I move as an unopposed motion—

I second.

Agreed to.

I would like in connection with Clause 1 (b)—

When I introduced this Bill I explained that we are consolidating nine supplementary lists with the Biennial Registration of 1941. They will form one Voters’ Roll. We are busy completing and getting out the Kimberley Roll so that that by-election can take place.

Including the January supplementary roll?

Yes, I also explained that I hope in May next year to have the Voters’ Roll completed and to have it 99 per cent. perfect.

When the new supplementary list is compiled in April, what is the position of the army going to be? Will representatives of the various parties be in a position to lodge objections to the enrolment of people? Often people are placed on the voters’ list who should not be on the list. What can one do to get them removed?

The procedure that has been in existence has not been altered at all. If a man is not entitled to be on the list his name will be taken off, and if he is entitled to be on the list and his name is not there, it will be put on.

Clause put and agreed to.

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

House Resumed:

The CHAIRMAN reported the Bill without amendment.

I move—

I object.

Bill to be read a third time on 2nd April.

I move—

I object.

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

When the House adjourned yesterday I was dealing with the argument raised by the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Wanless). I had thought it fit to deal specifically with the two arguments of the hon. member, and this argument in particular, for two reasons. In the first place the argument seemed on the face of it, to be one of considerable force, and in the second place I have a great respect for the experience of the hon. member in respect of the problems of employer and employee. He speaks with authority on Industrial legislation, and matters akin to it. But I am bound to say that to me, although on the face of it it would appear to be convincing, that argument is based on a fallacy. The hon. member recognises that there is not only opportunity for malpractice or abuse amongst mechanicians, but he also concedes that there has in point of fact been this abuse; and the particular abuse with which the country is concerned is the taking of bites and impressions, etc., which the dental mechanician is not permitted to do in terms of our existing law. Now, the hon. member for Umbilo said that the Bill was not necessary in order to deal with such abuses because, so his argument ran, there have been abuses in other industries. I would prefer not to look upon the craft of the dental mechanician as an industry. But be that as it may he said that abuses in other industries have been dealt with satisfactorily by means of existing legislation, our Industrial Conciliiation Acts, and the co-operation between employer and employee; and for that reason he said that we did not require this Bill; we have the machinery at hand, and if only employers and employees would co-operate, we could overcome these abuses as we have done in several other industries. The weakness of the argument lies in this, that the abuses which have been met satisfactorily in other industries are abuses which touch the relationship of employer and employee. And that is borne out by the examples the hon. gentleman cited; for instance, the acceptance of a premium on the part of the employer and working outside the scheduled hours— these are abuses which touch the rights of employer vis-a-vis the employee or touch the rights of employee vis-a-vis the employer. But the abuses with which we are concerned, the major abuses, the infringement of the law by dental mechanicians have nothing to do with the relationship between the employer and employee. If the position were that all dental mechanicians were in the employ of dental surgeons it might be said they were touching the relationship of employer and employee. But the abuse which is complained of here is one that cannot be practised by a dental mechanic who is in fact an employee, who is working for a dental surgeon. What is the complaint? It is that the dental mechanic has access to the public and takes advantage of that to do something the law does not permit him to do. That is something the dental mechanic who is working for a dentist cannot do. He does not come into contact with the public. It is the dental mechanic who works independently, who is not an employee but is his own master, who comes in contact with the public, and because he comes in contact with the public he is able— I do not want to reflect on the whole craft— he is in a position to—and some do—infringe the law. Therefore the remedy suggested by the hon. gentleman that there has to be co-operation, or that at any rate as a result of co-operation of both employer and employee we can get over this abuse does not apply in this particular instance. I believe we ought not to be deflected from taking a proper stand in this matter merely because there has been a good deal of heat engendered in this debate. A good deal of the submissions that have been made have been irresponsible. It looks as if some of the hon. gentlemen who are so violently opposed to the Bill have been influenced by the type of memorandum we have had submitted to us. I am not criticising all of them. Some of them have been sober documents stating the position factually and with a sense of responsibility. When I read this in one of them I feel I am entitled to make the comment I have made. This is from a memorandum by the Technicians Association—

I feel I ought to comment also on the very unworthy reflection that fell from the lips of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. McLean) when he thought fit with ah air of bravado, as I thought, to challenge Prof, Middleton Shaw on a statement he made as to the incidence of cancer from ill-fitting dentures. I think to avail oneself of the opportunity here to attack a man enjoying a very respected position is an unworthy indulgence. There is one point that has been made and has been repeated which I think has substance in it. One would like to think the Medical Council will give this matter its attention. It is the suggestion that a dental surgeon can make an undue profit on the labours of the dental mechanic. The man who makes the denture charges apparently anything ranging from £2 to £4, and the dental surgeon gets a very substantial fee in addition for the same denture. This apparently is another case of cost-plus, and I think it is essentially a matter for the Medical Council. One further point. I believe we ought to encourage a respect for all professions in South Africa. If we are going to deride honourable professions we should be doing it at the expense of the welfare of the country. It is for the good of South Africa that we should hold our professions in high standing and when one hears light-hearted reflections on the profession of dental surgeon—I am not excusing individual cases—I think we are not helping in that direction. If there are bad cases one does not drag the profession down to the level of the bad cases. One tries to raise the standard of the bad individual or to eliminate him if he is beyond redemption. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to refer again to the argument used by the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Wanless) which I touched on yesterday, when he said that this Bill would help the dental surgeon. If without prejudice to the dental mechanic we can make the profession of dental surgeons attractive to new recruits, I think we shall he adding yet another advantage to those embodied in this Bill.

In my view, Mr. Speaker, the fundamental reason for this measure is the competitive commercialism which has grown up as between the dentists, on the one hand, and the manufacturers and repairers of dentures on the other hand. The dental surgeons are apparently demanding monopolistic control of their profession in regard to the supply of the services and the prices to be charged. In addition they are wanting to control all aspects of their profession, the conservative, the surgical and the mechanical. The technicians are demanding status, as a distinct profession, with self-government, and freedom to deal directly with the public, Now, in our predatory economy, where the principal law is the law of the survival of the fittest, both these claims can be justified. It is the function of this House to reconcile these claims; that, I take it, is the principal purpose of this Bill. I want to say I sympathise with the attitude of the technicians to this Bill; and I am impressed by three main points in their case. Firstly, they rightly claim that they alone should control their calling. I submit that that principle is not properly honoured in Clause 3, which places, I believe, too many dentists on the board; one dentist would, I think, be adequate. Secondly, they protest against the five-year apprenticeship; I think they are right. The. Gluckman Commission commenting on that apprenticeship period used these words—

If dentists and dental surgeons, according to the information I have, require only 800 hours to learn the mechanics of their profession, then where is the reason in imposing a five-year training on mechanicians? There is a serious shortage of dental mechanicians in this country, and a more intensive period of training is called for. We know that, under the 1933 Apprenticeship Committee, only five mechanicians completed their course, and not one of them took his final examination. But the main objection of the technicians is that their right to repair, to remake and to duplicate dentures direct to the public is going to be taken away that they will be no longer independent artisans; that they will become the dentists’ servants, nothing more and nothing less. Even that relationship need not be detrimental to their interests provided reciprocal restrictions were placed on the dentists to prevent them from doing any of the work of the technicians. I think, with these considerations in mind, and in assessing the value of this Bill, this House should take not the side of the dentists or of the technicians, but the view of the general public; particularly of the lower income groups in this country, who have had a very raw deal in regard to dental services. The dentists have not themselves adequately socialised their services. Let the House consider for a minute the appalling inadequacy of dental services on a social basis in the Union. In the Transvaal and Natal, each of these provinces has three dentists, mainly for rendering services to the school children. Only in four municipalities of the Union, Johannesburg, Cape Town, Germiston and Port Elizabeth are there full time officers, and then there is only one full-time dental officer employed by each of them. In Johannesburg there is a dental infirmary employing four full-time officers. Here I want to pay a tribute to the splendid self-sacrificing work of the dentists in establishing that infirmary at Johannesburg. Iscor has three full-time men. Apart from charity services these are the only socialised dental services on any scale in the Union; and we know that 90 per cent. of our European children are suffering from dental caries. We can well imagine the lot of the non-European children under these circumstances. In view of these alarming conditions, we should, when considering this Bill, take the opportunity to embrace in its scone the social and the professional duties of the dentists in the same way as we are proposing to take into its scope the social and professional duties of the technicians. It is true there is a scarcity of dentists in South Africa. We have, I understand, about 700. The Public Health Services Commission considers that we require roughly about 3,000. The dentists are claiming that the competition of the dental mechanicians is making their profession unattractive. There is something in that. I am convinced, however, that if a State health scheme were established, so that suitable young men and women could be helped in their university training by a system of bursaries, and afterwards appointed at decent salaries on a social service basis to the community, that argument of the dentists would fall away. We have also a shortage of technicians. As far as we know there appear to be about 500 of them. Again, on the basis suggested by the Public Health Services Commission, we should require 1,000 of them. These men will have to be trained; and for that training I do not favour the apprenticeship system. I should like to see a two or three years’ course of training at a dental school after a matriculation standard of education had been reached; and then if the employment of the technicians so trained could be on a salary basis I believe we should be able to make their calling more attractive for them and ensure their future. If only the Government had adopted the report of the Health Services Commission, we should not now be using the time of the House with an expediency Bill of this kind. My attitude to the Bill is that of the consumer of dental services; that is of the services of the surgeons and of the mechanicians. Both must be trained efficiently; both must be adequately protected, both must be given self-government, and their professional security. Now the surgeons have excellent training; they are well organised; they are well paid; they are, I believe, tolerably secure. I am not satisfied that that can be said of the technicians. If we amend this Bill to give the technicians control over their board and over their own calling; if we approve of an apprenticeship period say reduced to three years, or replaced by training at a dental school; if the profession as a whole is to be regarded as a unity with two branches organised co-operatively under this Bill — I believe that is possible by amending the Bill — then the public would in the meantime be satisfied with this stop-gap legislation, satisfied until public opinion in South Africa forces the Government to introduce full scale national health services on the lines of the Public Health Services Commission’s report. I believe that is the only way to get satisfaction. We should socialise all our health services in the same way as we socialise education. If the Minister in his judgment recommends that this Bill go to a Select Committee, I hope, in view of the urgency of the matter, he will stipulate a time for the Committee to report back to the House.

I do not rise to take sides in the discussion of this Bill with regard to the preference for dentists or mechanics, but I do feel that in the general presentation of the case the Bill will provide the opportunity for people to get together, to say who shall do this and who shall do that, and apparently they have not had that opportunity up to now. A great feature about the Bill that appeals to me as a trade unionist is that a board is being set up that will enable the people in this particular calling to get together and decide as time goes on what is the proper relationship between them. It is of course a truism to us that any Bill can go to a dozen Select Committees in succession and be amended by each. Under this Bill the people concerned will, by the setting up of this Board, be able to get together, and that is far more important than that the Bill should go before Select Committees to be amended. I think that will open the way to a solution of all the problems and to the establishment of a proper relationship between the members of this calling. In regard to the period of apprenticeship, the House has heard a great deal of discussion on the subject, but the fact remains that trade unions themselves are not prepared to agree that the period of apprenticeship can be reduced. You cannot in face of all the facts, single out a particular kind of person in order to apply a particular kind of training for that person. There must be eventually some general agreement in regard to the time of training that should be taken for any profession. I personally am of opinion that apprenticeships are much too long; but if that is true in respect of the dental profession — I do not know the ramifications of it, nor do I claim to be an authority — what better opportunity could be provided than by this Board to get down to a discussion of the matter; and if the general consensus of opinion is in favour of a reduction of the period of apprenticeship, they will have to face up to the position. Here an instrument is being forged by which it may be done. I am very concerned, and I think most of us ought to be concerned, about the inequalities that at present are evident in the relationship between the mechanic and the dentist. It has been said that some dentists are on a good wicket; it has been said that some mechanics are on a good wicket. But it is also true that some dentists are not on a good wicket. There are dentists in this country who are struggling very hard to maintain a living in relation to what is considered the level for dentists in general, and it is true too that there are mechanics who get very low wages, and that there are people who do the same kind of work as mechanics who get very high wages. I am keen to see the inequalities ironed out. They can be ironed out to some extent under the system we are living in by people getting together and having reasonable talks about the inequalities. I feel that the inequalities in the dental calling can be ironed out through the mediumship of this Board. The title of the Bill, to my mind, is something that indicates what has presented a very great difficulty in other trades. The title of the Bill is—

That is something that can be put in a different way from an industrial trade union point of view. It could be said that it was a Bill to demarcate the different participants in the particular industry. In the engineering industry demarcation has always been a very big bone of contention, and unfortunately demarcation has not been as between employees and employer; it has been between employees in the same industry. I wish, Mr. Speaker, it were possible that we could get a Bill for the engineering industry that could satisfactorily demarcate the duties that different people should perform. Unfortunately it is not possible, but we have in the dental industry the possibility of doing that, and if the upshot of deliberations between the people who do one kind of work and the people who employ them to do it are such that conditions all round are better—which I think they must be—then the point is met as far as we can meet it, and we as a House should bear in mind the main consideration, in my opinion, the fact that here is the beginning of that particular line of policy. It will bring people together and it will enable conversations and discussions to take place that have not been taking place. It will depend, of course, on the calibre of the people who sit on the Board, and I hope, as we all hope, that the technicians are people who will be able to put their case. We all know the dentists are able to put theirs, but in the general getting together I think there will be evolved what may be considered a satisfactory state of affairs in the industry or profession—I do not know how to term it. The hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Wanless) was quoting from general industrial practice. I feel that he was treading on dangerous ground in seeking a parallel in general industrial practice. That will not face up to the difficulties in this profession. The House has to sit in judgment on a position of doubt and inequality and we have to make up our minds that the Minister has done a good thing in that he has enabled these people to get together, and because when they get together they will be able to settle things among themselves. After all, they are the people who know most about the case, we do not know much about their internal difficulties; and they themselves will be able to settle their difficulties and arrive by practical methods at a solution of the problem. I appeal to the House not to delay this measure, not to squabble about whether apprenticeship should be for a period of three years or five years, but to agree that here is the beginning of something good for the general dental profession, and to support the Bill and see it go through.

