On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, before we proceed to deal with the Orders of the Day, I just want to draw your attention to the fact that there is an Order Paper before us on which some items appear of which we have no knowledge whatever, because the measures concerned have not yet been published. Assuming the House make so much progress today that we reach that particular order, what is going to be the position of hon. members, since this measure has not yet been published? I refer particularly to Order No. 8.

The best time to raise that will be when the order in question is reached.

I move—

In proposing this amendment I feel that with the clause as it stands the board will be overloaded in regard to its composition. So far as one can gather the dental surgeons will be represented by at least five members or nominees and the dental technicians by one only. I feel as this is a Dental Mechanicians Bill they want control to be vested in the mechanicians and not in the dental surgeons.

This I understand, and I suppose all hon. members understand, is a Dental Mechanicians Bill. This board that is being constituted is, as will be proved in subsequent clauses, a loaded board. Here I want to complain again about the rush methods that have been adopted in regard to this Bill. The Minister unfortunately did not allow a Select Committee to be formed to discuss the various septions of this Bill. Some of us who felt it was only right when the House adjourned that the Committee should adjourn ….

I am sorry I cannot allow the hon. member to discuss that matter. He must confine himself to Clause 3, which deals with members of the board. The hon. member can only discuss members of the board.

If I am not allowed to discuss that I still say that these rush methods are very upsetting. I contend that the craftsmen, particularly the dental craftsmen, are a very intelligent and respectable body of men and they should be able to control their own board, and this is their board. As Clause 3 stands, they are going to be ruled by the dentists. We know why; because the dentists make their profits through them, extortionate profits. I feel every fair-minded member of this House will at least give the men whom the Bill concerns majority voting power on this board so that they can control their own society, while the dentists can control theirs. The dentists will not allow the men to control their society, so why should the dentists attempt to control the men’s society?

The composition of this board has been very carefully considered by the Department of Public Health. It is quite clear that the function of this board is intended to govern relations between the dentists on the one hand and dental mechanicians on the other, and that being so it seems to me the principle of equal representation is appropriate in such a case. There is, of course, to be an independent chairman who will be appointed for preserving the balance of the board and making for more harmonious functioning. I might also mention that there are approximately 724 dentists and 324 mechanics. This board to be constituted under the Bill will have as one of its functions the task of dealing with apprenticeship contracts. The dentists are, of course, by far the larger employers of apprentices, and that would appear to be an additional ground for them having equal representation on the board. The board is of course a corporate body capable of suing and being sued. In terms of Section 10 the major portion of the income of the board will be contributed by dentists.

Why should it be?

The hon. member asks why this should be. The dentists have been prepared to make this contribution in order to bring about the board, one of whose chief objects is to establish amicable relations between the dentists on the one hand and dental mechanics on the other. In all the circumstances I feel the House would not be acting wisely if it sought at this stage to interfere with the constitution of the committee as it stands.

I support the previous speakers in respect of the amendment put forward. I feel as they do, that the dice is definitely loaded against the mechanicians. The very title of the Bill, Dental Mechanicians Bill, makes me very suspicious indeed in regard to the employer having the majority on the board. I appreciate it when the Minister states that the chairman shall be an impartial individual, but after what I have seen and heard in regard to the pushing of this Bill forward, I am satisfied vested interests will have a majority say in this matter. I need only remind the House that with other crafts, such as the building trade, there are separate organisations; we have the Master Builders’ Association and the B.I.U. but to say that the question of apprentices is a principal factor in the matter is not quite right—I have also heard that the main reason for wanting this equal representation is that the dentists will pay their pro rata share of expenses in the running of this board. I feel that when it comes to the employees, they should be masters of their own craft and why should the employers have the majority say? Unless this amendment is accepted the dentists will be able to fleece the public in charges for dentures, etc. in the future. I am satisfied that this Bill will not be in the best interests of the public, and unless the craftsmen, who are vitally concerned in this Bill, are able to look after their own destinies, and not controlled by the dentists, then I am satisfied this Bill should be withdrawn. I appeal to the Minister to accept the amendment. The Minister hoped, according to his own words, that this would be an agreed measure. The Minister is well aware that the technicians are not in agreement with the Bill. They have made their position very clear, and in view of the strong case the technicians made when they met the Minister, he should concede the point, because the mechanicians should have the say in their own destinies, and not the employers, the dentists.

I appeal to the Minister at this stage to move that progress be reported and ask leave to sit again. When we left at 5 o’clock yesterday I had no idea this Bill was coming on and I have not been able to formulate the amendments I should like to have done. May I appeal to the Minister?

May I add my voice to that appeal and may I suggest the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Dr. V. L. Shearer) occupies his proper seat?

I am more comfortable here.

We know the hon. member is very much in favour of this Bill and he is considered by many as the. Minister’s technical adviser, and therefore perhaps he should be where he is. We have again been hurried by the Minister, and I hope the Minister will tell us how we could frame our amendments from the meeting that was broken up on Friday and the casual meeting we have had yesterday.

I appreciate what my hon. friend says, but I cannot agree that hon. members have not by now had an adequate opportunity of studying the various aspects of the Bill. I myself devoted a whole day last week to meeting members and discussing all aspects of the Bill. We have had further discussions, and it seems to me no agreement was come to in regard to this clause. I have given no undertaking in regard to any amendment on this clause; my friend will bear me out in that. The Bill has been before the House a long time, and hon. members will now have to make up their minds on the exercise of their powers as legislators. It is for hon. members to make a decision. I cannot agree to the request.

I am rather at a loss to understand the attitude of the Minister in connection with this Bill and this objection to report progress, because it is only a matter of hours ago that discussion took place between the various sections that are interested, and I feel sure it is the feeling of every member of this House that some compromise should be arrived at and that the differences between dentists and the dental mechanicians should be thrashed out, and something brought forward which the House can accept and which the country will be prepared to accept. I have not the least doubt if the Minister will only agree to report progress and allow these people again to come together the House will be presented with a Bill we shall be likely to agree on. In this Bill we are affecting in a drastic manner the lives of a considerable number of people, the livelihood of a large number of people in South Africa. We are faced with petitions from all over the country because outside people are tinder the impression, rightly or wrongly, that this House will pass a Bill which will enable the dentists to charge whatever they like in the future, and there will be no such thing as a poor man being able to get his dentures at a reasonable figure. I hold no brief for either side. I hope some compromise will be arrived at and that the factions, the dentists and the dental surgeons, will be able to settle their differences and agree on the Bill that we should accept. If the Minister is going to say we are legislators, that we must pass this Bill and there is not going to be any further consultation, I submit that is not the right attitude. There is no public demand for this Bill. Where is the demand? You are merely taking steps, I repeat, to safeguard certain vested interests and to adopt a measure that will be detrimental to the whole of the people of the country. You will be taking away the livelihood of a large number of men in a way I maintain we are not justified in doing. I want to appeal to the Minister to let us allow these people to settle their differences amongst themselves. As the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Neate) mentioned, discussions took place up to 5 o’clock last night, so what opportunity have members had this morning to consult the Parliamentary draftsman with a view to preparing amendments? There is a tremendous feeling outside the House about this. They are already saying that the Government will prevent the poor working man from getting his dentures repaired cheaply. This profession today is quite different from what it was a few years ago. One could almost say that something like 80 per cent. of the adults in South Africa have dentures today, and a large number of them are very poor people and they are under the impression, rightly or wrongly, that the Government will prevent poor people from having cheap dentures or dentures repaired at reasonable prices. We are legislating for a section of the community, to protect their interests. I feel certain that if the Minister will just tell these people that they have to help him, that there must be compromise, and there must be give and take, but not from one section of the community only, and that the Minister would like the dentists also to realise that we are dealing with a difficult matter and cannot afford to take away the livelihood of a considerable number of people by this Bill, it will be better. We have to consider all the dental mechanicians in the army. We are taking their jobs away. I say again there is no necessity for rushing this Bill through Parliament now. I ask that we should agree to the suggestion of the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Neate) and potspone the matter, and tell the dentists and the mechanicians that it is their job to see that a Bill is before Parliament which can be accepted.

The hon. member who just sat down made one or two statements which should be corrected, because I do feel that when Parliament is dealing with a matter of rights, it is of the utmost importance that we shall not diverge from the real issues before the House. The hon. member suggested that I am rushing this Bill by proceeding with the Committee stage this morning. He says hon. members have had no opportunity to place amendments on the Order Paper. I would remind him that I have had an amendment on the Order Paper for over a fortnight. The hon. gentleman has apparently made no attempt to place on the Order Paper an amendment in regard to this clause. The discussions have been centring around another clause of the Bill, Section 16. I do not think therefore that the hon. member is justified in saying that I am rushing through with the Bill. I do not think he is justfied in giving the impression outside the House that there has been undue haste. If the hon. member requires time at the report stage to place amendments on the Order Paper I will give him that time, but I am not prepared to hold the Bill over for a fortnight or months if hon. members are not prepared to place their amendments on the Order Paper. The hon. gentleman has also suggested that he has linked up this allegation of undue haste with the suggestion that this Bill would deprive poor people of an alleged right they have at present to obtain cheap dentures. That statement of the case is not a fair and equitable description of this Bill. It is grossly misleading, and grossly inaccurate; it is likely to lead to ill-feeling outside if it is thought by the public that that statement is correct. It is not the intention of the Bill to take away from the poorer people the right to obtain cheap dentures.

This Bill has nothing to do with prices.

The poorer sections have their opportunities at present of being supplied with dentures and with dental attention, the dental profession, like the legal and the medical profession, does a great deal of pro deo work. What this Bill tries to do is to ensure that the legitimate mechanician is protected and that the profession of dentistry is also protected, and that things will not be done illegitimately, as we had recently when a mechanic making dentures, not for the poorer public, cheaply, but for other people, at £13, against the law, came before the court. The suggestion is that what is being done at present is in the interest of the poor people. We recently had a case in the Cape courts of a person charged with contravening the law. It appeared that this person illegitimately carried on the craft of a mechanician and the charge he made for a set of dentures was £12 10s., and the patient pleaded poverty. My hon. friend must not make this statement, which will give the public outside the completely fallacious idea of the purport of this Bill, which is designed to protect the dental profession, the dental mechanician and the public health.

I do not know why it is that the Dominion Party usually prove obstreperous on occasions like this, and I want to suggest that they are doing the House a lot of harm. I heard the hon. member for Musgrave (Mr. Acutt) saying it does the country harm and it does the House harm to raise stupid irrelevancies on this clause. The hon. Minister for Demobilisation is probably the busiest Minister in the House. We all know that he has several important Bills, Bills of a far reaching character, which he has to get through the House this Session, and it does seem to me that all the dentists and mechanicians in the country are not worth holding up the import measures we have before us. If the hon. member wishes to argue about Clause 16 and to move amendments, he still has plenty of time. He has apparently studied the Bill. If he has, he knows what amendments he wishes to move, and he can do it here in the House. He does not need to consult the Parliamentary draftsman. He has been in the House long enough to know how to draft an amendment, although I am quite sure that his amendments will be no more intelligible than his speeches. I do appeal to members to stop this obstruction and not to waste time in arguing. I cannot remember a Bill which applies to so small a number of people which has given the House so much trouble.’ If we were dealing with thousands of people I could possibly see the reason why certain members are determined to be obstreperous, but the numbers concerned here are very small indeed, and I want to point out the danger of what is happening here. There is no doubt in my mind that the House has been influenced by the flood of literature which has descended upon us from the various sections concerned with this Bill, and it seems to me that the House is losing some prestige. The House apparently does not seem to be able to make up its own mind and is allowing itself to be influenced, at a time when the Minister of Economic Development tells us there is a very serious paper shortage, by this continuous barrage of memoranda, statements and counter-statements, charges and counter-charges. Instead of looking at the Bill and making up our own minds, it seems to me that certain members believe that this barrage of paper descending upon us conveys the views of the real people of the country. I still have to hear anyone putting forward the point of view of the unfortunate individual, who is part of the general public and who has to buy his dentures. I am one myself, and I am quite prepared to say that there are certain dentists, just as there are certain doctors and lawyers who grossly overcharge the public. Every profession has its highlights who are in a position to overcharge the public. But that is beside the point, at the moment; just as we had some years ago a case when an attempt was made to introduce chain drug stores, so we now have the same thing. These men spent five years in being trained. I do not know whether the dentists today earn a reasonable living, if they are purely confined to attending to teeth. He may be able to earn a reasonable living, but eventually in future that will not be the case. The making of dentures is essentially part of the professional qualifications of the dentist, and economically it is an essential part of the method whereby he earns his living, and if we have to go to the dentist to have one or two teeth attended to he would not be able to make a living.

Confine yourself to the amendment of the clause.

I want to follow up the point with which I was dealing before being so rudely interrupted by the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Neate) who is obstructive in this House on every matter he can lay his hands upon. The point is that we have to depend on the qualifications of professional men. The same people who in this House plead for their dentures being made by mechanicians, would never dream of going to a mechanician to have their teeth extracted, and they expect that when they go to a dentist he will have the full professional qualifications and extract their teeth in a proper manner, and understand what is wrong with the teeth. Because of that I feel that the dentists are entitled to a measure of protection. We all know that there have been abuses. I am inclined to support the Bill because of the fact that it does hold out the probability of the dental mechanicians being put on a solid foundation. I believe that in the long run, if they are put on a solid foundation, which gives them a guarantee of employment and wages, they will be far better off than they are at the moment, when they are probably earning a dubious few pounds by adopting dubious methods which are against the law.

Here again we have a Bill where I cannot appreciate the necessity of putting it through. There are objections to the Bill on the part of the dental mechanicians and even on the part of the public, and I want to ask the Minister what necessity there is to put this Bill through at this stage. I want to ask him to refer it to a commission for investigation, so that a report can be submitted to us in connection with the objections to the Bill It seems to me that the dental mechanicians are able to give us very good sets of dentures much more cheaply than the dentists are prepared to do, and I cannot see why those people who can serve the public in this way should now be absolutely bound by the dentists. I do not want to say much in regard to this matter; I just want to ask the Minister to use his common sense and not to put this Bill through.

The Minister will remember that the member for Durban (Central) (Mr. Derbyshire) argued that this Bill would ensure that the prices charged by dentists would be increased., The member for Durban (Central) said that the Bill was directed against the people of this country, but the Minister denied it. The Minister also mentioned that there was a case in Cape Town, the particulars of which I have before me, in which a mechanic was fined £100 for making five sets of dentures.

Go on.

I was waiting until the sub-committee finished their meeting over there. Mr. Chairman, we know that the usual place for dentures ….

I regret that I cannot allow the hon. member to discuss that question. He must come back to the clause.

But you have allowed others to talk. The hon. member for Durban (Central) spoke on various sections of the Bill. What position am I in?

You are out of gear.

The hon. member may be under the impression that the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Neate) moved that I report progress, but he did not.

Well, I move—

The procedure of this House leaves me cold. Anyway, I want to say very definitely: Does the Minister think for a moment that the member who speaks about ….

The hon. member must confine himself to the motion to report progress.

The Minister can speak about it and that member over there, but I cannot. Anyway, I want to say that the Minister had better read up the case again, and he will find that he is quite wrong regarding what he stated in reply to the member here. He also stated—and this is where I want to report progress as you call it—that there have been no particulars in this House of the actual position concerning mechanicians and dentists. But a questionnaire was taken from the men concerned in this Bill and 11 questions were put. I will not give you all the questions and answers, but one is: “Are you in favour of the Dental Mechanicians Bill?” Four said yes, and 151 said no. This is the Bill which the Minister says is a good one. The other question is: “Do you approve of the aims of the Dental Technicians’ Association of South Africa?” 153 said yes, and one said no. I say definitely that this House had not had an opportunity to have the full particulars of this Bill, and because of that the Minister will be wise to postpone it.

