. He says that the dentists are pretending to protect the mechanicians in this Bill and because of that he is suspicious. May I just say in the first place that this Bill was not introduced by the dentists of South Africa but is being introduced by the Minister of Welfare and Demobilisation.

Through the dentists.

I am sorry. If that is the attitude adopted by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. McLean); if that is his opinion, it is a reflection on the hon. Minister of Welfare and Demobilisation, because the innuendo is that he too has been “done” by the dentists. I want to make his point clear that one of the advantages which will accrue from this Bill is that it not only will stop mechanics from doing certain things, but it will also stop a section of the dentists from exploiting the mechanics. That is in Clause 22, to which we shall come just now. But let me just say that attempts have been made both by the dentists and the mechanics in this country for the last five years to come to an agreement in regard to a wage determination. Months arid months have been spent in regard to this particular wage determination, and the net result is that everything failed.

When did they try to do that?

They have tried to do it for the last five years. They have sat in Johannesburg every Saturday afternoon for months and months.

That is not the way to do it.

They tried to come to an agreement, and the reason why they could not apply for a wage determination is in contradistinction with what the hon. member for Umbilo said, namely, the peculiar conditions of the craft, in which you get employers and employees and contractors, and the Department was unable to provide a wage determination owing to the difficulty of registering employees’ organisations and that is one reason why this Bill is introduced.

When did the dentists ever apply for a wage determination?

The hon. member referred to the tailoring trade. I am speaking subject to correction, but I am told that one of the difficulties in regard to the tailoring trade is this question of piecework rates, and in fact it has been shown in a court of law, as I am told, that piecework rates cannot be made applicable in a determination unless all the parties are a party to that determination, and I believe that under the Act as it stands at present it is difficult to get agreement or representation from all parties.

Your information is wrong.

Secondly, the hon. member refers to the Apprenticeship Act and says that the mechanic falls under that Act. I would like to see what piece of legislation exists in this country defining what a mechanic is. Anyone, even the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) if he wants to put up a big neon sign and practice aS a dental mechanic tomorrow, can do so and there is nothing to stop him. That is the chaotic condition.

But your Bill will not improve it.

Yes it will. The hon. member for Umbilo seems to forget that the ‘Apprenticeship Committee can only apply to Cape Town, Johannesburg and Durban, and it is in regard to this Bill that the question of Apprenticeship is being put on a national basis as against the present restricted position of the three centres in the Union.

You have a National Apprenticeship Act today.

I would like to come to the point made about taking away certain rights. The Minister has made the position perfectly clear in regard to the Act of 1928. The position, if I may repeat it, is simply this, that mechanics are permitted by law to remake or alter a denture, provided that in no way do they come into contact with the mouth. Now, that sounds perfectly in order. That is the law at present, but the position briefly is this, and it is my contention and one which is borne out by information, that to give effect to either of these functions as defined under the Act, to give effect to it properly and in the interests of public health, it means that at some stage or other there must be some attendance, either by way of an examination or by the insertion of the denture. For this reason the law as it stands today only allows certain work to be performed under certain conditions, because of the fact that it is impossible to give effect to these conditions, and that is why the law has been broken frequently, day in and day out, in this country; and it is because of that and because often that simple concession gives the mechanic in this country the right of introduction of other work and the fact that particularly during the war period there has been an extreme shortage of dentists, that we have witnessed the state of affairs where quacking has been going on in this country to an unlimited scale, and I want to say that if this position is not rectified and if machinery is not provided to provide better conditions of service, that when the men come back from the army they will not be able to find the conditions of service in this so-called open market referred to by the hon. member for Umbilo, but they will be in a position where they will be trying to find jobs in what I have described as a chaotic market. That brings me to Clause 22, where so many hon. members have indicated by way of interjection or otherwise, that they want to know what charter does this Bill provide for the mechanic. They have referred to the Board, six votes to one against the mechanic. If I may say so, as far as the Board is concerned, the dentists, as far as I know, are interested in having a representation of three members. I have not yet heard of one member making any constructive suggestion about any improvement in the composition of the Board.

You will get it later.

Thank you. In regard to Clause 22, if the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) will read the clause properly he will see that the representation on the Labour Committee is on the basis of six mechanics to two dentists.

No, it is the other way round.

I am extremely sorry that the hon. member cannot read simple English.

He is a Scotchman.

I would suggest that in future legislation of this kind, particularly where the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) is interested, it should contain an explanatory column in Scotch. Let us deal with it, for the benefit of that hon. member. Let us take sub-section (a).

