Mr. Chairman, I believe we have discussed the amendments moved by the hon. member for Bryanston quite extensively and it only remains for me to say that I cannot accept the amendments moved by the hon. member.

Mr. Chairman, when the debate on this clause was adjourned the hon. the Minister, in dealing with subsection (1)(c), which reads as follows—

stated that in his view there would always be Black South African citizens, and therefore Black South African citizens would be eligible for election to this council. This statement is one of such fundamental significance to the whole political approach of the Government that I have to pinpoint it. And I hope the hon. the Deputy Minister of Plural Relations and Development will listen to what I have to say.

Stop making up jokes and listen, Andries!

Order!

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister has said that there will always be Black South African citizens and that they will not compulsorily be deprived of their South African citizenship. He said that was how he saw it He made it quite clear that no Black man may fear that he would lose his South African citizenship involuntarily.

On 7 February 1978 the then Minister of Plural Relations and Development said the following in a debate in this House (Hansard, 1978, col. 579)—

The hon. the Prime Minister, when I challenged him directly later in the year, answered my question, i.e. whether there would be any Black citizens of South Africa left, by making it absolutely clear that, in terms of Government policy, not only homelands would achieve independence, but also all the people would receive independence. That was on 11 April 1978. It is a long quotation with which I do not want to bore the House. However, I put it succinctly to him and in clear terms. I said: “The hon. Prime Minister has already dealt with the first one, namely the question of no Black citizens. He has committed himself to the concept that there would be no Black South African citizens.” The hon. the Prime Minister did not refute that.

Now we have a Bill that provides that any member of the Dental Technicians Council must be a South African citizen permanently resident in the Republic, and this hon. Minister, in direct contradiction of the official policy of his party, states that he believes there will always be Black South African citizens and that no Black citizen will lose his citizenship against his will.

This poses a fundamental question which the Government must now answer. What is the policy of the Government? What does this clause mean? What does this paragraph mean? Does it mean, as the hon. the Minister has indicated, that Blacks living in our urban areas, the urban Blacks in South Africa, will remain South African citizens and will therefore be entitled to appointment to the council, or is the hon. the Minister saying this to the people when in fact the policy of his own party is quite different?

Where does the Bill refer to urban Blacks?

It refers to South African citizens permanently resident in South Africa, and this hon. Minister said there would always be Black South African citizens. The policy of the Government is clearly—and I have quoted it…

Do you not agree with it?

I agree, but the Government does not agree. The former Prime Minister and the former Minister of Plural Relations and Development—and I have quoted from their Hansard—said there would be no Black South African citizen when their policy was carried to its logical conclusion. This hon. Minister says that is not so. My challenge to the hon. the Minister now is to tell South Africa in clear and simple terms: Has the Government departed from the policy of “no Black South African citizens”? Does it, as the hon. the Minister says, accept the permanence of the urban Black in South Africa as a South African citizen?

From this flow fundamental implications, which I will not be permitted to debate under this Bill. However, the establishment of this fundamental departure, or otherwise, from Government policy opens up a completely new issue in South African politics. I now challenge the hon. the Minister to say whether he is expressing official Government policy, that the old policy has been rejected and thrown overboard, that the views of the former Prime Minister, expressed as the policy of his party, no longer apply and that there will in fact be permanent Black South African citizens.

On this question rests a whole new range of political debate in South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, I want to carry this point further, because the hon. member for Durban Point is talking about policy and changes in future policy as far as Black people who live in South Africa and who are going to lose their South African citizenship, are concerned. I want to talk about the people who have already lost their South African citizenship. It is not a change of policy we are talking about, but a change of law.

What has that got to do with the Bill?

Just look at it.

It is an actual change of law. We already have two laws on our Statute Book which have in fact deprived South African Blacks of their South African citizenship. We have the Status of the Transkei Act, which was passed in 1975, and Status of the Bophuthatswana Act, which was passed in 1977. By virtue of those Acts hundreds of thousands of people—in fact, in the case of the Transkei over a million and certainly hundreds of thousands of Bophuthatswana people—lost their South African citizenship, not that they chose to deprive themselves of their citizenship, not that they had any choice regarding the loss of their citizenship, but they lost it automatically the minute those two territories became independent. Section 6 of the Status of Bophuthatswana Act defines citizenship very clearly—

Mutatis mutandis, exactly the same clause is present in the Status of the Transkei Act.

Who are the people who appear in schedule B? They are not just the people resident in the now independent territory of Bophuthatswana, …

You are out of order.

I am not at all out of order. We are discussing South African citizens. The hon. the Minister said during the early stages of the debate that he could not envisage a situation where South Africans were deprived of their citizenship. I am pointing out to the hon. the Minister that thousands of South Africans have already been deprived of their citizenship. Under schedule B, read with section 6 of the Act, five categories of persons defined in the widest possible way actually have lost their South African citizenship.

To bring the matter specifically back to the matter which we are discussing, I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether a person resident and born in Soweto, who has one or other parent who was born in Bophuthatswana, or for instance Dr. Motlana, who was born in Pretoria but has a Tswana ancestor, and has lost his South African citizenship, will be able to serve on the council. That is the point which this House is discussing today. It seems to me that the hon. the Minister is ignorant of the law. Therefore it is very important indeed that we should know whether it is the intention of the Government not to change the policy, but to change the law. The law already applies, and therefore we would like to have this matter clarified.

Mr. Chairman, we are dealing with the Committee Stage of the Bill and therefore we are not concerned with the principles of the Bill at the moment. All that is stated here, is: “No person … who is not a South African citizen permanently resident in the Republic.” That is all that appears here. What the hon. member envisages in his amendment, is that we should make provision for enabling the representatives of countries which have in the meantime become independent as a result of the Government policy, to be appointed in a quasi-judicial body, a statutory council of the country. We regard the independence of those people as independence and I am aware that some people do not want it to be the case. As far as I am concerned, they enjoy full independence. The acknowledged leaders of those people can come to an agreement with regard to independence of that nature. If those leaders accept independence, it surely means that such a person has a different relationship with the country of which he will then not be a citizen, as the hon. member maintained. That is all I should like to say in this regard, and the rest are opinions which I have already expressed, opinions which those hon. members wanted me to express. I have said it and I stand by it. I gave my Hansard to the hon. the Prime Minister and he looked at it.

Does he support what you said?

Allow me to do the talking; I am explaining now, am I not? If the hon. member should like to put a question which has a bearing on this, he may do so. The hon. member is however getting very far from the point at the moment.

After giving an explanation, I said that that was my opinion and that I did not foresee the day when there would not be Black South Africans. If any of the hon. members on that side of the House would like to show me where I said that I could not foresee the day when there would be no Black South African citizens, they should fetch my Hansard and take a look at it.

What did Dr. Mulder say?

However, it is precisely because the question of citizenship is an aspect on which the leaders negotiate with one another at a certain level and then come to a decision about the matter, that I said what I did. By saying that, I did not say it would never happen that there would in future be South African citizens that are Black.

What are Black South Africans?

Has the hon. member heard of South Americans and of Scandinavians? South Africa will eventually consist of quite a few States, whether hon. members want it that way or not. Furthermore I also said—and I repeat—that as far as I can see in the distant future—it is not for me to say; I am not the Supreme Being—but as I see the circumstances, and I used the words “in my opinion” all along—I cannot see how there will never be Black South Africans or even Black South African citizens. That was the implication of my words.

Very wise.

There will always be Black citizens.

I am not saying there will always be Black citizens; I am saying that I cannot foresee that there will never be Black citizens. That is my opinion. It is useless for hon. members to attempt to turn it around, for I selected my words correctly.

As far as the question of citizenship is concerned, I should just like to say that that is an agreement between the country being given independence and the other. Further more I also said—I presume hon. members will remember it—that no South African citizen will be compelled to surrender his citizenship. That is what I said and I stand by that as well. I said what the Government is going to do; I did not say what such a person’s government or its representatives are going to do. Where we have come to an agreement, it is usually its leaders that made such a proposal. Therefore, we are not compelling him and he has a choice. That is the position in this regard.

In my opinion I have thereby replied to the hon. member’s arguments and, as far as I am concerned, I have to accept the provision as it reads here, i.e. that an independent country will not have a representative on a statutory council in South Africa. If hon. members wish to discuss the matter further, they will have to do so during the debate on the Vote. If they have more questions to put then, I shall reply to such questions.

Order! I must point out that the question of citizenship for Blacks is not under discussion now. I have allowed hon. members a fair degree of latitude, but I think they must now return to discussing this clause. The question under discussion in this clause is whether Blacks may be appointed to the council.

Mr. Chairman, clause 6(1)(c) reads as follows—

You may be right in your ruling that we are not allowed to discuss citizenship in general under this clause, but surely we may discuss citizenship in so far as it has a direct bearing on this clause. The hon. member for Houghton raised the question of people who are directly affected by this clause. The hon. member for Houghton asked the hon. the Minister to reply on the position of citizens …

You are totally out of order.

The hon. member for Houghton asked the hon. the Minister to reply specifically on the position of former South African citizens who simply lost their South African citizenship without their permission as a result of legislation passed by Parliament I am referring to the legislation which made Bophuthatswana and Transkei independent. In terms of that legislation, hundreds of thousands—most probably millions—of South African citizens summarily lost their South African citizenship. Now the hon. the Minister says …

Order! That has absolutely nothing to do with the clause which is now under discussion.

Mr. Chairman …

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: You ruled that the hon. member for Bryanston was out of order following a particular line of argument. But he has not finished his speech.

Order! I beg your pardon. I thought that the hon. member had completed his speech. The hon. member for Bryanston may proceed.

The hon. the Minister has not replied to the question. Among the people who lost their South African citizenship, people who are permanently resident in South Africa, who have always lived here and who have therefore never lived in those countries, people who received their training …

Order! I have already given my ruling on this matter and I shall not allow any further speeches on this subject.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister has not given any reply to this.

Order! The hon. member must come back to the clause.

Mr. Chairman, may I then put it to the hon. the Minister in the form of a very simple question? Suppose there are persons in South

Africa who used to be South African citizens, but who have lost their citizenship in terms of the legislation referred to. These people have received their training, have qualified and are practising the profession of dental technicians. Because of their professional qualifications, they are fully competent to be members of the council. Does the hon. the Minister agree that they should be deprived of the right to serve on the council merely in consequence of this provision? This is the problem we are referring to, the fact that there are already millions of South African citizens who do not have the right to serve on the council because of the provision contained in the legislation. That is why I moved an amendment to help the hon. the Minister to be fair towards these people. I am not talking about people who have come from overseas and have not yet become South African citizens. I am talking about people who have every right to claim South African citizenship, but who have been deprived of their right. The important point, however, is that those people were never consulted. It was not done with their consent. That step was forced upon them. I should like the hon. the Minister to accept my amendment so that justice may be done to those people. That is what we are concerned with.

Mr. Chairman, I shall abide by your ruling. I rise to respond to the invitation by the hon. the Minister to ask him a question if I wished to do so, and I do wish to do so. The hon. the Minister said that he had shown his Hansard to the hon. the Prime Minister. Those were his words. My question is whether the hon. the Prime Minister accepts, as the official policy of his party, his view that there will always be Black South African citizens and that no Black South African will be deprived of his citizenship. My question is therefore: Does the hon. the Prime Minister endorse the view of the hon. the Minister?

Mr. Chairman, my answer is that policy matters are determined at our congresses. Opinions expressed here are in various shades …

But is there not joint Cabinet responsibility?

I expressed an opinion here. I have given the hon. the Prime Minister my Hansard.

What did he say?

Perhaps he has not yet had enough time to have a look at it. If he disagrees with my statement, he will tell me so.

Did he not give an opinion?

No, he has not yet done so. I do not think there has been time enough for that as yet. However, what I said here was an opinion of mine, and I have the right to have an opinion on anything. It was not a question of policy. A Minister cannot stand up here and, merely by expressing an opinion

Is there not joint Cabinet responsibility?

That hon. member and other hon. members are making deductions on the basis of an opinion that was expressed. I expressed an opinion that differs from that.

Is there not joint Cabinet responsibility?

Joint Cabinet responsibility for every statement a Minister makes here? Do not be silly! [Interjections.]

Order!

How many policies do you have?

Order!

I am treating this amendment in accordance with what is stated in the Bill, i.e. that someone who is not a South African citizen cannot serve on the council. I stand by that. We regard Transkei and Bophuthatswana as independent countries. Are those hon. members not, thereby aiding and abetting the United Nations? [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, I should like to put a question to the hon. the Minister. The hon. the Minister said he does not agree with “that” opinion. Do I understand him to mean by “that” that he does not agree with the opinion expressed here by the former Prime Minister and by the former Minister of Plural Relations and Development? I should just like some clarity on that point.

Mr. Chairman, if he can remember correctly, what was said by that one Minister—I am not talking about the Prime Minister because I have not read what he said and do not know what he said …

I have got what the Prime Minister said here.

That does not matter. Which Prime Minister? The previous one?

B. J. Vorster.

It does not matter. I remember what was said by a certain Minister here, i.e. that if the Government’s policy was followed through to its logical consequences, there would eventually be no Black South Africans in South Africa.

Do you agree with that?

Order!

I do not think that that is possible. Is that clear enough?

Yes, it is very clear.

Order! I have given my ruling on this matter. Hon. members may discuss other things, but not this.

Mr. Chairman, may I, in connection with your ruling, respectfully point out that we are discussing clause 6(1)(c), on page 8 of the Bill, which refers to the constitution of the council. May I, Sir, with respect, also point out that the object of the council is, inter alia, outlined as follows in clause 3(c)—I should like to quote this because I think it is relevant to what we are discussing here—

I emphasize “and elsewhere”—

I believe that there is some significance in those words. I believe that the debate that has raged about the clause presently under discussion assumes even greater importance in the light of the words “and elsewhere”. Perhaps the hon. the Minister will indicate whether there is any relevance in the point I am making, which is that it is intended that the council promote liaison of the education and training elsewhere. I would ask where he intends that such education and training be liaised. This consideration in my view makes his non-acceptance of the amendment to the clause we are presently discussing quite strange.