I want to finally appeal to the Minister to give the House an opportunity to deal with the various clauses of this Bill. Admittedly the Bill has been before the House for some time and we had ample opportunity, but what we did not have ample opportunity was of knowing what would happen as a result of the round-table conference which took place between the Minister and certain members of Parliament. The Minister graciously agreed that I should arrange an interview for the Technicians’ Association, but unfortunately, for some unknown reason, having taken the initiative, I was excluded as a member of that deputation. I did not know what happened until I spoke to the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Mr. McLean) this morning, and he unfortunately could not give me much information. In view of the Minister’s willingness to arrange that interview, but having taken the initiative and been kept in the dark, I appeal to the Minister to give us the opportunity to know what is in his mind by way of a compromise as the result of the interview he had with all parties. That is the reason for my wasting the time of the House, if it can be called that. I cannot agree with the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. Bumside) that because only a few individuals are affected, we should not worry. Whether it is one million or one hundred, the principle is the same, and we should see that the rights of the people are protected.

May I just briefly reply to my hon. friend. He has raised a personal issue which I think should be disposed of at once. I was willing to meet members of various sides of the House, if they were prepared to meet me, together with representatives of the Dental Association, of the Technicians’ Association and also of the Mechanicians’ Association. It has rather been lost sight of, in the course of this debate, that there is also a Mechanicians’ Association representing something like 150 mechanicians.

They have 58 members.

Yes, but they claim that they have support from other people, bringing up the total support to 150. They formally met me and certain members of the House last week, and various points of view were put to me. I may place this on record, that the members of the Mechanicians’ Association stand by the attitude they have taken up since 1932, that the Bill was presented to the Public Health Department on behalf of the mechanicians throughout South Africa in which the repair clause had been eliminated. They stand by that and they were represented at the conference. This conference might be likened to an informal Select Committee. I invited members of Parliament from all sides of the House. It was left, as regards members on this side of the House, for the choice to be made in the normal way, through the whips. If my hon. friend was omitted, I am sorry, but obviously the Whips cannot on every occasion include everyone who would like to be on a Select Committee. My hon. friend is in the same position in which he may have been if a Select Committee had been appointed, and the number of members from this side of the House had been limited to four. I am sorry he was under a misconception in regard to the matter. There is no question of his being singled out. The idea was that there should be members at that informal conference who had raised objections to aspects of the Bill in the House, in order that the matter might be thrashed out. The member for Port Elizabeth (Mr. McLean) was there.

Only for half an hour.

The hon. member was at liberty to be there for as long as he liked, and he had every opportunity.

No I did not.

I do not think there was any idea of leaving him out of the discussion. He has been free to discuss the matter with me at any time, and he has done so.

I just want to express my appreciation of the attitude of the Minister in dealing with this question of the Dental Mechanicians Bill. I was one of those who crossed the floor of the House in connection with the motion for the second reading, considering it was in the interest of all concerned that a method of easy interrogation should be arrived at and means provided for it before the second reading had been passed. However, I think it was as the result of the 21 members who crossed the floor that the Minister considered it desirable in the first place to delay the Committee stage of the Bill and in the second place to afford an opportunity for the interested parties to convey to him and to the House their opinion on this particular question. Now, I am sorry and disappointed to find that it was not found practicable to place on the Order Paper the amendments which the Minister deemed desirable to put in the Committee stage. That, I presume, in view of the necessity of getting on with the business was not done because the Minister was unable to do so in the time available. I think it would have assisted the discussion in the House if that had been practicable. The Minister has indicated that members will have a further opportunity of dealing with such amendments as he might consider advisable to bring forward at the report stage of the Bill. The member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hopf) will then be able to ascertain what result has flowed from the conference held last Friday. The Minister can now only deal with the particular clause under discussion. I do want to take the point which the Minister has raised in regard to the position of the mechanicians and technicians. They are really the same people, only they are divided. Some people belong to the old society of mechanicians, and the others to the new society of technicians.

Order. The hon. member must come back to the motion that I do now report progress. I cannot allow the hon. member to go into any other matter.

I should say this, that the Committee should bear in mind that the mechanicians themselves have a membership of 58, actually registered, and a further number who are expressing sympathy with the Bill, totalling in all 114 according to my figures, as compared with a membership of 155, actually registered with the technicians. In regard to members, of course, technicians have by far the larger membership. It seems to me that the discussion has ranged far beyond the motion, but I should like to reply to one aspect of the Minister’s statement, and that is in reference to the membership of the Mechanicians’ Society; I understand it is 114.

May I say that the dental mechanicians have also the support of the Trades and Labour Council. I have a telegram from the Secretary of the Trades and Labour Council, Durban, stating that in opposing the Dental Mechanicians Bill the trade unions consider that a monopoly by the dentists would be definitely against the public interest. That is added support to which the dental mechanicians may lay claim. I have also another wire ….

I am sorry but I must ask the hon. member to come back to the motion before the Committee.

The motion is that the House report progress, and I would like to move that the Committee report progress and ask leave to sit again.

The hon. member cannot do that. The motion by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. McLean) is that the Committee report progress.

That puts us out of court altogether; I do not want to kill the Bill. May I move that we report progress and ask leave to sit again?

No, the hon. member cannot do that.

May I alter the resolution?

No, the hon. member may not do so. [Interruptions.] Order, order. Does the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) wish to rise to a point of order?

Yes.

Does the hon. member wish to withdraw his motion?

Yes.

The hon. member wishes to withdraw his motion that I do report progress. Is there any objection?

Yes.

May I remind the hon. Minister that as he remarked, we are legislators, and ill-considered legislation is the one thing I feel we should avoid. I want to appeal to the Minister to give us a little time to formulate the amendments which I consider necessary, and for that reason I wish you to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

That has been moved already.

I am again appealing to the Minister to give us time to formulate our amendments to the various clauses. I moved an amendment to Clause 3 hoping that it would receive the consideration of the House, and after that that the Minister himself would move suitably. But it seems to me I am now in a dilemma; I cannot vote for the motion of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) for the simple reason that to do so would kill the Bill, and the dental mechanicians do not want to kill the Bill. They want the Bill, they want control, and they also want to be placed in the same ethical category as the dental surgeons, with certain concessions; they do not want to advertise, they want to put a stop to the practices that are not according to law and to do everything possible compatible with their status as dental mechanicians and with the privileges that the law at present allows them. I would again remind the Minister we are legislators and we do not want to indulge in piecemeal and hasty legislation. If the Minister would only give us a couple of days to formulate our amendments and place them on the Order Paper, I feel he would be doing the right thing. He stated there would be another opportunity at the report stage, but that is not the same thing, because the Committee Stage is the proper stage at which to consider the amendments. I feel that the Minister would be well advised to give that point his consideration.

I would like to support the motion to report progress on this Bill. I had an opportunity of meeting some of the technicians a fortnight ago, when they hurried to Cape Town after the passing of the second reading of this Bill. The second reading came as a great surprise to them, particularly in view of the correspondence they had with the Minister relative to the Bill and which they placed before the members who were interested on that occasion. The correspondence quite clearly shows this is a Bill which represents a broken promise on the part of the Minister. The statements embodied in the letters to the Dental Technicians’ Society say as clearly and specifically as possible there was no intention on the part of the Minister to introduce a Bill of a nature we are now discussing unless it was an agreed measure. It is clear to the House this is not an agreed measure. Not only is it not an agreed measure but there is considerable opposition to the Bill; and not only is there considerable opposition to the Bill but a particularly interested party, the dental technicians, should have every right to be heard and they should have every freedom to place then case properly before the House; and they have been denied that opportunity. When they saw some of the members they presented to us a printer’s draft of a circular which they proposed to circulate to all members; it was in rough proof form, they had not had the opportunity to have it printed and circulated to members of the House so that members could understand their standpoint. They have a right to be heard. Insufficient time has elapsed to permit them to suitably prepare their case and place it before hon. members. There can be no doubt that the dental technicians were justified in feeling secure that their rights were being protected in view of the promise contained in the letters they had from the Minister, which clearly stated there was no intention on his part to introduce the Bill unless it was an agreed measure. It is not an agreed measurê, and the point I desire to make and which I ask the House to appreciate is that the dental technicians have certain rights. They have a full and complete right to be able to state their case to members before we pass legislation which will in effect deprive them of the rights they at present enjoy. I ask the House not to proceed with the Bill until an ample and proper opportunity has been given to them to make clear to members the principles they desire embodied in this Bill. In the interim meetings have been held, and a meeting was held on Friday last, though no satisfactory conclusion was arrived at. But the members of the House whom the dental technicians regard as their spokesmen have not had an opportunity to gain an understanding of the amendments they want to this Bill, and until those members who are acting as spokesmen for the dental technicians have an opportunity of learning from them in which direction they wish to have the Bill amended, we should not proceed with it.

The hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. Burnside), as usual, rose this morning to criticise the Dominion Party once again. The House knows by now the qualities of this hon. member, who likes to get up to address the House in a way the House has got accustomed to for so many years, hoping to entertain members a little, and when he has spoken for 40 minutes neither he himself not the House knows what he has been talking about. We have got so accustomed to the hon. member for Fordsburg that I do not think that anyone today treats him with respect.

Order, order. The hon. member must come back to the motion.

I wish to come back to the motion now. But I think I am justified in making an attempt to defend myself from someone who accuses the Dominion Party of attempting to wreck this Bill. It is news to the House and it will be news to the country that certain sections of the Labour Party care nothing for the workers. That has been demonstrated in this House more and more every day. The capitalist class have certainly nothing on these Labour members, certainly not on the hon. member for Fordsburg.

Order, order. I cannot allow the hon. member to proceed on these lines, he must come back to the motion.

The hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Neate) has read out a telegram stating that the Trades and Labour Council in Durban fully support the dental mechanicians against the Bill.

The Trades and Labour Council are in favour of the Municipal Banking Bill, and that did not make any difference.

We are not discussing that now. The Bill was not warranted, otherwise the House would have passed it. Let me come back to the Trades and Labour Council. They do not want this Bill. They are representing the workers, and I ask and plead with the Minister to agree to report progress and ask leave to sit again to enable the whole of the Trades and Labour Council of South Africa to have their representations made known to Parliament. Then we shall be able to judge whether the hon. member for Fordsburg, who is one of the men who always claims to represent the underdog and the workers, or the Trades and Labour Concil is the party entitled to speak on behalf of the workers of South Africa, as they are going to be affected by this Bill. The hon. Minister stated I was giving a wrong impression to the country. When I got up and asked for the adjournment of the debate for us to report progress, I mentioned to the Minister it was to enable us, as it were, to help the Government, as an impression is being created in the country that they no longer care a rap for the workers. That impression is already abroad, and if we pass this Bill in its present form what are the people outside going to say? They will say that we do not mind what the dental surgeons charge the public, that the Government are not concerned with that, that they are only concerned with looking after the vested interests of the dental surgeons. That is my chief reason for asking the Minister to report progress and ask for leave to sit again. The Bill as it stands at present does not reflect favourably on the House; it can give no other impression to the country but that we are not prepared to look after the welfare of a section of the workers. I hold no brief for that section. I do not care two hoots about one section or the other, but I am concerned that we should not pass a Bill that will cast a reflection on the Government or the country. It is a case of my trying to save the Government’s face; they have met with so much criticism in regard to legislation and control boards that the country is beginning to get anxious about this Government, and when we say we are only prepared to defend the interests of one particular section and that—as the hon. member for Fordsburg would say—the capitalist section, the dental surgeons, what impression can the public be expected to gain? I say again it is the Minitser who ought to tell these sections they must get together again and try to settle their differences. We realise there is something wrong with the dental profession. We have had complaints that the dental mechanics are taking away the business of the dentists. That is the whole crux of the Bill. Rightly or wrongly, a section of workers in the dental profession have been giving some service to the community and they must be very efficient otherwise people would not go to them a second time. The impression outside is that they are serving a useful purpose in the community. The Government have made up their minds the dental profession wants some adjustment, but my point is that we should not have this friction between the two sections that will undoubtedly exist if this Bill is steam-rollered through the House, because the dental mechanicians will be under a grievance and we will not be able to blame them. Hon. members should throw the responsibility on the dental surgeons and the dental mechanicians. We are only concerned with the community in general, with the people of South Africa as a whole and not with a particular section only. We should give them a week or two weeks if necessary to smooth out their differences. What is the haste for a Bill of this nature? It is not going to benefit the community one iota. The Minister has a number of Bills stacked up. We want Bills dealing with demobilisation, with returned soldiers, and with a hundred and one other things, and instead of tackling them we are wasting our time on a Dental Mechanicians Bill that no one really wants.

I am not going to deal with the merits of the Bill, but I want to point out that the form in which this motion has been moved represents a motion to kill this Bill. There is a good deal of confusion on the point. The motion to report progress is one of the recognised methods of killing a Bill in the Committee stage, and I do not think there is anyone who wants to kill the Bill.

May I have the opportunity now, after hearing the opinion of older members, to ask whether you will allow me to amend my amendment.

No, the hon. member cannot do that.

Why not?

Order, order!

I have just had a telegram from the mechanicians in Durban reading—

It is for us to formulate amendments which will meet the case, and it is for that purpose I have asked the Minister to give us time. I feel we are in a dilemma. I cannot vote for the motion to report progress because I do not want to kill the Bill.

Why do you go on with it?

We want control, but the Bill needs amendment.

Have you ever killed anything else?

Not even you. I think we should be given a little opportunity to go into this matter, and I hope a way out will be found without killing the Bill.

Some play has been made of the fact that the local Committee of the Trades and Labour Council of Durban have passed a resolution indicating their opposition to the Bill. They are supporting the Dental Technicians Society. It is important we should add the names of other important organisations which are equally opposed to the passage of the Bill in its present form. From time to time members have had telegrams that such and such an organisation is in favour of the Bill. I have had quite a few and no doubt other members have had telegrams from individual dental technicians from various parts of the country, indicating their support of the Bill. I know the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Dr. V. L. Shearer) is flourishing telegrams indicating the dental mechanicians, in the majority, are in favour of the Bill, and in spite of the fact it is known and probably accepted by most members of this House that the dental technicians represent the greater number of the dental mechanics compared with the other association which has been in existence, but lying dormant, for a considerable number of years, and regarding which there has been some question whether it has actually been reconstituted or resuscitated in any form whatever. The Dental Technicians Association was formed about sixteen months ago, but they do not pretend otherwise. The other association pretends it has been active for a number of years, but there is ample evidence to show it is an organisation which has almost been defunct and certainly completely dormant. In Durban alone where some of the dental mechanics have had an opportunity since the passing of the second reading of the Bill to influence other public organisations, the Housewives League has expressed itself in favour of the mechanics, and this is an organisation which mustered 5,000 people in the City Hall in Durban at a protest meeting in connection with another aspect of Government policy. They might not be able to muster 5,000 to protest against the Dental Mechanicians Bill; but it is nevertheless a body the House must pay some regard to.

Are you out to kill the Bill?

I am not prepared to accept the Bill in its present form.

May I rise to a point of order?

What is the point of order?

May I ask your interpretation of Paragraph 122 of the Standing Orders, where it says that no member who has a pecuniary interest in the matter under discussion shall take part in it? Can you stop the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Dr. V. L. Shearer) talking now?

Order, order!

Among the statements that have been made is one from the hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. van Nierop) who said the period of 12 months had been allowed to consider the Bill. That is a completely erroneous statement. This Bill has not been up for the consideration of interested parties, let alone the general public, or let alone the House, for 12 months. Then the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) made an interjection asking whether I was prepared to kill the Bill. For may part the Bill in its present form should be killed, as it does not aim at the control of the industry in the proper way. I claim there is a better method of establishing control of the dental profession, and everybody recognises there is need for control. Everybody recognises that the industry is chaotic. Everybody knows that from time to time dental mechanics appear in the courts of the country charged with illegal practices in connection with the making of dentures. That illegal practice ought to be stopped, and I believe it can be stopped. But I do not think this Bill in any way approaches the question as it should be approached. Machinery could be devised for the suitable control of the dental industry, not as provided by the Bill in its present form which will debar dental mechanics from the right they have had in the past, and which they should continue to enjoy in the future: the right to sell their skill in a free manner. The House should recognise that people interested in this Bill have not had an opportunity of expressing their views. I charge the Minister with the responsibility becausé the Minister definitely and explicitly in letter form conveyed to the Dental Technicians’ Society a statement that he would not be prepared to put before the House a Bill in the nature of the present Bill unless it was an agreed measure, and I want the Minister to tell us whether in his opinion this Bill at the present moment constitutes an agreed measure, and if it is not an agreed measure I want the Minister to admit to the House he has broken his promise to the Dental Technicians’ Society.