I think the House is indebted to the last two speakers for the contribution they have made to this debate. I shall not go into the matter in great detail, but it is necessary to bear in mind the history—as far as I know it at any rate—of this question. A Bill was prepared last year; that Bill was withdrawn and, subject to certain alterations, it is the Bill before us at present. The subject generally forms part of our general scheme of health services. I agree entirely with the hon. member for Durban (Berea) (Mr. Sullivan) in that regard. But it is perfectly obvious from the memoranda that have come before members of this House that some immediate action should be taken in order to regularise the profession of dentistry and to establish the relationship between dentists and mechanicians or technicians. In my opinion the general effect of this Bill will be beneficial, not only to the dentists and the mechanicians but to the whole of the community. When the matter was first raised this year and representations were made to us, one formed the impression from the first memorandum that was received that this Bill was more or less an agreed measure. We have now received representations from the Dental Association, from the dental mechanicians, from the dental technicians and from the South African Dental Trade Association. The Bill has the support of the Dental Association and the dental mechanicians. I have not been able to find out the actual membership of the technicians as compared with the mechanicians. The membership, according to information I have, appears to change from day to day. Sir, I have received and shall read to this House certain communications. First of all there is a cable from London addressed to me as a Member of Parliament—

and it emanates from Captain Immerman. I find I am incorrect in saying it comes from London. I think it comes from Italy. I have not just got the source here. I also received a letter addressed to me as Chairman of the Social Welfare Group of the United Party reading—

I regard the Bill, Sir, as being designed to safeguard the dental profession in terms of the principles laid down by the 1923 Act, i.e., the Medical, Dental and Pharmacy Act, and particularly in Section 35, and that it is also calculated to ensure the status of mechanicians generally. I do not wish to go into details or into any discussion in regard to the differences between the amounts paid to dentists for services and to dental mechanicians for services, and the amounts received for dentures by dentists. I would rather confine myself to the broad principle that some protection is necessary for both the dentists and the mechanicians. The hon. member for Berea has quoted from the report of the Health Services Commission, that paragraph which relates to competition. The paragraph is 12 (ii)—

That competition is prejudicial to those young men who desire to take up a course of dentistry at our universities, because obviously it makes them doubtful in regard to the future of the industry and their own future as dentists. In regard to high prices which have been mentioned here as being charged by dentists, paragraph 15 of the Health Commission’s Report makes a very appropriate reference, I think, in that it says—

and then reference is made to the fact that they visit the towns and villages at stated times. If we make the dental profession one in which there is, at any rate, the promise of a reasonably sound future, there will be a larger number of applications, and with that larger number of applications and an increase in the number of dentists, I think it will be found that the prices charged will be lower. I agree that we should meet the point of view of the dental technicians as far as possible, and that we should also take into account the representations made by the South African Dental Trade Association, and although that hearing will delay the passage of this Bill during the Session, I think the Minister might favourably consider the amendment proposed by the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Neate). We shall then be able to do what was not possible when we read the memoranda, namely to interrogate the interested parties, and to investigate the points which were not clear to us as members of Parliament not directly connected with the dental profession and other interests connected with it. I do, however, impress upon the Minister the necessity for this Bill to go through this Session. It will involve the re-employment of men who will come back from active service. If it does not go through this Session, there will be hesitancy and doubt in regard to the future of dentistry, and also in regard to the position of the mechanicians themselves, some of whom today are not receiving a living wage, and in that respect I support the views of the hon. member for Germiston (Mr. Payne) in that here, by the formation of a properly recognised society of dental mechanicians, will be placed in the hands of these men at any rate a negotiating instrument which will be of benefit not only to them but also to the dentists, as co-operators in this industry. Now, I would like to move that in order to get that easy interrogation, in view of the fact that we have already had all these memoranda placed before us, that a time limit be put to the report of the proposed Select Committee and that it should be ordered to report not later than 15th April. I therefore move as an amendment to the amendment—

I want to second the amendment and to say a few words in connection with the Bill. I am entirely in favour of the principle of this Bill but there are certain provisions in it which give me a good deal of difficulty. First of all, should the Bill be made retrospective? On the face of it, it is made retrospective as it interferes with existing rights. The case was put to me of a dental mechanic who wishes, owing to health reasons, to go to some place in the country, like De Aar or Beaufort West. If this Bill is passed it will preclude a man like this from earning a living there unless he obtains the goodwill of the dentists practising there, and their work may be merely sufficient for the mechanicians already in the town. So it means that he either has to make an arrangement with the mechanicians already there, or otherwise obtain a portion of the work distributed by the existing dentists.

What would happen if the Bill did not go through? Would he not have to cut into the work?

No, if the Bill did not go through he could undertake repairs of dentures and that type of work without regard to the dentists already there, and he could put an advertisement to that effect in the paper.

You mean he could cut in regardless of their consent?

Hear, hear!

He would not have to go to the local dentists and ask to be allowed to earn his living. I do not say it is a vital point, but I think it should be investigated. Another point which should be investigated is this. The Act provides correctly that no partnership can take place between a dentist and a mechanician, but on the other hand there is nothing in the Act which prevents a dentist employing a mechanician at a full-time salary, so the position is that the dentist is entitled to earn not only his own fees but a profit out of the work of the mechanician so employed. It seems to me that that may be very undesirable because that would really result in the type of case to which I have already referred, precluding that type of man from earning a living, whereas if the mechanician is obliged to charge on the piece-work basis and the dentist has to pay on a piece-work basis, it may be much fairer to the mechanician and to everyone concerned.

The dentist may employ a full-time mechanician now, and he often does.

But this Bill is nor, in existence now. It is taking away something …

What does it take away?

It prevents him from doing any repairs except on the instructions of the dentist. Surely the Minister knows that the whole point of this Bill is to prevent the mechanician doing any work except on the instruction of a dentist. Today he is not in that position. He can do work quite lawfully without the intervention of a dentist. That being the position, his rights are curtailed, and I do say that the fair thing would be for this Bill to go to a Select Committee in order that it may investigate whether there is any substance in this type of criticism. I am not prepared to say that there is. I say that as far as I am concerned, I only want the professional man to do professional work, but if you are taking away rights, it is a question of whether these rights are so substantial that they should not be safeguarded, and it is for that reason that I intend supporting the amendment of the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Neate), as amended by the hon. member for Roodepoort (Mr. Allen).

Mr. Speaker, I think, with due deference, that we are inclined to approach this Bill from the wrong perspective. We must not allow ourselves to be drawn into a squabble, between the dentists on the one hand and the mechanicians on the other hand. What this House is primarily concerned with is national health. We must ask ourselves in the first place: Does this Bill seek to promote national health? There can be no doubt—I am not speaking as a technician; I am not a dentist—but from the layman’s point of view it is generally accepted that dentistry plays a most important part in any national health scheme. We know all too well, to our regret, what serious consequences flow from the neglect of the mouth. Mr. Speaker, if one looks around one sees thousands and thousands of people who have not been able to have their mouths properly attended to. We know that at present it is not within the reach of every man to have proper dental attention. What we are therefore concerned about is the question of how we can make dental hygiene available to every man in the street, but to accomplish this we must protect the profession. We have it on record that the loopholes which exist at present have militated against the profession to this extent, that people who would otherwise take up dentistry courses at the university are deterred because they feel that once they are qualified they may be subject to unfair competition from unqualified people. Whether it is that we are helping one side or the other, or whether one obtains a slight preference as compared with the other, that is not our main concern. We must concede that the qualified dentist is the backbone of the profession. If this tendency to neglect the dental profession is persisted in, we may have fewer and fewer dentists in future and we may be in a position where we are without qualified assistance to attend to our dental needs. That we cannot allow. Therefore if this Bill will attain this object, to attract a larger number of people, of suitable entrants to our universities to receive their training at the chair of dentistry, we shall have achieved something and shall have rendered a national service. Whether or not we can settle the dispute between the dental mechanicians on the one hand and the dentists on the other hand, is to my mind a minor issue and quite beside the point. We are mainly concerned with the needs of national health, and I have no doubt that the passage of this Bill will in a large measure contribute towards that end. We know that the Bill has the unqualified support of the whole dental profession. We do not know to what extent it has the support of the mechanicians. I believe that they are divided; several support the Bill but many do not. But whether or not they all support the Bill is, as I said before, a minor issue. We say that if this Bill is accepted the profession of dentistry will be secured, to this extent, that people who are engaged as dentists will be assured of an opportunity of carrying on their profession without undue and unfair competition. I know that the country as a whole is under a deep debt of gratitude for the work that many dentists have performed in the national interest. I know of many dentists who do a lot of work for which they are never paid. If a man goes to a dentist, suffering the agonies of acute tootache, the dentist does not ask whether he can pay. He attends to the man and alleviates his suffering, and whether that man pays him is another matter. [Laughter.] Yes, there may be dentists who are very mercenary, but let us not forget that there are many who are concerned with the alleviation of suffering as a primary consideration, and who do not ask a man whether he can pay or not. We have for example dentists whom I know at Ermelo who never sends out an account. They leave it to man’s conscience to come and ask him what he owes.

What is his name and address?

I know there are other dentists who are perhaps not so philanthropic, but we must take them as a whole, and as a whole I have no doubt that many dentists perform work gratuitously for the poorer section of the community for which they know they will never be paid. To that extent we must give our thanks to them. But this brings us to another consideration. If one looks round and sees the class of denture turned out today, a lot of it is good but unfortunately a lot of it is very poor and inferior in quality. We in South Africa —I suppose it does not apply to this country only but is a process going on in the world today—do not pay sufficient attention to or show sufficient appreciation of the value of good craftsmanship. When a denture is made the only consideration should not be to place the user in possession of the implements of mastication. I know mastication is essential to good health, but that should not be the only object. A set of dentures should be a work of art and should be modelled to a man’s mouth to fit the natural contours of his features as nearly as possible within the ability of good craftsmanship. I do not know whether we can apportion blame, whether we can say it is the dentist or the mechanician who is responsible, but we do see people walking about with ill-fitting dentures which are a discredit to any craftsman. If this Bill is going to ensure a larger body of men entering the profession and more efficiency, and if we can look round and see dentures which are a pleasure to look at, and not only a pleasure to those who see them but to those who have to use them. I feel that we would have done good service. There can be no doubt that if one looks at the films it is often impossible to distinguish whether the film actors and actresses have natural teeth or artificial dentures. We know of several cases where directors were dissatisfied with the natural teeth Of actors, and the teeth were extracted and the actor fitted with an artificial denture which is a joy to look at. Sound teeth are essential to everybody. We cannot over-emphasise the importance of dentistry. We know that the mouth is one of the most dangerous of septic foci which can poison the system. If by the adoption of this Bill we can contribute towards the building up of national health, it is our duty to support the Bill.

I had not intended to intervene in this debate, but I was particularly interested by the cable read to the House by the hon. member for Roodepoort (Mr. Allen). It happens that I know the sender of the message, which is to the effect that all the dental officers and dental mechanicians interviewed there strongly support of the Bill; I must say at once that the cable comes from a dental officer in the 6th Division. It comes therefore from a serving dentist and I believe that those men have the right to express their views on a matter such as this Bill which will vitally affect their profession after the war. Because of that, and because I feel that they ought to have a chance to be represented, I am now inclined to support the suggestion that this Bill should go to a Select Committee. We have heard a good deal in this House of the rights of the dentists, of the rights of the mechanicians and of the rights of the technicians, but we have not heard very much of the rights of the general public, and generally it is on behalf of the general public that I am principally interested in this Bill. What they have the right to demand is qualified and adequate dental attention, but the fight that is raging because of this Bill is one between the dentists on the one hand and the technicians on the other, and it is simply a repetition of what has happened on numerous occasions when a profession sought to organise itself. We have had it in the case of the lawyers and with the doctors. On the fringes, so to speak, of what may be termed the professional area, there is a small area usefully occupied by, as it were, the semi-qualified, and there has always been a fight between the fully qualified and the semi-qualified, whereas in fact there should not have been as they all perform services useful to the public. That fact has to be recognised. But I believe that no one, unless professionally qualified, should perform services for which professional qualifications are necessary, and it is in the interest of the public themselves that they should be protected against those who profess to perform qualified functions without in fact being qualified thereto. But as regards the present fight there is a way out of this fight which is going on between the dentists and the semi-qualified, which has been adopted on numerous occasions. For instance, may I remind the House that when a similar Bill to this came out in England, an arrangement was made by which the semi-qualified were put on the register, and it seems to me that this Board which it is sought to put up under the Bill, should allow those who are at present acting as dental technicians to register and should recognise their existing rights and put them on the list.