There is a second point I wish to make, and I think that this point is more relevant to the clause under discussion. In the course of his original reply to the motivation for the amendment put forward by the hon. member for Bryanston, the Minister made it perfectly clear that there was not one single qualified Black dental technician in South Africa. I think that that point is a very important one and I am surprised that it has not been highlighted further, because it almost makes a mockery of legislation and, by the same token, it makes a mockery of so-called independent homelands when they are totally dependent on South Africa for services such as those rendered by dental technicians. That is the other point I should like to make.

Mr. Chairman, when the hon. the Minister was replying to the first discussion on this clause, he used the following words—

I wish to point out to the Minister that this is not so. There are in fact Black people who have been registered as dental technicians in South Africa. I have received a letter which reads as follows—

No, that is the wrong letter, Mr. Chairman. [Interjections.] That letter is concerned with other parts of the body. I shall confine myself to teeth. The letter I have received …

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: Is the hon. member entitled to use the words “it is concerned with other parts of the body” to refer to something which happened outside this House? [Interjections.] Mr. Chairman, the public fool on the other side can laugh derisively if he likes. These are serious matters. I want to know whether the hon. member is entitled to refer in such a way to something which happened outside this House and which has no bearing on the remark just made. I think it is absolutely scandalous. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member must come back to the clause.

Mr. Chairman, if the hon. the Minister has not received a copy of the letter, I shall…

Mr. Chairman, on a further point of order: When I raise a point of order, I do not want to be addressed by the hon. member for Bryanston.

Order! I cannot allow that as a point of order. The hon. member may proceed with his speech.

If there are any hon. members who want a copy of the letter, I shall be very glad to let them have it.

The letter I received came from the S.A. Dental Laboratory Association. In the letter they said that they would like to point out that there are registered dental technicians among all Colour groups, including Blacks. Therefore I should very much like to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister to the fact that he is mistaken in saying that there are no registered Black dental technicians in South Africa at the moment. This confirms the question I have put to the hon. the Minister. I hope the hon. the Minister will now finally give us a reply to that question. We want a reply to the question of whether Black people who used to be South African citizens before they were deprived of their South African citizenship, and who are qualified, registered and practising dental technicians, will be prevented by this proposed legislation from registering. Can we have a clear answer to that question?

Mr. Chairman, in the light of the provisions of clause 6(1)(c), the reply to the hon. member’s question is “no”.

I should like to bring the discussion to a close. I do not think I have to reply to arguments which are irrelevant. I have expressed my opinion on a certain matter, which is not really relevant either, so that hon. members may know that our thinking is not so dogmatic that there cannot be any difference of opinion about matters which can be sorted out at a congress if they are important enough.

Are there differences of opinion? [Interjections.]

I am sorry, but I cannot reply to questions now. We have to conclude the debate. The information that no Black has been registered as a technician comes from the registrar of the council. However, the hon. member spoke of an association which has to look after these people. He got his information from different people. I was not able to verify this information myself or to make a survey to acquaint myself with the facts. However, I got this information from the most authoritative body in this field. The hon. member will have to decide for himself whom he wants to believe.

†The hon. member for Berea referred to the words “and elsewhere”, but surely he must know that we have not closed the door to representatives of other countries to visit us with the object of exchanging information and helping each other. Those avenues are always open. We are now on the point of establishing a regional health organization in Southern Africa. As far as the totally independent countries—as he and I have called them—are concerned, I want to say that if a country asks for total independence and there is not a single Black technician in that country, that country should consider this fact before it accepts independence. That is why the previous Prime Minister, whom members are so eager to quote, said from time to time that no homeland would ever be forced to accept independence.

Mr. Chairman, I refer to clause 11(1)(c). This relates to the establishment of a service conditions committee for the purpose of investigating and determining conditions of employment of dental technicians, except dental technicians who are in the employment of the State or a provincial administration. I wonder whether this could not give rise to a feeling amongst dental technicians employed by the State or a provincial administration that they are regarded in a different light from all other dental technicians. I wonder if there is any specific motivation why they should be excluded. I should be interested to hear the hon. the Minister’s comment on this, because that exclusion is repeated in clause 12 as well, a clause which again deals with conditions of employment. It might obviate further discussion if the hon. the Minister could give us the motivation for the necessity of this exclusion of dental technicians employed by the State or by a provincial administration.

Mr. Chairman, I shall be glad to explain what the hon. member asked. The implication of the amendment which has been proposed here is that the council should be given the power to express an opinion on the conditions of employment of dental technicians who are officials of the State and of provincial administrations. Conditions of service include the following: leave, pension, salary and promotion. The Public Service Act of 1957 regulates those aspects. Hon. members cannot expect provision to be made for a council from outside to do this. The interests of the profession are served by this council, but with regard to their bread and butter, as well as the other related aspects, these certainly cannot be decided upon by a body outside the department Professional aspects are regulated by the council, while the aspects which are relevant in this clause are ones which must be considered by the State as the employer.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 24:

Mr. Speaker, I want to raise a very small point, but I think it might nevertheless be worthy of consideration by the hon. the Minister. Concerning notice of the removal it is stated in subsection 2 that—

I think that it is worth considering that such a letter should be registered, because in any future dispute as to the receipt or otherwise of that letter, the fact that it is sent by registered post will remove any grounds for questions that might arise if it were not sent by registered letter.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has a point there and I will discuss with my officials and the legal people the necessity of this. I think that he has made a point and if it is necessary I can introduce the necessary amendment in the Other Place.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 28:

Mr. Chairman, I should like to take the opportunity of bringing to the hon. the Minister’s attention certain provisions contained in the clause. It would appear that certain information in this legislation was not provided to certain bodies that have a particular interest in the legislation. In this connection I want to refer to two groups.

There is a certain group of people who take a specific interest in the provisions of clause 28 as well as in the other clauses of the legislation. There are three training institutions in South Africa today where courses are offered for the training of dental technicians. There are the University of the Western Cape, the University of the Witwatersrand and the University of Pretoria. These are the three training centres which offer courses for the training of dental technicians. These three universities consequently possess the facilities and staff required for providing the training. Those people take a special interest in the legislation, of course, especially in so far as it relates to the training of dental technicians. I want to make it clear that dental technicians can qualify only at those three institutions. In the past, dental technicians have qualified as apprentices, i.e., they could qualify while practising the profession. At the moment, however, they can only qualify at one of these three training centres.

It has now happened that the staff of these three centres have not been consulted about this legislation at all. I do not want to give the hon. the Minister all the blame for this, because he did his duty by having the legislation published in full in the Gazette. However, it would appear that the Dental Mechanicians Council neglected to inform its members of the provisions of this legislation and also neglected to inform the staff at these three training centres.

This unfortunately means that the legislation will now be piloted through Parliament without the hon. the Minister having had an opportunity to acquaint himself with the standpoints of the people who work at those training centres. In my opinion, it is a very unfortunate situation we are dealing with here.

I received representations from these people for the very first time the day before yesterday, when they realized for the first time that this legislation was before Parliament at the moment. It left me little time to examine their representations in full, and has also left them no time for making representations to the hon. the Minister.

Their representations mainly concern the composition of the council, because they do not feel happy about that. However, the clause relating to that has already been passed. They object specifically to clause 28, where it refers to those aspects of the work which are to be left to unregistered persons. Clause 28 singles out certain acts which may be performed by unregistered persons. The staff of the three training centres believe that if those exceptions are made, it may mean that some of the people who are presently being trained and who will soon qualify will not have job opportunities when they qualify. These people receive very good training in South Africa and it compares favourably with the training provided in other countries. I want to request the hon. the Minister to accept that representations in this connection will be made to him in the future. He must also accept that he will run into difficulties as far as these particular provisions of the legislation are concerned.

This morning, I received representations from the laboratory owners which are diametrically opposed to the representations from the training centre. A laboratory owner phoned me this morning and said that Coloured, Indian and Black employees had been working in the laboratory for the past 25 to 30 years, but that they were not qualified or registered. These people do good work, but as a result of this provision in the legislation they will now lose their work. Unfortunately, these representations reached me at a very late stage. I therefore had no time to study them and to consult the hon. the Minister about them.

However, I want to convey these two standpoints to the hon. the Minister. I know that they will place him in a very difficult position. I take it that the hon. the Minister is not prepared to cause a delay in the passage of the legislation at this late stage by affording these parties the opportunity of making further representations to him. However, I should like to inquire of the hon. the Minister whether he will be able to delay the legislation to allow these people to come to him with representations. I should very much like to convey these two conflicting standpoints to the hon. the Minister, however, and to make it clear to him that both groups are very honest and sincere in their conviction that the proposed legislation will cause difficulties for them.

The training centres are very important to the dental technicians because they are the only institutions providing training for future dental technicians. They feel that the legislation is going to mean that there will be no jobs for dental technicians who have completed their training. On the other hand, we have the present employers—the dental technicians in the laboratories—who feel that there are hundreds of people who are going to lose their jobs as a result of the proposed Bill. I hope the hon. the Minister will give attention to this as soon as possible and see whether he can solve the problem of these two groups.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Bryanston rightly remarked that a draft Bill had been published. Therefore a reasonable period of time was allowed for representations about this matter. That is the standard practice. As a rule, I do not write to all parties individually, because it is very cumbersome. This is actually an accusation against the council, and that I cannot simply accept. The council usually acts responsibly, and this particular question of unregistered people is an aspect which was discussed in detail. Concerning a provision such as this one, it was unanimously decided that it would be better—since the people have not yet been registered—to define clearly what acts they may perform. The acts are of such a nature that they will not endanger the profession and will be performed under very close supervision. It also provides people with employment. This is not to say that the people will all lose their work. If people are doing work for which they have to be registered, surely they have known all these years that they have to register. I am afraid that in such a case it would be illegal.

As regards our course of action in obtaining information, I must say that draft legislation and similar matters are widely publicized. I cannot accept responsibility for a mistake at this stage, that is to say, if there was a mistake. Of course, my door will always be open later so that I can talk to people if there is a particular problem. For this reason our laws are not laws of the Medes and Persians. I have explained that we have to define the work done by these people so that they may not go beyond these limits.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 29:

Mr. Chairman, clause 29 makes provision for dental technicians to obtain a master’s degree, a qualification which will be introduced at some time in the future. It also provides that no laboratory may do any work unless it is under the supervision of a person in possession of a master’s degree. Exactly the same situation has arisen here, because the training centres, which will in any case be the bodies that must provide the training, were not consulted as regards this particular provision. This is once again an indication of an omission on the part of some body or person. Unfortunately this provision is already contained in the legislation, but it was included in the legislation without the people directly concerned, having the opportunity to put their point of view and contribute to the formulation of this provision.

We in South Africa are of course in the fortunate position that the standard of training and qualifications of our dental technicians are already higher than that of the master’s degree qualifications which can, for example, be obtained in Germany. As I understand it, the intention is that this master’s degree qualification which will be offered in South Africa, will be cast in the same mould as the qualification available in Germany.

One of the most important objections to this is the fact that if the Minister should use his power and should stipulate that no laboratory may be opened unless it is under the supervision of a person with a master’s degree, it would mean that from now on, until there are people in South Africa who have obtained master’s degrees, no new laboratories may be opened. This is seen as an unfortunate situation. This will prevent people who have the ability to open laboratories from being allowed to do so. It will be necessary to wait until people with master’s degrees are available. On the other hand, to a certain extent it will afford the existing laboratories protection. What I mean is that there will be no opposition for the existing laboratories until such time as those persons with the necessary master’s degrees are available in South Africa.

I take it—and the hon. the Minister must confirm this over the floor of this House— that the hon. the Minister is not prepared to delete this provision from the legislation. If he is not prepared to delete it at this stage, I now appeal to him, on behalf of the training centres in South Africa, to give the people concerned a hearing as soon as possible so that he may hear their points of view in this regard. I am saying this, because I do feel that they are the people who in the first place will make the most important contribution as far as these qualifications are concerned and that their points of view should be accorded top priority, whatever future action is taken in this regard.

Mr. Chairman, I owe the hon. member a reply. In general I just want to say that it is roughly the same answer as I have already given. We do not write to individuals—we only give notice in general—otherwise one never knows who will come forward afterwards. Then I should just like to know something from the hon. member. Since these people apparently know his address so well, why did they not write to my people? In any case, they must approach the department directly. I cannot recognize only them in this House as the spokesmen of professional or other bodies.

As far as the provision regarding the master dental technician is concerned, I wish to refer the hon. member in the first place to the following words in subsection (5)—

We shall in other words allow ourselves to be guided by practice. That provision we have. Does the hon. member know for how long the said provision has already been contained in the existing Act? It has been there for two years now. The people concerned have, therefore, had two years in which to make representations about this. Is it, then, expected of me to accept responsibility for this at this stage? I do not think that is entirely reasonable and I think that the hon. member will admit that I think I have thereby replied to his question.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to tell the Minister that I am not fighting with him. We are dealing here with the interests of the profession and the different bodies and persons involved. The reason why the people approach me, is merely that they became aware of this legislation and the provisions contained in it for the first time two or three days ago. They then approached me because they had seen in newspaper reports that I was one of the members of this House dealing with this matter. However, they would like to contact the Minister as soon as possible and, when it suits him, inform him of their point of view. I will, in fact, ask them to do so.

They can contact the department and it will then be attended to via the usual channels.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 31:

Mr. Chairman, I should briefly like to raise two points with the hon. the Minister. The first concerns subsections (2) and (3) in terms of which an inspector shall be furnished with a certificate which shall be shown to the person concerned, i.e. the person being investigated. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister would not agree that the relevant wording has been improved upon recently in legislation relating to other professional bodies. It has been improved upon in the sense that the inspector must show his certificate before he makes any inquiries or undertakes any investigations. Other legislation that was passed by the House recently, embodied that principle and I am sure the provision could simply be rephrased accordingly. I do not think there can be any possible reason why the provision as it applies to other professional bodies should not be applied here in a similar manner.

I come to the second point I should like to make. In terms of subsection (5)(a)—

Again, this concerns a well established principle. I think it would be better and more desirable if this provision were to read “at any reasonable time”. I do not think it is necessary for me to elaborate on that I should like to ask the hon. the Minister to consider the two points I have made.

Mr. Chairman, with regard to the exhibition of the certificate, I want to point out that the department went so far as to lay down in legislation that the inspector must have the certificate. Whether he exhibits the certificate before or afterwards is something that can be decided between him and the owner. It is totally unnecessary for us to stipulate this in the legislation. At this stage we do not have to make such changes. It is a matter of agreement. If they have a difference of opinion, the inspector will immediately exhibit his certificate. If, however, they do not have a difference of opinion, then the inspector can exhibit it after he has completed his inspection if it is required of him. If everything is in order, the person concerned might not even require it.