I move—

Agreed to.

Motion that the Chairman report progress put and negatived.

I just want to say a word or two in reply to the very heated speech made by the member for Umbilo (Mr. Wanless). I want to put to the member for Umbilo the analogous position of an industrial council as it affects other industries. The member for Umbilo puts the position of the dental technicians as against that of the dentists. Let me draw a parallel, for example, in the engineering industry.

Order. I cannot allow a discussion on that subject now. I must confine the discussion to Clause 3 and the amendment of the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Neate).

Then let me move the motion in the proper way. I move—

The hon. member is entitled to move that.

I wish to move that. I think it is a point which the House has entirely overlooked. In the Union we have a system of industrial legislation. That industrial legislation allows bodies, industrial councils, to make provisions which are akin to the provisions made in this Bill, and if we take the position of the engineering industry, we find that that industry, in its industrial council award, lays down clearly defined duties for various individuals. In other words, an operator is not permitted under the Industrial Council Agreement to do work which is proper for a skilled artisan to perform. Similarly in the building industry. The hon. member would be the last to suggest, and the first to oppose, any suggestion that a semi-skilled labourer in the building industry should do the Work of a skilled bricklayer, and he would also object if the skilled bricklayer worked as a plasterer.

Of course I would.

Then why should he object to the skilled mechanicians working as dentists?

He can sell his labour where he likes.

I can remember years ago a case in the printing industry where a man was forced to leave a printer where he worked for high wages, and was sent back to his original employment. A skilled man is not entitled to choose where he can work. But that is not the objection of the technicians so far as I know. The objection of the technicians is that they feel that certain rights are theirs which give rise to abuse, and that is now being taken away. That is the chief objection of the technicians. Why this should be considered to be different from any other industrial agreement I do not know. The dentist has to go to a university. He is a professional man and guarantees to the public a certain standard of skill, and it is understood that a particular part of the job is what he has to do. On the other hand, some dental mechanics have had very little training. They have picked up the job, more or less. This Bill makes provision that this cannot happen in future. I am trying to render the House a service by bringing members back to a clear view of the matter. Far too much noise is being made about the Bill. Personally I do not care whether it passes or not. If I were the Minister I would back the Bill up. One hon. member has told the House that they did not have time to consider it. This Bill has been before the House for two years. If I remember correctly it was introduced last Session, so that they have had the whole of the recess and the whole of this Session to come to an agreement, and we find that there are mechanicians who want this Bill. There is another class who fight these technicians, and when they appeared before a committee meeting, they claimed to be permitted to do a certain measure of work which cannot be considered to be other than dentists’ work. Under no circumstances can they prove that it was work which they could claim as mechanicians. It appears to me that an effort is being made by certain interests to take away portion of the work which is properly, properly not for making money, but properly for the protection of the public, the work of the dentists. I hope the House will not listen to the claptrap of the hon. member for Durban (Central) (Mr. Derbyshire). I am sorry that my hon. friend the member for Umbilo finds himself in such invidious company. The Trades and Labour Council is anathema to the hon. member for Durban (Central), but when it suits his purpose and that of the Dominion Party, in its foraging trips in this House, the member for Durban (Central) uses it.

I move—

Agreed to.

Motion that the Chairman report progress and ask leave to sit again, put and negatived.

I feel that this opportunity should not be lost again to appeal to the Minister to get down to the fact that we who take an interest in this Bill have not had the time to formulate our amendments. It is all very well to say that we had a discussion on Friday. It is true that we had an informal discussion last night, but this Bill was 12th on the Order Paper yesterday, and today it is second. No one anticipated that the Bill would come before the House today, and although I tried to fix up some amendments this morning, I only got as far as Clause 4.

Order order! The hon. member must confine himself to the clause and the amendment which he has moved.

Well, coming back to my amendment, I have handed it in. I have moved in Clause 3 ….

Yes, the hon. member has already moved it.

You are just trying to obstruct the Bill.

My object in doing so was to see that in this Bill the mechanicians should have proper voting power on the board. I do not want to go in for useless repetition.

Hear, hear.

But I do feel that the Minister should give us a lead and give us a little opportunity, even if it is only until tomorrow morning, to formulate amendments to the latter clauses of the Bill, which I have not had an opportunity to do.

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

I move—

Agreed to.

Question put: That the word “one” in line 40, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the Clause, and a division was called.

May I ask a question, Mr. Chairman? I want to know your interpretation of Standing Order No. 122. It says—

A member shall be deemed to have a pecuniary interest in any contract or bargain from which any pecuniary interest or benefit is or may be derived by him or by any partnership of which he is a member or by any company of which he is a director or under which he holds any office or employment.

I want to know, Mr. Chairman, whether the three dentists voting on that side of the House have any right to exercise their votes?

My ruling is they are not debarred from voting.

May I have your reason for them not being debarred from voting?

Order, order!

I have been told by a very old member of this House that I am entitled to an answer to my previous question.

Order!

As fewer than 10 members (viz.: Messrs. Christopher, Hopf, McLean, Molteno, Neate and Wanless) voted against the Question, the Chairman declared it affirmed and the first and second amendments proposed by Mr. Neate dropped.

Third amendment proposed by Mr. Neate put and negatived.

Question put: That the word “three” in line 50, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the clause and a division was called.

As fewer than 10 members (viz.: Messi’s. Christopher, Hopf, Marwick, McLean, Molteno, Neate and Wanless) voted against the Question, the Chairman declared it affirmed and the remaining amendment proposed by Mr. Neate dropped.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

On Clause 4,

I move—

The reason for this is that if it is left as it is and a member dies or vacates his seat, either a dental surgeon may take the place of a mechanician, or vice versa. The amendment is only to clear up that ambiguity.

It seems to me prima facie that there is no need for this amendment because the governing clause is Section (3) of the Bill, which provides that the membership shall consist of certain persons. There must be two dental mechanicians, three appointed by the Dental Association, and one appointed by the Dental Mechanicians other than an employee of a dentist or a dental mechanician. If, upon a vacancy having occurred, someone is appointed who does not conform to the requirements of Section (3), it seems to me that the terms of the Bill will not be carried out. In those circumstances it seems to me that the amendment is superfluous. I appreciate the hon. member’s point, however, and if he will allow me to go into the matter until the report stage, I shall consult the law advisers. If they advise me that the amendment is essential to ensure the point which has been raised, I will accept it, but at this stage, I think it is superfluous and I do not wish to accept it now.

May I ask the Minister also to consider the deletion of the words “appointment for” in line 10. It seems to me the appropriate stage to deal with the principle of election rather than nomination. One can recognise the necessity, in the first instance, of having to appoint persons to the board in terms of this Bill, but appointing persons to a Board of this nature it is not a desirable feature, and it should be looked upon as an expediency, and at the earliest possible moment, when this Bill begins to operate, we should seek to put elected rather than nominated persons on the board. It might require a minimum time before such election could reasonably be possible, but say after a period of six months the interested parties, in terms of this Bill, should have become so organised as to make it possible for them to have members who are elected rather than nominated or appointed to serve on the board. It has been argued by those protagonists of this Bill that the board does, in effect, constitute an industrial council, and has been likened by some of the members of this House to an industrial council. I submit that this Bill in no way is anything like an industrial council, where members are elected by the organisations which they represent. While the principle of appointment operates, that in itself is sufficient to take away any similarity there might be between the Board and an industrial council, and as soon as possible the Minister should seek to achieve the object that members should be elected and not nominated.

I can see the point made by the hon. member. His wishes are provided for in Section (3) of the Bill where it is clearly laid down that appointments will be made for a period of three years. In the first instance certain appointments are made by the Minister, and after the three year period elections take place.

I bore in mind that point. That is a necessity which we can recognise at the commencement of the operation of the Bill. One must fix a certain period, but I submit that if any vacancies do come about through any cause whatever, of a member of the board, within the period of six months, it should be possible for the interested parties to become so organised as to enable them to elect members for the vacancies, and with the object of establishing that principle at the earliest possible moment, I submit that in this clause, within the period of the first six months after the Bill becomes operative, that is the suitable moment at which the principle of election should be established.

Having the assurance of the Minister I want to withdraw my amendment.

With leave of the Committee, the amendment was withdrawn.

On Clause 8,

This particular board consists of seven members and its meetings are held twice a year. I do not see any need for the appointment of the committee, and I would move—

There is no necessity for an executive committee.

The provisions of this clause are analogous to those contained in Section 7 of the Medical, Dental and Pharmacy Act, and those contained in Section 9 of the Nursing Act, No. 49 of 1944. It is usual to make provision in a constitution of this sort for the setting up of committees and executive committees. In so far as the Dental, Medical and Pharmacy Act is concerned, hon. members will realise that the members of the dental profession are in a minority on that council, and yet these committees are formed and operate satisfactorily. There is a safeguard in this clause, which provides that no committee which may be set up in terms of the section will have the right to strike off the register of dental mechanicians any persons without the sanction of the committee. In those circumstances it seems to me that there are adequate safeguards in this section for the mechanics, and there appears to be no good reason to depart from the normal practice and procedure in these matters.

The relationship between the medical men in the country and the dentists is not on all fours with the relationship which will be set up between the dental surgeons and the mechanicians. In the first case you have two separate groups of professional men working on their own and independent the one from the other. In the case we are setting up here the dental mechanician becomes the servant of the dental surgeon, and they are not dentists at all. I can conceive of a position arising where the executive committee, taking action, will take action against the possible wishes of the board as a whole, and in those peculiar circumstances I feel that the executive committee is not a good thing either for the dentists or the mechanicians. I press my amendment.

The Minister, in reply to this amendment, said quite rightly that it is usual, when setting up the constitution of an association or council to make provision for the appointment of an executive committee. We know that is so in the ordinary case, like a club constitution, where there is no statutory basis. But it is an entirely different matter here. The board as appointed under Section 3 is in itself a kind of executive. It performs executive functions on behalf of two professions, and there are only seven members on it, as the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Neate) said. It is now proposed in this clause to allow a board of seven, four of whom will form a quorum to delegate functions to a still smaller body. It is only necessary for four to be present to transact the business of this council. Yet Clause 8 asks the House to say that the four should be able to shift their responsibilities on to a committee of one or two persons. That strikes me, with all respect to the Minister’s argument, as being farcial. The only reason the Minister gave for the machinery proposed in this clause is that it is the usual thing. But this is an entirely different matter. Admittedly, as the Minister said, certain very important functions cannot be delegated to the proposed executive or to any other committee, but that only applies to the particular functions mentioned in the clause. It seems to me that where there is a council of seven, with a quorum of four, three is no necessity to delegate executive powers to a committee. My point does not apply to other committees. The board can appoint other committees for ad hoc purposes, where one or two members investigate specific matters. But the executive committee implies a standing committee, with executive functions, and it seems to me that these seven members of the board, if they are going to take their statutory functions seriously, should be under an obligation to come together and do their work, and not be permitted to delegate their ordinary daily or monthly functions to a smaller board of their members. The obligation should be on them to meet regularly. I hope the Minister will accept that amendment.

The Minister gave his whole case away by his reply to the member for South Coast (Mr. Neate). He said that the Medical, Dental and Pharmacy Act had the effect that dentists were in the minority in that association. Because they are in the minority there and evidently could not get their desires, they want to be quite sure that they attain their wishes in the dental committee, where they provided to have a majority. They are in the majority on this committee, and, strange to say, four out of the seven constitutes a quorum.

But they are not in the majority.

Irrespective of what the Minister may say, Clause 3 is thoroughly loaded against the technicians. They are now in the position of wanting an executive committee. I do not know of any other body which has ever suggested that a commitee of seven should have an executive committee. Do not forget that the full committee may only meet twice a year. But the point is that it is quite simple for this executive committee, this board, which is loaded, to have an executive committee of three and those three can rule the board. I suggest that the Minister, when he has heard what has been said, will withdraw this section and not form an executive committee.

I do not see that the explanation of the member for Cape Western (Mr. Molteno) helps at all, because if there are seven and four makes a quorum that is no argument for not having an executive committee. Surely every statutory body should have the right to appoint an executive, because it is unnecessary for the whole board to deal with matters of routine. It is impracticable to call on them all to meet to deal with a simple routine matter. It is a matter of giving notice and calling all seven together for minor routine matters, and I do not think it is practicable or that that explanation holds water.

I think the hon. members who raised this have missed the reason for a committee such as this. You must remember that these seven members may live all over South Africa, and as one hon. member pointed out there are occasions when certain work must be done, and that without delay, not matters of interest to anyone, but things required for the smooth working of the office. It might be a matter of putting a name on the register. That would only require a formal meeting.

A very dangerous one.

No. Why? The requirements having been completed with such, an application must be proceeded with. If it complies with the regulations, the applicant must come on the roll.

No.

But failing a meeting of the executive committee the formality of the application would not be completed. It is purely formal, but you would have to call all seven together. They may be resident in various parts of the country. The expenses would be high. It might cost £150 to have a meeting on a very formal thing. Yet you cannot delegate that to a subcommittee. The sub-committees which will be appointed under another section will be given specific duties. The executive committee will have their own duties and no matter what the executive committee does it will have to be subject to approval by the general council.

Which is loaded.

That is another point. The point is that the executive committee’s actions must be approved of by the full council later, and therefore final control is still in the hands of the council. If the Minister gives way to the demand for this he will only lead this council to incur expenses which could easily have been saved.

The last speaker seems to have missed the meaning of the whole clause. I say that deliberately.

You are the only one who is in step.

The, position will be that the board may appoint such committees as may be expedient. There is no reason why the board should not appoint a couple of its members to deal with such matters as have been raised by the last speaker. Moreover he says that the executive committee will have to have its actions approved of by the board. As a matter of fact Section 8 says—

But that deals only with the case where there is a penalty. The executive committee which it is sought to set up here actually has to have its actions approved of by the board where there is a penalty and in no other matters. That is not provided for. I think that an executive committee for a board of seven is superfluous.

After all this talk I might as well say something too. I do not know whether the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Neate) read the section, because the section provides that the decisions of the executive committee, as regard to any penalties will not be carried out until such time as that decision has been agreed to. But that is not what the hon. member argues. He argues that it is only in the case of penalties that the decisions must be approved by the board. I do not know whether the hon. member has ever been a member of any kind of constituted body. Surely he knows that that is nonsense and that the decisions of any executive committee must eventually be ratified by a meeting of the full body, and as the hon. member for South Coast has pointed out there is no kind of organisation which will work adequately if there is no executive committee. The hon. member for Cape Western (Mr. Molteno) was arguing the case against himself, because he kept referring to the quorum of four and he seemed to suggest that it was only necessary to call four people together. So it is far better to have an executive, but why all this fuss and trouble? The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. McLean) was quite satisfied that the board has already killed the Bill, that the Bill is dead, and that dentists are running about with horns and pitchforks. If seven members are bad surely three cannot be much worse. These hon. members are satisfied that the Bill is dead, and that this is all a deep-laid scheme by the Minister of Welfare and the three dentists plus the representative of the capitalist party from Fordsburg, to hold the country up to ransom and to deprive these people of their livelihood. If that is so why worry whether it is done by three people or seven people? I am satisfied that the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Neate) would not be a member of any organisation which did not provide for an executive committee. He has reached the stage of mental development, for some years he has been elected to this House, when one presumes he knows something about the constitution of public bodies.

The Dominion Party has not an executive committee.

It has an executive of one, and it goes a long way, even to the extent of imposing Senators and members of Parliament on Natal.

I do deprecate the personalities indulged in by the previous speaker; there was no necessity at all for them. The hon. member stated that if I had been a member of a body of any kind I would have seen the necessity for an executive committee. I put it to the House that where there is a local authority there is no executive committee. The City Council of Johannesburg has no executive committee.

Has it not?

Have you ever heard of Mr. Fotheringham?