That was done in 1928.

Yes, but they had to pass examinations, whereas in England they were put on the list automatically without having to pass further examinations. I suggest that that would be the way out. Further, I hope that we shall take cognisance of the most recent memoranda which were sent to us by the Dental Trades Association, who are people who normally would not come within the purview of a Bill like this, because they are not professional or semi-professional, but merely act as importers of dental materials. That is certainly going to a very long way in infringing the rights of the general public if a man who has gained his living not being professional or semi-professional, but merely by importing the materials used by dentists and mechanicians if he is stopped from doing so. I do not think that that class of man should be suddenly deprived of his livelihood, because he is not concerned in the Bill at all, and I think we should take cognisance of the suggestions they make to protect their rights, and so, in all the circumstances it seems to me that this can best be done by sending the Bill to a Select Committee. So far as I have heard this argument, the greatest point which has been made in favour of dental mechanicians is that the cost at which they supply dentures to people is a great deal less than the cost of the dentures plus the assistance that the qualified dentist gives. Of that there is no doubt. The figures suggested here show that the difference ranges from £4 to £30. That is an enormous gap, but I must point out to the House that the qualified dentist is entitled to charge greater fees because he spent years learning the profession.

So did the mechanic.

So that in any event the dentist is entitled to charge, just as any professional man is entitled to charge higher fees than the semi-professional man. There is this further, also, that the public should be entitled to be protected against its own ignorance. They hear of mechanicians supplying dentures at low cost and go to them for dentures, but in many instances they do not realise the difference in the skill involved. Therefore, in view of all the circumstances, in view of the fact that I believe that serving officers should be heard also, because there are hundreds of dentists in the forces—I might remind the House that the shortage of dentists in the country is because so many are in the army —I believe that they have a vital right to be heard in a matter which will affect them after the war. In view of these circumstances I think we ought to send the Bill to a Select Committee, but I do agree that the Select Committee should be put on terms to report within a given period. I feel, however, that the 15th April is perhaps too short a period because tonight is Thursday, 29th March, and Easter intervenes. I would suggest that the time for the report be limited to the end of April and that we then pass the Bill through the House.

Mr. Speaker, I am in support of the Bill but there are provisions included which come to me as a surprise. I shall deal with these presently. I think we must all appreciate the informative explanation that the Minister has given of the aims and objects and the principles of the Bill. I think too we greatly appreciate his attitude towards this problem. There is no doubt every person who is responsible for the upbringing of a family realises, or ought to realise what an important factor dental services are in the health of the children—from their early days onwards— and that being so I think the Minister does well to regard this as a matter of first importance and to give an opportunity to the country as a whole to consider what are the best means of providing an efficient and harmonious service to deal with the dental needs of the country. I am not one of those who looks upon a request for a Select Committee as an act of treason to the Bill. I can remember once being responsible for the introducing of a private member’s Bill, and on consulting our present Prime Minister he advised me to go before the House and make an offer that the Bill should go before a Select Committee before passing its second reading. Though I was reluctant to run the risk attached to this treatment of the Bill, I deferred to the greater wisdom of the Prime Minister, and the upshot was that in less than ten days that Bill was back again in the House, having secured the support of the Select Committee and every stage in the passage of the Bill, including the third reading, was dealt with without any difficulty in one day. My objection to the present Bill as a supporter of the Bill rests on the constitution of the board and the constitution of the labour committee. I cannot for the life of me see why a craft which is being entrusted with the management of its affairs should suffer the intrusion of other persons to appoint various members of the board which is to guide the destinies of that craft for all the years to come.

The Bill is not setting up a trade union.

But it is the nearest approach to a trade union the dental mechanic will ever reach; he is not going to superimpose a separate trade union on top of an organisation that would direct the destinies of his livelihood in the future. To all intents and purposes this is going to be their trade union, and I say it is a negation of trade union principles to submit to the government of a board which is made up in this rag-time manner.

The legislation is all wrong.

The hon. member says the industrial legislation is all wrong. It is not. I am in fact engaged at this moment in making war against Mr. Schlesinger who has infringed the trade union principle in the way he has managed to foist upon theatre workers, in the industrial council sphere, a board of his own choice, a general committee of his own choice, thus controlling the cinema trade union, simply by the bold methods Mr. Schlesinger adopts in most of his enterprises. I make war on any attempt to deprive a trade union of its proper powers. Certainly in some I believe the discussion of the matters referred to before a Select Committee would serve a very useful purpose. In the present matter there is considerable evidence to indicate that the constitution of the board and the constitution of the labour committee are open to grave objection from the persons most concerned, the dental mechanics. Even the name of the Bill, I think, would be capable of improvement. As one with an affection for Anglo-Saxon methods of expression I do not like “mechanicians”. From the office boy upwards most people object to these long words. I can remember an occasion when an office boy was told that with a view to repairing some electrical defect he should run along and call a mechanician; he actually called for a magician. It appeared there was a misunderstanding, and he went to the nearest electrical business and said he wanted a magician. That mistake was due to the somewhat snobbish idea of miscalling people by long names. A dental mechanic is a mechanic and there is no reason to refer to him as a mechanician. Why not keep to the terms our forefathers use, to Anglo-Saxon words?

“Mechanic” is a French word.

It certainly has been among our Anglo-Saxon words for some hundreds of years. I hope the Minister will be disposed to agree that there is a much more general wish that this Bill should go to a Select Committee than might be inferred by the number of speakers who have alluded to it. I am sure everyone will welcome it if the Minister agrees to its going to a Select Committee, not only the hon. members but a large number of people outside this House.

I do not think it is necessary for me to traverse all the arguments that have been used in the course of this debate. Many of the points raised by certain hon. members have been met by arguments adduced by other hon. members. I would rather direct my attention to a matter which has caused concern to a number of members, namely the provision of Clause 16 and the suggestion that before this Bill becomes law an opportunity should be given to all interested parties to appear before a Select Committee of this House. May I just say this to the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. McLean)— I omitted to mention it at the beginning. He rather suggested yesterday that I or the Government was attempting to steal a march on him and others in regard to this Bill. I want to assure my hon. friend there is no such intention at all. I personally only knew at a quarter-past-two that the Bill was likely to come on, and only ten minutes before it came on was I made aware that it would come on. I was also caught unawares so far as the preparation of a speech went.

Anyway you did not leave your notes at home.

Those unfortunate lapses often occur, and I sympathise with the hon. member; but I would assure him there was no mala fides about our action. It so happens that in the House work may suddenly proceed quickly. There may be a breakdown here or there and then we rush through with the work like the bursting through of a panzer division on the Western Front.

Hear, hear.

That is what happened yesterday. Mr. Speaker, the argument has been adduced that Section 16 takes away rights and that because there is an attempted deprivation of rights we should have a Select Committee. It should be quite clear, however, that while Section 16 would if operative curtail existing rights, it does not in fact take away the right from the dental mechanic, or if one wants to use as my hon. friend may prefer to use, a good Anglo-Saxon term, from the dental worker, the right to carry on his trade or calling. He is still entitled to carry on his work. What he is prohibited from doing is dealing direct with the public. There are precedents for that sort of thing. Members of the legal profession, for instance, may in certain circumstances not deal direct with the public. In my own profession as a member of the Bar I was not allowed to deal direct with the public in regard to civil cases. It is true that members of the public are entitled to approach a member of the Bar in regard to criminal cases and in regard to opinions, but no member of the Bar is entitled to take work direct in regard to a civil matter; that work has to reach him through a practising attorney. So there is nothing entirely novel in the procedure of members of a trade or craft not having direct contact with the public. The purpose of excluding all direct access to the public by dental workers is to make sure once and for all that the present loophole in the law should be closed up; the present gap must be stopped. The fact that certain mechanics carry on an illegitimate practice must not be taken to mean that every mechanic is at present trading illegitimately. Of course, many mechanics are carrying on within the terms and spirit of the existing law. They are being prejudiced by the mechanics who are carrying on illegitimate trading. But it is clear the only way to stop the gap is to exclude all direct access with the public.

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

When the House adjourned I was making the point that it seemed quite clear that if the present loop-hole in the law had to be eliminated, there should be no compromise in regard to the provisions of Section 16 of the Bill. The allegation is that at the present time there are dental mechanicians who are carrying on their practice who deal direct with the public in contravention of the law, and carry on not only repairs but deal with the mouth itself; and if one is to eliminate any possibility of the contravention of the law, the only way to do so is to make it quite clear by law that the dental mechanician must not have direct access to the public. There should be no compromise on that issue. That is the purport of Section 16 of the Bill. Now, if that is so, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the matter cannot be carried any further by sending it to a Select Committee. If it goes to a Select Committee and evidence is taken, any evidence given by the opponents of the Bill must be directed against the provisions of Section 16. I cannot see any way of watering down those provisions, any means of compromise in regard to that. The evidence will be to the effect that Clause 16 should be eliminated and I cannot conceive that anything that might be placed before the Select Committee can place hon. members of this House in a better position than they are now to make up their minds about the Bill.

It can at least give them a hearing, which is what we are asking for.

I approve of giving the other side a hearing. There is a Latin phrase which is approved of in the courts ori alterum partem and I like to see that the members of the opposite party always have an opportunity of placing their views before us. I understand that members of the Technicians’ Association have interviewed members of this House and put their views before them.

For half an hour.

I have no knowledge of what length of time they were engaged in placing their views before members of the House, but it does seen to me that on an issue of this sort it should not have taken very much time in order to make up one’s mind what the decision should be. It is à clear-cut issue. You either accept the responsibility of going the whole way and ensuring once for all that there can be no possibility of illegitimate practice in the future, or you are prepared to compromise on the position. It is one or the other. That is the view I take, and having that view it seems to me that no good purpose would be served by sending this Bill to a Select Committee, and I personally am not prepared to send it to a Select Committee. But it is not a matter involving a vital Government policy. It is a Bill introduced by the Government in order to place a profession on a sound footing, and the members of the Mechanicians’ Union on a proper basis, and I do not propose to stampede the House. It seems to me that this is essentially a matter on which Parliament should decide and I am prepared to leave the amendment of the hon. member for Durban (South Coast) (Mr. Neate) to the members themselves so that they can make up their minds. I have already indicated that when it comes to Clause 16, in the event of this Bill not going to the Select Committee, I shall be prepared to leave the decision to individual members of the House. I think that is a fair proposition. I do not think that it is necessary to send it to a Select Committee. Hon. members have often asked that they should take a greater share in the Government of this country, a very legitimate request, but if they want to do that they must also accept the responsibility of doing it, and as far as I am concerned I will be prepared to introduce this Bill without any Select Committee considering the matter. I am prepared to stand or fall by that decision and hon. members should also be prepared to stand or fall by a decision on Section 16, but if they take the responsibility I do not see why there should be a Select Committee to which they can appeal if dispute arises. It seems to me that a Select Committee is superfulous in this case. However that may be, I personally am going to vote against sending it to a Select Committee because I think we have sufficient information, but however that may be, it will be left in the hands of individual members of Parliament to decide what should be done. In view of that it seems to me that it is not necessary to deal with any of the other points raised, with the possible exception of two. The one is the point raised by the hon. member for Castle (Mr. Alexander) and referred to by the hon. member for Jeppes (Mrs. Bertha Solomon), namely the position of the Dental Traders’ Association. In view of the provisions of Section 19 of the Bill traders will not be permitted to import certain articles used by dental mechanicians without a licence to do so. It is being asked why these provisions are included in the Bill. There are similar provisions in Section 83 of the Medical, Dental and Pharmacy Act, provisions which have been inserted in the interest of public health and the assurance of public health. The sole idea is to ensure that this trade will be in the proper hands, that mushroom traders will not spring up who are prepared to distribute the articles in question to persons who may carry out illegitimate practices; but if hon. members feel that that safeguard to the legitimate traders is not sufficient, there will be adequate opportunity to deal with the matter at the committee stage. I may say that if the House accepts the second reading of this Bill, I propose to give the House adequate opportunity for discussion at the committee stage in order that hon. members may have a chance to formulate any amendments they may wish to place upon the Order Paper. The only other point to which I want to refer is that rather interesting philological point raised by the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Marwick), the question of the use of the word “mechanician.” I should like to express a good deal of sympathy for my hon. friend over there. Only the other day I was driving through the Peninsula when I passed a place that in my youth used to be called a filling station, but it was described as a lubritorium. When I was young we used to be washed. Now they talk of “ablutions”. I sympathise with the hon. gentleman when he recommends the use of good Anglo-Saxon, and the Committee may perhaps give consideration to his point when the Bill is before them.