†However, if the inspector should discover some fault and the person concerned asks to see his certificate, he is obliged to show it. The point is that he must be in possession of a certificate.

As regards the hon. member’s second point, the question arises what can be considered “a reasonable time”.

*In this case we are dealing with an offence, a crime. This has to do with people who do their work as unregistered technicians in their backyards. This is not daylight work; it is usually the work done in the dark. Reasonable working hours are between 08h00 and 17h00. The person can then arrange his affairs in such a way that he works in the night. Therefore I do not think that we should now, through over-keenness, draft the legislation in such a way that it would be impossible for the inspectors to implement it later on. It would be better to leave it to the discretion of the council to decide on these matters. If they have problems, we can see whether we should amend the law. That is the present position.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the hon. the Minister for his reasonable explanation. But I must differ with him and ask whether he will not reconsider his reasoning in respect of the first point I raised. We are not querying the fact that an inspector has authority to act. It is an established fact that he will have that authority. But I feel that it is less likely to cause friction, is far more desirable and is good common sense if on arrival the inspector produce his certificate when he introduces himself so that there can be no misunderstanding about it at all that he is an inspector empowered by the Act To say that he is able to produce his authority if there is a problem, is in my opinion not a good motivation. I think it can obviate problems if he produces it when he introduces himself. I cannot see why the hon. the Minister has a problem with this. There is other legislation which we still have to discuss in which the wording is completely different, although it refers to a similar professional body. So I cannot see why the hon. the Minister has a problem in this case.

Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to meet the hon. member on this point, but I want to tell him that the showing of his authority at the start will create the potential for friction and for covering up certain things which the inspector might otherwise have seen. That is the other side of the coin. However, I want to tell the hon. member that we can arrange the question of whether he should show his certificate beforehand, administratively. Seeing that the hon. member feels so strongly on this point, I want to assure him that that is what we will do.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 45:

Mr. Chairman, I want to refer to clause 45(2), which reads as follows—

I have a little difficulty with this wording, particularly if one looks at the Afrikaans translation which refers to “’n teenprestasie”. I have a problem with the wording here. I do not really see the necessity for the inclusion of the word “valuable”. Surely, if one does something for gain, one gets consideration for it anyway. So I wonder why it has been deemed necessary to have the word “valuable” included. In any event I do not think the Afrikaanse translation is a good one if it is the intention that it should be a “valuable” consideration. It is just a small point, but I should like the hon. the Minister to have a look at it nevertheless.

Mr. Chairman, the main problem as far as these subsections are concerned is that I am not able to enter into any argument with the hon. member. It seems to me that it might be superfluous to include that word, but this is a matter which can be corrected administratively.

*This is a grammatical error which can be corrected administratively. It is unnecessary to move an amendment on that. Since this has been brought to my attention, I shall have it investigated. However, it is not a matter which has to be mentioned and discussed by amendment.

Mr. Chairman, perhaps I can help the hon. the Minister and the hon. member for Berea in this regard. “Valuable consideration”—in Afrikaans translated as “teenprestasie”—is a concept from the English Law laid down in the Privy Council and later discussed by our Appeal Court. It has nothing to do with either “valuable” or “consideration”. It is merely a distinction between the English Law and the South African Law, the Roman-Dutch Law. The translation is correct: “teenprestasie” for “valuable consideration”. This is purely a judicial term and it has no other connotation at all.

Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, I accept that I have been looking at the English terminology and while accepting with gratitude the explanation given by the hon. gentleman—who should certainly know what it is all about—I do believe that the English is—to say the least—a little messy, because in court—I ask this question—could a defence not be that the consideration which I received was not a valuable one? It did not have value; it was consideration, but it did not have any substance of value.

Intrinsic.

Perhaps intrinsic value, thank you. Therefore I am innocent. But in terms of this a person is guilty because he has received a consideration. I think this is also a point which the hon. member for Berea is trying to emphasize. Although this may be a terminology long in use, perhaps it is terminology which we should look at very carefully and probably discontinue using in the future.

Clause agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Mr. Speaker, as the name of this Bill very clearly indicates, the legislation is aimed at the control of medicines in the Republic. But I believe in certain aspects the legislation has failed in this regard. I shall motivate my statement but should also like to qualify it by saying that in certain aspects the control that is exercised over the manufacture, processing, packing and sale of medicines is very adequate, very thorough, usually very reasonable and, I believe, highly desirable. But there are aspects of the sale, production and the advertising of medicines to which I should like to refer where I feel the legislation is perhaps not being applied correctly or cannot be applied at all. In any event, I feel it is an area where there is, what I would call, a very high failure rate.

I want to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister to the fact of the mail-order business carried on widely throughout the Republic by certain little-known companies, and in some cases by certain little-known individuals, who send out extensive mail-order lists with the most incredible claims for medicines, quite hair-raising one might say. [Interjections.] For those who are not so completely bald they even claim that they can raise hair on those heads. That is no exaggeration. Some of the claims are really out of all keeping and out of all proportion. I should like to …

[Inaudible.]

Mr. Speaker, I will not elaborate on that at all. I am sure it was not picked up by Hansard. I believe the hon. the Minister knows that trade I am referring to. I am sure he has seen some of the pamphlets which come through the post. Very often, I must say, they are addressed to the less sophisticated members of our community.

Why I am raising this matter is because I received one through the post just the other day. The insidious way in which these maillists are extended is by a section or a paragraph of the pamphlet in which the domestic servant to whom the pamphlet is addressed, is asked to give the names and addresses of 24 friends. I am not suggesting that this is some sort of chain letter, but I do suggest that these pamphlets are specifically addressed to people and that they are therefore not generally available in the form of other advertising material which might loosely be placed in letter-boxes or openly distributed in some other way. I mention this in the event that the hon. the Minister is unaware of this type of advertising which is going on.

I should like to put it to the hon. the Minister that if it is his intention—and I am sure it is the intention of the hon. the Minister and of this legislation and of his department—to control adequately the sale of all substances broadly referred to as medicine, that we have in fact in this field large scale contraventions taking place without any apparent action being taken at any source in order to prevent it, and that a section of our community—a section which, as I have indicated earlier, is quite unsophisticated and therefore will be more likely to be influenced by some of the wild and extravagant claims that are made in the pamphlets that they receive—is likely to take these pamphlets with a certain degree of seriousness because the pamphlets are addressed to them by name. I should therefore like to ask the hon. the Minister to see to it that this aspect is investigated, because I believe very strongly that this is an evasion of the spirit of this legislation. I also believe that, as more and more drugs in South Africa are registered in terms of this legislation and are adequately controlled in terms of this legislation, this backdoor business, if I may refer to it in this manner, will increase. To me it seems inevitable that there will be an increase. I would not go so far as to say that this is a potential method of sending death through the post, but it certainly is a potential avenue for poisoning through the post As I say, one is dealing here with people who will accept the claims made for the particular medicine. In putting medicine in the hands of the people who, very often, are not fully aware of the dangers involved in taking an overdose of such medicine, I believe, a real threat is being created. I should therefore like the hon. the Minister to look into that aspect if he has not already done so. I should also like to ask him whether he can provide any information to the House about steps being taken against that type of distribution of medicine.

Largely tied up with that aspect, I would briefly like to refer to an article which was covered very extensively recently in a Sunday newspaper. Even allowing for an exaggeration by the research officer who did this particular project, it seems that in Natal at least considerable problems are being encountered with some of the purveyors of medicinal substances containing natural grown herbs, etc. If the report in the Sunday newspaper is correct—and I have not seen a denial of it—it is claimed that over a reasonably short space of time some 283 people have died as a result of the ingestion of substances derived from a plant known as impila. This plant apparently is on sale freely through outlets of herbal medicines. I suppose that will include to a certain extent what is known in Natal as the traditional witchdoctors.

I think the whole aspect of herbal medicine together with the significant position in society that a witchdoctor exercises as well as the influence that his word carries, is another avenue where the purveyance of substances which should really be falling under this legislation, is not being adequately controlled. However, for be it from us to take away the traditional livelihood of people who are making a contribution to the health of the community in some form. I would not like my words to be construed as a suggestion that we ban witchdoctors or herbal remedy stores, or anything like that. I believe that if this legislation is to have a real meaning in this country, this is a very important avenue of potential abuse and if 283 people have died as a result of the ingestion of the plant impila, I would say that this is a prima facie case that this is being abused and that there is no apparent control over the sale of substances which obviously are very potent and should be controlled. I would like the hon. the Minister to consider that point as well.

What I am basically leading up to, and I would like to motivate my case briefly to the hon. the Minister, is that basically when you add it all up and look at it quite rationally, we have a profession in South Africa which is aimed and ready to undertake control in the fullest sense of the word, including distribution as well as all manner of supervision over all types of medicines. Unfortunately, to a large extent, this profession is being underutilized. It is very often criticized for the sale of items other than medicine. I believe that is valid criticism, but there is a strong move away from this and I am sure that the hon. the Minister is aware of the move away from extraneous items for sale in retail pharmacies. However, there is in this country a wide and very effective distribution network of retail pharmacies. I believe that a very good case can be made out by the fact that all medicines should preferably be routed through pharmacies and pharmacists, because they are trained in a unique way to deal with them. I believe that there are signs in this legislation, as well as other legislation which may still be discussed today, that there is a move towards this professionalization of pharmacies as well as a channelling medicines through pharmacies. In no way do the retail pharmacists in South Africa want a monopoly over the sale of medicine. I think that must be absolutely clear, and any responsible body of pharmacists will make this point any time one discusses the matter with them.

Should you not declare your interest?

That is a reasonable interjection and I shall be quite willing to declare my interest. I have not practised in a retail pharmacy for seven years. I hope that satisfies the hon. member that I am not speaking for any personal gain. I hope that I am putting a reasonable case before the House in respect of a profession which is under-utilized and which has the capacity for improving the distribution of drugs. If the hon. member thinks that I am doing this for any personal gain, I want to assure him that I am not.

I think that sets a good example to others.

Then I fail to see the point of the hon. member’s interjection. I think it has no relevance at all. If he is going to participate in the debate, I shall be interested to hear how he puts his case. I would like to continue with the case I am putting. I think the time has come that this aspect should be brought to debate in the House. I believe that the hon. the Minister, his department and a lot of professional people outside the pharmacy profession, agree with this very strongly. I think the hon. member for Parktown might agree to a very large extent with the overall sentiments I am trying to convey to the House, i.e. that we have an avenue for the adequate and excellent control of outlets of medicine in this country, but that they are being under-utilized. Because of this under-utilization and because of the fact that medicines, of which some are potent to a greater or lesser extent, are available from sources where there is no control over those medicines, no knowledge is available to the user of the side-effects such medicines might have or of the problems that may arise from an overdose. I think it is reasonable to say that more use should be made of trained people so that they can deal with the substances which they are specifically trained to deal with. I shall leave it at that, because I believe I have made out a reasonable case in this respect.

Why do you not make your speech under the next item on the Order Paper?

I have another whole speech I shall make under that item. The hon. member for Newcastle, if he is to be honest, will agree 99% with what I have to say. I am very glad to have his support. We from Natal have to stick together.

I should like to comment on some of the clauses in this legislation. We welcome the additions to the definition of “medical practitioner” to include a student interne in the last year of his training. We welcome the change in nomenclature from an unqualified pharmacist to a pharmacist assistant. In terminology that is a big improvement. Clause 1 on page 4 of the Bill deals with the registration and the determination of registration and availability of medicine and it includes, for the first time, the extension of registration and availability of veterinary medicine. In this respect I should like to make the point that I hope this inclusion will not give rise to a state of affairs that is presently, to my mind, an abuse of the legislation. I am thinking of the multiplicity of generic equivalents which are dropped onto the market. I think the hon. the Minister knows which two particular drugs I have in mind. If one takes up the latest issue of the Medical Dictionary to the Busy General Practitioner—which I suppose appears on every doctor’s desk—and looks at the registrations for a certain well-known tranquilizer, a muscle relaxant, one sees that there are approximately seven registrations. If one looks under the registration of a particular sulphonomide combination, one finds that there are seven to eight identical drugs registered. Where does one strike the happy medium? Does one say to a company which has spent a tremendous amount on research and which has had the benefit of the patent on that drug they have manufactured for only a relatively short period of time, that one is going to let any little company in the market make that drug’s generic equivalent? Does one say that one does not redly mind if it is just 5% or 10% cheaper, but that it is in the interest of free trading that anybody should be allowed to do it? A case can be made out, in our sort of capitalistic society, for everybody being allowed to manufacture a drug, albeit an identical one.

I wonder, however, whether this is really in the long-term interest of the industry in this country. I believe this is something which must be looked at from time to time, and what better time than when the relevant legislation is before this House? We wonder whether the fact that the moment a patent expires, other little companies—I do not want to be unkind and say fly-by-night companies —which spend no money at all on research and contribute nothing towards the advancement of medicine in any other way, have a right to apply for registration to make an identical product, often at exactly the same price, sometimes more cheaply and very occasionally considerably more cheaply, is in the long-term interests of the industry in this country, particularly in the interests of those large firms which spend an enormous amount on research, both here and overseas. I think this is a very worthwhile subject for discussion and debate, and I should like to hear the views of the hon. the Minister on this subject.

We have dealt with the matter of advertising for which provision is made in clause 7 of the Bill. There is one further point in respect of advertising, however, which I must confess had not occurred to me but which has been put to me as a matter worth raising when the Bill came up for discussion. I am referring to some of the claims made on television in respect of medicines which are available for general sale over the counter. I think we should watch the trend of the claims made in those advertisements because I believe that sometimes it is more difficult to establish a nuance or an exaggerated claim in an advert which is fleetingly before the viewer on the screen than it would be if one had the package in one’s hand and was able to refer to the exact claim which is being made in relation to the product being advertised. I think that the hon. the Minister will agree with me that this is an aspect which should be watched. I put this to the hon. the Minister because the question of advertising is dealt with in this Bill.