There is no executive committee of the City Councils of Durban and Cape Town. No small local authority has any executive, but they do appoint certain committees for the discharge of certain functions so that there in any case you have a precedent for the exclusion of an executive committee. If this board consists only of seven members and has power to appoint such committees as it may deem necessary, I think there is no need for an executive.

The logic of the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. Burnside) is rather weak. He tries in his own inimitable way to forget that in the first instance the committee from which the executive is to be appointed is loaded. Nobody can forget that who understands the position of that committee. Having forgotten that he proceeds, in an illogical way, to say what is the difference if they do this, that and the next thing? It is easy for this committee of seven to appoint an executive committee of three, and according to the constitution the committee can be comprised wholly of dentists, and these three men can give a decision. Do not forget, either, they will come to a decision, and when they come to the committee of seven there will be one of their colleagues who will vote for them, and their resolutions will be carried. Do not forget that the full committee need only meet twice a year. This of course is another method the dentists are employing to crush the artisan. To talk about expense, as the other hon. members did, is too funny, too ridiculous for words. I shall tell you why. It ’has been stated and it is true that the dentists have collected by subscription, between £7,000 and £8,000 to get this Bill through this House.

How much do you think the hon. member has got?

That is what I want to know; who is getting it in this House?

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, is the hon. member entitled to point at me when he makes a suggestion of that sort?

Order, order! The hon. member must withdraw that allegation.

I withdraw, but you must understand, Mr. Chairman, that the spoken word can never be recalled. But I still withdraw.

Order, order. The hon. member must not trifle with the Chair.

I am not trifling with you; it is the last thing I would think of. I am too much in earnest to trifle with anybody. If you think I intend to trifle when discussing this Bill I am very sorry. I am in deadly earnest in condemning this Bill because it is going to crush the poor people of the country. Because I am in deadly earnest I feel certain if this clause goes through not only will the dentists have unlimited power over the craftsmen in this particular profession, but what is more they will practically make slaves of men in this country who can be considered as reasonable and competent craftsmen. I say definitely any attempt to do what the dentists are trying to do in this clause and the other clauses of the Bill is definitely a ramp.

I would like to ask the Minister to accept the amendment of the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Neate) because we are here defending the rights of minorities, and as this Committee is already loaded and the council is loaded, what protection are we going to have? The hon. member for Fordsburg states that the Dominion Party has taken up the cudgels for a cause he ought to be pleading in this House. The hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) was quite right when he exclaimed! What has happened to the Labour Party. It looks as if they have no further interests in the rights of minorities or the rights of the underdog, though they have been telling the people that that has been their mission during the last 30 years. Instead of trying to win some rights for people whose position will be jeopardised under this Bill, we find them hand in hand with this horrible capitalist class. The hon. member for Fordsburg has asked what difference does it all make if the Bill is so bad? If according to some of us there is no justification for the Bill, why worry who happens to be on the board or the committee or anything else? What a statement to make in this House. Then he has been crticising the members of the Dominion Party. This is not a Party matter. Whenever we make a stand for the class of people who are apparently now not otherwise represented in this House—the Labour Party having finished with them—the hon. member for Fordsburg says that the Dominion Party is endeavouring to wreck this or that. That is his cry whenever a stand is being made in the interests of the people he himself ought to be representing. The hon. member for South Rand (Mr. Christie) said that without this executive it would be necessary to call the board together and you would have to have seven members, and look at the expense. That is only one side of the question. Supposing this committee has to expel a person, supposing it has to bring about a prosecution. It is all very well to say that the decision has to be ratified by the council, but when you have an executive committee you select a responsible body of members, and in nine cases out of ten the board will uphold the decision of the committee. I fail to see why the hon. Minister cannot accept the amendment by the hon. member for South Coast. As the hon. member for Fordsburg stated, in his usual manner, it makes no difference; so why does not the Minister accept it? Everything is loaded against the mechanicians, and in this instance it would help if that executive committee was not brought into being. I ask again what harm can there be in this? Is it going to prevent the smooth working of the board? I maintain it will not make a scrap of difference if you withdraw the executive. As the hon. member for Fordsburg says, you have in these bodies a general purposes committee and other committees, and there is nothing to prevent the board forming a hundred committees. I hope the Minister will extend something at least to the dental mechanicians. At present this Bill does no more than protect the interests of the dental surgeons. Are we only concerned with the dental surgeons, with then vested interests? The hon. Minister should allow these two factions to come together again and come to an understanding.

Factions?

Yes, factions. They are fighting today and the dental surgeons are hoping to be placed in the same sheltered position as the medical fraternity; that is why all the doctors are supporting this Bill —vested interests again.

If you put them together they might fracture each other’s jaws.

One never knows. If the hon. Minister has had the experience I have had with dental surgeons he would be more sympathetic to the dental mechanicians. The dental surgeons have a lot to learn, and probably they will learn it from the dental mechanicians. That is all by the way. I say there is no necessity for us to argue on these matters. If the two sides meet in conference I am perfectly certain some agreement will be arrived at between them. I hope the Minister will accept the amendment by the hon. member for South Coast. So far in this debate no argument has been put up for the retention of this committee.

Although I am satisfied that we are flogging a dëad horse I support this amendment. The hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. Burnside) has told us very clearly that the Bill is dead against the technicians, the main board is loaded, and so forth; and that is an absolute fact. So what difference does it make, if that being the position, the board has to appoint the executive committee? Is there any object in proposing some slight amendment in order that the majority of the main board will make sure that the executive will not be allowed to act to the detriment of the technicians. I appreciate that an executive committee is necessary, and usually it is the chairman, vice-chairman and secretary. But if one had such an executive committee the working class, the technicians, would feel that the dice is loaded. All I want to say to the hon. member for Fordsburg is this. He is supporting this Bill as a Labour man. I have the greatest regard for him, but I tell him this, that if he does not get it through the teeth one day when he wants false teeth he will get it through the pocket.

I move—

Upon which the Committee divided:

Ayes—47:

Abbott, C. B. M.

Abrahamson, H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Bawden, W.

Bekker, H. J.

Bell, R. E.

Bosman, L. P.

Bowker, T. B.

Conradie, J. M.

De Wet, H. C.

Dolley, G.

Eksteen, H. O.

Faure, J. C.

Gray, T. P.

Hayward, G. N.

Henny, G. E. J.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Howarth, F. T.

Jackson, D.

Kentridge, M.

Lawrence, H. G.

Moll, A. M.

Morris, J. W. H.

Mushet, J. W.

Oosthuizen, O. J.

Pieterse, E. P.

Pocock, P. V.

Robertson, R. B.

Russell, J. H.

Shearer, O. L.

Shearer, V. L.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Sonnenberg, M.

Steenkamp, L. S.

Stratford, J. R. F.

Strauss, J. G. N.

Sutter, G. J.

Tighy, S. J.

Ueckermann, K.

Van der Merwe, H.

Van Niekerk, H. J. L.

Van Onselen, W. S.

Williams, H. J.

Tellers: J. W. Higgerty and W. B. Humphreys.

Noes—20:

Acutt, F. H.

Christopher R. M.

Derbyshire, J. G.

Döhne, J. L. B.

Erasmus F. C.

Hopf, F.

Le Roux, J. N.

Le Roux, S. P.

McLean, J.

Marwick, J. S.

Molteno, D. B.

Neate, C.

Olivier, P. J.

Steyn, G. P.

Strydom, J. G.

Swanepoel, S. J.

Wanless, A. T.

Werth, A. J.

Tellers: J. H. Conradie arid P. O. Sauer.

Motion accordingly agreed to.

Question put: That the words “an executive committee and” proposed to be omitted, stand part of the clause, and a division was called.

As fewer than 10 members (viz.: Messrs. Christopher, Derbyshire, Hopf, Johnson, Marwick, McLean, Molteno, Neate and Wanless) voted against the Question, the Chairman declared it affirmed and the amendments proposed by Mr. Neate negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

On Clause 10,

I move—

The clause reads—

1. (1) For the purpose of defraying its expenses, the board shall make an annual levy …. (b) upon every dentist in an amount not exceeding one pound one shilling or, if the total amount of the levy in any year under paragraph (a) would, according to an estimate by the board, exceed the total amount of the levy of one pound one shilling in that year under this paragraph, such higher amount as the Governor-General may authorise.

I move the deletion of sub-clause (b) for this reason. This is a board to conduct the affairs of dental mechanicians, not of the dentists, and I fail to see why the dentists should make a contribution to the expenses of the board. When we passed the Nurses’ Bill last year, there was no clause compelling every medical officer in the union to contribute to the expenses of the nurses’ council. To me it appears that this levy on the dentists is more in the nature of conscience money. Their consciences are uneasy.

They have not got a conscience.

Well, then I leave that to the House. I feel that it is nonsense that the dentists wish to contribute to the expenses of a board which is set up to conduct the affairs of dental mechanicians, and to make slaves of them. This Bill seeks to bind the dental mechanician from head to foot. He will not be able to do anything except under the direction of a dentist and his freedom is cut down to such an extent that he is a mere servant of the dental surgeon. No, I feel that the dentists should not be called upon to contribute to the expenses of the board, and I feel that the dental mechanicians themselves would not have this contribution from the dental surgeons. They are quite willing and able to shoulder the expenses of the board themselves, provided that the board is so constituted that it gives them an equal chance and representation.

I thought you said that if this Bill is passed, they will starve.

Are you going to contribute the whole of the expenses or is it conscience money? No, I did not mean that; I withdraw it.

It is the price they pay for the monopoly.

There is no necessity for the dental surgeons to contribute to the expenses of this board, which is a board of dental mechanicians and not for dental surgeons, and I therefore move the deletion of sub-section (1) (b).

I do not know whether the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Neate) speaks with any mandate from the dental mechanicians or dental technicians. He has told the House that they do not want the dentists to contribute towards the expenses of the board. In all the discussions I have had with representatives of the technicians and mechanicians and in all the volume of literature which has been presented to hon. members regarding the subject matter of the Bill, the question of the dentists’ contribution has never been raised. The mechanicians and the technicians desire this board and the dentists have been prepared to contribute towards the costs and expenses of running the board, and it seems to me that it would be a very serious thing in the absence of any reasons other than those given by the hon. member for South Coast, for the House to tamper with this clause. I would emphasise once again that this board will have to deal with the whole relationship between dentists as such and mechanics as such. One hopes that one would bring about a state of cooperation and good feeling between them if such co-operation and good feeling does not exist at the present time. It is not a board merely for the sake of laying down prohibitions. It is a board for mutually regulating the interests of both dentists and mechanics, and as the dentists have been prepared to be mulcted in an imposition of this sort, it seems to me that it is wise and in the interests of the board and in the interests of both dentists and mechanics to leave the provisions of the section as it stands at the present time.

I certainly cannot agree with this particular amendment put forward by the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Neate). It is very obvious that this Bill is going to receive the assent of the House. It is also very obvious that this Bill is creating a monopoly which is entirely in the interest of the dentists, and not in the interests of the technicians, and therefore I feel myself that the least the dentists can do is to pay a very substantial portion of the costs of the board. They are the people who are going to profit by the passing of this Bill and therefore I consider that they are the people who should pay the costs.

I want to make an appeal to the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Neate) to withdraw his amendment, which is based on the reason that he put forward, namely, that this is conscience money. If he had said that since a conscience contribution is suggested, it should be five hundred guineas on the part of dentists as against one guinea to be contributed by the technicians then I would support him, but it is no good flogging a dead horse, and I appeal to him to withdraw his amendment because I cannot support him.

I am sorry to hear the hon. Minister say that this clause should not be tampered with. I hope to show good reason why the clause should be tampered with. Whilst I agree with very much that was said by the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Neate) I want the House to realise that many persons here have accepted this Bill and this particular clause, in which the name of the Minister of Labour was used, suggesting that this board is analogous to an industrial council. If it is in any way analogous to an industrial council then the financial formula by which industrial councils are financed should be embodied in this particular clause, or this particular clause should in the same way follow the formula by which industrial councils are financed; and all industrial councils are financed on the basis of there being two interests on the council, an employer interest on the one hand and an employee interest on the other hand. In effect that means that you have equal contribution from the employers as against the amount contributed by the employees, and if that principle was followed, I submit that the amendment I now propose to move would meet the case. I move—

If this is embodied in the clause, then it will approximate to the financial formula which is followed in all industrial councils. In an industrial council, without making reference to any particular industrial council, we will say that the employee pays 2s. 6d. per month as his contribution towards the expenses of the administration of the industrial council. The employer pays in a like amount to the amount paid in by the employee.

Is that not done here?

No, because the dentist pays one guinea and the dental mechanician pays one guinea but there are probabiy three dental mechanicians to one dentist.

No, it is the other way round.

In those circumstances I am prepared to withdraw the amendment.

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

Amendment proposed by Mr. Neate put and negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

May I at this moment move for leave to report progress and to sit again. I move—

Motion put and negatived.

On Clause 13,

I move—

1. (viii) that he is the holder of a certificate of competency, issued by the registrar of apprenticeship under section éighteen of the Soldiers and War Workers Employment Act; 1944 (Act No. 40 of 1944) in respect of the trade of a dental mechanician;

and to omit sub-section (2) and to substitute the following new sub-section:

1. (2) In calculating any period of not less than five years, referred to in paragraph (c) of sub-section (1)—
   1. (a) any period during which the person concerned was employed, otherwise than as an indentured apprentice at a time when he was below the age of twenty-one and in an area within which the Apprenticeship Act, 1922 (Act No. 26 of 1922) or the Apprenticeship Act, 1944 ’(Act No. 37 of 1944), applied in respect of the trade of dental mechanician, shall not be taken into account;
   2. (b) any modification of the period of apprenticeship under section thirteen or fourteen of the Soldiers and War Workers Employment Act, 1944 (Act No. 40 of 1944) shah be given effect to; and
   3. (c) such portion of the period of military service (as defined in section one of the last mentioned Act) rendered by the person concerned, as may from time to time be determined by the Minister, either generally or in any particular case, shall, subject to paragraph (b) of this sub-section, be deemed to be a period during which he served or was employed as provided in paragraph (c) of sub-section (1).

This clause indicates the classes of persons who shall be entitled to registration under Clause 12 of the Bill, and the purpose of this amendment is to safeguard the interests of ex-volunteers. Since the Bill was published representations have been made to the Department of Public Health. These have been gone into very carefully and the department is now satisfied that the proposed amendment will ensure that any ex-volunteer who wishes to become apprenticed or to take up employment in the work of dental mechanician shall be granted such remission for the period of apprenticeship or employment for the work of dental mechanician as deemed to be equitable. The clause has been drafted to cover a number of cases and has been inserted solely with the object of safeguarding the rights of those volunteers and ex-volunteers who, for the provisions of this amendment, might be prejudiced under the provisions of Section 13.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 16,

I think it may be as well if at this stage, I gave the House some indication of the steps I took since the second reading to obtain the views of those who felt that Section 16 was going too far. Hon. members will recollect that certain members of the House, on the occasion of the second reading, complained that the provisions of Section 16, will be depriving mechanics of a vested right. That vested right, it is alleged, is the right to do repair work. It is quite clear that in terms of the 1928 Act, mechanics now have the right to do repair work.

Directly to the public.