Question put: That all the words after “That”, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the motion.

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—70:

Abbott, C. B. M.

Abrahamson, H.

Barlow, A. G.

Bekker, G. F. H.

Bodenstein, H. A. S.

Boltman, F. H.

Bosman, J. C.

Bosman, L. P.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowker, T. B.

Bremer K.

Brink, W. D.

Butters, W. R.

Carinus, J. G.

Christie, J.

Clark, C. W.

Connan, J. M.

Conradie, J. H.

Conradie, J M.

De Kock P. H.

De Wet, P. J.

Dönges, T. E.

Erasmus, H. S.

Fawcett, R. M.

Grobler, D. C. S.

Hayward, G. N,

Heyns, G. C. S.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Howarth, F. T.

Humphreys, W. B.

Jackson, D.

Klopper, H. J.

Lawrence, H. G.

Le Roux, J. N.

Le Roux, S. P.

Ludick, A. I.

Luttig, P. J. H.

Maré, F. J.

Moll, A. M.

Mushet, J. W.

Nel, M. D. C. de W.

Oosthuizen, O. J.

Payn, A. O. B.

Payne, A. C.

Pieterse, E. P.

Robertson, R. B.

Russell, J. H.

Serfontein, J. J.

Shearer, V. L.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Sonnenberg, M.

Stals, A. J.

Steenkamp, L. S.

Steyn, A.

Steyn, C. F.

Strauss, F. R.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Strydom, J. G.

Trollip, A. E.

Ueckermann, K.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Van der Merwe, H.

Van Niekerk, H. J. L.

Van Niekerk, J. G. W.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Van Onselen, W. S.

Warren, C. M.

Waterson, S. F.

Tellers: J. W. Higgerty and P. O. Sauer.

Noes—21:

Allen, F. B.

Bawden W.

Bell, R. E.

Christopher R. M.

Cilliers, H. J.

Davis A.

Dolley G.

Hare, W. D.

Hemming, G. K.

Henny, G. E. J.

Hopf, F.

Johnson, H. A.

McLean, J.

Miles-Cadman, C. F.

Molteno, D. B.

Neate, C.

Raubenheimer, L. J.

Stratford, J. R. F.

Wanless, A. T.

Tellers: J. G. Derbyshire and J. R. Sullivan.

Question accordingly affirmed ‘and the amendments dropped.

Original motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time; House to go into Committee on the Bill on 3rd April.

I think the House would be grateful to the hon. the Minister for some information in regard to his intention with the establishment of a capital fund. In the first line, at the top of the page, the first line of the clause, provision is made for the establishment of a capital fund, and I take it this fund is to be used for the necessary buildings and necessary apparatus to carry out the aims and objects of the Bill. I suppose it is not the intention to make available funds to the council to issue loans. I take it that the council will not have the power to grant loans. Then I would like to make a few remarks in regard to subsection (6). There provision is made for contributions from private sources. I have no objection to that. I notice that another hon. member proposes the rejection of that provision. I have no objection to the retention of that clause, which makes it possible for people to make available money for scientific purposes. I welcome that in principle, but there are two aspects which should receive our attention. There is the possibility that donors may make available considerable amounts to the council, with the possibility that they have their own ends in view. I do not want to insult anybody or do an injustice, but it is possible that certain interests may place at the disposal of the council funds in order to advance their own interests. Then the sub-clause lays down that the council in such a case will be compelled to use the funds in accordance with the conditions imposed by the donors. That is the one aspect which may be detrimental, namely that the donors—it is unlikely that it will happen, but it is possible—try to further their own interests with the consent of the council by making certain grants. Then there is the other aspect which, as the Minister is aware, was raised by representatives of the Chamber of Industries, namely that such a donor to obtain certain ends, may attempt to have a standardisation of a certain commodity perpetuated and in that way it is feasible that a standard production form can be perpetuated which is out of date and no longer applicable. In principle I am not opposed to accepting funds, but at the same time we want to see to it that misuse is not made, and I want to ask the hon. the Minister to consider to insert at the end of sub-section (6): “Provided that such conditions shall not tend to the advancement of particular interests or to the restriction of development in the industry.”

In regard to the points raised by the hon. member for Ceres (Dr. Stals), the capital fund in sub-section (1) this is simply intended, as the hon. member suggested, for the establishment of the necessary buildings and plant. With regard to sub-section (6), when this Bill was originally drafted it was anticipated that the bureau would undertake a good deal of research work. Since that time it was decided to establish a separate research institute and therefore the Bureau of Standards will not do any research work at all. It will simply be a testing laboratory. The research work will fall under the physical laboratory, which will come under the Council of Research. The objection of the Chambers of Industries therefore, to my mind, largely falls away. Had it been a question of donating large funds for research work to the bureau it is conceivable, although not likely, that some interest or other by reason of its very large contributions, might have received a preference in respect of work affecting its own particular interest. But since that has fallen away entirely this clause can simply refer to any particular person or industry who agrees to contribute something in the way of testing plant or a contribution of that kind, for the better equipment of the bureau. It will no longer be possible for them to ask the bureau to undertake research work, because it will not be doing it. That being so, personally I do not think this paragraph is open to the criticism that has been offered. I do not think it is likely persons will be contributing large sums for equipping a laboratory. On the other hand it is possible some particular industry, not a factory but an industry as a whole, may desire, in order to have their product tested, that some particular plant or equipment should be added to the laboratory, and they may be prepared to give the grant to the laboratory for that purpose, and I do not think that we should prevent them from doing so.

You could accept it without this clause.

I understand that the position is that legally you have to have power to receive gifts. That being so, it seems to me there is no need for the amendment suggested by the hon. member for Ceres, and I suggest we should let the clause stand as it is.

I desire to thank the hon. the Minister for his explanation. All the same I still feel that as it is worded now, notwithstanding the fact that the reasons which may influence people have largely disappeared, as research work has now been removed to another organisation, and notwithstanding the fact that as a result the possible misuse of funds has diminished, yet I think the Minister could accept a small amendment which will not affect the provision of the clause, and it would be a guarantee against possible misuse. It is not a party matter and if the hon. the Minister has no objection, I would like to move—

I do not take any exception to that amendment, but it is not clear to me what the implications may be. I am not clear whether if we accept this amendment we would not be debarring an industry from donating a piece of plant or equipment which might be very useful, and I should be glad if the hon. member would allow me to examine it a little further and see exactly what the implications are. If there is no implication such as I have suggested, I will be prepared to accept the amendment at the Report Stage.

To assist the hon. Minister in translating the amendment I propose— he evidently has not understood what I intended to convey—that the grant or donation should not contribute to the establishment of certain interests (“belange”). I think that is a safeguard.

I am not clear, whether you call it “belange” or interest, that that may not prevent a gift being made for a specific purpose. Take the leather industry, as an example. Supposing the leather industry as a whole decided to contribute £5,000 to this bureau in order to enable it to equip itself with certain testing machinery and plant for the benefit of the leather industry, I think that would come under the head of “belange”, and if the hon. member would allow me to consult the legal advisers on the implications I would be glad to consider the amendment at the Report Stage.

With leave of the Committee, the amendment was withdrawn.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

On Clause 14,

I am somewhat perturbed about the multiplication of terms used in this Bill, and I would like to have some clarification as to the terms and their implications. This clause makes provision for standardisation marks. In a previous clause we find a reference to “trade marks” and in a subsequent clause we come across the term “distinctive mark”. It is clear to me that trade marks and standardisation marks are something different, and in addition we have “distinctive marks”. Where does one draw the line? I would be glad if the Minister would explain what is meant by the provision in Clause 14 that a standardisation mark can be laid down by the institute. There are further powers which apparently arise from the clause, in connection with which I would like to have an explanation before I propose my amendment, as printed. Reference is made here to the application of a standardisation mark to any commodity. Sub-clause 1 (a) refers to specifications, and subsequently to standard specifications in regard to any commodity. As the Bill lays down that that will be applicable to any commodity, the question arises whether it will also apply to imported commodities. It is applicable to trade and industry in regard to any commodity. Does it apply only to manufactured articles which have been produced within the Union, or is it the intention of the Minister that this provision should also be applicable to imported commodities? As the Bill reads now, it appears to me that the hon. the Minister may also apply these marks to commodities which are imported. I would like to know what the implications of this provision are. Will it also apply to imported commodities? Of course, I understand the provision in paragraph (4) that a party will not be entitled to affix a standardisation mark to a commodity when he is not entitled to do so. Now the question arises whether the Minister under this Bill is going to act at the request of an applicant who is the manufacturer of a given commodity, and whether at his request he is going to lay down a standardisation mark for the article produced by him, or is he going to lay down a general standardisation mark at the request of traders importing such article? I take it for granted that the mark will not be shown on the cover or packing material, but that it must be an indication of the properties of such an article. Before moving my amendments, I would like to hear the Minister’s statement.

No, Mr. Chairman, the intention is not here that any individual person should obtain a standardisation mark in that way. The procedure is this, that first of all either the Council may decide that there should be a certain specification for any particular commodity, or the Institute may in the same way, after investigation, declare something to be a standard specification. Now, there is nothing compulsory about either of these. They are just a standard specification carrying certain qualities or requirements with them. Then, if that is a commodity which is going to be used by the trade or by the public, it is very likely desirable that there should be some mark on that commodity guaranteeing that it conform to the specifications, and there the Council then declares a standardisation mark. That mark will not be a mark in the sense that a proprietary trade mark is a mark. It is merely a general mark which anyone who produces that particular commodity, complying with that particular specification, may apply to use on his goods.

To be used in the Union only?

No, if there is a standard specification here which is a guarantee to the user, whether he is a private consumer or a manufacturer, if an overseas manufacturer agrees to manufacture to that standard specification and applies to be allowed to use that standard specification mark, provided his goods come up to that specification, he will be entitled to do so. I do not think there can be any conceivable objection to that. This idea of standardisation is not intended to isolate our manufacturers or our consumers. The hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) made a strong point in his second reading speech about this Bill that what we really wanted was international standardisation, and therefore if we approve a standard quality of a standard specification here which we regard as most suitable for use in this country, and if manufacturers or producers overseas are prepared to deliver to that standard specification, there is no reason why they should not apply for that mark like anyone else and be allowed to use it.

May I put a further question to the Minister? I take it the initiative comes from the council itself when laying down a specification mark and also a standard specification for certain lines, or in respect of articles from overseas. The mark will be an indication as to the quality of certain goods. I understood the position to be that the mark would not be established at the request of producers in the Union, but that such a move would come from the council.

In the first instance, the request comes from the producers in the Union.

The request comes from producers producing certain quality goods, and they want a separate distinctive mark so that the users of these goods recognise the goods by the mark. The Bill provides that this mark may also be used in respect of products coming from overseas. Does the Minister contemplate that marks may be made applicable at the request of producers overseas, and how will it be made known in South Africa that certain goods fall under such a mark? If a mark is allowed for articles from overseas, it seems to me impossible and impracticable to judge whether the requirements are met. The producers in the Union have to produce according to certain requirements. The material of which the goods are manufactured, must be of a specific nature, and the process must be of a specific kind. If the council is in doubt whether the requirements are complied with, then the council may instruct its inspectors and authorise its inspectors to examine the raw material and the process. The council has the means to test the requirements as far as products manufactured in South Africa are concerned, but it has no means to apply such a test in respect of articles manufactured elsewhere. For that reason it seems to me to be impracticable. He cannot give the guarantee to the users that the article imported from overseas, complies with the same requirements as the article produced in South Africa. When certain articles are placed in the favourable position of falling under the standardisation mark, it is a question affecting the marketing of the article, because the mark is a recommedation to the public that the article in question complies with certain specifications and requirements, that in the one case it meets with the approval of the bureau and the council of the bureau and in the other case with the approval of the institute. Now this mark is not only going to be used in respect of South African commodities, but also foreign commodities. I am coming to another point. Will the effect be a handicap as far as the production of commodities is concerned which are manufactured in the Union and which do not carry this mark? Will the manufacturer be at liberty to produce such goods, or will by implication certain handicaps be placed on the sale of competing articles not carrying the mark? I take it is not the intention of the Minister to hinder the manufacture of other commodities not carrying the mark, but I would like to have a statement from the Minister to that effect.