It will be a dentist.

The hon. member says it will be a dentist. That is a reflection on the Minister. I assumed that when the Bill said that there shall be a Chairman of the Committee, it would be an independent Chairman, and that the Minister would appoint someone else but a dentist, otherwise it would not be independent. But I will not cast the same reflection on the Minister as the hon. member does. Sub-Section (4) says: “Four shall be appointed to represent the interests of registered dental mechanicians who are employees.” I understand that there is an amendment here too. The position briefly is this, as the hon. member knows, that in any conciliation it is the intention to give equal representation to employers and employees. The nett result of this clause is that there shall be four mechanicians who are employees and four employers two of whom shall be dental mechanicians who are employers, and two of whom shall be dentists who are employers, so obviously it is six mechanicians and two dentists.

There is another one.

I can only repeat that I hope that in future legislation there will be explanatory notes for the hon; member. The position is that in this clause which lays down conditions of service and the rates and hours of work, overtime, minimum wages, unemployment benefits, sickness benefits, the basis of the committee is six mechanicians and two dentists. All I can say is that if that does not constitute a charter for the mechanicians I would like to know what it is. This brings me to another charge made by the hon. member, and perhaps in some way I would like to agree with him, and that is on this question of dentists charging too much. But I also want to be fair to the profession. I do not think it is right that one should condemn the whole of the profession because a few charge a lot. Secondly if this question of high charges is to be made an issue in this House it should not be solely directed against the dental profession but also against the medical and the legal professions. Another point I wish to make is that in so far as the dental profession is concerned, let it always be clearly understood that the patient is not forced to go to a particular dentist, and what is more, when the patient goes to the dentist to contract for certain work, the patient always has the right to ask the dentist what his charges are.

And he is told.

And if he is told, and considers the fee too high, as presumably the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) does, and still has the work done, that is his own fault. That bring me to the point that the hon. member referred to, dental charges ranging from 16 to 25 guineas, and the mechanicians fees ranging from £2 10s. to £4 10s. I just want to take the hon. member to task for a moment because I cannot help but feel that he is creating an erroneous impression that there are huge profits being made. He overlooks the fact that the mechanic is guaranteed his fee but not the dentist. Secondly, he overlooks the fact that over and above this charge the mechanic has made, the dentist is entitled to a fee for the services he himself has rendered. Thirdly, the dentist is entitled to a fee for his overhead expenses. I do not think the hon. member would like to make a comparison between the overhead expenses of the mechanic and of the dentist. Then an allowance has to be made for his staff. Further, in any sound accountancy system one must allow for a bad debt reserve. For my own part it is a recognised principle in the profession that 20 per cent. is not too high a bad debt reserve. One also does not forget that the dentist himself does a tremendous amount of charitable work. I have one or two notes here in regard to the hon. member for Natal South Coast (Mr. Neate). I quite frankly am unable to see on what basis he describes this Bill as an iniquitous Bill, for this reason, that here we have a trade in which today anyone can call himself a mechanic.

That is not true.

Well, I know of any amount of cases where people, particularly non-Europeans, who have had some little experience for two or three years in the country, are now working in towns, some under the supervision of dental mechanicians and some being exploited by them, and perhaps some are being exploited by dentists too.

Why did you not report them to the police?

Under what piece of legislation? Secondly, it provides in this Bill for compulsory registration, thereby making it a closed craft; it also provides for a committee which functions as an industrial council, where on the basis of the mechanicians being six and the dentists two, they can lay down their own conditions of service. If these two points alone do not constitute a mechanicians’ charter I would like to know what does. Of course, the hon. member says that the dental surgeons are sacrificing nothing. I am not sure that I can agree with him, because in the first place I think it is quite easy for the surgeons just to take no interest and to leave the position as it exists today, and to take all the mechanicians in the country and just to pay them any wage they like, which is the position which has been going on from before the war. Mechanicians before the war were earning an average of £20 to £25 a month, whereas under this Bill they will earn nothing less than £35 to £45. So how can the hon. member say that the dental surgeons are sacrificing nothing?

Where do you see that?

Where is that in the Bill?