And they have the right of direct access to the public. It is a right to do repair work with direct access to the public. It is quite clear that if in doing that repair work they have access to the mouth, if they do intra-oral work, they will be contravening the law. The purpose of Section 16 in seeking to do away with the right of direct access to the public, is to remove the possibility of contravening the law. It is alleged that at the present time a great deal of illegitimate work takes place. It is alleged that many mechanics do repair work; they have direct access to the public, and they actually have access to the mouth. Since the second reading, I took the opportunity of meeting a deputation of the technicians’ society. I would once again emphasise to the committee that the mechanics as such are divided on this issue. There are certain mechanics who are pressing for this Bill. There are members of the technicians society, a body which came into existence some eighteen months ago, who are opposing this so-called repair clause. They are in favour of the other provisions of the Bill. They desire to have registration; they desire charter for mechanicians, but they oppose the abolition of the repair clause, or rather that was the position, as I understood it, prior to the second reading. After my interview with members of the technicians’ society, I felt that a useful purpose might be served, if I could give an opportunity to members on all sides of the House to meet representatives of the technicians’ society, and of the mechanics’ association, and also of the dental association: Invitations were extended to various hon. members through the various parties and a meeting did take place. At that meeting the members of the technicians’ society changed their ground. Prior to that I was under the impression that their main objection to this Bill was that it sought to abolish the repair clause. At that meeting members of the technicians’ society, both individually and through their council, put forward suggestions which, if given effect to, would to a large extent change the character of the Bill. They sought to have it laid down by way of an amendment to Clause 16 that mechanics should not only retain the right of direct access to the public but that they should be given the right to take impressions and to do certain other work within the mouth after having a certificate from a dentist. In other words, they raised an issue which involved going back long before the position as it existed in 1928 when the 1928 Act was passed. They sought to reopen a matter which for all practical purposes had been disposed of. As Minister of Public Health, I am not prepared to reopen that matter. I feel I should not be doing my duty towards either the dentists or the mechanics or the public as a whole if I were prepared to allow that matter to be reopened now so far as this Bill is concerned. It is, of course, open to any individual mechanic and it is open to members of the public if they so desire to try and create public opinion on this subject. If they can satisfy public opinion and Parliament in the future that some drastic changes should be made, that there should be a fresh division as between dental mechanicians on the one hand and dentists on the other hand and that fresh categories should be laid down, then the matter can be reconsidered. But in that case they should try to awaken public opinion on that matter. So far as this Bill is concerned, I feel that my duty as Minister of Public Health has been to turn down that proposal, and I have not been prepared therefore to accept the suggested amendment which the representatives of the technicians put before me last week. We were then thrown back on the clause as it stands in the Bill, namely that clause 16 abolishes the repair clause. It was quite clear to me that there was a certain amount of feeling in the House, a certain amount of sentiment in the House, that Clause 16 was taking away a right, whatever that right may be. There is the right of direct access to the public. It is contended that that right cannot properly be exercised at the present time unless there is direct access to the mouth. That may or may not be so. The argument is that this right cannot be exercised unless illegitimately. That may or may not be so, but there is a right of some sort which has been taken away, and it was felt that if one could meet the point of view of the technicians, if one could prevent their being transferred in one fell swoop from their present position to a new position, under which they will be prohibited from having any direct access with the public, a good purpose might bé served. I threw out the suggestion at this meeting that one might suspend the abolition of the repair clause for a certain period. I put it in those general terms. I suggested that we might consider a period from three to five years, and I asked the technicians whether they would be prepared to debate the matter. There were representatives of the dental mechanicians present at the interview. That offer of mine to debate it on this issue was turned down unequivocally. The technicians told me that they did not wish any such period of grace given to them. After the meeting they apparently considered it, and they have formally written to me asking whether a period of grace will be given. I have gone into this matter carefully and it seems to me that in all the circumstances it would be fair and equitable to allow a certain time to elapse, to allow a certain specified time to elapse before these restrictive provisions come into operation. It may not be appreciated by hon. members, but in the Bill as drafted at present, a certain time limit is imposed. In terms of Clause 2 of the Bill a fixed date must be appointed by the Minister. When that fixed date is appointed, the board to be created under Section 3 will be established. Under Section 16 the provisions of Section 16 come into operation six months after the fixed date. In the normal course of events, the fixed date is not likely to be until considerably later this year. When the fixed date is notified, all arrangements for the establishment of the board must be made. In fact, the board comes into being on the notification of the fixed date. In all probability the fixed date will not be before the 1st January, 1946. That leaves an interim of some eight months. In terms of Section 16 as it stands, the provisions of Section 16 will not come into operation until another six months have elapsed on the suppostion that the fixed date is the 1st January, 1946. That means that these restrictive operations will come into operation not before fourteen months have elapsed from now. That would be the position in all likelihood if no amendment whatsoever is made to this Bill. It seems to me, after having discussed this matter very fully with my advisors, and having due regard to the intricacies of draftmanship involved, in this particular clause that in order to meet the representation that has been put to me I should introduce an amendment which would nave this effect, that while there is still a fixed date to be notified, and while those who wish to be registered as mechanics, would still under Section 12 of the Bill have to register within one month of the fixed date, those provisions contained in Section 16 will not come into operation until two years from the commencement of the Act. The amendment which I now propose to move is this—

The effect of this amendment will then be that as from the commencement of this Bill, if it becomes law, there will be a two year period in which those who may previously have practised with direct access to the public, will have an opportunity of putting their house in order and dealing with their affairs and making such arrangements as may become necessary in the light of the change in the law. It seems to me that this amendment is a fair and equitable amendment. The fact that mechanics will have to work under the direction of dentists does not mean that mechanics will no longer have any work to do. The work will still have to go on, and in order to carry out that work, it is absolutely essential that there should be mechanics and that dentists should employ mechanics. Perhaps it is fitting that I should say a word on this section on a matter that has been stressed during the debate today, and on previous occasions, namely the charges made for repairs to dentures and in regard to the making of dentures. One of the arguments which has been stressed by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (North) (Mr. Johnson) and the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hopf), who were putting up such a sincere fight against what they believe to be wrong—I disagree with them; I think they are misinterpreting the position but I fully appreciate their motives in fighting this matter—one of the arguments they put up is that at the present time the public, through its right of direct access to the mechanic, is enabled to have repair work done cheaply. It was also contended that the public, through its direct ïight of access to the mechanic, is enabled to have dentures made cheaper. Of course, if it is suggested that dentures can be made without access to the mouth, then I think those who put up that contention go very far indeed. It seems hardly conceivable that any dentures can be made or that any major work on dentures can be carried out without direct access to the mouth, and if there is direct access to the mouth at the present time, then an illegal practice is being carried on. However, that might be the contention is that repair work as such can be done cheaply at the present time, and that it is cheap because the public can go direct to the mechanic and the mechanic charges a comparatively small sum. Whether or not there are some dentists who charge exorbitant fees for making dentures or for repairs, I think as a matter of public policy it is desirable that some sort of tariff should be laid down, so that the public knows that it has some protection against exploitation. I know that the members of the dental profession, those who are supporting this Bill, and who are represented on the Medical Council, will be the first to decry and to deprecate any form of exploitation by their colleagues. But of course it happens, as it happens in all the other professions, and incidentally as it also happens amongst the illegal practitioners, these mechanics, because we have found out that they have on occasions charged exorbitant prices for doing what they have no right to do. These things happen but that is no reason why in a properly organised community and profession we should not seek to rectify these matters. I have already had occasion to raise this subject informally with representatives of the dental profession, and I want to inform the House that I intend to take this matter up formally through the Department of Public Health with the dental profession and the S.A. Medical Council. I have already been informed informally by the leading members of the dental profession that they would be only too happy to co-operate.

Why do you nöt put it in this Bill?

It is not a matter which can be put into this Bill. It will have to be dealt with by the dentists and doctors at the Federal Council, and if in fact there is exploitation at present it is for the dentists to ensure, as far as possible, that the exploitation is eliminated. But the fact that there may be a need tor clearing up things in one direction is no argument for evading the inevitability for acting along the lines suggested by this Bill. Once and for all the door must be closed and we must deal with this matter of illegal practice and make it impossible as far as possible, for anyone under the guise of legitimate practice to carry on illegitimately, thereby not only being a potential danger to the public, but also being an unfair factor of competition for those mechanicians who try to earn a legal living.

I have listened with satisfaction to the statement made by the Minister, and although he has not absolutely protected existing rights he has made what one must regard as a fair compromise. As he stated the position it is undoubtedly the case. Whatever its motives may have been, Parliament in 1928 gave the dental mechanic, as he was called then, the right to repair a denture, by inference from Clause 35, which stated— —

It is perfectly clear from that—the Minister admitted it and there can be no legal contradietion, that if the mechanic confines himself to repairing a denture without fitting it in or diagnosing, he can do so. It is difficult to imagine cases where he can do so without fitting it in, but the Legislature saw the possibility of its being done without fitting it. I say that as the law now stands it is clear that he can do it. According to the dentists it is impossible, but I am not going into that matter. As long as the man confinnes himself to making or repairing a denture without making a diagnosis and without examining the mouth or seeing the patient, really, except to hand over the denture to him, he can do so. That is an existing right, although it may be a very limited right. Many of the dentists say that a man cannot exercise that right without breaking the law. I think the Minister is not perfectly correct therefore when he takes away that right, as the Bill does. It is a distinct departure from the wording of the existing law, and the only reason for it is that many of them break the law. I say that when a right is given to a man by Parliament it should not be lightly taken away. This right is taken away. But the Minister has brought forward a fair compromise. The mechanic who makes a denture is hot permitted to fit it and therefore I think the Minister was fair in saying: Let them continue for two years before they close down their affairs and regulate their lives with the knowledge that within a specific time they will have to work only at the orders of a dentist. I think the Minister is fair there and therefore I support the amendment. I would like to say also that I acknowledge that since the second reading the Minister has made every effort to get into touch with the contesting parties. He has seen all the representatives of both sides and has tried to do what is fair. In the circumstances although he has not gone as far as I would like to see him go, seeing it was a right which should not have been limited to a point of time, I feel I must support the Minister in his attempt to solve this difficult problem.

Up to the present I have not taken part in this debate because I heartily support the Minister on this Bill. I have listened to many statements which have been made here and which we could easily have refuted if we had had the time and if we had wanted to hold up the House. I must say in all honesty that I am sorry that the Minister is going to make this concession in the Bill. I am sorry in the first place because the reason why this clause is being incorporated into the Bill is not because the dentists are so terribly anxious to undertake the repair of dentures, but there is another reason which was touched upon to some extent by the hon. member for Cape Town (Castle) (Mr. Alexander), and that is that when the dental mechanician has access to the public, when a person who is not a qualified dentist has access to the public, not only the public but that individual too is tempted to go further than the law allows him to do at present. I do not want to besmirch people in this House, but I want to draw the attention of the House to the fact that certain persons made representations to the House and that not only did they want to retain their existing rights, but they wanted to go even further; they wanted further rights over and above the rights which they obtained under the Act of 1928. They contend that they are not doing anything unlawful, and yet quite a number of them have in the past been prosecuted for unlawful practices. It will be realised why I cannot fully endorse the Minister’s action in making this concession. Since it is clear that it is an evil to allow unprofessional people to have access to the public because they are tempted to resort to illegal practices, I think it is wrong to extend the period to two years, which means that we are allowing another two years for these unlawful practices to continue. It is not fair towards those persons and towards the dentists. I shall not oppose the Minister, but nevertheless I regret this action on his part.

The effect of this will be that it will only come into operation ten months later.

In my opinion a period of ten months is too long.

You want to hang them quickly.

If I have to be hanged, I should prefer it to be done straightaway, rather than be locked up in a cell for two days before my execution. I want to read to the House a few telegrams to indicate that the profession is not at all pleased with these changes in the Bill. I am doing so not with a view to opposing this amendment, but rather with an eye on the future, and I hope therefore that I shall be permitted to read these telegrams to the House. The first telegram is from “Shaw, Dean of the Faculty, by authority University Witwatersrand”.

[Inaudible.]

I should not like to reply to the interjections of that hon. member. He stated that the dentists in this House had a motive in supporting this Bill. I want to say that that hon. member has more reason to oppose the Bill than the dentists have to favour it. This telegram reads—

I should like the hon. member for Cape Town (Castle) particularly to listen to the next one, because it deals with repair work, excluding working in the mouth. It emanates from Speck, Chairman, Bill Action Committee—

And then there is this one—

That is not true.

I should like to bring these telegrams to the notice of the Minister. I do not know whether it is his intention to make further concessions. It is difficult for us to see eye to eye with the Minister on this clause. In connection with the decreasing number of students, I want to say something to the Minister which I happen to know. Last year a Bill was introduced and it was withdrawn because the Minister wanted to give everyone an opportunity to acquaint himself with the position —even the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Neate) so that he would have a whole year in which to draft his amendments! Now he wants another few days. When the Minister withdrew the Bill seventeen dental students immediately switched over to medicine. As someone who knows what he is talking about, I want to say that if the Minister had not come forward with this Bill, the public of South Africa, generally speaking, would have experienced a very great shortage of dentists within a few years. I want to ask the Minister not to allow himself to be influenced to make further concessions. I am thinking of Clause 17, for example. I shall support the Minister on this clause, although I do so reluctantly, but I hope he will not make further concessions in connection with the other clauses.

I do not think we need take seriously the remarks of the hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. Van Nierop). He is an interested party.

I am not.

On a point of personal explanation, I have just as little interest in the financial side of the profession of dentistry as the hon. member himself. On the second reading of the Bill I explained that I was no longer in practice and that I had not been practising for the last seven years, and if you were to strike me dead I would not return to practice.

I am quite prepared to accept that the hon. member for Mossel Bay is not a practising dentist today, but I also realise this, that if the hon. member lost his seat at the next election he will again become a practising dentist.

I assure you that I will not.

Therefore he is an interested party in this Bill, and the House need not take his remarks seriously. This particular Clause 16 is what I would describe as the keypoint to the whole Bill. It is this particular clause which has caused all the obstruction to the Bill. Were it not for this clause the Bill would have sailed through this House without causing trouble and waste of time. But it is an uodoubted fact that this clause does take away rights of the makers of dentures—and I use the term makers of dentures to get away from these distinctions between technicians and mechanicians; they are the people who make the dentures which many of us owe our comfort to, but there is a big myth created by the dental profession with regard to these dentures. They endeavour to create the impression in the minds of the public that this is something which only a professional man who has studied at a university can carry out, namely the making and fitting of dentures. Yet I guarantee that there is not a single member in this House who does not know of people who have gone to dentists and have had an impression taken and have received the denture back and had it stuck into his mouth and nothing more happens. But we are told that this is a very difficult operation which can only pertain to dentists. We all know that before the war one could take an impression of one’s own mouth, on instructions received, send the impression to England or America, and get dentures for a very nominal sum and get dentures which fit quite well just as well as most dentists can make them here.

Are you in favour of doing away with the dental profession?

No, I will come to that. My idea of the dental profession is that their fundamental function should be to look after the preservation and care of the teeth, but there are many of them today who can make a greater profit by the extraction of teeth and selling dentures than they can from the care of the teeth, and that is why the public are feeling alarmed, thousands of people in this country feel alarmed, at what this Bill may mean, and‘ I am very glad, and I want to say that it has disarmed a lot of my opposition that the Minister assured the House this afternoon that he will deal with that question of profiteering, because I want to say quite candidly that there are many dentists who wilfully and deliberately profiteer on dentures. When the Bill came before the House for the second reading I was speaking to a prominent member of Parliament who said to me: I know that tings are not quite as they should be in regard to the charges for dentures; take my own case; I had a set of dentures made by a dentist in Cape Town. Now I happen to know the maker—I use the word advisedly—who made this particular set and out of curiosity I approached him and asked him what he had got for making the denture and he said £4 10s., but the hon. member had told me that they had charged him 25 guineas. That hon. member voted against the Bill at the second reading being sent to the Select Committee.

Do you want to bring the House under the impression that those are the usual charges?

No, I have had dentures made myself and I have not paid anything like that, but maybe I was fortunate. But we all know cases where exhorbitant charges are made and the hon. member for Mossel Bay knows it better than I do. All sorts of charges are made and we who are concerned with the interests of the public want a scale of charges to be laid down on a reasonable basis.

Are you in favour of that for all professions?

Most decidedly, and not only with regard to the professions but with regard to all commodities. That will lead to a more reasonable state of affairs than we have today, and when I hear the hon. member talking like that and I think back about many of the matters which have come before this House, and when I hear the protestations of hon. members opposite that they are the protectors of the downtrodden of this country, and I see them walking across the House en masse to vote against the makers of dentures, I doubt their bonafides.

Is your Minister against them also?

I do not talk about him. He does not profess to be the champion of the poor.

You have put your foot into it now.