I want to emphasise what was said by the hon. member for Ceres. As I read the provision of Clause 14, as opposed to Clause 15, it amounts to this that under Clause 14 commodities can be produced complying with certain specifications, and on the other hand in accordance with standard specifications. Then certain marks are laid down in respect of such articles, and that is a recommedation for such articles. It is a recommedation to the public, because it is a guarantee to the public that these articles comply with certain requirements. More or less it is the same as the national mark in regard to agricultural products. I understand what the purpose is, but why should it also apply to articles imported from outside which compete with our products? The Minister has stated emphatically that it will also apply to articles from overseas. Why? It simply means that we are making it more difficult for goods produced in the Union to compete because the same mark is applied to articles introduced from outside and competing with our products. That is my first objection. Then I would like the hon. the Minister to clear up these numerous provisions. In Clause 14 it is laid down that if goods comply with specified requirements or standard specifications, certain marks are allowed. It is nonsensical to have two kinds of marks but, of course, the reason is that the institute is being maintained, and we have objected to that. If articles comply with certain specifications, a mark is allocated and nobody is allowed to attach that mark to goods which do not comply with the specifications. Then in Clause 15 we are dealing with specifications and standard specifications, but in addition with a compulsory standard specification. A specification and a standard specification may be laid down by the Minister as a compulsory specification or a compulsory standard specification. Those goods do not only carry a standard trade mark, but something new in addition. They also obtain a distinctive mark, and nobody is allowed to use that distinctive mark, unless the goods comply with the compulsory standard specification. We have these two sets of specifications, and to my mind it is going to cause confusion. I do not want to discuss Clause 15 at this stage as far as the further implications are concerned. I would only like the Minister to explain why we are going to have the standardisation mark for one set of articles, and a distinctive mark for another set of articles, and in addition the ordinary trade mark.

I think the answer to the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) is that you will have to have a different kind of mark to distinguish between compulsory standard specification and a voluntary one, because the compulsory standard mark is one which everyone will have to use if they are complying with this compulsory standard. The voluntary one, well, that is purely a matter of choice whether you apply for it or not, and I think that is the reason why the difference in terminology has been arrived at. With regard to the three points raised by the hon. member for Ceres (Dr. Stals), as far as the overseas people are concerned, they will be advised, if they wish to apply for a standardisation mark in this country and it will be entirely their business to discover whether there are standardisation marks or not, and the business of their agents; standardisation in this country will not be done on application from people overseas but by our own people here. As far as testing is concerned, where a commodity is in question, of course we can and would test overseas commodities in our bureau here. Where a question of processing arises it would be a matter of arranging in liaison with the Standards Institution in the country of origin to undertake that work themselves. As the hon. member knows there is quite close liaison between those bodies in the different countries. Of course, if it came to a country supplying goods and applying for a standardisation mark in this country, a country which has no standardisation organisation of its own at all, and no method of processing, then the standardisation would not be allowed and I think that would meet that difficulty. Then there is the point of whether, if you apply a standardisation mark the people who use it will gain any benefit from it or not, and will those who do not use it not suffer because they do not use it. I am afraid that I cannot say. I think that probably those who use it in many cases will benefit, and if they do not benefit from it they will not apply for it. The fact that someone may produce a similar article which will not comply with the standard specification—if that article is more suitable for any particular purpose, people will buy it and they will not really compete with the actual standardised article.

There will be no penalisation; it is purely voluntary?

Of course not; it is purely voluntary. There is the stanrdisation mark. If you wish to comply with requirements and apply for the mark you may do so, but if you produce something useful or profitable in some other ways, you need not apply.

I am not dealing now with the compulsory standard specification, but with Clause 14. Articles have to be manufactured in accordance with the specifications of the council, and other goods are manufactured in accordance with the standard specifications of the institute— you have two sets of goods, because these are two separate bodies. Because you have two bodies, you have two specifications. Goods made in accordance with the specifications of the council itself, are goods according to specification; but goods made in accordance with the specifications of the institute, are goods made in accordance with standard specification, and where you have in addition a standard trade mark, how is the ordinary public going to know whether the standard trade mark refers to articles made in accordance with the specifications of the council, or in accordance with the standard specifications of the institute?

In the case of compulsory standardisation there may be a special standardisation mark. In this case it will be compulsory, probably, to use that mark. I think in many cases it will probably prove to be the same thing, because I think you will find that in many cases where the institute has worked out a standard specification, the council, having investigated it through the bureau, may very well find itself adopting that as a specification of its own. But I do not think there will be any conflict there. The mark will be different in any case, indicating a different class of goods, and I imagine that if the institute declares a standard specification it will have a mark on it showing that it is a standard specification. If the council declares a standard specification there will probably be a slightly different mark. I think there will probably be a difference in the standardisation mark issued, as to whether it is a standardisation mark or a specification framed by the council, but I think in the vast majority of cases they will eventually prove to be one and the same thing, and that they can be declared as standardisation marks.

At the outset I discussed the implications of Clause 14, and I stated that I would like to have more information before moving my amendments. One point is very clear now, and I did not know that before, namely that overseas products may also be sold under a standardisation mark in South Africa. That makes the amendment I want to move and which appears in the votes and proceedings, all the more necessary. I know what the attitude of the Minister is in regard to the institute. I tried to convey that I have not much confidence in the institute and now I have no additional reasons to have confidence in the institute, and neither do I place reliance on the powers which influence the institute. For that reason I would prefer to see that the powers to be exercised under this Bill and which aim at the encouragement of industries in South Africa, should be placed in the hands of the council or the bureau. For that reason I move the amendments standing in my name on Clause 14, as follows—

I do not want to repeat what I said before, but I want to try once more to convey my earnest conviction that if the Minister desires to retain the confidence of South African industries in this undertaking, he will have to appoint a council which is qualified to act. If he cannot get qualified persons in South Africa to compose such a council, this Bill is untimely. But I am convinced that he can find qualified people for this council among the English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking sections of South Africa, and there is no reason for this hybrid system. We have experience in South Africa of this hybrid system. A sound foundation should be laid on which we can build in the future. I have in view the proclamation of standardisation marks under the control of the bureau, the council of the bureau, and not another institution which is not responsible to the State, because that is not an institution which has been called into being under an Act of the State.

It is the work of the council now.

The specifications are in the hands of the council, but not so the standard specifications, and the council cannot act in regard to standard specifications, except after consultation with and the approval of the institute. The functions of the council are limited, because it has to consult another body. The provisions of Clause 14 to my mind conflict with the provisions of the next clause, where the council will have the right to lay down what is practically a compulsory standard, without consulting the institute. I am coming to that later on. Where provision is made for the final say of the council in a subsequent clause, why should the council in this case be made subservient to a decision of the institute. I would like the Minister to adopt a sound principle which cannot be objected to and on which he can build. This Bill does not contemplate an insult to the institute. Many of us place no confidence in the institute, and I would be glad if the Minister were prepared to leave this matter to the judgment of the House.

I am afraid I cannot accept the hon. member’s amendment because it will vitiate the whole principle of this Bill, which is to permit a Standards Institute to carry on the work which they did in the past. I think he overrates the powers which this institute has. What happens is this, that as far as the standard specification is concerned, that is almost a private matter. It is a domestic matter. A particular industry gets together and between themselves they decide on what is a useful, economic and a practical standard specification. They decide on it with the idea of giving better service to the community and to gain more economic working themselves, and that is a most useful function. But if they want to place a mark on that commodity made according to that specification—in other words if they want to advertise it or to trade in it—they have to put it up to the council and the council has to investigate the whole question and submit it to the Minister, and he will say whether he is satisfied that a standardisation mark should be applied to it. So the work of the Standards Institute, when it comes to anything in the way of marketing or publicity or selling to the public, is controlled by the council or by the Minister, and all they do, up to that point, is by voluntary co-operation amongst themselves, rationalising their products in that particular industry, and it is very largely for that reason that we have the Standards Institute provided for in the Bill in Clause 14 so as to enable them to carry on and to link up with the council and the Minister. Therefore I cannot accept the amendments.

Amendments put and negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

On Clause 15,

This clause aims at placing enormous powers in the hands of the Minister. I went into the matter as to whether he requires these powers in the execution of the objects for which the bureau was established. I re-read Clause 3. According to that clause the aims are (a) to promote standardisation in industry and commerce, (b) to provide facilities for the testing and calibration of precision instruments, gauges and scientific apparatus …. (c) to provide facilities for the examination and testing of, and for research in relation to, commodities and any material or substance …. (e) to encourage or undertake education work in connection with standardisation, etc., etc.; and so I have examined the whole set of sub-divisions of the aims of this clause, and I can find nowhere a stipulation which necessitates this step the Minister has in view in connection with Clause 15. Before the House can accept a clause, which in the first instance appears to be unnecessary in the execution of the aims and objects of the Bill, but which contains stipulations which can be laid down by way of regulation in an omnibus Act, the Minister will have to provide us with much information on the implications of these provisions. We cannot take a leap in the dark and discover later that by so doing the local manufacturers are exposed to serious handicaps. As I have said, it goes further than the aims and objects of the Bill, for I found in Clause 3 no sub-division which makes this clause imperative for the carrying out of the Act. The clause as it appears here is far-reaching, and it can limit production enormously, and it can have retrospective possibilities. I think the Minister must certainly have seen the remark made by the Chamber of Industries on this point, in which they raise objection to the necessity of taking such powers under the Act. I am not in the unfortunate position of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. McLean) that I have not got my notes handy. The fact remains, however, that these implications may have a restricting influence on production in the Union. For that reason the industrialists have asked whether it is possible at this stage to lay down standard specifications and compulsory standard specifications. Is it not feasible to reach the goal aimed at in the Bill if the Minister simply lays down “these will be the minimum requirements in respect of certain products”? The foundation of the requirements in the Act is to make sure that a certain minimum qualification obtains in respect of certain products. But now the Minister is going further and he does not lay down minimum qualifications, but compulsory qualifications for all. I would like to have the Minister’s attention. Does he have in view the determination of compulsory specifications for a particular article or for a group of articles? Is it intended to be laid down in respect of a certain kind of plough, for instance, or for all ploughs—I am now referring to the com pulsory standard specification? If such is the case, he is going to place the producers in the Union in a position where they may be seriously handicapped. For that reason the industrialists are asking whether it is not possible to ensure what the Minister aims at, by laying down minimum standards. To my mind this question needs clarification. If the Minister tells us that his only aim and object is to lay down these compulsory standards for export goods, if he desires that articles produced in the Union should be of such a quality that they can be sold in any part of the world, without being unfavourably criticised, then I think we can support him. From time to time we hear that products are being exported which are unfavourably criticised. If the Minister aims at laying down a compulsory standard process of manufacture for goods to be exported, I can understand that, and I think we should support him if that is his intention. Now I come to the second question, and that is the same question as I put in regard to Clause 14. Where a mark is adopted as a compulsory mark in terms of this clause, will it only apply to the production in South Africa, or also to imported articles? The Minister will understand that if this compulsion is only placed on goods made in South Africa, then the consequences will be that these goods of high standing quality which are being produced in South Africa at a high cost, have to receive a measure of protection from the State. If the State lays down requirements, then the State has to ensure that the manufacturers can comply with those requirements, and not only that, but one of the conditions should be that the industries will be protected against inferior goods. That is one qualification if the higher standard qualification only applies to goods manufactured in the Union, but if the, hon. the Minister has in mind the application of the same standard qualification to goods from overseas, goods which are imported, then that opens up two possibilities which may be of far-reaching importance. I understood the Minister to say just now that in the other countries mentioned by him, similar bodies will be in existence which will function in conjunction with the standard bureau to guarantee that the articles which are being imported under these marks will comply with the requirements. But then we come to a point which has already been raised by the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw), and that is that if under this provision it is laid down that South Africa is going to make standard specifications compulsory, and if its standard specifications are more closely related to overseas specifications of one country than of another country, there is the possibilty that trade in this way might be completely canalised. The hon. the Minister is aware of our attitude as far as this question is concerned. I do not want to encroach upon that. Possibly there will be a later opportunity of going into this matter. But the risk of this one aspect becomes clear now. South Africa does hot want to be fenced in by barbed wire by means of a standard provision which at its best is not intended to promote South African industries, and to direct South Africa’s trade into certain channels. I have the fullest confidence that when I say this, I am speaking on behalf of this side of the House. We are prepared to contribute as far as possible towards the development of industries in South Africa, but we definitely do not want to contribute towards the passing of a Bill with good intentions, which subsequently may have a contrary effect. I would be glad if the Minister would inform us of his views in this regard. I have only dealt with the question of articles made in South Africa, and export articles. I would be glad to have that information. At this stage I only want to add that to my mind it is a mistake on the part of the Minister at this juncture to go as far as Clause 15 and what that implies, where we are only trying to make a start, in order to go in the direction of what is aimed at in Clause 3. A wide field is opened up for us as the aim for which the bureau has been called into existence, and that aim will not be reached for many years to come. But at this stage he provides for the compulsory application of standard specifications and compulsory marks; to introduce and apply such measures at this stage to my mind is not only undesirable, but I fear it may lead to the frustration of our attempts to encourage industries. I would go as far as to say that if the Minister cannot convince us that the clause will be of a restricted application, at a subsequent stage we will be compelled to move the deletion of the clause.