In discussing clause 8, the hon. the Minister, in his Second Reading speech, referred briefly to the question of making available, to the various professional bodies, the knowledge of new products which had been accepted for registration. Let me just deviate for one moment, at this juncture, by saying that we received the latest report of the Department of Health yesterday. This is an outstanding document and I commend the hon. the Minister and his department wholeheartedly on this report. I believe that they have done an absolutely outstanding job with the annual report of the Department of Health. We know that it is Health Year and realize that a special effort has been made, but the information in this report is nevertheless absolutely phenomenal. A tremendous amount of preparation and work must have gone into this report. On that score I give them 100% for effort and offer my congratulations to the hon. the Minister and his staff. Let me now come back to the above-mentioned clause 8 of the Bill in which provision is made for informing medical practitioners, dentists, pharmacists and people who have applied for the registration of a medicine that it is available, and for informing them of various details of such medicine. Taken on its own, I would comment on this in a particular way, but taken in conjunction with clause 14(d) in terms of which the restriction on the registration fee is done away with and the fee is prescribed at the discretion of the Minister as per regulation, I want to make the following point. I do hope that the dissemination of this information regarding newly registered products will not be done in such a way as to incur unduly great costs because the registration fees for drugs of which small quantities are sold every year, are sometimes the deciding factor in determining whether companies should keep the drugs on the market or not, and if they are not kept on the market, this can only be to the detriment of the public in many cases.

Let me put the following point to the hon. the Minister. To my knowledge there are a pharmacy journal and a medical journal, and I believe that his department would enjoy the utmost co-operation from the editorial boards of those journals if his department were to request that they put aside a certain amount of space each month for the inclusion of just such details as the hon. the Minister has in mind in clause 8, in which it is made clear that the details of new drugs will be made available to the professional people concerned. I do not know whether there is a dental journal. I must confess that I have not been able to establish that. I do not pretend to speak for the editors of the pharmacy and medical journals, but I am sure they would welcome the opportunity to set aside a page for the purpose of making such details known. This would also make the journals themselves more meaningful. I am sure the hon. the Minister knows of many cases, as I do, of medical and pharmacy journals lying around without their covers even having been removed. I believe, however, that if the professional people realize that there is something of real importance, some new information, in the journals, this would make the journals more meaningful. It would also reduce any possible cost, to the department, of disseminating this information in some other form. So to my way of thinking it would make good common sense to do it in that fashion because one is then specifically getting through to the market at which one is aiming. That is just a small point, but perhaps the hon. the Minister can give us some indication of his intention as far as that is concerned.

Now I come to a problem I have with clause 9. It is not, however, the sort of problem I can formulate in terms of a simple amendment. If one reads clause 9(a), from line 8 down through to line 22, one sees four possible alternative subjective decisions that can be taken. This clause provides for the sale of schedule 1 substances. The clause itself reads as follows—

The word “apparently” presents the first subjective decision. Further on there is reference to a written order bearing a signature “known to the seller”—here again, another subjective decision. I quote further—

Here lies the third possible subjective decision. And then, a final qualification about the order being signed by—

I do not see any easy answer to this because a young person of 16 years of age does not necessarily carry an identity document stating his or her age. Although I do not see any easy answer to this, I put it to the hon. the Minister that the wording is clumsy and does make for possible problems or friction areas because, as I say, there are four possible subjective decisions to be taken in that regard. I wonder if that could not be looked at and the wording tidied up a bit, or perhaps—and I say this after reasoned consideration—some of the provisions relating to schedule 1 substances need not be quite so stringent. By virtue of their inclusion as schedule 1 substances it is generally accepted that they are not substances that are abused. I say that advisedly; I know there are exceptions. I am possibly just as aware as the hon. the Minister of the exceptions that can crop up. I nevertheless put this to him as a thought.

I think that that virtually sums up what we of the NRP have to say on this legislation. Despite the fact that we have come with quite a few suggestions, a few comments and a number of criticisms, we will be supporting the Bill and we thank the hon. the Minister in advance for his attention to our suggestions.

Mr. Speaker, it was a pleasure to listen to the argument of the hon. member for Berea, who has just resumed his seat. I listened to him attentively and gained the impression that he knew what he was talking about. In fact, that is his field. He is in a position to put his point of view with authority. I have only one problem with his speech. At one stage it appeared that he was advocating the registration of witchdoctors. I just want to say that one must be very careful if one wants to have them registered. It reminds me of a person who was under the impression that he was under a spell. When he wanted to approach the witchdoctor, his friends told him: “Beware, that man sees your whole past.” He replied: “Don’t worry, I shall deal with him.” When he came to the witchdoctor and the witchdoctor began to throw his bones, he said to him: “You must remember, I was a wild fellow in my youth. All I am asking you is: Who cast a spell on me?”

As the hon. the Minister indicated in his Second Reading Speech, the Fertilizers, Farm Feeds, Agricultural Remedies and Stock Remedies Act of 1947, as amended in 1977, makes provision for the registration of fertilizers, farm feeds, agricultural remedies and stock remedies. That measure was deemed essential because we must exercise control over substances containing components which may be present in animal products and could be injurious to human health. However, we found ourselves in the position that that Act gave us no control over fertilizers and stock remedies containing ingredients included in the schedules to the Medicines and Related Substances Control Act. This is an undesirable state of affairs and is now being rectified by this amendment.

In this time of scientific developments which have characterized the field of veterinary science no less than other fields, it is regarded as vital that the necessary control be exercised in this regard as well. It is unthinkable that substances which are strictly controlled by the Medicines and Related Substances Control Act can be used at the agricultural and veterinary science levels without any control. Here, too, we are dealing with harmful habit-forming drugs which may get into the wrong hands if abused. It often happens that one person recommends Bob Martin pills, dog pills to another as a remedy for rheumatism, etc. Other drugs containing harmful substances may also be recommended and used in this way.

I think it is vital that provision be made for proper control. Because habit-forming drugs of this nature can be used with dangerous effects for the user, strict requirements are laid down in the legislation in respect of prescriptions and issues. Those requirements must also be very strictly complied with and, in the case of an infringement, the person concerned must be subject to appropriate penal provisions. That is the correct approach to ensure the most advantageous use of the drugs. This amendment Bill provides for the proper control of remedies containing substances which are mentioned in the schedule. We welcome this measure. Furthermore, the legislation also provides for a change in the composition of the Medicines Control Council and the Medicines Control Appeal Board by laying down that a veterinary surgeon may also be appointed to these specific councils. As the veterinary science profession is now also involved, since in terms of this proposed legislation control will be exercised over it, I think it is only fair that the profession should also have a say in those councils. I think, therefore, that it is logical that at least one veterinary surgeon should also be appointed to those councils. Consequently it places that profession in a competitive position as regards other professions. On behalf of this side of the House I should like to thank the hon. the Minister for this Bill. We regard it as vital. I should like to support the Second Reading.

Mr. Speaker, I am rising to speak for the sole reason that I was invited to do so by the hon. member for Berea, one of the main participants in this debate, and then only, in fact, because he believed that I might have a worthwhile opinion about the question of distribution channels for medicine and other drugs. I think the invitation was directed at me as a result of an interjection made by my hon. colleague next to me. I hasten to say on his behalf that his only aim in making that interjection was to assist the hon. member to maintain the highest traditions of this House in this regard.

Since, however, I am on my feet, and did gain some experience in this field 20 years ago, it may just be worthwhile to express a few opinions about the distribution of medicine in general. There are always two considerations to be kept in mind, and I think they are inescapable. The one, of course, concerns the protection of the public against the undesirable distribution of potentially harmful drugs which can endanger life or health. The second—and we must not underestimate this—is concerned with the fact that distribution must occur in the most economic and effective way and in such a way that the potentially harmful effect of the drugs is not too great. It is often necessary to strike a balance between these two considerations.

When dealing with dangerous and habit-forming drugs such as heroine or morphine, there can be no doubt that the protection of the public must be the highest consideration, to be given top priority.

When, however, one is dealing with, for example, fruit juices which are supposed to contain vitamins or do contain vitamins and may promote health a little, but are not at all harmful in any practical sense, ordinary aspirins and cough remedies, it is not so certain that the consideration of protecting the public should be more valid than the economic effectiveness of distribution. I still remember the time when the leading manufacturers of aspirin and disinfectant in the country, only distributed their products through pharmacists. I remember the day they began to make use of supermarkets for this purpose. There was a great deal of dismay about this, not only on the part of the pharmacists, but also on the part of sections of the public, as if the standard of the drug had been lowered in this way and the public deprived of their essential protection. It did not have that effect I am not treading on anyone’s toes, nor am I criticizing anyone, but I think that it is probably correct to assert that the distribution through supermarkets in that specific regard probably resulted in the prices of the drugs remaining relatively lower than would otherwise have been the case.

†As in many other aspects of life the only wise counsel here is moderation. There should be legislation dealing with distribution through chemists and dealing with prescriptions by doctors when one is dealing with drugs that can be considerably harmful. I know this Bill contains a definition of medicine, but can any one of us really define where medicine stops and substances or commodities which people think are healthy begin? “Medicine” is defined in the Bill as—

1. (a) the diagnosis, treatment, mitigation, modification or prevention of disease, abnormal physical or mental state or the symptoms thereof in man; or
2. (b) restoring, correcting or modifying any somatic or psychic or organic function in man …

Then certain words are added to accommodate “veterinary medicine”. However, if we talk about substances which are sold for the mitigation of disease or substances which are sold for correcting or modifying any somatic function, we embrace a very wide area. How many very senior and respectable professional and business people are there not in the country who fancy that by consuming cane spirit they will assist their rheumatism? I am not among them and I do not advocate this or lend any authority to it, but it is certainly believed on a very wide scale. I know many serious people, prominent people, who walk around wearing copper bangles because they believe that if one wears a copper bangle one will not get rheumatism either. Are we then to control the sale of copper bangles and cane spirit?

But you are not taking it orally are you?

I certainly believe cane spirit is taken orally, although I am no authority on the matter. I think that hon. gentleman comes from a part of the world where it does happen. I introduced these other matters only to make the point that we must not try to be too pompous or too up-tight about our control of substances of this kind. We are fallible people and even the hon. the Minister and his staff, if he will forgive me, are fallible too. All we can expect them or anybody else to do, is to legislate to protect the public as far as it is reasonable to do so, having regard also for the public’s economic interest and to its right, within limits, to indulge in its own weaknesses and foibles in its own way. This is an important part of human freedom.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to express my sincere thanks to all the hon. members who participated in this debate. I shall not reply at length to all the matters raised here. I think that some of the matters raised, in particular a great deal of what was raised by the hon.

member for Berea, are matters which we can broach again in the Committee Stage, and discuss there in greater detail. If I have to discuss all the good suggestions raised now, there will not be sufficient time.

†The first speaker on the opposite side was the hon. member for Bryanston. He intimated that the functions of the Medicines Control Board were being eroded by this creeping, or should we rather say extending, bureaucracy. The hon. member did refer to many subsections in the Bill where we are trying to streamline the manner in which permits, registration and other acts are done because we have had trouble in the past. The proposals contained in the draft legislation as published came from all over the country. It did not come from the department only. It dealt with problems that were encountered by commerce and sometimes even by farmers, and we had to try to see whether it was really worthwhile going on with this tortuous method of obtaining a permit. But at the same time the hon. member can rest assured that there is the necessary control. In most cases the Secretary can only temporarily grant a permit if it is in the public interest, but then it is eventually for the council itself to decide whether they want to withdraw that permit again. The council only comes together once every six months, and it therefore takes some time before that decision can be taken. We do not want that time to elapse if there is a good case to be made out. Therefore this is part of our attempt to streamline our procedures.

We have taken into account the fact that the responsibility of the Minister should not be delegated. It should be entirely his responsibility. At the same time I must point out that the members of the council are highly qualified people, people who know their work, and I can assure hon. members that we can leave all these things in the hands of the members of the council. It is true, however, that the members of the council are overworked. Originally there were 11 of them, but since then their number was increased to 15. Nevertheless, they are very busy. They have to carry out tests and analyse and determine the efficiency of drugs in addition to the numerous other obligations they have. Therefore the allegation of an increase in bureaucratic meddling in legislation of this kind is not valid.

The hon. member also expressed concern about the period of 21 days being shortened to 14 days. That is the period allowed for a sample to be sent for analysis in a case in which a prosecution is likely. Our problem is that the analysts are sometimes extremely busy. Therefore we believe that a period of 14 days is sufficient. It gives an analyst time to prepare a proper report before a court hearing takes place, if at all. However, I think this can be left to the courts to decide. If a prima facie case for a prosecution can be made out, it can always be left to the defendant to apply for a postponement in order to prepare his defence, should he find it necessary.

*The hon. member for Berea raised quite a few very interesting aspects here. What struck me about him—and I am not given to flattery—is that he studied the Bill very thoroughly. He raised matters here which I personally found very interesting, matters which I myself—and I must be honest—did not subject to as close a scrutiny. I can, therefore, assure the hon. member that I appreciate his labours. The idea is that all hon. members, particularly when we are dealing with legislation of a technical nature, should do their homework properly. The hon. member is concerned about the invitations to people to order their medicine by post. This is a matter which gives us serious cause for concern. I myself have seen some of those pamphlets in the post. The problem is, of course, that some of those businesses have their headquarters in the homelands, or in a country which is already independent As far as possible, however, we try to refer matters of that nature to the police, particularly where it appears in any way that the law is being broken. However, this is a problem. In the course of time, penalties for offences of this nature may perhaps be made heavier and we can see whether we cannot stamp out some of these malpractices by means of heavier penalties. Perhaps at least an obligation can be placed on those who receive the pamphlets, to ensure that it is brought to the attention of the authorities.

†I now want to refer to the problem in connection with the purveyors of medicine. The legislation deals with the control of all medicines, and whenever new medicines come on the market, it takes some time for them to be registered. Should anybody learn about a new medicine it is perhaps incumbent upon him, should he be of the opinion that it is a dangerous medicine, to bring the case to the attention of my department or of the Medicines Control Council. However, it does take time to register all medicines, and the hon. member will realize that it is not an easy task. It is impossible to register all medicines simultaneously.

In connection with herbal substances I can only say that we will always have to deal with those. Should the hon. member, however, have any knowledge of herbal substances which are toxic having been sold to people, he could convey such knowledge to us and we will include those herbal substances in the Hazardous Substances Act or in the schedule to the Act.