I know one place where I would like to put my foot. But these hon. members are continually telling the House that they are out to protect the downtrodden poor. They do not want to see anything done which will prejudice the working classes. Thank God the working classes have better friends on this side. But I personally feel much more satisfied with regard to this Bill after the statement made by the Minister this afternoon that he is going to deal with the question of the charges of the dentists, and I want to assure the Minister that we shall keep him to that promise. We shall see that this matter is taken up within a reasonable time and I also want to point out that the hon. Minister, by his amendment, in extending the period in which these people shall give up their rights, has shown quite clearly and conclusively that these people have got rights. [Time limit.]

I should like to express a few thoughts in connection with this clause. In the first place, I want to say that I welcome the explanation made by the Minister of Welfare and Demobilisation, and that for two or three reasons. In connection with the Bill as it now appears before us, it is a fact that many members are concerned that certain dentists do not mind how much they charge, and there is reason for it. On the other hand, we have people in this House who feel that the rights of the dental mechanics should be taken away from them to a certain extent, and the Minister has here made a conciliatory state ment, and I think it is well we should say a few words about it. I welcome the announcement made by the Minister this afternoon, and I should like to say at the outset that I have no connection with any dental organisation, nor have I discussed this matter with any of them. But I feel a defect exists here, and as one who has himself practised I want to say that I whole-heartedly support the idea that a sort of uniform fee should be fixed. We find in practice that attorneys and advocates have fixed fees for their work so that if a man wishes to transfer a piece of land or to bring a suit he will know more or less where he stands. I think it is only in the interests of the good name of the dental profession that a similar arrangement should be made; and when I am talking of dentists I should also like to include doctors. It is unfortunate that doctors frequently charge excessive fees in some cases dentists also charge excessive fees. But when hon. members hear of these individual cases they should not believe that is the common practice. Has the hon. member, however, any idea of how much work is done by dentists for the poor for which no account is sent in? Perhaps hon. members who are opposing the Bill do not believe there is anything of that sort.

Doctors also do that.

Yes, and I want in all fairness to say that there are many, many cases, and ‘consequently I maintain that it is in the interests of the good name of the profession that uniform fees should be laid down. Hon. members should, however, not forget the great amount of work that is done for the poor free of charge. Now I wish to make a correction. I am thinking of the hon. member who spoke here about the dentists as middlemen. I only wish to correct him. I think he must have spoken from ignorance; I do not think it was intentional. I say here in the House that until today there are no facilities in our country for the training of dental mechanics. They cannot obtain training. Who is there to train them? As a dentist you take someone for six months or a year or five years. You, as a dentist with the knowledge, train him, and thereafter he leaves you and does illegal work. Then some hon. members say that the dentist is a middleman. He takes the impression, and the mechanic does the work. I want to dispose of that incorrect assertion. The dentists acquire their training, in many cases, overseas, then the mechanic learns the work under their supervision, and subsequently the mechanic illegally does the work that the dentist has taught him. I am glad the Minister has provided for two years grace, and I shall say why. Not because of the people who are making representations and who are doing illegal work, but I am glad for the two years grace for the benefit of the honest mechanics who are not committing illegal practices. One talks with reluctance on this Bill. I only wish to say that in other countries this has happened, and I think that if this legislation is placed on the Statute Book with the promise that the Minister has given today that regulations will be made to prevent excessive fees to be charged in the future it will be to the good of all. On the one hand a check will be placed on extravagant charges, and on the other hand the illegal practices will no longer occur. This ought to satisfy the public and the mechanics and dentists should also be satisfied.

I greatly regret that when the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. McLean) or myself made an interjection, the member for Mossel Bay’s (Dr. Van Nierop) reply was that he could understand why the hon. member—pointing in this direction—was against this Bill, but he would not like to tell the House. I feel it ill-becomes our friend from Mossel Bay (Dr. Van Nierop) to make such a veiled insinuation, and I should like him to tell the House why the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) or myself, are opposed to this Bill. I want to tell him that I am actuated only by the very best of motives, I am out to fight for the underdog. In this instance I happen to be siding with the technicians but incidentally they have proved conclusively that they have a fund of only about £112, whereas the side for which the hon. member is fighting—I do not blame him—has a sum of from £7,000 to £8,000—a fighting fund. I want to say this, that originally his people, the dentists, approached me, arid in all sincerity I blindly signed a form that I would support the Bill, not knowing the other side of the case; but when individuals from the Technicians’ Association came to me and also told me that members of the Nationalist Party—they quoted the hon. member for Gezina (Dr. Swanepoel) and Wonderboom (Mr. Nel)—were supporting it, I said if it was good enough for them it was good enough for me and that I would support them. Getting off that subject, I must congratulate the Minister on the concession he has made in making the period two years. If it is conceded that repairs may continue for two years then there is not much wrong with the present idea; but it will give us the chance of seeing that the practice lasts for all time. I take the credit for telling the technicians after they had seen the Minister and told him they were not prepared to accept the two years extension, that they should accept it on the principle that half a loaf is better than no bread.

On a point of explanation. The hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hopf) stated that I undertook to support the Bill. That is a definite untruth. I never gave such an undertaking. I undertook to go into the matter and then to act according to my conviction.

On a point of explanation, I did not say that the hon. member for Wonderboom (Mr. Nel) told me, but that members of the Technicians’ Association came from the house of the hon. member for Wonderboom and told me that he was supporting it, and I merely stated if it was good enough for him to oppose the Bill it was good enough for me.

I was rather surprised to hear from the Minister that the technicians had changed their ground at the conference held on Friday, because I understand they submitted a Bill to the Minister some months ago in which they claimed this right, so it was not a matter of changing their ground. I think the explanation is this was the only time they would have an opportunity to place their views before members of the House and the Minister, and they took advantage of that to submit their claim. With regard to the extension of time to two years, I was rather disappointed because the time suggested there was between three and five years. But in any case I take it that the Minister’s proposal is an improvement on the Bill as it stands. I do not know whether the hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. Van Nierop) supports the Minister or not in this, so I am rather in the dark, but I did hear him read a telegram, I believe from Prof. Shaw, who practically monopolised the time of the conference and sought to give us an impression that public health was seriously endangered through these technicians being allowed even to undertake repairs on then own. May I record my impression that the professor was just a balloon of bluff, brogue and blarney. I could never pin him down to a straight answer to a straight question.

Is that why he is a member of the faculty?

I do feel that allowing them this time is a great advantage which enables them to adjust themselves to new conditions, and gives them time for new employment, or else to acquiesce in the new conditions of the Bill. But these conditions are hard, because when we come to the prohibitions it states—

That is very comprehensive indeed, and I doubt very much whether most members of the House have realised the implications of that very drastic sub-section. I feel that now technicians and mechanicians have been granted a respite and during this period they can educate public opinion, or else settle down to an acceptance of the new conditions. But may I draw the Minister’s attention to this fact; no profession stands still. The profession of dentistry twenty five years ago had entirely different conditions to those existing today. The dentist himself has improved in technique. The dental mechanician has improved in technique and ability and capacity to do his work, and I feel that this is the time when we should take into consideration whether or not the dental profession should consist of two branches, that is the dentists and the mechanicians.

That will come one day.

That being the case, I suggest even now and in the near future the dentists and the dental mechanicians should come together and hammer out a scheme whereby they would secure mutual satisfaction and co-operate with each other. But I feel that the Bill as it stands is an injustice. I do not think I can go further for the reason that I have not had the time to study the details of the subsequent clauses. When the Committee stage is passed one hopes that the Minister will give us at least a day to look into it.

When I sat down I just missed one point. The point I wanted to make was in connection with charges. That is one of the bones of contention, if the dentists get a monopoly the public will have to pay not only through the cost of teeth but through the nose. I welcome the assurance from the Minister that that matter is receiving his very serious consideration. It has been stated in the House in the course of this debate that fair charges are being made. I admit you have your parasites in every profession and every trade, and I am not blaming the honourable profession as a whole, but I do feel that the public must be protected. In reply to the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. McLean) one of the dentists on the Opposition benches said: “Do you regard 25 guineas as the average charge?’’ That is a very serious question. Let me say that 25 guineas may not be the average charge made to the public, but as far as Pretoria is concerned the minimum charge is 16 guineas, and some dentists charge 25 guineas or more. But where it concerns an individual requiring new dentures but who already has had false teeth, it is a matter of only a few minutes taking the impression. It takes the dentist 20 minutes at the outside to get the impression.

What about the bite?

I would like our friend to bite his tongue and keep quiet. I have had this experience with my own half section, who has had false teeth for many years but who needed a new set. In 20 minutes the dentist had the bite or impression taken. He then went to one of the mechanics, a piece worker, who charged the dentist £4 10s., and I am one of the poor old milch cows who had to pay 16 guineas to the dentist. This is the sort of thing we want to stop. I do not mind paying 16 guineas, but I do not want to have to pay 25 guineas for an alteration in the next four or five years. I would like to remind hon. members on the Opposition benches that they are like a lot of dumb animals surrendering to the wishes of one or two dentists on their side of the House, but I would remind members like the hon. members for Gezina (Dr. Swanepoel) and Wonderboom (Mr. Nel) where in their constituencies they have a big percentage of poor people, that it will be a case of God help them if as a result of this Bill the poor people have to pay 25 guineas or more for a set of false teeth. I hope that that does not happen, but if it does, God help them.

The hon. Minister made a very peculiar admission this afternoon when he told us for the first time on the occasion of the second reading he learned that the technicians had changed their ground, and that they now desired the right to take impressions by law. It is a very peculiar admission, and it can only confirm the charge that has been made in this House that the technicians have had a raw deal in not being able to present then case. But there is really no excuse for the Minister, because on the 30th September, 1944, they submitted to the Minister a proposed Bill, which he acknowledged, and he subsequently wrote to them saying that he was unable to adopt the Bill. In that Bill submitted to him on the 30th September, 1944, it must have been clear to the Minister that the technicians were asking for the right to take impressions and make dentures from the impressions they themselves had taken. The extension of the period from six months to two years only means that the dental mechanics are going to be strangled a little more slowly; instead of six months it will take two years. To my mind the concession is meaningless. I submit that the only feature that can be reconciled with the interests of the dental mechanicians is that in the event of any agreement on wage and working conditions not operating to their satisfaction, they should be able to revert to the status quo. The hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. Burnside) said this morning I would be the first one to object if there was any removal of the line of demarcation as between skilled and semi-skilled operations. That is perfectly true, and during the course of this discussion I have made it clear I am not in favour of the dental mechanic having the right to deal with the intra work on the mouth and to take impressions. All I have complained about is the taking away of certain rights the technicians at present enjoy, in return for a supposed promise which is embodied in Clause 8, whereby a board will be set up, and through the operations of this board satisfactory conditions of employment will be created for dental mechanicians. I have submitted it is quite correct and proper for any body of employees voluntarily to surrender their right to offer their labour in the open market, to whom they please, and to confine themselves in the sale of their labour to a closed corporation such as the dental profession. If they do that in return for an industrial agreement it is quite a proper thing for them to do. But the distinction that the hon. member for Fordsburg rails to appreciate between this agreement and an industrial agreement is that in the case of an industrial agreement the sale by the employee of his services to a closed corporation lasts merely so long as they are satisfied; with the termination of the industrial agreement, when it lapses, they can revert to the status quo, to the position prior to the time of the industrial agreement. I agree it can be in the interests of dental mechanics to surrender their right to do repairs in exchange for decent rights and working conditions. There is no guarantee of that. All I ask for is in the event of the agreement not proving satisfactory, they should have a right to revert to the status quo and have the right again to do repairs. What I emphasise is this, in taking away from them the right to do repairs you are taking away from them the only bargaining asset they have in selling their labour to the dentists.

They have used that since 1932, that is why we have got the Bill. This is the result of that.

When the hon. member for Point (Dr. V. L. Shearer) suggests they have used that bargaining power since 1932 and this Bill is the rehult of it, he seeks to create an impression that the dental mechanics are in favour of the Bill.

One hundred and fourteen mechanicians are in favour.

If 114 mechanicians are in favour of it, it is only a minority of the mechanicians in the country. When the hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. Van Nierop) came to me much earlier on, he submitted the relative figure between dentists and mechanics, and it was somewhere in the neighbourhood of 750 dental practitioners and 324 dental mechanics. The hon. member for Point only claims that 114 out of the 324 are in favour of the Bill; that is to say that only a minority are in favour of the Bill. I say that no Minister of Labour in South Africa has ever gazetted an Industrial Council which was submitted by a minority of employees and employers in any industry or trade. What is required very particularly of every industry and of every trade before an industrial council can be established, is that a majority of employees and a majority of employers should be parties to its establishment. Here the reverse is operating, and the minority are going to have the right of compulsorily applying the amended conditions. I will vote against the amendment of the Minister. The only amendment to Clause 16 which would satisfy me, and I would then be satisfied in regard to the Bill, is a condition which would restore to the mechanics the right to deal with repairs and to deal direct with the public in the event of their being unable to achieve a satisfactory agreement on wage and working conditions, or in the event of their being dissatisfied with and unwilling to continue working under an existing determination on wage and working conditions.

The Minister has made a great point of giving the dental mechanics two years longer to live. He tells them that at the end of two years the work they have been doing for 20 or 30 years has to stop, and that it will be illegal for them to do that work, and if they break their own teeth they must take them to the dentist, the dentist hands them back to be repaired, then they hand them back to the dentist, and the dentist gives them back to them.

Will they usually charge themselves—“for gain?”

Do not attempt to trip me up, Mr. Minister, because on that point which has been made a lot of by Prof. Shaw, I have no compunction in saying, since he made no attempt to answer the challenge I issued (and my challenge still stands) that Prof. Shaw has a very nervous grasp of the truth. I want to try to get at the feelings of the Minister by reading a letter which was received by a very prominent member of this house. It says—

In two years’ time that man can do nothing to earn a livelihood and the Minister will take his present livelihood away from him. Now, I, unfortunately, although selected to sit on this committee, was deprived of hearing the best part of the evidence. I was prevented from doing so because it happened that the committee was held on Friday last, and I, like the Nationalist member opposite, was loyal enough ….

Will the hon. member please come back to the clause?

I want to come back to this clause to prove why this work should not be taken away from the mechanics. It was stated by the Minister that a certain case was heard in the court at Cape Town. That is true. There were five people before the magistrate, three women and two men. They had, in defiance of the clause, had their dentures made by a quack. “Quack” in dental language is the name for an efficient mechanic. They gave evidence that they had paid 8 and 10 guineas for the dentures which were made by a mechanic. Had they been made by a dentist they would have paid 18 or 25 guineas. [Interjection.] The hon. member for Durban asks where they would have paid that. Here. Some years ago I happened to live on a pension of £23 a month, after retiring as a schoolmaster, and if I had at that time had to have dentures made I could only have gone to a mechanic who would have charged me 10 guineas, half of what the dentist would have charged. That is why I say to the Minister that prices should be controlled in this Bill. In any case I think that both kinds of craftsmen—although dentists do not like to be called craftsmen—most of them had a training but not an education —should be controlled. I want to go further. I say that I agree with one of the greatest professors of dentistry in this country, and I want to read what he said about this question of taking impressions. This is from the Dental Magazine. It says—

[Time limit].

The hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hopf) has developed an eloquence which later got the better of him and he inveighed against a promise that I and the hon. member for Wonderboom (Mr. Nel) were supposed to have made in regard to supporting the dental mechanics.

I said that is what was told me.

Then the hon. member ought to have mentioned it to me before he said that here. I can say here that I was informed that the hon. member for Pretoria (West) promised the dentists that he would support them, but after a pleasure trip from Pretoria with one of the dental mechanics he underwent a change. I want to deny that statement as strongly as I can. The only time I have had discussions with the technicians was when I had a conversation with a certain person in Pretoria who the hon. member himself knows. I gave the undertaking to consider the matter sympathetically, and I can say that I devoted much time to this matter. Every time the matter was mentioned or when new representations were made I considered them thoroughly. As we had discussions with the dentists, I went into the details to ensure as much as possible that no one would suffer. Many of these technical people regarding which hon. members on the other side have had so much to say are German Jews who are practising illegally in the country.

That is not true.