This clause, as has been correctly stated by the hon. member for Ceres (Dr. Stals) is of a far-reaching character. It lays down that once a standard specification has been declared to be a compulsory standard specification, nobody may thereafter sell commodities of that nature unless he complies with the requirements of such specifications or compulsory standard specification. That is a far-reaching provision. I have been given to understand that no other country in the world has passed a measure of such a far-reaching character, and if it is passed here, South Africa will stand alone in that respect. The question which arises, is what the Minister actually is trying to do, not with the Bill, but with this particular clause. What is he aiming at? If the clause on the one hand tries to protect the producer in South Africa against inferior goods, then something can be said in its favour. As far as foodstuffs are concerned, drugs and medicines, for human use, we do not need the protection of this Bill, because there is an act dealing with foodstuffs and drugs, under which the State sees to it that no detrimental and ineffective goods are supplied to the public. Therefore, this clause can only serve the purpose of protecting the public in other respects. Another question which arises is the following: Is this clause intended to promote South African industries or not; is it intended to promote our own industries as against foreign competition; is it intended to promote the further extension of our industries, is it intended to protect our industries by laying down standards which will be our own standards, and which possibly may differ from the standards laid down by Germany, England and America, in that way affording protection for South African industries? If that is the case, a lot can be said in its favour. But I am not sure what the Minister’s intentions are, and before continuing a discussion on the provisions of this clause, I would like the Minister to tell us in plain language what this clause aims at. Is it intended to protect the consumer? Is it intended to promote South African industries in some way or another, either by encouraging the development of industries here, or by protecting such industries against foreign competition? When we have information on these points, we will be in a position to discuss the provisions, and before going further into the matter, I would like information from the Minister on these two points.

I have talked this question over with some of my constituents who are commercial men, and they are unanimous that the most important clause of all is the clause now under discussion. I may state that the commercial community are in favour of the Bill, but look with a certain amounts of distrust at this section. They seem to think that too much power is being given to the Minister which may later be misused. I asked for their opinion on Clause 1, and I would like to put this to the Minister—

I would commend that view to the serious consideration of the Minister. I would say that surely it is wiser to lay down minimum standards to which the marketed commodity must conform, leaving it to the individual manufacturer to find out for himself the best method of obtaining or bettering the minimum standard. And then I would like, if I may, to make a comment on Clause 15 (5). This clause appears to the chamber to be a very dangerous one as it prohibits the sale of an article which does not conform to the specification laid down under sub-section (1) irrespective of whether the article in question meets a demand for that particular quality, and this clause may, in fact, prohibit the sale of a better article than the standard specification, which article may be cheaper to the consuming public. This clause may prohibit the importation of a very fine article merely because the process of manufacture does not conform to process of manufacture laid down. These are two very important questions, and I may state that the question was deliberated at some great length at the East London Chamber of Commerce, and with the exception of these remarks on Clause 15, the Minister has my assurance that the Bill meets with their approval.

The hon. member for Ceres (Dr. Stals) in a series of questions asks again whether this compulsory standard mark will apply to imported goods or whether it will be confined to local goods. Of course, if there is a compulsory standard specification laid down in the Union, that will apply to all goods of any kind. Obviously you cannot compel your local manufacturer to work to certain standard specifications and make that compulsory for him, and then allow people from overseas to come in and compete with inferior goods. That will be compulsory of all goods of that kind. Compulsory standard specification will apply to all commodities of that kind wherever they come from. The hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) asks me exactly what is the intention of this clause, whether it is to protect the consumer or to help to promote South African industries. My answer is that it is intended to do both. This standardisation question is a highly technical one, and I have not pretended during the course of this debate or the previous debates to suggest that I am an expert on standardisation. But this Bill has beep before the experts appointed by the Government, for the best part of two years, and the Standardisation Committee which drafted the Bill was a very influential committee and a very competent one. It consisted, inter alia, of a member of the Department of Agriculture, Mr. E. Parish, the Director of the Federated Chamber of Industries, Mr. White, Mr. Wium, a member of the Executive South African Agricultural Union. Dr. Bosman, of the South African Steel Sales Company, Dr. Loubser, the Chief Mechanical Engineer of the South African Railways and Harbours, Dr. Bernard Price of the Victoria Falls Power Company, Mr. Davidson, Manager of the East Rand Engineering Company, and two other consulting engineers from the Reef, and their view was that it was essential to have power, if necessary, to declare standard specifications compulsory specifications. I had objections raised from various quarters, difficulties in regard to this clause, and as a result I had the thing reviewed by this committee, which in effect, represents the whole engineering industry and the federated chambers of industries in the country since this committee started, and as a result they have deliberated and they have affirmed that in their opinion—and I am assured that I can take this as the view of organised industries in the Union—that the residuary step to declare the standard compulsory is necessary. They have, however, suggested that that should be safeguarded against abuse. This committee now says that this clause is necessary but that they feel that given wide powers like these, there should be safeguards against its being wrongly used. I have not regarded this Bill as a contentious matter, I am as anxious as anybody else to get a workable measure through the House. I have consulted the law advisers on the point and I have done my best to meet their difficulties, and as a result of that I want to move the amendments which are today on the Order Paper in lieu of the amendments which appear on page 279. There are two main alterations. In respect of line 14 and of line 60, instead of making it 21 days and 30 days for giving notice of any intention to declare a standard a compulsory standard, we are going to increase that to two months or sixty days in each case. I move accordingly—

1. (2) The council shall not recommend to the Minister that a specification be declared a compulsory standard specification for the manufacture, production, processing or treatment of a commodity, and the Minister shall not declare a specification to be such a compulsory standard specification, unless the council or the Minister, as the case may be, is satisfied that it is not practicable to achieve the purposes of such a compulsory standard specification by a compulsory standard specification for the commodity.;

in line 60, to omit “thirty days” and to substitute “two months”; and an amendment in the Afrikaans version which did not occur in the English version.

I am moving (2) to meet the difficulty raised by industry in regard to laying down a compulsory standard for processing. They recognise that there may be cases—although I think it will be extremely rare—for laying down a compulsory standard for a commodity. They were very unwilling to accept the idea of laying down a compulsory standard for processing. They felt that that was not necessary, but on examining the matter further, they came to the conclusion that there were cases where, if you have a standard, you cannot test it by the commodity, unless you have been in the position to test the process to make sure that the right ingredients were used. But as I say, they were anxious that that should be used as sparingly as possible, and that there should be safeguards. So I am proposing now that when it comes to laying down a compulsory standard specification for processing or manufacture, that shall only be done in the following circumstance: After the council with its technical advisers has come to the conclusion that it is not practicable to test this commodity except during the processing, and then the council will recommend to the Minister; the Minister will then have to give notice to all concerned and give them sixty days to voice their opinions on the subject, and on top of that the Minister will have to satisfy himself, with his technical advice, that the council has been right in saying that it is not practical to make it a compulsory process instead of just a compulsory standard for the commodity itself, and when that is done the Minister may publish it in the Gazette to give interested parties an opportunity of showing that they have not been reasonably treated. I believe that that safeguards anybody who has a valid objection to a process being made a compulsory process; he will have ample opportunity and the fullest possible chance of seeing that his case is put up, and if he has a good case, I am quite satisfied that the compulsory process will not be laid down, because he will have behind him his industry or his profession. He will have behind him the interests which are concerned in the matter, and if his case is a good one, they will put up the case, and obviously nothing will be done which is liable to harm the industry or the profession, as the case may be, because the whole object of the Bill is to help and not to hinder, and I believe that from the practical point of view I have in these amendments met, as far as it is possible to do so, the objection or the possibility of any wrong use being made of this particular clause. As I say, I do not pretend to be a standardisation expert, but I have discussed this with the various people who are, and I say further that industry has accepted the necessity for this clause being subject to proper safeguards against it being abused. I must point out, of course, that there is an exemption section in the clause which gives the Minister power to make exceptions in the case of anybody who is entitled to it. The idea is you may lay down a compulsory standard and somebody may have a patent process better and cheaper than the compulsory standard, and it would be manifestly unfair if he could produce something better and cheaper to penalise him and to say he must not use his better process or his patent process. Well, there is provision here to meet that if he can satisfy the council he has a better process. The Chambers of Commerce have urged me not to pursue this clause, but they are not so intimately concerned in this clause as industry. In any case their reasons do not seem to be adequate for not putting this clause through. They say that the enforcement of compulsory standard specifications would discourage “the enterprising and progressive manufacturer from striving to improve his product”. I do not accept that, and in any case there is the provision here, as I say, for anybody who produces anything better to be exempted. Their other reason weighs even less—

It is extraordinary how much of our social legislation is anti-social and harmful to those in need of the parental care of the State.

The idea of standardisation is to protect rich arid poor alike from inferior articles, not necessarily cheap ones, and to suggest that commerce wishes to supply the poor with inferior but cheap articles seems to be unfair to commerce. I am surprised at organised commerce using a phrase like that in a case like this. They go on to say—

That is in the Bill. Anybody entitled to use it will get it. I hope therefore the House will accept the necessity for having in the Bill this power, which is likely to be used extremely rarely but which according to the views of all those best qualified to judge is essential if standardisation is to take that wide path it should in the future.

There is no question this is probably the most difficult clause in the whole Bill. I think it is generally accepted that the Bill, except for Clause 15, is by and large acceptable, but it is unquestionable that Clause 15 is a clause which possesses a great deal of potential danger and it is one which is distinctly revolutionary. Standardisation up to this stage and for many years in the past, has been built upon the basis of voluntary standards, and I have to learn—I speak open to correction—that any country in the world possesses a provision for a compulsory standard. In those established, well advanced and highly industrialised countries such as Great Britain and the United States of America, there is no provision whatever for a compulsory standard. In other countries where Standards Acts are in force, there is no provision in those Acts for applying any standard compulsorily; that is the case in New Zealand where an Act was introduced in 1941. Therefore I say this is a revolutionary clause and it behoves us to approach it with a good, deal of caution, and because of this it is very advisable and very essential that adequate safeguards should be set up, and it is these safeguards to which the Minister has just referred and the Standardisation Committee have recently dealt with so carefully. The Minister’s amendment goes a long way towards meeting the wishes of the Standardisation Committee. Their problem is that they do not wish a process to be standardised if it is possible to standardise the end commodity. They do not wish it to be necessary to make the test through the process or treatment if it is possible to test the end commodity, and I think the Minister in this new sub-clause (2) which he has just moved, does meet that need. As regards commerce, I am aware that commerce, as a whole, does not like this clause, and I should like to say that industry and the Standardisation Committee does not like this clause unless adequate safeguards are incorporated in it. One of the safeguards they feel is very necessary—and this is the point on which we certainly would appreciate the Minister going a little further than he has done and granting our wish—is that in his clause the decision rests with the Minister and the council. It is suggested that there should be deleted the words after “unless”, namely “the council or Minister as the case may be is satisfied that”. That would meet the case. It would then read—

The reason for this is that the Standardisation Committee feels in a matter like this, which is highly technical, there is room for varying opinions. We know full well that technical experts can differ in their opinions, and the desire is that the question whether it is practicable or not to determine a commodity by testing the end product, should be left open to the decision of an impartial tribunal, if there should be a conflict of opinion between the council and the Minister on the one part and the parties affected on the other part. That sums it up in a nutshell; and the reason is this, the council is an interested party. The council will only advertise a specification after due and mature consideration. If there are objections of weight it is possible, where it rests upon the decision of the council or the Minister as to whether they are satisfied or not, the council and the Minister might override the views of the aggrieved party, and it is in a case like that I personally feel, and in this matter I know I am supported by the Standardisation Committee and industry and commerce as a whole, the matter should be left open for the decision of an independent tribunal, who can then reach a decision as to which of the two technical bodies is right. This is the point I have to stress, a point of very considerable importance, a point to which great weight is attached. I feel it is necessary, because as I said earlier this is a revolutionary clause, this is something new in the world of standardisation, not only in South Africa but in the world of standardisation, though here we are very young in matters of standardisation. It is a matter therefore I do ask the Minister to give his serious consideration to, and to meet us if it is at all possible. It may well be said, if it is left open in that way, that an appeal lies to the courts of the land. It is true the courts are set up for that purpose and if there is a dispute, highly technical in its implications, the courts of the land are the only deciding factor. I am no lawyer, and it may be argued it is not appropriate to send it to a court to settle. In that case I think it would be a simple matter to overcome the difficulty by incorporating in the Bill a provision allowing arbitration proceedings to determine the issue, allowing the two parties to the dispute to nominate the arbitrators and for the arbitrators to nominate their umpire; and if the decision of the two conflict it should be left to that independent body. I put that to the Minister. I want now to deal with the Minister’s statement on the subject of commerce. It is unquestionable that the determining factor in production is the discriminating appreciation of the consumer who dictates the type and form of his requirements. If there is no consumer to purchase requirements there would be no manufacturer to produce requirements. I do not think in the Minister’s criticisms of the second reason for commerce objecting to this clause he interpreted it correctly.

It is unhappily phrased.