As far as the manufacturing of medicines and the selling of medicines are concerned they must go through the hands of the original person who registered the medicine, because many companies spent a lot of money on research. It is only fair that they should be allowed over the years to get at least part of it back. But no company can claim to be under the umbrella of that Act for ever. I think the time will come when we in South Africa will have to look to our own interests. As a matter of fact, I think the time has already come.

*The hon. member is also concerned about the retail chemists. Although I am also concerned about this, unfortunately we cannot allow all medicines to go through the chemists. I personally would not be in favour of the medical practitioner having to abandon his right to dispense medicines for his own patients. However, there is another problem, and that is that there are parts of the rural areas where a retail chemist is nowhere to be found. In those cases there must be exceptions. Therefore, I do not want us to discuss this matter any further. We need not take the controversy any further.

With regard to retail chemists, we have a profession of 5 000 people who must have status and they do not merely want to be dealers. I acknowledge that. At this stage, however, the hon. member must accept that there are problems and even a certain amount of tension. We shall attempt to the best of our ability to promote the goal which he has in mind with regard to retail chemists, because it concurs with our own aim.

I think that I have dealt with most of the matters raised by the hon. member. It is true that the information which has to be given to medical practitioners when new medicine is made is in the hands of the Secretary under the new legislation. It is important that we should find new methods of channelling that information more quickly and efficiently to the medical practitioners.

Under the original Act this was the duty of the Medical and Dental Council. However, they do not have the necessary machinery. For that reason the section concerned is worded a little more widely so that the Secretary can use any method of imparting information to medical practitioners in the best way so that they do not fall behind.

†There is one thing else. The hon. member spoke about clause 9 and particularly mentioned that the wording could have been put in a better way etc. I can assure him that this legislation is not legislation of the Medes and Pensions. It will be revised in due time. Then the wording and phrasing will be attended to further.

I think I have replied to the best of my ability to all the important matters raised by the hon. member.

*I am very grateful to the hon. member for Middelburg for emphasizing in particular the fact that we have made progress in this regard and that we have brought animal medicine under the control of the Medicine Control Board. That was a need felt by the Department of Agricultural Technical Services itself. One cannot allow dangerous medicine of this nature not to be controlled entirely by a single body. If there are more bodies, there are problems as well. One also finds some scheduled dangerous substances which can be used for animals, and if they are not effectively controlled, it can give rise to malpractices, as the hon. member for Parktown justly remarked. I also thank him for his remarks. As a colleague in the profession it was interesting to listen to what he had to say about it.

He once again thought in an economic direction by saying that it was a good thing that the supermarkets had also managed to obtain pharmaceutical licences. But although they have them now, it will be more difficult in the future. We are dealing here with a profession and we have to protect their interests. When we consider the profit margins of the supermarkets, we want to try to prevent them from being able, eventually to sell everything even motor-cars and farm products. This would give them such a hold on the farmer that they would have a total monopoly. We must, therefore, protect these people. We must also take the economy of the country, etc., into consideration, but we should also clearly realize that there are certain professions which must be protected. We are dealing here with a profession which has an extremely important task to perform, a task which must be recognized and respected. If the profession is harmed to such an extent that it is relegated to the Status of a mere dealer, this is wrong and we cannot associate ourselves with this.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Clause 8:

Mr. Chairman, I want to start by thanking the hon. the Minister for his comprehensive reply to the arguments that I raised during the Second Reading. Without in any way restricting the scope of the way in which he wishes the information related to in this clause to be disseminated to the profession, could I ask him whether he sees any merit in the suggestion from this side of the House that the medical journals be used wherever possible, without in any way restricting other methods of disseminating that information? Wherever this is practical and possible, the first line of information should be through the existing professional journals, particularly as we are seeking to keep the costs of distributing the information as low as possible.

Mr. Chairman, we are completely open for suggestions and every good idea will be considered. I do not disagree with the hon. member. I think he has a good idea, particularly since he mentioned the cost aspect, which is something we shall have to look at the same time we have to look at efficiency, because in the past there was no efficient way of doing this.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 9:

Mr. Chairman, clause 9 is a long one and I am trying to follow it. On page 14 in line 55 we find the provision according to which a pharmacist supplies emergency stocks of the medicines mentioned in Schedules 5, 6 and 7. I believe this is a very welcome step in the right direction. The situation as it pertained previously, particularly in regard to habit-forming drugs under the provisions of the previous Act—the equivalent of Schedule 7 that we are now dealing with—can be seen from the following example. If one had a patient who was in need of a potent pain-killer, the situation was that a doctor could not phone a pharmacist and ask him to deliver it. The pharmacist had to be in possession of a prescription before he could supply those drugs. I welcome this change and I am sure that everybody who has ever been involved in this kind of transaction, and particularly the public, will also welcome this change very much. When one is in severe pain and one needs a drug listed in schedule 7 to deal with that pain, the fact that there is a lot of red tape to be disposed of before one can get that drug or before a doctor can get the drug to administer it, has not been in the best interests of everyone concerned. This provision is therefore very widely welcomed. We on this side of the House are delighted that the hon. the Minister has seen fit to include this provision whereby emergency supplies can be sent by the pharmacist and the prescription posted on to him later to cover the supply of such drugs.

There is one problem involved in the actual practical implementation of the provision contained in this new subsection, in that in it reference is made to a medical practitioner, dentist or veterinarian who is known to such pharmacist I realize that this is a safeguard for the pharmacist, for the other professional person concerned, and indirectly for the public. There is, however, a very real problem on two sides. The regular doctor may be on leave and have a locum who may not be known to the pharmacist. The other side of the coin is that the pharmacist may himself be a locum in an emergency after-hour depot and may not personally know the doctor who phones through such a prescription. There is no easy way of moving an amendment to cover that particular set of circumstances. I want to put it to the hon. the Minister that, if we look at the spirit of this legislation and not just the letter of it, it might be possible—perhaps in the Other Place— somehow to incorporate some method whereby the problem relating to a locum doctor phoning through to a pharmacist may be overcome. One suggestion which comes to mind—it may not be practical—which may be worth following up is that, where a locum is doing time for a regular doctor, it may be possible, in the spirit in which this legislation is intended, for such locum to make it known to the medical emergency service that he is acting as the locum for Dr. A. The pharmacist could then phone the medical emergency service to confirm that this is the case. Under those circumstances he could then supply medicines even if he did not know the locum who telephoned the prescription through to him. This could obviously only be done in our major cities where we have that magic number in the telephone directory after every doctor’s home number, the number to be dialled in case there is no reply at his home number. We are confronted here with a very real problem and I am sure that the hon. the Minister will agree with me that this situation can arise more often than we think. The whole spirit of this legislation is aimed at giving a professional person the responsibility which he is qualified to exercise. I therefore do not think it would be impossible to make some such provision to overcome this problem because we know what the intention of this legislation is and professional people will understand the intention as well. The legislation could, however, be contravened by a pharmacist who, acting in the best interests of the patient who needs one of the substances, prepares the prescription though he does not know the locum who telephones through the order. I make this suggestion to the hon. the Minister. He may well have some other suggestion for checking on the identity of the locum. I would be quite happy to support any reasonable system which would enable the pharmacist to establish the identity of such a locum.

Mr. Chairman, the problem which the hon. member has raised is a practical one. The intention is obviously to protect the pharmacist, to ensure that he does not supply medicine based on a prescription which has been falsified. If that is the case there must certainly be some telephone number or other so that the pharmacist can contact the person in question if he does not know him. There is no other way of doing this where the doctor does not know the pharmacist. We are not demanding that he should necessarily know him, but he should at least be aware that he has received a prescription from a doctor whose position is above suspicion so that he can have the assurance that the substance will be administered in the correct way. We are dealing with suggestions here now. We shall obviously try to find the best administrative method of doing this.

†However, the words “who is known to such a pharmacist” can have a very wide range of interpretations. I have taken cognizance of the fact that the hon. member has some practical problems in this connection, and in implementing this we may administratively be able to find some way of doing this which will be of help to both sides.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the hon. the Minister for his explanation. However, I should like to ask him whether he has received representations from any bodies in connection with the subsection immediately below the one we have just been referring to, i.e. subsection (p)(d) beginning in line 66. I should like to know whether he has received representations from any bodies opposing that new provision, and if so whether he has any comments he would like to share with us at this stage in motivation of its inclusion in the legislation.

Mr. Chairman, could the hon. member please just repeat his request?

Mr. Chairman, yes. I am referring to clause 9(p)(d) which begins in line 66 on page 14 and goes on to page 16. I want the hon. Minister’s comment on this aspect, please.

Mr. Chairman, I take it the hon. member is referring to the paragraph which reads—

Yes. Has the hon. the Minister had any representations opposing the inclusion of that aspect?

Mr. Chairman, I was not quite sure initially what the hon. member was getting at, but this was included after representations from the people concerned.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 12:

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister did make out a case, in the Second Reading debate, for the changes in the provisions relating to the taking of a sample. He mentioned one particular case which involved the taking of more than 500 samples. I can see that in a case like that the amount of administrative work involved in dividing the relevant samples up into three parts, as envisaged by the previous legislation, would pose a problem. I wonder, however, if the taking of such a large number of samples is not a very minor exception to the rule. I assume the samples were taken from one manufacturer or distributor at one time. I must say that I am not happy about this amendment to the legislation.

For those hon. members in the House who are not familiar with the case I am referring to, let me explain. A sample was taken and divided into three parts. One portion was left with the person from whom the sample was taken, one portion was sent for analysis and one portion was retained by the inspector, if I am correct. I believe this provided a safeguard for the person, from whom the sample was taken, in regard to any future action that may have been taken against him in the event of his possibly having contravened any law or regulation in the taking of such samples.

However, if one allows just one sample to be taken and sent away for analysis and legal action should result, I believe one is creating undesirable conditions in that the person from whom the sample was taken has no recourse since he cannot query the substance of the report on the drug that was taken from him. In no way can he prove that that analysis is or may be wrong. Sir, we are all human. Anybody can make a mistake. The most thorough and highly trained analyst can easily make a mistake and the consequences of that mistake to the person from whom the sample was taken are evident. I accept that the hon. the Minister has a problem when it comes to large numbers of samples having to be taken. I would, however, ask whether any manufacturer or distributor who has to have 500 samples taken from him should really be allowed in business at all. I make that point more in jest than anything else. Surely, if he is even marginally professional, that many samples will not have to be taken. In other words, what I am saying is that one could place a very serious question mark against the kind of business he is conducting should that many samples be required. I think there would be fewer problems and less chance of mistakes if the position were to be left unchanged. If the hon. the Minister has a very good case, we shall obviously have to accept it, but I am hoping that the hon. the Minister will concede that it would be desirable in the interests of fair play all round to have that sample divided into three parts.

Mr. Chairman, I do not blame the hon. member for going into this, because I know it is a subject which greatly interests him. However, he is rather loquacious this afternoon. Perhaps we have plenty of time—I do not know.

The hon. member must understand that nothing prevents an accused from taking a sample himself and having it sealed. In terms of the Criminal Procedures Act the police need not have more than two samples. We cannot see why the onus for ensuring that the person concerned also receives a sample, should be placed on our inspectors. He can see to it himself that he gets a sample. He is in no way prohibited from doing this. As a matter of fact, we are going to save a lot in expenses and time and avoid a lot of annoyance. It is by no means anything extraordinary—except perhaps at Harvard— to have a very large number of these samples taken.

Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. the Minister has made a reasonable point, but I cannot say that I agree with him entirely. I think it is a little naïve to suggest that the person from whom a sample is taken can also keep a sample.

It is part of his defence.

Yes, I agree with that, but I want to put it to the hon. the Minister that previously when a sample was taken by the inspector, it was divided into three parts and sealed up or, in the actual wording, “fastened up” so that it could not be queried whether it came from the exact same batch. If the person who is being investigated takes a sample himself and later in a court of law pleads that it was from a separate batch, we have precisely the kind of problem arising that I am worried about. The question is: Where is the proof? If, however, the sample is taken and divided into three in the presence of the inspector and then put into a package and closed up, the accused will not have a leg to stand on if, later, he says in court that it came from a different batch. If the responsibility is his to take a sample for himself, although I am not a lawyer, I believe that he would have a reasonable case if in a court of law he got up and said: “How can you prove that the sample you have analysed comes from the same batch as this one which I have had analysed with the following results?” This is the problem I have with this particular change in the legislation. I would be happy if the hon. the Minister would consider retaining the provision as it stood originally. I believe that that would be in the best interests of all concerned.

Mr. Chairman, in order to ensure that what the hon. member has been referring to, does not happen, we can regulate the way in which the sample is to be taken by means of a regulation; we need not amend the legislation in order to do so. However, such a person is to some extent under the obligation to adopt that practice. The detour which the hon. member wants to take, the loophole he is looking for by saying that this is not the correct manner, we could provide for by way of regulation so as to ensure that the correct sample will in fact have been taken. This is an aspect which will be rectified.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 14:

Clause 14 …

I should like to draw the hon. member’s attention to Standing Order No. 120, which reads as follows—

I am sorry, Mr. Chairman. [Interjections.] Thank you for your reminder, which I take in the spirit in which it is intended.

Mr. Chairman, I want to refer to the proposed section 35(l)(xxvii), which refers to the processing of medicines in different categories of hospitals. There exists a worry in the minds of certain people that the definition of the word “processing” could cover a wide variety of evils. I believe there has been a move, by certain bodies, to have the word “processing” clearly defined. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister could comment on that or give us some idea of what is intended in this instance by the inclusion of this word “processing” with reference to the different categories of hospitals.

Mr. Chairman, the word “processing” refers to the actual manufacturing process.

Mr. Chairman, that does not quite solve my problem. The drugs have already been manufactured, so I think that in this sense the word “processing” refers to the various procedures through which those drugs go before they reach the end user in the hospital. I think that what is wanted here is some clear indication of how wide the powers are of the person who is processing such drugs. I think the hon. the Minister now realizes what I am getting at I should like some idea of the parameters within which this word “processing” is used. What would be the powers of the people processing those drugs? At what stage would they have control over the drugs and to what extent would they have such control?

Mr. Chairman, I cannot go into detail, but I can just say that we shall take security measures to control this processing. That is all that can be done, and it can be done by way of regulation.