In Clause 22 I tried to explain that there is a committee which has to function as an industrial council, and that council has powers to lay down the conditions of service. That committee, as I indicated, is on a basis of six mechanics to two dentists; and I want to say that a public statement has been made by the President of the South African Dental Association, and by virtue of holding that office he has committed not only himself, but as he is speaking for the Committee of the South African Dental Association, all the dentists in South Africa. He has committed himself to a minimum programme which shall be accepted by them in that industrial council, and the principles which have been accepted by the profession are as follows: I repeat for the benefit of the hon. member that these conditions are obviously minimum, because the legislation will provide for this committee to come to a decision, but this is a gesture made by the profession.

You said “under the Bill”. I cannot see anything under Clause 22.

I am sorry that the hon. member is so thick-headed.

On a point of order, is the hon. member in order to call me thick-headed?

He meant thin-headed.

I said that under the Bill the machinery is provided. The hon. member has got it jumbled up, I should, of course, have said he is thin-headed. The machinery is there and obviously if you have six mechanics to two dentists the dice are loaded against the dentists notwithstanding that they are prepared to accept as a minimum basis of discussion £35 a month, a 44 hour week, time and a half for overtime, and double time for overtime on Saturdays and Sundays.

Tell us for how long.

I cannot say for how long. The fact remains that the profession has given a public undertaking that they are prepared to come forward and negotiate on that basis as a minimum.

You opposed this Bill last year.

I am rather glad that the hon. member asked me if I opposed the Bill last year. I did oppose it, and the reason was that the mechanicians came to me and said they had not seen this Bill, and even though as a member of the dental profession I appreciated the advantages that would accrue from this Bill, I asked the Minister to discharge the Bill from the Order Paper merely to give the dental mechanics in this country an opportunity to read the Bill. What is more, some of the objections I had to the Bill have been overcome in that amendments have been effected, and one of them is Clause 22 of the Bill giving mechanics full representation on the committee. I would suggest, in conclusion, that as the issue has been decided by a Select Committee of this House and as this House has decided by the 1920 Act what the line of demarcation is between the dentists on the one hand and the mechanics on the other, and in view of the fact that this is the first time in the history of South Africa, in so far as the relationship between the profession and the mechanics is concerned that there is a piece of legislation to improve that relationship, to provide a charter for the mechanicians of the future in this country, and in view of the fact that there are just under 100 mechanics supporting this Bill, bearing all that in mind, I think this House should lose no time in placing the Bill on the Statute Book.

There has been, I suppose not unnaturally, a good deal of gnashing of teeth over this Bill. I do not propose to detain the House for long. My purpose in rising is to make a small contribution in answer to the two principal arguments submitted by the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Wanless). He said, in the first place, that one must be aware that whereas this Bill has been put before the House as a Bill designed to benefit the dental mechanicians, there was in point of fact an ulterior purpose, and that was a hidden benefit which the dental profession seeks to enjoy. For my part, I can see no objection to the dental profession enjoying an advantage from this Bill being put oh the Statute Book, subject however to this proviso that it is not an advantage which accrues to the dental profession at the expense of the dental mechanicians. Subject to that proviso, I welcome it. It is all to the good. And the dentists in the various memoranda they have submitted have not sought to hide the fact that there will be pronounced and distinct benefits to the profession. It is one of the arguments that justifies this Bill that by placing the craft of dental mechanicians on a firm footing, that prejudice which today the dental profession suffers under will also be removed. As I understand the Bill, what it does in essence is this, to draw that distinction which it is intended should exist. That has been the intention of our present legislation. It seeks to make the distinction between the professional and the craft clear and unmistakable, and it seeks, in turn, to benefit both the dental profession and the craft, the mechanicians. The hon. member for Umbilo said that in other callings, in other industries, abuses had been eliminated. I presume he meant to a very large extent, not entirely, but that abuses had been eliminated by the machinery of the Industrial Conciliation Act and that what had brought about the elimination of those abuses was the co-operation of employer and employee, who by considering their mutual interests have been able to put an end to such abuses. He instanced the hairdressing trade or calling and he also cited one or two of the abuses that had been so dealt with, the acceptance of a premium, the working in private homes out of hours, and so on. I was astonished to hear this argument coming from the hon. gentleman, because he overlooks this fundamental difference, that in the hair-dressing trade and in the various other trades and industries which he has in mind, the relationship between the two sections is always the relationship between the employer and the employee, and it is possible—I concede the argument—where the two sections stand in that relationship that you can by a spirit of co-operation, without the necessity for this type of legislation, overcome abuses.

At 6.40 p.m. the business under consideration was interrupted by Mr. Speaker in accordance with the Sessional Order adopted on the 25th January, 1945, and Standing Order No. 26 (1), and the debate was adjourned; to be resumed on 29th March.