It may be unhappily phrased but the question is this, that if the public wish a cheaper article it is for them to determine the issue and not the Standards Council. Finally I want to say this. I feel it is necessary to limit Clause 15 further than the Minister has already done, in the manner I have stated, because we shall never prevent the abuse of power if we are not prepared to limit power in a way which occasionally may prevent its use for a desirable purpose.

I put a few questions to the Minister, and I asked him inter alia how he views the application of these provisions with a view to the best possible promotion of our own industries, in respect of competition from overseas industries. As far as this side of the matter is concerned, the Minister gave no satisfactory answer. But before I come to that, I would just like to point out that the Minister stated that the Chamber of Industries have given their full support to this clause subject to certain guarantees. The impression which I gathered, however, from the people themselves is quite something else. I want to ask the Minister whether he has read the most recent edition of “Industry and Trade”, in which a serious warning is sounded against the dangers which are contained in this particular clause, and I think I am putting it in the right perspective when I say that “Industry and Trade” declare itself absolutely opposed to the purport of this clause. Before the Minister makes a statement to the effect that organised industries supports this clause, he should read something from the most recent issue of “Industry and Trade”, and then he will come to quite a different conclusion. But in any case, I don’t want to put their case, but I want to ask how the application of this clause can influence our own industrial development in comparision with overseas industries. Can this clause be applied to handicap the promotion of our own industries? That is the danger. We have in South Africa a great division of opinion on the protection of our own industries. In the first place you have the commercial community, of which at one time the Minister was an outstanding representative, who are very coolly and one can almost say hostilely disposed towards the promotion of South African industries. There is a constant war being waged between those who want to promote our industries, and those who have big interests in import trade. There is another contrast, and that is between those who are national-minded and who merely out of love for our own country and the interests thereof, insist on the development of our own industries as against competition from the industries of other countries, and on the other hand you have the viewpoint of the imperialist. I think the Minister will himself admit that as far as this is concerned, he also has always showed himself in his true colours. The British imperialist has always in view the interests of British industries and for this reason is also opposed to South African industries developing if it is to the detriment of British industries. From their point of view it is understandable, but here we have the big difference of opinion and because the Minister, as far as this difference of opinion and viewpoint are concerned, has not always shown much sympathy towards the viewpoint that South Africa should promote and develop its own industries, even at the expense of other countries, even at England’s expense, I regard this article and the powers which are defined therein as dangerous. If we consider the doings of the Standards Institute in the past, the danger becomes evident. The hon. member for Ceres supplied information a few days ago, when the second reading debate was in progress, as to the work of this institute, which only proves that the institute, as far as the introduction of South Africa’s own standards are concerned to all practical intents and purposes has done nothing. All they have done is to lay down a large number of British standards for South Africa, and the question arises what is going to happen in the future. I am convinced that the board will merely be a rubber stamp to affix from time to time its stamp to the resolutions of the Standards Institute. In other words, the Standards Institute will continue the work which it has performed in the past, and that is to continue to lay down British standards for South Africa. If this matter were in the hands of a government or of a Minister who really adopted the viewpoint that South African industries should be developed, apart from the demands of the British factories and British interests, then the position might be different, but as I view it now this is an exceptionally dangerous clause for our own industries in South Africa, and I am afraid that this clause will be used, not for the promotion of South African industries, but on the contrary for making it easier for big interests, particularly in England, to dispose of their commodities in South Africa. I hope the hon. Minister will not take it amiss if I view him in that light. I would just like to refer to a statement which the Minister made recently, when he addressed the Johannesburg Chamber of Commerce, when he said—

Here we have the big difference of opinion: The Minister’s standpoint is that you should not view the matter from the point of view of the interests of South Africa, but in the light of the world as a whole, and in his case the world means more or less the British Commonwealth of Nations. You must take those interests into consideration and not view the matter from the point of view of South African interests. I do not wish to make any unfair comments, but this is the viewpoint which he adopted. He said further—

There you have the big difference of opinion. He says that the Government’s policy is not to extend the protection of South African industries any further. He went on—

However carefully the Minister put the case, it is clear from this that the Minister is still a commercial man who is unable to change his habits, and what is more, he is a born imperialist, who simply views matters from the viewpoint of the interests of British manufacturers, and not from the point of view of the interests of South Africa. How dangerous this point of view is, is shown by the fact that the wholesalers in South Africa, who enjoy the support of the Minister, had this to say by the mouth of their chairman, Mr. N. A. Kay, President of the Chamber of Commerce—

He expresses the hope that the protection of South African industries by means of import tariffs will not be maintained, but that in the course of time they will be reduced. [Time limit.]

In spite of the sparsely occupied benches in the House, or rather as a result thereof, this matter is certainly not receiving the attention which its importance deserves. Nevertheless, I think it must be clear to the Minister, after hearing the various viewpoints from different sides, that a principle of the greatest importance is at stake, and that he is asking for powers, the tendency of which is definitely dangerous. From more than one side, fortunately not only from our side, it has been pointed out that this clause is fraught with dangers, with possibilities which today one cannot pass by. The Minister admitted this by the enquiries which he made himself and the further investigations which were made. We appreciate that interest, we appreciate the fact that he has further investigated the position, but to come here and say that the bodies which he has consulted are convinced that it is still necessary to have this provision, does not bring us much further. The conviction of an individual can be so personal that in itself it is not convincing, and we cannot attach too much value to it. It is necessary to view this matter in a sober light. It does not help to say that the body has found that its former convictions were right. That brings us no further. The matter is being further complicated by the Minister introducing further amendments, and we are not in a position to determine when certain requirements have to be satisfied, and when not. The Minister will also not be in a position to judge this. Here we have the same difficulty again. Now he has to convince himself and also convince the House, otherwise it must not be done. It practically throws a reflection on the Minister and on the House that that demand is now being made. But the danger is inherent. The period in which we live is a period when it is necessary for the future of South Africa, in view of the development and mutual relationship, to exercise the greatest possible frankness towards one another, and to arrive at the point when we must convince one another that we want to place the interests of South Africa on the foreground, and make them priority No. 1 in each case. As regards this, I fear there is a serious gap if we consider this clause, for it can amount to a negation of this ideal and lead to the adoption of a policy which is in conflict therewith. The hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) has already pointed out how personal viewpoints and convictions of the relative people can influence a decision. I just want to refer to another point in connection with the application of this clause. In Clause 5 provision is made that certain persons must possess a permit before they can acquire certain articles to which specifications are applicable. First they have to comply with the specifications, then the Minister can issue a permit for their sale thereunder. Take the case of a plough. I do not want to draw agriculture in particular into this matter, but I have quoted this article because I am myself acquainted with it. Is he going to take the whole series of ploughs and have specifications framed for each one according to the form, construction and work which must be done, and then stipulate that persons must obtain permits in order to sell the various types? Is so, he is immediately facing the problem of defining the articles in such a way and that he can issue permits to each group and make people liable to punishment who sell goods which do not completely conform to that definition. This is one of the aspects which the Minister himself touched upon, namely that people can sell articles which are not inferior, but which, however, do not bear the standard mark. I want to ask the Minister to leave this clause over or to delete it. He can go on with this Bill without the clause. The Bill can be put into working order without this clause and if before the end of this sitting he can prove to us that he needs the powers which are vested in this clause, then this House, I take it, will be satisfied to grant him those rights at a future date. We do not want to do anything which will handicap South African industry, but on the other hand we want to ensure that nobody obtains powers which might prove dangerous for our manufacturers with a view to competition from overseas. If the Minister should accede to my earnest request to leave this clause over to a later date or to next year, then I will not move my amendments. If he refuses to do this, then I will propose my amendments, as printed on the agenda.

Mr. Chairman, with regard to the exemption sub-section that the hon. member for Ceres (Dr. Stals) referred to, that must be in there, as I have explained. The hon. member regretted that I did not give more specific reasons for the necessity of this clause.

But we have come to the same conclusions.

Yes. As I have said, I did not want to go into technical details because I am not a technical man, and I doubt whether the Committee are technical men.

But the Committee has to pass the laws.

In the first place the compulsory standardisation will never take place except in rare instances. The vast bulk of standardisation is done by voluntary work and by agreement. But the fact is that we have in the Union today already quite a number of compulsory standards, more than people realise, and there have been no difficulties about them, or complaints. Take the Weights and Measures Act for example. There is a compulsory standard for fencing material in the Union quite recently we made enquiries and the manufacturers say this works very well, and they approve of it. Under the Food and Drugs Act there are a number of compulsory standards for the preparation of pure foods and drugs, and under the Emergency Regulations there are compulsory standards, for example, the packing of cigarettes and for the preparation of certain metal alloys. We have regarded it necessary to lay it down as compulsory standards. As I have said, we only propose to apply it to processing when the commodity cannot be tested by the use of the commodity. There is an example for the necessity of testing processes the question of seasoning timber, structural timber for building purposes. Experiments have been carried out and blocks of timber have been subject to entirely different seasoning processes and they appear identical when seasoned, and it is only after the lapse of months of use that cracking and warping will disclose bad processing, and therefore by looking at the timber you cannot see whether it comes up to standard or not, and it is only by making sure of the processing that you can be sure of getting a proper article. The same thing applies where dry mixtures are made like asbestos and cement. Details of the methods of mixing may have to be prescribed because it is not possible by examining the final product to see whether the mixing was properly carried out or not. It is only when the article is used and has; stood up to strain that faults become apparent. I made some further enquiry as to the necessity for processing being included, because frankly I as a layman was doubtful myself whether it was necessary to include it in the clause. I was assured that it was essential that these processes should be included. I was told that the methods of defining quality by means of processing standard processes, is so common in industry that it has become standard practice throughout the world, and they give a number of examples. They say that before the war there were 200 to 300 steel specifications which have now been reduced to 80 or 90. In the U.S.A. there are possibly as many in use and practically all these specifications refer to processes, because it is only in that way that the quality can be defined. Steels of the same chemical specifications may be of different quality according to whether they were made by the openhearth, the electrical or the Bessemer process, or the heat process in the case of alloy steels. It is in fact common to find in steel specifications a statement like this: “The heat treatment to be given in steel processing shall be as follows ….” and then they give various temperatures for various processes. It is essential to subject steel to these processes to give it the required quality. And these things also refer to the products made from steel, which widens considerably the field of laying down the standards of processing. All American standard specifications dealing with structural steels, railway steels for the manufacture of rails, cylinders, fire boxes, rail-flanges, etc., refer to the processing in defining the quality. It is a common practice for large manufacturers of steel to have inspectors. In peace-time we have permanent inspectors permanently attached to South Africa House, going all over Europe and inspecting the processes of steel required for railway orders. The railways here have inspectors for Iscor for their orders. Lloyds Technical Services, which tests the steel for shipbuilding all over the world, has the same procedure, and I think Iscor has to apply certain tests also. The same thing applies to other commodities like bricks, where a differentiation is made between wire cut bricks and press bricks, and to alcoholic drinks. That is another compulsory standard we have had for years. The quality of various brandies is determined by the process of distillation and the age. The hon. member for Ceres will know more about that than I do. Gin and rum are also defined by reference to the process. These are examples. There are also specifications which do not refer only to the quality of materials at all, but only to the process. Things like the sampling of coke and coal and specifications for the building industry fall under this class. These are all examples of cases in which processing is necessary if you are going to have a standard. I hope therefore that the Committee will agree to accept this clause with the amendments which I have suggested. The hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) has gloomy fears about this council being anything but a rubber stamp. Well, if the council develops into a rubber stamp it will be his fault and mine, because the work of this council will be reported to Parliament every year and it will be our business to see that it is not a rubber stamp. I have no fear that it will be anything of the kind. I do not think I have to discuss the speech I made to the Chamber of Commerce as it has nothing to do with this particular matter. I come now to the hon. member for Houghton (Mr. Bell) who has expressed his fears and his views on the clause, and I agree with him that the industry is anxious that it should be protected in this clause from any abuse of the power to lay down compulsory standards, more particularly the compulsory standards with regard to processing. But I maintain that as far as practice is concerned, the amendments which I proposed for all practical purposes provides that safeguard. The hon. member for Houghton referred rather to the principle. He suggested that we should have provision for arbitration proceedings in the event of disagreement. He said the council would be an interested body and that the Minister might give a decision against an aggrieved party which would obviously be unfair. I did not quite follow his reasoning but I think that he is arguing against himself. His argument is that you must not put too much power into the hands of the Minister and therefore if there is a dispute you should be able to call in an independent umpire or arbitrator who will give an impartial judgment, not on a matter of fact but on a matter of opinion, on a question of whether it is practicable or not to judge a thing by its end use, by its final commodity, or whether you have to make the process the standard of testing it. Well, what are we doing actually? We are laying down that the council must make a recommendation, and the council is a responsible body, not directly interested in any particular compulsory standard, but we must assume, endeavouring to carry out the intentions of the Act. Then it has to be put up to the Minister and the Minister has to satisfy himself and hear expert evidence. He has to give notice to anyone who is not satisfied and hear their evidence, and then he has, in effect, to give judgment. In other words, Parliament is asked here to appoint the Minister in a permanent position as umpire on these particular questions, and when it comes to this particular question, it is not only a matter of opinion as to whether a thing is practicable or not; it is also a matter whether it is in the public interest, whether it is a matter of public policy that these compulsory standards should be laid down, and that, I submit, is a responsibility which the Government cannot shift from themselves to an independent umpire who has no responsibility whatever except to give the judgment. After all, the Minister is the servant of Parliament. That is all he is. He carries out the instructions and the duties which Parliament has laid upon him and he is answerable to Parliament for what he does, and if in a case like this dispute arises and the Minister has to give a decision, that decision will, undoubtedly, if it is disputed come before Parliament and the Minister will have to justify his action on the floor of this House which, after all, is the senior court in the land and therefore to say that we are abrogating the rights of Parliament in this instance is not correct; the opposite is the case. We are leaving Parliament with the ultimate right to challenge and criticise any decision of the Minister and on this particular point anyone who has been a Minister knows very well that always in the mind of a responsible Minister when he considers things, is this question: Is what I am asked to do justifiable? Can I justify it in Parliament? That being so, it seems to me that the provisions I have made in this clause protect anyone from abuse, and not only that but it safeguards the sovereignty of Parliament.