Clause agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The Kimberley Health Board was established under the old Cape Public Health Extension Act, 1884, for the purpose of rendering health services in the diamond-fields. This law was repealed by the Health Act, 1977, in order to curtail the number of authorities responsible for health services in the Republic.

The winding-up of the affairs of the board before the commencement of the Health Act would have delayed the implementation of the Act for an unknown period which would have had a detrimental effect on the rendering of health services. It was therefore decided to put the Act into operation and at the first opportunity to introduce an amendment to the Act in order to regulate the winding-up of the affairs of the board.

The purpose of the Bill is therefore to legalize the continued existence of the board since the commencement of the Health Act, 1977, on 1 September 1977, and to regulate the winding-up of the affairs of the board. The Bill was drafted after consultation with the board and the local authorities concerned.

The local authorities concerned are the divisional council of Kimberley, the municipality of Kimberley, the municipality of Warrenton and the health committee of Ritchie. The municipality of Kimberley will in future render health services within its own district as well as within the districts of the divisional council and the health committee of Ritchie under an agreement in terms of section 20(6) of the Act Warrenton will render its own services.

The property of the board will be transferred to the municipality of Kimberley and an amount mutually agreed upon and representing its share of the property will be paid to the municipality of Warrenton. All the employees of the board will be transferred to the municipality of Kimberley and their existing conditions of service will be safeguarded.

The properties of the board in regard to which subsidies were paid by the State are a panel van, a steam disinfector apparatus, a formaldehyde generator, a Volkswagen Kombi and a mobile X-ray unit. The subsidies amounted to R28 050. The board is also the owner of a piece of land on which a building was erected which was used by the board as offices and a clinic.

Mr. Speaker, because we have the continued good health of the inhabitants of Kimberley at heart, we shall accord this measure our full support.

Mr. Speaker, we take note with thanks of the support by the official Opposition of this Amendment Bill.

For the swarming mass of people on the diamond fields during the last quarter of the previous century, the world was a savage and a wild place, devoid of any form of health services. Under these circumstances the Kimberley Health Board was established in terms of the Act of 1884 with the task and directive of accepting responsibility for the health services for this specific region. The life of this exceptional and remarkable body was terminated by the Health Act of 1977. For almost 100 years the Kimberley Health Board ran the health services in Kimberley and its surroundings in an outstanding fashion. On this occasion I want to pay grateful tribute to the men and women who served on the Kimberley Health Board over the years. They did pioneering work. They laid sound foundations, which have been built on to very good effect in the past, and will be built on farther in the future. They imposed a stamp of quality on health services, a stamp which will not be erased. In the course of time, however, other local authorities came onto the scene, authorities which rendered health services in their spheres as well. Here I have in mind, for example, the city council of Kimberley. As a former member of the divisional council of Kimberley I can attest to the outstanding co-operation that prevailed between the Kimberley Health Board and the other local authority bodies concerned with health services. For example, I could mention that the divisional council was responsible on an agency basis for the collection of health tax. It was always found that the Kimberley Health Board was more interested in the promotion of health services than in the demarcation and control of its own sphere. There was therefore outstanding co-operation.

Indeed it can be said of the men and women of the Kimberley Health Board what Langenhoven said on one occasion: “The soul lives on when the body dies”.

This Amendment Bill at present before the House is no more nor less than the legalization of the administration of the estate of the Kimberley Health Board. Bearing in mind the wild and violent disputes concerning an inheritance that sometimes occur, it can be said with gratitude that the beneficiaries in this regard, viz. the city council of Kimberley, the divisional council of Kimberley, the town council or Health Board of Ritchie and the municipality of Warrenton, have reached agreement in an exemplary fashion concerning the division of the inheritance. On this occasion, therefore, we wish to convey our thanks to the bodies concerned. We are grateful that it was possible to arrange everything without problems and by mutual agreement. It is a pleasure for me to support the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise merely to support the Second Reading of this Amendment Bill on behalf of the NRP.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The constitution of the present S.A. Pharmacy Board is based mainly on the practice which applied before the Pharmacy Act, 1974, was placed on the Statute Book. Since then, the constitution of the statutory boards of health professions has come to conform to a definite pattern, i.e. more or less one-third of the members are nominated by the Minister, more or less one-third of the members are elected by practitioners and more or less one-third of the members are nominated by other parties. The amendments in clause 2 provide for the board to be reconstituted accordingly to bring it into line with the boards of the other professions.

Apart from this, attempts are being made to bring the training of pharmacists at universities and colleges for advanced technical education much closer to each other. According to my information, no finality has yet been achieved in this connection. In the times in which we live, however, training will have to receive more and more attention, and for this reason it has been decided to strengthen the expertise in this connection on the board.

The board itself felt the need for a nurse on the board, with a view to co-ordination with the S.A. Nursing Council.

You will notice that the two members from universities will be appointed by the Minister, and not by the Committee of University Principals. The University of the Western Cape and the University of the North are not represented on the committee, and in order to prevent the disqualification of these two universities, it is essential that the appointment be done by the Minister.

Two of the pharmacists to be appointed by the Minister are not specified. It is intended, if necessary, to appoint a pharmacist from the manufacturing sector as one of the two, and to redress any possible imbalance with the other one. I trust that the larger number of members and the provision which enables the board to appoint persons who are not members of the board to committees of the board, will lighten the burden of members of the board.

A person who qualifies in the Republic is required to work for a year as a trainee before being registered as a pharmacist. The same requirement does not apply to a person who has obtained his qualifications abroad, and the anomaly is now being removed.

The Act provides that a private company consisting of pharmacists may on certain conditions register to do business as a pharmacist. The conditions were based on the provisions of the Attorneys Act, which are not applicable to pharmacists at all, since pharmacists are not responsible for any trust funds. Consequently the provisions have been adapted to the needs of pharmacists.

Provision exists for a permit to be issued to a person who is not a pharmacist, authorizing him to manufacture and pack medicine for human consumption. In the Control of Medicine and Related Substances Amendment Bill, provision is being made for control to be extended to medicine intended for animals, and this Bill is being adjusted accordingly. When such a person is allowed to manufacture or pack medicine, it follows that he should also be able to sell it, otherwise such a permit would be of no value. Consequently the provision is being corrected to provide for this.

Since medicine intended for animals is also affected now and the issuing of such a permit can be delayed by six months or more, provision is being made for a provisional permit to be issued by the Secretary for Health pending the Minister’s decision. This is being done in order not to prejudice the farming community.

At the moment, it is provided that a pharmacy must be conducted under the continuous personal supervision of a pharmacist. The board recommended that these provisions be amended to in order to enable a pharmacist to provide pharmaceutical services outside his pharmacy as well.

The pharmacy profession is the only one whose professional fees are determined by the Price Controller. The situation is professionally unacceptable, and therefore provision is being made for the fees to be determined by the board in the future and to be promulgated by the Minister by way of regulation.

The Bill contains other minor improvements recommended by the board. A draft Bill was published for information and comment and was adjusted in the light of the comment received.

Mr. Speaker, the PFP will support the legislation, but there are a few matters which we wish to discuss with the hon. the Minister, a few aspects we wish to bring to his attention.

In clause 2 of the Bill, provision is being made for the constitution of a new board. In this connection we should like to make representations to the hon. the Minister on behalf of the pharmacists with regard to the constitution of that board. At the moment it would appear that about a third of the members of the board are to be elected by the pharmacy profession. It is felt that this is not equitable and that at least 50% and preferably a larger percentage of representatives on the board should be people elected by the pharmacists themselves. The position is that in 1928, there were 986 pharmacists in South Africa. At the moment there are 5 454, and they argue that it would be in their interests and in the interests of the industry as a whole for a majority of elected pharmacists to serve on that board. On their behalf, therefore, I wish to make that representation to the hon. the Minister.

Another interesting comparison which can be made is in regard to the members who can be elected by the Association of Technical Colleges, while the members representing the universities are, in similar circumstances, to be nominated by the hon. the Minister. As far as that provision is concerned, it is felt that the members should either be elected or nominated by the Minister in both cases equally. I personally believe that in order to do justice to the principle of democracy, representatives should be elected by the bodies or the interest groups which will be represented on the board by those representatives. My submission to the hon. the Minister, therefore, is that the representatives of Association of Technical Colleges and the representatives of the universities should be elected by the bodies concerned and that they should not be nominated by the Minister.

It is interesting to note that the executive committee is not nominated by the Minister, but appointed by the board itself. I consider this to be a very healthy phenomenon in the legislation; I have said before that I believe that the hon. the Minister, as well as other hon. Ministers, when bringing to Parliament legislation of this nature, should base it on the principle that the executives of the board or body to be created should be appointed by that body itself and not by the Minister. Similarly, the office-bearers should be elected by the body itself; they should not be appointed by the hon. the Minister.

In clause 5, which amends section 14 of the principal Act, provision is made for the term “pharmacists’ assistant” to replace the present “unqualified assistant”. This also meets with our approval.

In clause 6, provision is made for pharmacists who come from outside the Republic and who therefore have not qualified in South Africa. It lays down the circumstances under which they are allowed to practise in South Africa. Provision is made for practical training and the test to be passed by such pharmacists before they may practise here.

†Mr. Speaker, possibly the most popular aspect of this Bill amongst pharmacists is that contained in clause 9, which proposes to amend section 22 of the principal Act, because a number of very significant changes are proposed there which will greatly improve the position of pharmacists, which will meet representations which have been made over a long period and which will remove some very significant restrictions and difficulties which this profession has experienced. The first concerns the fact, that, in terms of the existing Act, directors and former directors have to accept joint and separate liability for any debts or liabilities of the partnership on an equal basis. The Bill before the House provides that pharmacies will be dealt with in exactly the same way as other companies and that directors and former directors will no longer be saddled with the joint and separate liability for debts or liabilities of the partnership.

The second very significant improvement is that, if a pharmacist dies, his shareholding can continue to be held by his estate for a period which is to be extended from 6 to 12 months. I am not so sure that even 12 months is a sufficiently long period for the problems and difficulties to be solved which are experienced under those circumstances. It is, however, a significant improvement.

Thirdly, provision is now made that the executor of an estate who holds the shares of a pharmacist who has passed away will be able to have voting rights in respect of the disposal of the undertaking or any assets or part thereof. I am not quite sure how the system operated at all under the existing Act because the representatives of a person who had passed away were, in the past, not in the position actually to participate in decisions which affected the disposal of the assets or part of the assets of an undertaking. I am not sure that it could have worked at all in the past. The proposed amendment will therefore be very popular.

The fourth respect in which clause 9 brings about an improvement is in relation to the managing director of such a concern. I understand that the present position is that all directors have to be shareholders and that the shareholders can only be pharmacists. This meant that the concern always had to be under the management of a pharmacist. With all due respect to the pharmacists, being a pharmacist does not necessarily mean that such a person is also a good manager. From that point of view, many pharmacies had problems in that, if they wanted to appoint a really good qualified capable manager, they could only appoint such a person as managing director if he was also a qualified pharmacist. This Bill now provides that the managing director apparently does not have to be a pharmacist. This will remove that problem and will be a very acceptable and popular change to the existing Act.

*The hon. the Minister mentioned in his Second Reading speech that in clause 11, which amends section 35 of the principal Act, provision is being made for circumstances under which a pharmacist may be absent from his pharmacy. The clause concerned reads as follows—

In this connection there are two specific questions which I wish to ask the hon. the Minister. The first relates to what the hon. the Minister said in his Second Reading speech when he stated that this would afford pharmacists the opportunity of providing pharmaceutical services outside pharmacies. One of the circumstances under which this may happen is where there is a hospital in a small town, for example, which does not possess the services of a pharmacist on a full-time basis. Then they make use of the services of one of the pharmacists in town. The standpoint of pharmacists is that under those circumstances, the pharmacists should not be required to go and work in the hospital, but that all medicine should be issued by the pharmacy itself. They consider it to be interference with the rights of pharmacists and the free enterprise system if provision is made for a pharmacist to leave his pharmacy and to render his pharmaceutical services in a hospital, for example. I want to ask the hon. the Minister please to explain to me whether this is the intention of the provision and whether he has given attention to that particular standpoint. As I have said, it must happen—

This is very wide, however. It is not specified under what circumstances and subject to what conditions it must take place. I therefore want to urge the hon. the Minister to give us an idea of the circumstances under which this will be possible and what the conditions are which he intends to lay down in a case of this nature. I feel that as it reads at the moment, it is too wide, that it could lead to abuses and that it is not acceptable to a professional service of that nature.

Now I come to clause 12. In this clause, the existing period of five years is reduced to a period of 12 months. Here, once again, I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he does not think that five years is a much more reasonable period for the purposes of that provision. Would a period of 12 months not perhaps be much too short for the person or body to see to his business under the circumstances envisaged by the provision concerned? Pharmacists feel that they would prefer the period to remain five years instead of being reduced to 12 months.

Finally, I wish to refer to clause 13, which inserts the proposed section 38A into the principal Act. It provides that visits by inspectors must take place at reasonable times.

†In connection with previous legislation, I made mention of the fact that it so often happens that where provision is made for visits by inspectors to premises, in terms of the provisions of legislation of this nature, it is stated that the inspectors can visit such premises at any time of the day or night, a state of affairs that can, in fact, cause a great deal of disruption to the activities of the people concerned. I think that, by merely inserting the word “reasonable” in the legislation, we shall make the legislation sound a lot more reasonable and a lot more acceptable. It will not have the sort of jackboot impression which could otherwise be created, the impression that inspectors can simply call at any time they like, and can enter premises and do whatever they please. I appeal to the hon. the Minister to bear that in mind when future legislation of this nature comes before the House.

*But for the matters I have raised, we are able to congratulate the hon. the Minister on this legislation and give him our full support.

Mr. Speaker, since the official Opposition supports the general principles of this Bill I shall just refer in passing to certain matters raised by the hon. member for Bryanston.

If one takes into consideration that this Bill contains amendments and additions affecting approximately 11 different provisions of the Pharmacy Act, 1974, one realizes that the Bill before us is really a very important piece of legislation. The most important change is the amendment of section 5 of the principal Act which deals with the composition of the Pharmacy Board. Other important amendments are those relating to the power to appoint committees and the determination of a quorum. When I discuss the objections of the Pharmaceutical Society, I shall refer to this particular matter again.