That may be so. The hon. member on the other side stated here that we are unsympathetic towards the mechanics and that we do not mind the poor people having to pay high charges for their dentures. I personally last year registered a protest on the Minister’s vote regarding the fees that are charged by dentists, and especially that dentists in Pretoria charge twice as much as in any other place in the Union. The Minister did not reply to that, but I did mention the matter, and now the hon. member asserts that we do not mind what it costs the people when they require dental services. We have every sympathy with the poor man who cannot pay for dental services, but what this Bill is going to ensure is that those persons should receive sound and thorough attention. It has come to the notice of members how much work has been done by quacks, and when I talk about quacks I refer to people who are not qualified for their work, like many members on the other side. We are here to plead for the protection of the poor man and to ensure that he receives proper health services, and it can only be given to those persons by thoroughly qualified men working under proper supervision. Accordingly, we support this Bill. It is nor the poorest people who suffer. The hon. member ought to know that there are dental clinics in the big cities of Johannesburg and Pretoria where poor people can either get free services or services at a reasonable charge. But it is the middle-class people who suffer mainly. The Minister gave us the assurance that he would have enquiries made in regard to the fees. We hope and expect that the Minister will keep his promise. If the Minister does this the time is overdue when there should be a thorough oversight of dental practice so that quackery and malpractices may be eliminated, and so that the evasion of the law in the country can be put a stop to. But when allegations are made such as those made by the hon. member for Pretoria (West) then we cannot but take the strongest exception to it.

There is no gainsaying the fact that there has been trouble about this Bill from the public, firstly on account of the fact that to a certain extent closed shop will be created for the dentists, and the public fear that on account of that there will be higher fees paid for dental work and dentures. I think the Minister has gone a long way to reassure the public by undertaking to meet the dentists and see whether a scale of charges can be set up which will be acceptable to everyone concerned. It is all right, as it is, and so far as it goes, for the people who can pay, and you have the dental clinics where the poor people can be attended to and receive dentures, but what about the people in the country? We have none of these facilities there and I would like a statement from the Minister as to what he intends doing to meet the people on the platteland, people who cannot pay the charges asked for dentures, etc. In the second place there is this consideration that it was felt by the mechanicians that they had a vested interest given to them by an Act of Parliament, and this right is now being taken away from them. The Minister stated in his interview that he was agreeable to give them an extension of five years but that was repudiated by the mechanicians. Later they signified that they were prepared to accept it. Now the Minister lays down a period of two years. I am wondering whether he could not extend the time, and show his willingness to make it a period of from three to five years. I think that should be done to give them an opportunity to switch over to something else. The memfor Port Elizabeth (Mr. Johnson) made mention of the fact that one could get satisfactory dentures from overseas. I am just wondering whether some of these dental mechanics will not in the meantime go to neighbouring territories like Rhodesia or Portuguese East Africa, if similar laws do not apply there, and carry on the same kind of business which was done with Britain and America, i.e., sending impressions and getting cheap dentures. It is for this reason that I hope the Minister will meet these people as far as he can.

We are very pleased to hear from the Minister that he is prepared to give a little consideration to the mechanicians in connection with this Bill, but I would like to suggest to him that it is very dangerous for him or for Parliament to take away existing rights. It would have been much better if a private member’s Bill had been introduced as an amendment to the Dental, Medical and Pharmacy Act, and anyone evading the Act would have been punished. That is the way the matter should have been dealt with. There are infringements of every law, but because someone breaks the law we do not bring in a law taking away their rights. Rather it is the practice of Parliament to say that if fines do not help they will impose heavier penalties and even imprisonment. That is how this matter should have been dealt with. I do not know why the hon. member for Point (Dr. V. L. Shearer) mumbles and interferes so much. It is only last year that he sponsored the technicians. It is just double-tongued duplicity.

The hon. member must withdraw that remark. It imputes dishonesty.

Then I withdraw it, but if the hon. member for Point keeps on interfering on every possible occasion we must refer to him. I have suggested that that would have been a more humane way of dealing with the matter. It has been suggested that their throats should be cut in two years. It would have been much better to increase the penalties under the present Act. I would like again to suggest to the Minister that the existing rights of these technicians should be safeguarded. There is nothing new in that. When in 1927 the late Mr. Tielman Roos introduced a Bill which took away the rights of barmaids, he did not say that as from the next day there should be no more barmaids. He said all the women employed in bars would retain that right, but no new ones would be appointed. And that is still the position today. There are still a few of them. I suggest that the Minister should agree to an amendment in this Bill whereby these men could continue their legitimate business and retain their rights. Because a few of them have been taking impressions illegally, that is no reason why the whole lot should be penalised. I would like to notify the Minister that it is almost impossible today to get an appointment with a dentist. A case was brought to my notice the other day of a naval officer who broke his plate and he searched through Cape Town for the whole day to find a dentist to fix it, but it was impossible. He was forced to go to a dental mechanic who repaired it in half an hour. When the dentists say that this work needs professional knoweldge, I say that 60 per cent. of the work of dentistry can be performed by the dental mechanic. Once this Bill is passed, if a person breaks a plate he must go to the dentist and the dentist will say: Yes, there is a tooth missing and I will give you written authority to go to a mechanic to mend it. It is only half an hour’s work but not only is he put to the inconvenience of making an appointment with the dentist, then arranging an appointment with the mechanic, but the dentist hands the plate to the mechanic and he must go back to the dentist to get his plate and the dentist will communicate with the mechanic and tell the person to come back tomorrow. That will take two days. The ordinary man today cannot even afford the time to make an appointment with a dentist. I say all this inconvenience is not warranted. It is all just because a few dental mechanics broke the law and therefore the whole lot of them are dealt with in the Bill. The Minister stated that representations were made to him to delay the operation of this Bill from three to five years and he has compromised, making it two years. I would ask him to make a real compromise. I suggest to the Minister that he will accept an amendment in line 9 to delete “six months” and substitute “four years”. That will enable them to put their house in order. It will also help the dentists and the mechanicians to come together. I am anxious that Parliament should not pass this Bill now, but should allow them to come together once more so that we can have a better Bill. You are making these people antagonistic towards each other. I move the amentment—

My opposition to this clause is based on what I conceive as an infringement of a fundamental principle. From time to time this House is asked to legislate in order to give special protection or special privileges to some particular section of the public. I myself have always, since I have been in the House, objected to legislation of that kind unless there is clear proof that it is necessary for the protection of the public. Now, this particular clause goes far beyond what this House has in the past been asked to do in matters of this kind. We are asked to intervene in what amounts to a squabble between two sections of the public as to who should do some particular kind of work, and to decide it in favour of one section. Moreover, the clause does not simply give the members of a particular profession the right to organise and regulate the entry of people into the profession. This clause precludes people who have done a particular type of work in the past from doing that work in future. I would have thought that before a clause of this kind were introduced into a Bill, that perhaps more consideration should have been given to the public aspect of the matter. This is a country with probably as large a proportion of poor people as any country in the world — the whole of the non-European section of the population and large sections of the European section of the population. There is a deficiency of any type of men qualified to do dental work. It may be an ideal to have nobody’s mouth looked into except by a highly qualified dentist, but is the Minister satisfied now that there are grounds to take away from this class of dental mechanicians this portion of dental work which they have been doing? A large proportion of the population of this country cannot afford to have dentures at all. They must either poison themselves through having bad teeth, or they must have all their teeth extracted and do without.

[Inaudible.]

I wish the hon. member would speak. The hon. member knows so much about the Bill, and he has said nothing so far. In fact, I have been rather disappointed that he has taken so little part in this debate since he knows so much about the Bill. To return to the point I was making, there are large sections of the population of this country who cannot afford artificial teeth at all, who either have to poison themselves through having bad teeth or they have to have all their teeth extracted and do without, and to add additional costs by saying that anyone who can afford false teeth, if they happen to be broken, should have to go to the extent of going to a dentist all over again, seems to me not to be taking into account the character of the population and the economic level of the majority of the population that we have in this country. The ideal thing, of course, is to have the most highly qualified person to perform any service that is rendered. It would be very nice if we could pass a law providing that everyone must live in a house costing at least £1,000. But we know that on economic grounds it is not possible to do that, and it is better that a service be rendered by less qualified people than not to have the service at all. From the point of view of the majority of the public—I am not talking about people who can afford to pay large sums to the dentists—but from the point of view of the majority of the public, it seems to me that it is very doubtful indeed as to whether a case has been made out for this clause. I listened to the Minister on this clause very carefully, and I do not remember his having referred to statistics of cases where damage was done through mechanicians operating as they have done in the past. There is another aspect of this clause which I think is wholly unprecedented and that is the proposal to take away the rights of people who have quite lawfully in the past been carrying on this particular work. Whenever legislation has been introduced into the House in order to raise the standard of any professional calling, entrenched and existing rights have been safeguarded. The Minister knows that very well. It was done in the case of the old law agents, who cannot now have access to the law courts, but whose vested rights were protected. The right of dual-practice was reserved to legal practitioners in Natal when the side-bar was separated there from the Bar as in other provinces. The entrenched rights of barmaids, to quote another example which was mentioned by the hon. member for Durban (Central) (Mr. Derbyshire), were maintained when the Liquor Act was passed, and I cannot remember any Case where this House has been asked to come along and say to people who are carrying on a particular calling, without clear evidence that they are doing damage to the public: “We are going to take away this work from you.” The hon. member for Cape Town (Castle) (Mr. Alexander) says that the dentists told him that it is impracticable for a dental mechanic to exercise his rights under the 1928 Act without contravening the law.

I did not say that.

That is how I understood the hon. member. My recollection is that the hon. member did say that it was very difficult for a dental mechanic to exercise his rights of doing repair work under the 1928 Act.

I said that but I did not say that a dentist had told me that.

But the hon. member said, I think, that he was told that that was the position. I assumed that he would have been told so by a qualified person.

I used my own commonsense.

Well, then I do not understand the point the hon. member was making. I want to say that as a fact that is not so. I can say that from personal experience. I can say that you can have a plate mended without having it specially fitted. It seems to me to be a most dangerous argument to say that you are going to take away entrenched rights from certain people because you are afraid that they will commit crimes. After all, that is a basis on which a legitimate practice can be interfered with. You cannot because it is difficult to get evidence that an offence has been committed, say that a legitimate practice must be discontinued. To do so, seems to me not to be in accordance with what is generally done by this House in matters of this kind. [Time limit.]

The hon. member who has just sat down the member for Cape Western (Mr. Molteno) made a strong point of the fact that there are so many people in this country who are relatively poor and who cannot afford any dental treatment at all, and on that he makes the plea that the mechanics practising as such at the present time, should be allowed to continue practising as they have done in the past. But the hon. member forgets the important point that we have not enough dentists in this country, and if you are going to allow these mechanics to practise, something which was considered illegal in the 1928 Act, then you are shutting the door to young men and women in this country who would want to become dentists. I just want to put it to the last speaker that if you regard preventive dentistry as the ideal type of dentistry, the time will arrive in the future when there should be no necessity to have such a large number of dentists, but until that time arrives we need more dentists in this country and unless you put the relationship between dentists and dental mechanicians on a hard and fast basis, you will not be able to encourage young men to take up a dentist’s career. And we have had evidence before the National Health Services Commission that that is so.

They are doing well enough today.

They may be doing well, but that is no argument. We have evidence before the National Health Services Commission that there is a tremendous dearth of dentists in this country, and to encourage people to go in for the profession, it is not only right for the dental surgeon, but for the dental mechanician that their respective spheres of work should be clearly defined. I have heard a lot this afternoon from members who are opposed to the Bill, that the passing of this Bill will benefit the dental surgeons. I think it is just the reverse. For the first time in their history dental mechanics are not only nut on a hard and fast basis, but they have the right to say who shall qualify and what shall be laid down as the qualifications, and for the first time they will be getting a minimum wage, and for the first time they will be getting a conciliation board. In other words, they will practically become a trade union which will be able to protect their rights as they have never been protected before, and I do think that some hon. members in opposing this Bill have allowed a personal grudge against some dentist or other in regard to a sad experience in the past, to influence them in this matter instead of studying the Bill on its merits.

When I was speaking on the last occasion, I was interrupted in terms of one of 287 Standing Orders, most of which I do not understand. I now wish to continue from where I left off. While I was speaking the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Dr. V. L. Shearer), seemed to challenge the credentials of the writer of the article to whom I referred. It will be noticed that the hon. member himself has been careful not to talk because his own seat is in jeopardy. I referred to Mr. C. L. Frizzell who has the following degrees behind his name: “HD.D.R.C.S. Edin., L.D.S. Burm.” It will be seen therefore that he is not such an unimportant fellow as the hon. member for Durban (Point) would like us to believe. He took his degrees in Edinburgh ….

I qualified there myself.

I want to go on with Mr. Frizzell’s article—

That was a glass eye.

It seems to me that one of yours must be, judging by the way you are supporting this Bill. This is the crux of the Bill so far as the public are concerned. The fact is that the taking of impressions is a mechanical operation, and can be done by a mechanician. It requires no scientific knowledge. There is no danger whatsoever in it. When the leader of the Dental Association in South Africa was challenged to prove that there was a danger in it, he was unable to do so. He said there had been three cases of cancer.

You Know that he corrected that.

I say definitely he bed on that.

That is a serious thing to say.

Why didn’t he accept my public challenge?

Why do you say that in the committee?

I do say it in the committee and I say it to you in the committee.

The hon. member must address the Chair.

Well, he is addressing me. I am going to move another amendment. I move—

I think I should deal with this amendment straight away, but before doing that, I think I ought also to place on record a statement in regard to what the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. McLean) has said with regard to Professor Middleton Shaw. The hon. member has made a statement, no doubt in all good faith on his part, lout Professor Middleton Shaw is not able to defend himself in this House, and as I was present on the occasion when that allegation was made to Professor Middleton Shaw at a meeting held in this building, I think it is right that I should inform the committee what Professor Middleton Shaw’s answer was. Apparently the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) was under the impression that Professor Middleton Shaw had made an allegation that there were three cancer cases per week. The allegation was in regard to three cancer cases. That allegation was put to Professor Middleton Shaw who stated that he had referred to pre-cancer cases, as opposed to three cancer cases. Prof. Shaw gave his explanation. I am sure the hon. member will agree with me that when he suggests that Prof. Shaw was diverting from the truth, it is only fair to give Prof. Shaw’s answer to the allegation that was made.

On a point of order, can the Minister tell us why Prof. Shaw did not publicly deny the statement?

This amendment which the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) has moved, is the amendment which was put before me by the technicians’ society last week. It is an attempt to go back to the pre 1928 days. It is an attempt to set up what might be known as a division of dentistry, prosthetic dentistry in which they may acquire a status. Not only are we not going to prohibit direct access to the public if this amendment goes through, but mechanics will have direct access to the public; they will be permitted to take impressions and they will be permitted to do all the work which is now done by dentists, provided they have a certificate from a dentist that the mouth is in a fit condition to take impressions, to take bites and so on. I thought I had indicated earlier that I could not accept that amendment when it was proposed last week. It is true that in the Bill which was submitted to the Public Health Department in September last, this suggestion was made, but in all the years since 1932, when the mechanicians of South Africa have been asking for a Bill to recognise their status, on no occasion has any such claim been made as this, and in the course of the opposition which was put up against the second reading of this Bill, in the representations which were made by technicians on the second reading of this Bill, there was no mention, so far as I am aware, of this claim to go back to the pre-1928 days. It is only now in the last week that the matter has been reopened and that an attempt has been made to do something quite beyond the purview of the Bill as at present drafted. It seems to me that to accept this amendment, would indeed be a most dangerous step for this Committee to take, and something quite beyond the scope and competency of the Committee to deal with at the present time. In these circumstances, I regret that I am unable to accept the hon. member’s amendment.

I just want to say a word or two to try and correct some of the gross exaggerations which have been made in connection with this Bill. The hon. Minister is quite correct; this Bill has proved to us that the demands of the technicians are becoming more and more alarming and the statements made by the opponents to the Bill are becoming more and more alarming. First of all, let me deal with the interjection made by the hon. member for Durban (Central) (Mr. Derbyshire) who suggested that if this Bill is passed, the dental mechanics are going to be forced into complete starvation. That was his interjection. The hon. member for Cape Western (Mr. Molteno) actually suggested that the right to repair teeth, is a right which has an economic value. It has not. The right that the dental mechanic has today of repairing teeth is only a right which allows a certain type of dental mechanic to go beyond the law. There is no dental mechanic who can make anything like a living by repairing teeth in this country. It is no use telling me that they do; I want to see the books of any dental mechanic who has made even one-tenth of his living by repairing teeth. After all, how often do people break their dentures. Not everybody gets a punch in the jaw every day. His teeth last a long time, and even where the teeth are broken, most people go and get a new set.