I just want to put one pertinent question to the Minister with regard to the already proclaimed standard specification. As he is aware, in the last five or six years, the Standards Institute has proclaimed certain British specifications as being South African specifications. The question now arises, when the council proceeds with the establishing of compulsory specifications, must we assume that those which are in existence will be accepted for registration, or would he suggest that they be investigated anew? I just want to find out to convince myself and the House whether the necessary investigation, scientific and otherwise, will be proceeded with, in order to satisfy ourselves that we are not merely copying.

I imagine the procedure will be this, that in regard to a number of these standard specifications, the institute will submit them to the council with the request that they receive a standardisation mark. They will come under review by the council. The standardisation specifications, most of which, as the hon. member has said, were taken over from the British standards, are continually under review. The Standards Committee continually takes them under review and the general policy will be that they should all be reviewed before the mark is given.

I appreciate the Minister’s explanation with regard to the point in the new clause he is moving to amend, but I am afraid I do not follow his argument. The issue before us is very simple. It is not a question of carrying out the objects of standardisation that rest on it, or the objects of compulsory standardisation; it resolves itself into just this, that where it is possible to determine by test the composition of the end product, then it is the end product which should be standardised and not the process. Only where it is not possible to do that should there be compulsory standardisation attached to the process. Now, the difficulty we are up against is this, that the council will bring forward a compulsory specification. The council will submit that to the Minister, and there is a responsibility on the Minister to see that the advertisements placed in the Gazette conform to the issue. Both the council and the Minister are responsible persons in this matter. I do not think that the Minister stands in the position of an independent umpire. I do not see how he does. I think that both the council and the Minister are interested parties in this matter. Now, the Minister has made it clear that this clause is likely to be used sparingly, and I think we all agree with that, but nevertheless, in the measure it is used sparingly, wherever it is used, it will be a matter of great importance if it involves compulsory standardisation. Now, it is possible and it is a very easy thing for technical experts to differ in their opinions. We recently had a case before us where in electrical wiring for defence purposes one set of engineers decided that a certain process was suitable, and another set said it was not. And afterwards they found that it was the subject of a British standard specification under war conditions.

Did they know it at that stage?

They possibly did not know it at that stage; but here is the point: all that we ask is this. We ask, because of the grave importance of this clause and its revolutionary character and the fact that it is not known in any legislation in the world, that a further safeguard be put up, and the only safeguard we ask for now is that if, in a rare case, a person or firm affected by a compulsory standard is not satisfied with the decision of the Minister, that they should have the right to appeal to an independent tribunal to determine whether it is practicable or not to test the issue by testing the end product. The question of standardising the process compulsorily is a very serious matter. The process is possibly the most secret and valuable thing in the world to a person or firm using it, and we have to approach this matter in a guarded manner. I say again that it should be made possible that any such dispute should be determined by an independent tribunal such as an arbitration body. I would be quite happy myself to see the words: “The council or the Minister, as the case may be is satisfied that” omitted and leave it open to the court of the land, in the same way that a matter is decided by the courts when there is a patent dispute. I can see very little difference. I can see no difficulty at all. If it is possible to submit to the courts a dispute on a patent infringement, it is quite possible to do the same thing here where there is a dispute as to whether the testing of the end product is practicable or not. It is a matter of opinion. Let me put it this way. The issue is considered by the council. There is difficulty in testing the end product satisfactorily. It may be quite possible to test the end product, but there are certain difficulties in the way, and the council decides that it is probably better to lay down a specification for the process. The person aggrieved feels that it is not necessary to lay down a standard for the process. It may be a little more trouble to test the end product, but it can be done. Why should the decision not be left open for an aggrieved party to take his case to an independent tribunal, who can then settle the position and determine whether the testing of the end product is possible or not? It becomes quite a simple matter and I want to say that the Standards Committee, who have been responsible for bringing this Bill forward, reconsidered this matter very seriously the week before last, and they are very strong now on this particular point that the safeguard which is essential here is that the final decision should be open to an independent tribunal which should determine it and that it should not rest with the council and the Minister. I say that they attach importance to it. I say that organised industry would prefer the deletion of the whole of this clause, if that point cannot be incorporated, and commerce will also do the same. There is a great weight of opinion in favour of the point I am making and asking for, and I appeal to the Minister to reconsider this matter. If necessary we can deal with it at the Report Stage, but that it requires serious consideration is an undoubted fact.

Amendments put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 16,

I wish to move—

It has been suggested that this is rather arbitrary, and the last thing I wish is to appear arbitrary.

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 18,

I wish to move the amendment standing in my name—

The hon. member for Ceres (Dr. Stals) had an amendment something to the same effect, but when I referred it to the law advisers they said mine was the better way of putting it.

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 19,

I move the amendment standing in my name—

These amendments are designed to define more closely the functions of the inspectors and to meet representations made from various parts of the House. I think they meet the difficulties certain hon. members felt in regard to the powers of inspectors. The inspectors will only go on the instructions of the council in writing and in visiting places they will only have powers to make enquiries and to deal with commodities in respect of which there is a standard specification or a standardisation mark or a specification by the council. There is a further point; they limit the right of the inspector in taking extracts from books or documents to the taking of extracts referring to the standardised commodities about which they are enquiring.

In the absence of the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) I wish to move the amendment printed in his name on page 303 of the Order Paper, namely—

This is a very simple amendment which I hope the Minister will see his way clear to accept. The effect of it is simply this. The clause gives leave to the inspector to enter premises at any time and this amendment restricts it to any time during business hours.

I accept that.

Amendments put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 20,

I move the amendments standing in my name—

1. (1)
   1. (a) The accounts and balance sheet of the council shall be audited each year by or under the direction of the Controller and Auditor-General.
   2. (b) The provisions of Sections 13 and 14 of the Exchequer and Audit Act, 1911 (Áct No. 21 of 1911), shall mutatis mutandis apply in respect of any such audit: Provided that any reference in the said sections as so applied to the Treasury shall be deemed to be a reference to the Minister and any reference to officers in the public service shall be deemed to be a reference to the employees of the council.
   3. (c) As soon as may be after any such audit the Controller and Auditor-General shall transmit to the Minister and the council a report in respect of the audit.
2. (2) An amount which shall be determined by the Treasury after consultation with the Controller and Auditor-General shall be paid out of the funds of the council to the Treasury for any such audit.

The effects of the amendments are to provide that the affairs of the council and of the bureau shall be placed under the Auditor-General instead of under a private auditor.

I think we are in agreement with these amendments. I would only ask the Minister this, whether the reference to the Audit and Exchequer Act cannot be incorporated as a new clause instead of it being by way of reference to clauses in another Act. The Minister will I think remember that this aspect was taken up in the Fishing Bill. Perhaps the Minister could alter this at the report stage to enable the Act to stand on its own legs without reference to the other Act.

Amendments put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 23,

I beg to move the amendment standing in my name—

Reading this clause one finds that in the first paragraph the word “standard” is prohibited from use, and further on allowance is made so that if there is a firm say with the name Standard Company or the Standard Bank or the Standard Wine and Brandy Company, such a firm will be able to retain its name. Provision is also made that in the case of registered trade marks, the word “standard” may be allowed to remain. But there is no provision for articles, as for instance the Standard Sewing Machine, or the Standard Motor Bicycle. It will be said that if a person has produced an article of that nature and has acquired a reputation he should have taken the necessary precaution to have it registered, but I should like to point out that by having produced an article of that nature for many years the producer has established user rights. I am no authority on law but I am informed the establishment of user rights associated with that article is tantamount to registration. I would like the Minister to take cognisance of that, and that is the reason why I move the amendment, to allow those who have established a name with any article in which the word “standard” appears to be protected.

With regard to the amendment of the hon. member for Gardens (Dr. L. P. Bosman) I am afraid I cannot accept it. We have made very extensive provision for the protection of people who have been using the word “standard” and it seems to me that anybody who has acquired goodwill for the use of the word in his business is fairly certain to have registered it by now; if not I am afraid there will be no provision enabling him to carry on. If we are going to provide specifically in this Bill for every conceivable case I am afraid we shall be here a long time and we shall still have anomalies. But there is provision in the Bill for exemption. If there are hard cases of the class to which the hon. member refers the Minister has power to let them carry on, and I think that is as far as I can go. I move the amendment standing in my name—

1. (4) The Minister may at any time withdraw any consent given by him under sub-section (1) if, in his opinion, it is necessary to do so in order to avoid confusion or abuse.

I have an amendment to propose at the end of sub-clause 2—

The Bill makes provision for the registration of existing names, but the possibility exists that an existing name can make serious encroachments upon the aims and objects of the Bill. Now the Minister is making provision that if a name has once been approved, he can repeal it later. I now propose that before a name is approved the Minister can intervene. I do not think he will raise objection to that.

I do not think it necessary to put that in. With the amendment I have got I have full power; should that event occur we have power to revoke the certificate. In any case before the written consent of the Minister is given to carry on he will presumably look into the thing and see whether it does cause confusion. People will have to get the exemption in the first place and if there is obvious confusion the Minister will not agree to the exemption; if in spite of that there does prove to be confusion the Minister has power to cancel the certificate which he has issued in good faith, but perhaps in ignorance of the facts at the time.

Amendment proposed by the Minister of Economic Development put and agreed to and amendments proposed by Dr. L. P. Bosman and Dr. Stals put and negatived.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On new clause, to follow Clause 23,

I move—

1. 24. (1) No employer shall dismiss any person employed by him or reduce the rate of his remuneration or otherwise alter the conditions of his employment to conditions less favourable to him or alter his position to his disadvantage relatively to other persons employed by such employer by reason of the fact that he suspects or believes (whether or not the suspicion or belief is justified or correct) that that person has given any information which under this Act he could be required to give to an inspector or has complied with any lawful requirement of an inspector, or has given evidence in any proceedings under this Act.
2. (2) The court convicting an employer of a contravention of the provisions of sub-section (1) may in addition to any sentence which it may impose—
   1. (a) in the case of an employee the reduction of the rate of whose remuneration or the alteration of whose conditions of employment or position was the subject of the charge of which the employer was convicted, order the employer to restore the rate of remuneration, conditions of employment or the position of the employee to that existing prior to the reduction or alteration, with effect from the date on which the reduction or alteration was made;
   2. (b) in the case of an employee whose dismissal was the subject of the charge of which the employer was convicted, order the employer to pay to the employee a sum estimated by the court to be equal to three months’ remuneration at the rate according to which he was being remunerated at the time of his dismissal.
3. (3) Any order made under paragraph (b) of sub-section (2) shall have the effect of and may be executed as if it were a civil judgment in favour of the employee concerned.

I wish to move this new clause after Clause 23. It deals with the question of victimisation in respect of people who give evidence under this Act. This clause and the other new clause I shall move in a moment have been found necessary in various industrial and wage and apprenticeship Acts, and also in the Soldiers Employment Act of last year.

Agreed to.

On Clause 24,

I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On new clause to follow Clause 24,

I move—

1. 25. Whenever any person is charged with having, in contravention of Section 24, dismissed any person employed by him or reduced the rate of his remuneration, or otherwise altered the conditions of his employment to conditions less favourable to him, or altered his position to his disadvantage relatively to other persons employed by him by reason of a suspicion or belief referred to in that sub-section and stated in the charge, and it is proved that the accused dismissed that person or reduced the rate of his remuneration or otherwise altered the conditions of his employment to conditions less favourable to him or altered his position to his disadvantage relatively to other persons employed by him, the accused shall be presumed, until the contrary is proved, to have done so by reason of the suspicion or belief stated in the charge.

This new clause to be inserted after old Clause 24 deals with the question of evidence and the position of witnesses and it is a corollary to the new clause I moved just now.

Agreed to.

The remaining clauses and the Title having been agreed to,

House Resumed:

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN reported the Bill with amendments.

Amendments to be considered on 3rd April.