I want to confine myself primarily—and I am quoting from the long title—to “the acts which are deemed to be acts specially pertaining to the profession of a pharmacist”, acts which are being supplemented by this Bill. We have already discussed certain facets of this matter earlier this afternoon. I got the impression that the hon. the Minister feels that this might not be the appropriate time to discuss the entire status of the pharmaceutical profession again, but I do think that, if we have to discuss it, this is in fact the appropriate time to do so, while we are dealing with the Pharmacy Amendment Bill. I do not think that the hon. the Minister will take it amiss of me if I raise certain points in regard to this matter—without starting a debate on it—because I think we realize that certain problems do indeed exist in this connection. I am referring in particular to clause 10(c) of the Bill before us which deals with the pharmaceutical profession. I believe that the amendment in question is a great improvement if we take cognizance of the dilemma in which the pharmaceutical profession in South Africa finds itself. In many respects the pharmaceutical profession finds itself engaged in a struggle for survival, a struggle for full professional recognition in South Africa. During the past few years great progress has already been made towards achieving this. In the first place there was the 1974 Act, which was in fact aimed at rectifying this matter. This is also the object of the Bill at present before us. Consequently I do not think it can do any harm if we re-examine this matter a little. The profession has indeed been under restraint and was not really able to practise as an independent profession with full professional status. I think we must accept that fact. I do not think that it is necessarily our task to solve that problem here today, yet I do think that we can examine the problem a little, on the basis of the legislation we have before us.

The fact of the matter is that according to the pharmacists one of the major problems is that to a great extent medical practitioners, particularly in the rural areas, still do their own dispensing. I think the hon. the Minister stated this afternoon, and I should like to repeat what he said, that it is a right and a need which we cannot take away from medical practitioners. That does not mean to say that we should not look at medical practitioners who abuse this particular privilege and right. However, we cannot argue about this matter any further.

Another very important problem is being experienced in regard to the future of pharmacists. The issue is the competition which the pharmacists are encountering as a result of dispensing by State and semi-State organizations, other private sectors, provincial hospitals, mining enterprises and several large private industrial firms. They are in direct competition with the pharmaceutical profession. There are also the State corporations, the S.A. Railways and other Government departments which, to a minor extent, do in fact compete with the pharmaceutical industry. I am thinking for example of the limited dispensing in the Department of Prisons, the Department of Health and the local authorities which dispense through clinics. However, there are also known cases of dispensing contracts which were taken away from pharmacists. According to a subsequent investigation it appeared that this was the wrong thing to do, because as a result of the creation of extra amenities, the payment of salaries and administrative costs, it now costs the State more than was originally stipulated in the contract. I am raising this matter because I think we could, in the light of this Bill, take another quick look at this aspect. As was correctly observed here today—and the hon. member for Parktown also raised this matter in his speech—the pharmacists are of course in direct competition with the dealers and the chain stores, particularly in the case of the sale of patent medicines. It could be argued that certain pharmacies have also begun to provide the public with self-service facilities—the same applies to patent medicines—but I want to point out that the Pharmacy Board, as well as the Pharmaceutical Society, stated in the recommendations which they made that they were opposed to this practice.

This afternoon the hon. member for Parktown said that if we were to allow the chain stores to market medicines on a large scale, it would entail that the medicines would be cheaper. However, we are not dealing with the sale of confectionary, but with the handling of a very dangerous commodity. This inevitably means that we should afford the public an opportunity to obtain advice on the use of these substances, whether it be a simple aspirin or a far more complicated preparation. I shall refer to this again later.

I am very pleased to see that the proposed section 29(2)(d) has been incorporated in the Bill. It reads as follows—

This is an extremely important provision in this Bill, a provision which once again raises the status of the pharmacist out of the position in which he found himself. However, this furnishing of advice to the public upon the purchase of medicine must not only be regarded as a right which the pharmacist has, but indeed a duty as well. I think that the entire status and stature of the pharmaceutical profession in South Africa will indeed be considerably enhanced if the pharmacists themselves see to it that this matter is straightened out. If the pharmacists do not accept this professional responsibility they will not be able to argue when preparations, particularly patent medicines, are offered for sale on a large scale by chain stores. It has been said many times in the past that the pharmacist can only confirm his status if he can free himself from trading in nonprofessional commodities. Up to now they have not been able, in view of the competition, to exist without this trade. That is why I am also raising this matter when we examine the problem in its entirety. The existing Act as well as the amendment Bill will not solve the problems of the pharmacist, but steps have indeed been taken which will mean a great deal for the pharmaceutical profession in South Africa.

I think that we as members of the House of Assembly, but in particular the pharmacists themselves as well as the Society, will have to re-examine this aspect in depth in future. I also believe that this specific legislation will have to be amended in future.

I am pleased to be able to say that the Pharmaceutical Society has already of, its own accord, ordered an investigation which was carried out by a very competent firm outside the profession. I believe that their report constitutes a particularly useful contribution in regard to this problem. In this connection I am referring to the so-called MFA report which is a scientific study of the problems of the pharmaceutical profession and which singles out certain very important facets. I shall quote from the preamble to this report—

I think this is a summary of precisely how they view their own problem and I believe that a great deal of attention will still be given to the matter.

I should also like to dwell briefly on certain objections which were raised by the society. The hon. member for Bryanston referred to these, and I also have a report on the objections. The Pharmaceutical Society consequently has just as much confidence in the Government as it has in the hon. member for Bryanston. These objections are primarily concerned with the constitution of the board—something to which the hon. member referred—as a result of the amendment of section 35. There are certain misgivings about this section and these have been referred to before. Reference was also made to the definition of “dispensing”.

In regard to the composition of the Pharmacy Board they suggest, as was also pointed out this afternoon, that 50% of the members ought to be elected members. I think we should take into consideration that we are not dealing here with a proportional representation. The principle is primarily one of how to constitute a board. The constitution must be based on skill. I also believe that the principle is a very sound one because it is a principle which also applies to other statutory boards and entails that if one-third of the members are elected members, that is sufficient to afford a thorough protection of the interests of a specific group. However, it is not in the first instance a question of proportional representation, but of skill on the board, something which is extremely important.

I should also like to refer to another objection to which the hon. member for Bryanston referred. This concerns the appointment by the colleges of certain members to the board. They feel that the Minister should appoint these people as well. However, we must point out—and this is the point which the hon. member for Bryanston did not emphasize—that as far as universities are concerned, we are dealing with experts from the universities who serve on this board, while in the case of colleges these people are nominated by an association of the various colleges. In other words we already have here an organized association which is able to look after the interests of the specific group. They are then able to nominate skilled people to the board. I do not think that we can draw a comparison between the members representing the universities and those representing the colleges.

The proposed amendment of section 35 of the principal Act seeks to legalize an existing practice, viz. the performance of outside work by certain pharmacists. I think that the society might have had sufficient reason to object to that. Perhaps it is quite feasible for the pharmacist to undertake such outside work on his own business premises. There are of course specific circumstances in which this could create practical problems. For that reason I think that the provision, as it stands in the Bill, is quite satisfactory. Therefore, when consent is granted to an exception, it must not be done readily.

In regard to the objection that there is no proper definition of the word “dispensing”, I just want to point out that it is a very difficult definition. When I think of how many problems we have had over the years in regard to the definition of the word “drug” of “medicine”, I realize what a problem exists. Even the definition which occurs in another Bill, is not entirely watertight To find a definition for these words is in fact extremely difficult. The definition of the word “medicine”, for example, reads as follows—

1. (a) the diagnosis, treatment, mitigation, modification or prevention of disease, abnormal physical or mental state or the symptoms thereof in man; or
2. (b) restoring, correcting or modifying any somatic or psychic or organic function in man; …

This is the definition as we find it in the Medicines and Related Drugs Control Act, 1965, as amended in 1979.

We are now confronted by the problem that if we take a glass of water it may also be medicinal. We cannot, after all, control the sale of water. That is what it amounts to if we want to take the matter to its logical conclusion. It is just as difficult to obtain an absolutely watertight definition of “dispensing”.

In my opinion this problem will primarily be raised in the case of court proceedings. It could happen that it is not quite clear to the court what is meant by those terms. However, I believe that any reasonable court will know what is done in practice.

Something which we could perhaps look at during the Committee Stage is the possibility of a definition of what non-dispensing is. I think that this might be an easier way of dealing with this matter, particularly as far as the objection of the Pharmaceutical Society is concerned.

We are satisfied with the Bill which is now under discussion. This is of course not the last time that we will look into this matter, particularly not in view of the particular problems which I have tried to single out. The pharmacists of South Africa are proud that their professional status is developing in the right direction. However, it is also a matter which they should take care of themselves. They are represented on the board and in their society by a group of very competent people, knowledgeable people in whom I have great confidence. Consequently their problems will in due course be solved.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that the hon. member for Newcastle has given us a very balanced picture of the situation as he sees it in South Africa and of the relationship that exists between the pharmacists and the doctors. Being a professional person himself, I believe, he has expressed some viewpoints with which many people will be in hearty agreement. I want to thank him for making out what, I believe, is a very good case for more professionalism for pharmacists. In that regard I want to say how much I would like to associate myself with any move—particularly in terms of certain clauses of this Bill—by which more discretion is given to pharmacists as trained professional people. I agree 100% with the hon. member for Newcastle when he says that pharmacists must accept the responsibility, especially the responsibility in regard to the aspect of giving advice relating to medicines.

I believe that 99% of professional people— pharmacists in this case—will agree with him very strongly on that point. They accept that responsibility gladly. In fact, they would be very much more pleased to have more responsibility, because the pharmaceutical profession in this country is, I believe, grossly under-utilized and has the least professional discretion of any of the professions associated with health services in this country. They will welcome any move towards being given more responsibility, responsibility which they will accept gladly. I believe the majority of them will carry them out responsibly.

I believe the Second Reading of this Bill has been dealt with very thoroughly. A lot of comment has been made, and rightly so, on the composition of the Pharmacy Board. I do not intend to repeat the arguments. However, I want to make it absolutely clear that as the majority of pharmacists are retail pharmacists, I believe it is absolutely essential—not only desirable, but essential— that they have a majority of elected members on the board. I am going to restrict my comment to that I make that absolutely clear.

Clause 10 of the Bill amends section 29 of the principal Act by adding, in subsection (c), the following paragraph to subsection (2) of the Act—

I welcome this amendment. However, I wonder whether the hon. the Minister could perhaps elaborate on this. I know we can discuss it in more detail during the Committee Stage. Nevertheless, I raise it now because it is an important point. The present ethical rules applying to pharmacists might, in a certain way, come into conflict with this new provision. I think we will have to look at that aspect to make sure that the ethical rules applying now do not come into conflict with the intention. We will accept very strongly the intention of this provision once we see that there is no possible conflict in that regard. A previous speaker in this debate, in discussing clause 12, indicated that the reduction of the period allowed for the executor to administer a pharmacist’s business in an estate—five years reduced to one year—was not totally acceptable. I want to elaborate further on that point. It is a very simple matter. If one has only one year within which to dispose of such a business adequately, and it has been a bad year for business, the selling price one is going to get will be very much affected by business conditions. If one has only one year, with economic conditions being as bad as ours were in recent years, it does not really mean that the estate is going to get the best possible value out of the selling of that business. Meanwhile, such business may even represent the life savings of the one who built it up. I do not really believe that there is a great problem, or that there will be a great problem, in leaving the period as it previously was, viz. five years.

If there happens to be tremendous administrative problems perhaps the hon. the Minister could tell us more about them. I believe, however, we would be well-advised to leave the period of five years as it is. It gives an administrator the chance to sell such business when market conditions appear to be the best possible.

Clause 18 refers to supplementary training or refresher courses, and this of course comes under the regulations over which the hon. the Minister has a certain amount of power. I believe clause 18(c) is a most welcome addition. Many pharmacists in South Africa qualified 30 or more years ago when the practice of pharmacy was totally different from what it is today. Over the last few years they have voluntarily applied themselves to the study of, particularly, pharmacology, which will enable them to discuss on a more meaningful basis the actions of certain drugs with the doctors who are prescribing them. I am pleased to see that the hon. the Minister had this aspect under his attention. I believe this will be widely welcomed and bring home to those few who are always reluctant to come up to date that there is a responsibility on them to be as up to date with their professional knowledge, as up to date as it is possible to be.

When one is dealing with medicines and think of the tremendous advances being made in medicines over the last few decades, then this is indeed one of the most important changes, though one of the smaller changes, being made in the legislation. A simple example will indicate the fantastic advances of medicines over the last few years. If hon. members think back to 10 to 15 years ago, they will remember that an attack of pneumonia could mean that the patient might end up in hospital for six weeks. But with the advent of the antibiotics one found that patients no longer had to go to hospital, although they still had to spend a few weeks in bed under care. Today, with the antibiotics available, a patient does not have to go to hospital and very often can get away with taking a six-day course of antibiotics and be back on his feet and in his job. This indicates the enormous strides made by medicine. In that light it is incumbent on professional people, like pharmacists, to be absolutely up to date with those drugs and to know as much as there is to know about them to be able to discuss them intelligently with other professionals in the health services. I want to emphasize how welcome I find it that attention is being given, both within the profession and by the people who are drawing up the legislation, to tins particular aspect.

I may just end by saying that we have no major problems with the Bill before us, except for the composition of the Pharmacy Board. That aspect we will debate during the Committee Stage.

Mr. Speaker, it was pleasant to hear someone in this House who is himself a pharmacist by profession supporting this amendment Bill and joining the Pharmaceutical Society of South Africa in welcoming it. I am also pleased to hear that the hon. member for Berea, as a pharmacist, also knows very well how tuberculosis should be treated, for it is necessary for a pharmacist to have a thorough knowledge of such matters as well. I shall return to this aspect later. The fact that the status of our pharmacists should be enhanced was emphasized by the previous two speakers. It depends to a large extent on the pharmacist himself. In this amendment Bill the mechanism is in fact being established through which their status can in fact be enhanced, not only through the more effective functioning of the Pharmacy Board, but also through the status of the board in that there will now be greater involvement on the part of educational institutions such as universities and Colleges for Advanced Technical Education.