Silly.

The hon. member must not use that word so often. He has used it so often that it has had a deleterious effect on him, and he is gradually becoming so himself. Economically there is very little value whatsoever attached to the privilege given to dental mechanicians to repair teeth, but what is attached to that prvilege is the possibility of evading the law. You do not want to tell me that when a dental mechanic repairs a dental plate, he just puts it together. I cannot believe that— the hon. member for Cape Western was so naïve that he actually believed what he said—that the dental mechanic merely put the dental plate together and then refuses to place it in the man’s mouth.

I did not say that.

No, but the fact of the matter is that they get the privilege to repair teeth; this is the technical position; someone breaks a dental plate and he comes along to the dental mechanic and he says: “Look here, old chap, repair these for me”. The dental mechanic says: “Why worry about repairing that plate; I can make a new plate for you”. That is precisely what happens. I personally have had that offer from a dental mechanician for a price far below the prices laid down. From an economic point of view, therefore, all the tears which are being shed by the hon. member for Durban (Central) are just so much bunkum. All this talk about driving down a poor unfortunate section of the population into complete penury and utter starvation is also so much bunkum. The demand to retain this right can be understood in the light of the amendment which is now being moved by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. McLean), an amendment which means, in effect that we in this House shall say: “We are going to abolish the dental profession altogether.” That is what it means. I admit in the last paragraph it is stated the man who takes the impression will do everything, but we must still have the highly qualified man with his five years’ thorough training who must give a certificate that the mouth is fit to take the impression, and that is all he is asking to be allowed to do. He has spent five years in becoming a dentist, and then it is sought to deny him the right of making his living. The argument we hear is so utterly opposed to everything I have ever heard in this House that I am astonished, particularly at the hon. member for Cape Western (Mr. Molteno). He says that the ideal is to give everybody the highest possible professional status, but everybody in the country cannot afford to pay; therefore, he says, rather let the poor people have a lower professional standard at a lower cost.

I said it was better than nothing.

Why does he confine it to dentists? I read only this morning in the newspaper where 50 or 60 of the people he represents in this House were charged with a certain crime of violence, and they were undefended.

I am not in favour of that.

I know; but they would not allow me to go along to defend them because I have not the degrees and the professional standard. Why cannot I go and defend somebody? Why cannot my colleagues? We could do it; in many instances, particularly connected with industrial legislation, we know a great deal more about it than the lawyers themselves. We are precluded because the profession to which the hon. member belongs insists that one must have the qualifications. Why make fish of one and fowl of the other? After all you can do less harm to an individual by putting up a poor defence in a court of law than by making him a bad set of teeth. After all, he can survive six months in gaol, but if he gets some form of disease or dislocation of the jaw— and it is a wonder that the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. McLean) does not get that—it is rather more serious. One further point in regard to the argument read out by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) dealing with the question of the ophthalmic surgeon and the making of a glass eye. I presume it would be considered by the hon. member a bad thing if the surgeon went in for making glass eyes. That is one particular instance where the hon. member may have an argument. But a glass eye, as I have pointed out, is not worn for the purpose of helping your eyesight. It is only to help your good looks. It is not a substitute for any other purpose. It is not like an artificial leg and most other forms of surgical appliances. I say here and now it is my opinion that artificial legs particularly and many other forms of artificial appliances should not be permitted to be made except under the direct supervision of an orthopaedic surgeon. I believe it is the duty of the orthopaedic surgeon to supervise these things because he has the knowledge. Similarly with teeth; I believe it is the duty of the dentist to supervise the impression and see the teeth are properly made. We all know that even with expert supervision of the professionally qualified dentist trouble occurs with dentures which are eventually found to be unwearable, and which are found to cause a considerable amount of pain, while if they are worn persistently serious trouble may ensue. If that is the case even with the assistance of the professional man how much greater will the danger not be if we leave the taking of the impression and everything else to men who have not studied over a course of years, and acquired the knowledge, as they should have done? I know the Minister is not going to accept this amendment, but I rise to speak because the line of attack in regard to this Bill has not been upon the merits of the Bill at all. The line of attack has not been along the lines that the mechanic is today competent to do the job. The line of attack is we are taking away from the mechanics of the country something they have, and we are going to force them down into the gutter, in the words of the hon. member for Durban (Central) (Mr. Derbyshire); we are going to cause them to starve. That is not the case. I am satisfied that the Bill contains within its various provisions what is in a sense a charter for the dental mechanic. It may be they feel they will lose something in status because this matter of repairing dentures has been taken away from them. But I am satisfied the Bill is on the lines of good trades unionism. It will provide the mechanic with an economic wage and a status in society he does not receive today in a market which can only be retained by going beyond the provisions of the law.

After listening to the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. Burnside) one must come to the conclusion he is defending the dentists to the detriment of the Party that he professes to represent, and the working class. He refers to the hon. member for Cape Western (Mr. Molteno) having said something, but by his own argument he contradicts himself. He mentioned that he was not able to defend certain natives because of the restrictions imposed by the legal profession of which the hon. member for Cape Western is a member. I put it to him, if he feels he is competent as a layman’ to defend these natives and should be allowed to do so, why does he not give these technicians the right to be masters of their own craft? He talks about an individual having a cracked denture should have an impression taken. I say this, that there is no necessity for it in 99 times out of 100. The hon. member for Fordsburg incidentally mentioned that he had an offer made to him by a mechanic and he could get a new set of dentures for £4 10s. instead of going to a dentist. I put it to him that although that is what is actually happening, and assuming that the hon. member for Fordsburg has had that offer, what is wrong with his going to such a so-called mechanic and paying £4 10s. instead of going to a dentist? The dentist will be charged £4 10s. by the mechanic, while the dentist will charge him 16 guineas. We have heard so much about quacks. My hon. friend protected himself by referring to what the Minister may do in regard to fixing charges. I admit, as I said before, that I was inclined to support this Bill when it was originally put to me by the one side the dentists, but once I learned the actual position from the other side, I was prepared to sacrifice my reputation for the underdog. When one hears talk about cancer, I am pleased to learn from the Minister that “three” was misunderstood for “pre-” cancer, but we have been told that quackery has been the cause of cancer in the mouth. I want to say that when anything happens in this country which is to the detriment of the health of the general public, it is advertised. Why has this noble profession not advertised it to the world? I want to say this without fear of contradiction that the only person I have known in this business who has died of cancer was a doctor in Pretoria. [Interruption.] I do not say it was due to quackery, but we hear too much about quackery. The curious part is that as a result of the 1928 Act certain mechanics became dentists. Much has been said about mechanics having been fined £100, but we have heard in Another Place the fact that many of the mechanics who became dentists had infringed the law and in Pretoria every one of them had previously been fined for so-called quackery. These now are the people who are fighting against their brothers who have been left behind. If there is so much in this quackery, I would like to know why the noble profession of dentists proposed amending the Bill so that it would only be necessary for mechanics to serve only two or three years maximum apprenticeship. They give for this reason, that they obtained their degrees as dentists by only putting in a maximum of 2,000 hours practice on the mechanical side of dentistry. I want to say if they had their own way they would turn out quacks, and half-baked mechanics.

In the representations that have been made by dental surgeons the public health view has been stressed and it has been stated that due to ill-fitting dentures there have been cases of cancer in the mouth. Prof. Shaw when he spoke the other day, in refuting an allegation, stated that he was speaking of a pre-cancerous condition of the mouth. We have several medical members in this House, and I am wondering whethr they would enlighten us on what that really means—a pre-cancerous condition of the mouth. The term in itself seems to imply there was no cancer there at all and for the life of me I cannot understand what a pre-cancerous condition of the mouth is, unless it is a perfectly healthy mouth. All the cancer research we have had so far has never proved that cancer is the result of irritation, although it has been stated that possibly it might be.

It is recognised as a pre-disposing cause.

That may be, but they have never proved it, all the research in the world has not proved that cancer in the mouth or in any part of the body is due to prolonged irritation, so far as I have read in the Cancer Research Society reports.

Have you studied it?

I am interested in things of that sort, and I have contributed to the funds of cancer research. But this pre-cancerous condition of the mouth seems to be something the ordinary man cannot understand, and I should be very glad if some hon. member would give us an indication of what the term really means. There has been a controversy this afternoon and at other times, whether the right to effect repairs is of any pecuniary advantage to the mechanician. May I say that this morning a member of the Technicians’ Society told me that when he was unemployed he was very glad to get repair work, which brought him in £20 a month. That made the difference between him being able to live and provide for his family, or starvation. It may be when the provisions of this Bill come into full swing, as we envisage after about 2½ years, many of these men—according to a telegram I received this morning—will be unemployed; and the opportunity of undertaking legitimate repair work is something they would value, and so far as I can see if the full provisions of the Bill are applied, in Durban at least eight will be thrown out of employment and in the Union at least 40 mechanics. That is a fact I can only put before the House, but I wish that hon. members would discard the impression that has been conveyed by the dental surgeon that repair work does not bring in any money at all, and that it is not worth preserving. If it is worth £20 a month to a mechanic when he is unemployed, it is not to be sneezed at, because it represents the difference between existing at any rate and semi-starvation.

It was interesting to hear the remark by the hon. member for Natal (South Coast) (Mr. Neate) that repair work brought in something in the region of £20 a month to dental mechanics, because the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. Burnside) questioned whether it was at all possible for any dental mechanic to make a living by repair work. It is a pity this Bill was not referred to a Select Committee so that one could have had some evidence on this question. I am able to testify it is possible for a dental mechanic to make a reaonable living simply by repairs. Mr. Tommy Scott was brought to Cape Town in the interests of the dentists ….

That is not true.

He was brought down not in the interests of the dental technicians, but at the request of the dentists, and he confirmed the statement I am now about to make, that the dentists had suggested to groups in this House that the repair work was infinitesimal, and—as the hon. member for Fordsburg said—it was not possible for them to make a living on that. I put the question to Mr. Tommy Scott directly, who is a dental mechanician and whom I know personally, having played football with him, I put the question in the presence of the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Dr. V. L. Shearer) whether it was possible for a mechanic to make a living by doing repairs, and the answer was in the affirmative. In any case we are discussing the crucial point whether they should be allowed to do repairs which at present they are legally permitted to do. Mr. Tommy Scott said it was possible to make a reasonable living as a dental mechanic by repair work, and he suggested a figure of something like £60 a month could be made. This brings me to the important question. The hon. member for Fordsburg deprecated the fact that today 60 Africans were undefended in court, and he alleged that was because the society to which the member for Cape Western (Mr. Molteno) belonged debarred persons other than those from within the orbit of their own society to defend them.

No. That is not fair.

The hon. member went on to argue in exactly the opposite direction, that the things he deplored in connection with the legal profession should be made applicable to the dental trade. This is the point I want to make. The hon. member for Fordsburg is a tailor, and if he was here I would put this question to him. Would he like the position to be set up that a tailor would only be permitted to sell his labour through an outfitting establishment? I know his reply would be no, but that the tailor should have the right to contact the public and to sell his labour in the open market if he so desired. Well, his contention that you should not make fish of one and fowl of another is correct, if you allow tailoring workers to sell their labour in the open market you should not at the same time debar a dental mechanic from being in the same position.

Amendment proposed by the Minister of Welfare and Demobilisation put and agreed to and the amendments proposed by Mr. Derbyshire and Mr. McLean put and negatived.

Clause, as amended, put and a division called.

As fewer than 10 members (viz.: Messrs. Hopf, McLean, Molteno, Neate and Wanless) voted against’ the clause, as amended, the Deputy-Chairman declared it agreed to.

On Clause 17,

I have suggested to the Minister that Clause 17 should be amended. It seems to me that if the provisions of Clause 16 are to be suspended for two years, Clause 17 should be amended in some way. At present I suppose the laboratories are without supervision by a dentist.

I can deal with that point straight away. The hon. member was good enough to draw my attention to this section and to suggest that an amendment might be necessary. As far as I can see the amendment is not necessary because of the amendment the House has just passed on Clause 16, but it is quite possible that an amendment may be necessary because of the provisions of Section 12 of the Bill. In terms of Section 12 the mechanicians must register within one month of the fixed date. The fixed date is not likely to be announced for some six months or more and therefore we may have the position that there will not be any registered mechanicians for six months or more. This clause says that no one but a mechanic can carry out certain work. If it goes through unamended we may be faced with a difficult position. I have consulted the law advisers, and if the clause is allowed to pass now I will have an amendment in respect of this clause and of Clause 19 at the report stage, which I do not intend taking for at least a week.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 18,

I move an amendment—

The effect of this amendment will be that in future, if any company is formed for the purpose of carrying out the work of dental mechanicians, the shareholders and directors may only be dental mechanicians.

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 19,

The same applies here.

I just want to draw the attention of the Minister to correspondence I have mentioned to him and the interviews which took place between the Dental Trade Association and the Minister and the Secretary for Public Health. I will not refer to the correspondence because the Minister has it, but after perusal of the correspondence it seems to me that the hearing was sympathetic and that the Secretary pointed out that he could do all that was required under the regulations. If the Minister would give that assurance now it will save the moving of any amendments in this clause or the next.

The position is that discussions have taken place, and it was then pointed out that the permits to be issued under this section will be issued not by the board but by the Department of Public Health. That seemed to satisfy the members of the Dental Trade Association in regard to that point. Furthermore, the Secretary for Public Health has given an indication that he is quite willing that the Department should consult the Association in respect of draft regulations before they are submitted to the Minister, and as far as I am concerned, I am quite prepared to agree to that course, which I think is a wise one. Furthermore, the Secretary has suggested that when the regulations are framed consideration may be given to the inclusion of the term “dental trader”. The nett result is that before regulations are promulgated the Dental Association will be given an opportunity of seeing the draft regulations and making such comments as they think fit.

I think that is very satisfactory and I hope it will satisfy all persons concerned. I hope the matter of illegal importation will also be dealt with at the same time.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 20,

In view of the fact that our importations are about 2,500,000 artificial teeth per annum imported by the trade, does the Minister really mean that a record of all these teeth must be kept by everyone? It seems to me that that is what the clause says, that a record of all unmounted teeth should be kept for the inspection of the police. There has been for many years quite a lot of trading in old artificial teeth, and I understand that the reason for this is that at some time or another platinum points were used, and it was the recovery of the platinum points which caused this trade. I believe that now the points are made of gold or silver. I may be wrong but I think that is the case. But there has been a tremendous trade in these artificial teeth.

The Dental Traders’ Association raised this point and are quite satisfied with the assurance given to them by the Department of Public Health.

What about old dentures? They are unmounted teeth and it seems to me we are treating these teeth in the same way as diamonds. I think that this clause should be deleted altogether.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 22

I move—

1. (c) two shall be appointed to represent the interests of registered dental mechanicians who are employers of dental mechanicians; and
2. (d) two shall be appointed to represent the interests of dentists who are employers of dental mechanicians; and to omit sub-section (2) and to substitute the following new sub-section:

1. (2) The members referred to in paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) of sub-section (1) shall be appointed by the employers’ organisations and the trade unions, respectively, which are, in the opinion of the Minister of Labour, for the time being representative of employers or employees, as the case may be, in the occupation of dental mechanician: Provided that if in the opinion of the said Minister there is no such organisation or no such trade union, the members to represent the interests of employers or employees, as the case may be, shall be appointed by the said Minister after consultation with the board.

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Clauses 23 to 26 put and agreed to.

It being 6.40 p.m. the Deputy-Chairman stated that in accordance with the Sessional Order adopted on the 25th January, 1945, and Standing Order No. 26 (1), he would report progress and ask leave to sit again.

House Resumed:

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN reported progress and asked leave to sit again; House to resume in Committee on 19th April.