The further provision in clause 6—that pharmacists who have qualified abroad must undergo at least a year of practical training and pass a test set by examiners of the board—is also to be welcomed. It is to be welcomed, for it is still necessary today to have well-trained people standing behind the pharmacy counter. A popular opinion is that a pharmacist no longer does any dispensing today but merely counts pills, since the medicine has already been prepared and is sent to him in pill or liquid form. However, that is not the case. The pharmacist must have a proper knowledge of these preparations. He must know what dangers are involved; he must know the correct dosage and he must act as a watch-dog for the medical practitioner, because it is his duty, when a medical practitioner has accidentally prescribed an incorrect dosage, to go back and point out to the medical practitioner that his dosage is not correct. The pharmacist must be able to furnish advice, for a sick person very often comes to him first to ask for help. Very often such a person has a minor ailment which can be cured by a tablet or two. Sometimes it may also be the start of a serious condition, and a pharmacist must have the necessary background and clinical knowledge to be able to judge when he should refer his client to a medical practitioner.

Clause 13 of the Bill makes provision for inspection by officers of the board. In this connection I want to suggest that this inspectorate should also take note of and ensure that the professional appearance of some of our pharmacies should be improved. In this connection I am not thinking of all pharmacies—apparently this does not apply to the pharmacy of the hon. member for Berea—but we know that particular problems do exist in this connection. Some pharmacies really look more like pawn shops, or like a cross between a beauty salon and a camera shop. In my opinion this is not in keeping with the professional status of a pharmacist. In my opinion the board may do a great deal to improve the professional appearance of our pharmacies in general.

In clause 17 the powers of the Pharmacy Board are being added to in that the penalties for certain offences and the implementation of the penal provisions are being considerably amplified. This, together with the fact that the tariffs for professional services of pharmacists will now be determined by the board itself, and the fact that refresher courses and supplementary training is undertaken by the board, will further confirm and promote the professionalism and independence of the Pharmaceutical profession and in that way, too, enhance the status of the pharmacist in our society. It must be borne in mind that six elected pharmacists will serve on that board. This is necessary because we have an urgent need for this section of our professional men in our entire health set-up because—as I have already said—they very often form the frontline of health care in our country. They render a special service to the public. In this connection I am thinking of the credit facilities which they make available to their clients, to the delivery service which they offer and to the facilities which they offer in that one can approach them in the middle of the night if one has need of them. A good pharmacist is like a good friend in time of need. That is why I want to break a lance for these people and why I want to advocate that we should accord them a proper place in our society and that we should also uphold the principle of a free market economy as far as this profession is concerned. We should not embark on a course of socialization with regard to the provision of medicines because the retail pharmacies are already faced with this problem. The hon. member for Newcastle pointed out quite correctly that the retail pharmacies today had to compete with S.A. Railways dispensaries which provide their own pharmacists and medicines. There are other major semi-State undertakings that do the same. When the provisions of the Health Laws Amendment Act of 1977 come into operation, it is foreseen that the district surgeon’s services will be transferred to the provinces, where medicines are going to be provided and dispensing done. This could constitute a further threat to the survival of the retail pharmacies. In a report from the Pharmaceutical Society I read the following on the future of the pharmaceutical profession in South Africa—

If these facts, as stated by the Pharmaceutical Society, are correct, I am in complete agreement that the State should rather be placed in a position to render a better service with the available funds where it is really needed to the people who really need it, and will therefore be able to render a service of a far better quality. The State should do this rather than to render unnecessary services which could be provided by the private sector.

Mr. Speaker, we have come a long way since the days of the apothecary to the modern-day pharmacist who competes, generally speaking, in the retail trade. The views expressed by the hon. member for Pietersburg, the hon. member for Newcastle, supported by the hon. member for Berea, to uplift the status of the pharmacist are views which we on these benches would support, because today it is realized that the pharmacist indeed plays a vital and necessary role in society. So, everything possible must be done to maintain the status of the pharmacist in the medical field. As the hon. member for Pietersburg said, it is not just a question of putting modern drugs—which cost quite a sum of money—into little bottles. It is also a question of understanding how dosages that have to be dispensed. On the subject of raising the status of pharmacists it has been suggested that the question of giving advice is one of the fields in which the status is raised. Perhaps I detected a warning in the words of the hon. member for Pietersburg, that in giving medical advice to a customer who enters his pharmacy, the pharmacist is undertaking a very grave responsibility for the health and wellbeing of that customer. He has not had the opportunity to diagnose the patient’s complaint, as a doctor would, or to examine the patient as a doctor would before issuing a prescription. I am therefore sure that the pharmacist would only dare to prescribe medicine only with the utmost caution and only if he were absolutely sure of the nature of the complaint. Obviously, in cases of emergency in smaller places and where there is no doctor available he will fulfil this role.

The role of the pharmacist is of such a nature today that, in competing with the retail trade, the pharmacy does not only consist of a dispensing unit. A lot of other goods are also displayed and stocks thereof kept. He not only has to compete with the shop across the road, but also with supermarkets and hypermarkets. The Pharmacist Board now takes the view—according to Press reports— that certain goods should no longer be kept in pharmacies. These goods include certain kinds of haberdashery, rings and other trinkets which a pharmacy usually sells, etc. We must, however, ensure that the pharmacy profession is protected, that the pharmacists are happy in their profession, that they feel that they are in control of their profession and that others are encouraged to enter the pharmacy profession. I want to emphasize very strongly the objections made by the board. The hon. the Minister stated that a draft Bill was published and comments on it were invited. I wonder why the hon. the Minister ignored the representations made by the Pharmacy Board, not only by the Western Cape branch, but also by the executive as well, concerning the composition of the board. Previously the Pharmacy Board consisted of 12 persons, of whom six were pharmacists elected by pharmacists. That gave the pharmacists a 50% say in their own affairs. Under this legislation the hon. the Minister is asking the House to approve of a board consisting of 16 members. The pharmacists will still be represented by six elected pharmacists and there will be ten members appointed to the board. Of these ten appointed members, five will be appointed by the hon. the Minister, and five will be nominated by the bodies to which he referred. The final result is that the board will now consist of six members elected by the pharmacists, five appointed by the Minister and five nominated by the organizations concerned. These people who are most concerned with their own affairs will now only have six members out of a total of 16. Bearing in mind the regulations which they are entitled to draw up and the powers which they now have with regard to tariffs which they must apply to their own profession, I think the elected pharmacists should be in the majority on the board. I am quite at a loss to understand the logic and the motivation for the principle, as stated by the hon. the Minister, that one-third of the members of the board must be elected, one-third nominated and one-third appointed. This is an intrusion into a profession which ought to look after itself. Therefore we must express our gravest doubts on this score.

The Bill before us stipulates that these people will be appointed for a period of five years. This means that the ten members who are appointed will be drawn from among technical colleges, the universities, the Medical Council, the Department of Health and even the S.A. Nursing Council.

I detect a weakness here, and I would appreciate it if the hon. the Minister would come to my assistance. What will happen if the people who are appointed for a period of five years cease to be representatives of those organizations on whose behalf they have been appointed? These people are appointed in terms of section 7 of the Pharmacy Act, and section 7 of that Act stipulates that if a member of the board’s estate is sequestrated, or he becomes a patient in terms of section 1 of the Mental Health Act, and so forth, he shall vacate his office. In this clause there is no similar provision for members to cease being members of this board. The hon. the Minister is now taking on power whereby, if these organizations do not appoint persons to the board themselves, the Minister may do so. I have no quarrel with his power to do that, because if they have been given the opportunity and they do not take advantage of this opportunity, it is well and good that the hon. the Minister does so. All we want to know is why provision is made that, provided these people remain members, the board cannot be left as it is. Why do extra members have to be appointed?

I now come to the question of the executive committee—clause 10 of this Bill. Here we have a situation where instead of the option that they may appoint an executive committee from the board itself, they must now appoint an executive committee. They are now forced to do so. This committee will now consist of members and other persons. Since the board consists of these people, I am very curious to know who these people are who can be appointed as members of this executive committee. Has a gap been created which allow the appointment of people who are not pharmacists or who do not fall under any of the other categories? I think an explanation is necessary in respect of the wording “and other persons”.

The provision that the board shall appoint a disciplinary committee as it may deem necessary, particularly in respect of examinations and the consequential keeping of a register, is a good one.

We also support the principle in respect of overseas qualifications. We should like to see a reciprocal arrangement being made. For example, if the examinations and qualifications of South Africans are accepted in, say, the USA, the UK, Australia or New Zealand, I think a reciprocal arrangement should be made with those countries in terms of which if they accept our qualifications, we shall accept theirs. I think this will bring about an exchange of people, ideas and experience. I am sure that many people will then come to South Africa to spend a few years doing pharmaceutical work on an exchange basis. I think we should encourage this. At the moment we adhere to the arrangement that persons who have obtained their professional qualifications outside the Republic must not only undergo a year practical training, but also pass a test I think it is well that they must do that.

As far as the body corporate is concerned, the hon. the Minister has in his speech today pointed to a similarity with the legal profession. In the legal profession firms of attorneys have been granted the right to become a corporate body for tax purposes. I think the same principle applies in the pharmaceutical profession, but in this case the shareholder of a company carrying out the business of a pharmacy must be pharmacists. They have no voting rights.

I now want to refer to the question of the shares of a deceased person. I want to emphasize that the extension of this period to 12 months is an advantage, but this period is still not long enough. As far as the deceased estate is concerned, there is a similarity with the legal profession in that the widow is usually part and parcel of the firm itself. She has probably helped her husband for many years in the pharmacy. If her husband passes away, I do not think she should be put in a situation in which she is obliged and forced to sell this business, which is perhaps the only source of income to her and her family, within a period of 12 months. Although it may be argued that it is not healthy for a woman who is not a pharmacist to continue with the business, she is nevertheless protected by the Act, which stipulates that she can do so in the circumstances provided a qualified pharmacist is in control at all times.

I now want to refer to the proposed section 44(2), which deals with the question of disgraceful conduct. In respect of the reporting of disgraceful conduct to the board, section 57 of the Criminal Procedure Act applies. I do not know why this is so; perhaps the hon. the Minister can explain this, because section 57 of the Criminal Procedure Act merely stipulates that when the prosecutor or the Attorney-General decide that the court will not impose a fine exceeding R100 that an admission of guilt can be paid. If, for example, a pharmacist pays an admission of guilt fine, the court will direct that a copy of the record of the court proceedings be transmitted to the board, which will then take disciplinary action. He could, for example, have been found guilty of a speeding offence. I think we must have a careful look at this.

I now want to refer to the question of tariffs. One generally welcomes the fact that provision is being made that the tariffs pertaining to the pharmaceutical trade will now be determined by the pharmacists themselves and not by the Price Controller. They are obviously the best people to determine these tariffs.

This Bill obviously contains improvements on the original Act Apart for a few unhappy paragraphs to which we have referred, the Pharmacy Board will, as they have indicated, support this measure.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank all hon. members who participated in this debate for their contributions. A few matters were raised which I shall deal with in general. Hon. members may raise these aspects again during the Committee Stage if they feel like doing so. One of the problems hon. members are experiencing has a bearing on the constitution of the board. As regards these boards I have already stated repeatedly that interest groups should not have the right to dominate these boards. These boards should be composed of people who are skilled. Although one affords all the sectors an opportunity of nominating skilled persons, the idea is not that the Society, which represents the practising members of the profession, should succeed in controlling such a board with its numerical superiority. It is an autonomous board, but the granting of autonomy is vested in the State. As a result of years of experience—and not merely arbitrarily—we arrived at the conclusion that it is a good approach to allow one-third of the board to consist of elected members, one-third of nominated members and one-third of office bearers. This is a more advantageous distribution, for then the board is truly representative of the various sectors. This profession, too, ought to have its responsibilities and dependence. If it were to happen that the representatives of the retail trade comprise 50% of the membership of the board, we would be destroying the whole idea of the board which must consist of skilled persons who express their opinions as wisdom dictates. The fact that greater and wider responsibilities will be afforded in regard to the constitution of the board is to my mind sufficient reason not to give the interest groups such representation that the one dominates the other. In any event this would immediately create a completely different attitude to the board. It would undermine the authority of the board in the sense that one would be supporting the one group which consists of the best negotiators by allowing it to have more members. I do not know what criteria really apply in this case. Such a board has various functions, for example disciplinary, educational, training and other functions which are not under discussion now. One must bear each one of these functions in mind in determining its responsibility. One should not allow only the mainly personal interests of the profession to be represented on that board. I think I have made this clear enough. This is also the case in other professions represented by boards. In this case I am not going to deviate from that practice. Representations of this kind are repeatedly made. I think we must understand clearly that we are dealing here with a board which consists of skilled persons who are not appointed on a sectional basis.

The hon. member for Bryanston also said that the members representing colleges and universities should be elected and appointed in the same way as other members. In my Second Reading speech I said that we should like to have all the members of the colleges and universities elected in this way, but that at this stage we are experiencing a problem in regard to the universities, which is that the Committee of University principals actually consist of Whites only. There are two universities for non-Whites, viz. the University of the Western Cape and the University of the North. For that reason the Minister must have the discretion of affording these people equitable representation in this case. The members of the colleges are elected in any event. However, if it is in any way possible, we should like them all to designate their members.

The hon. member also referred to clause 11 and said that it meant an interference in the market mechanism. Pharmacists have never had the right, as far as hospital preparations and medicines administered in the hospital are concerned, to derive benefit from those prescriptions which are issued. A retail pharmacist cannot derive benefit from such a hospital. In that connection we are confirming an existing right, and in my opinion it is not in conflict with the procedure which has applied all these years. Nor is it socialization. State hospitals have always had the right to prepare their medicines and to supply their preparations themselves. Therefore I am not prepared to change this practice at this stage, however much I sympathize with the pharmaceutical profession in the circumstances in which it finds itself.

The hon. member also discussed the circumstances in which a pharmacist may leave his pharmacy. It is true that we have practical problems in this connection. There are pharmacists who have sessions with departments. In areas where there is only one pharmacist he must have the right to lock up that part in which he does his dispensing. He has assistants who can receive prescriptions in his absence and when he returns later, he can make up the prescriptions. In the meantime unscheduled medicines may be freely sold by the assistants. He may keep his pharmacy open for that purpose. As far as I am concerned, this is an aspect where we feel we have in fact accommodated what happens in practice. However, we are not being entirely practical when we compel the pharmacist to be present there at all times. He must assume the responsibility.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister what will happen to the customers who want a prescription in the chemist shop while the chemist is away prescribing at the hospital?

That is a very cogent question. I am sure that he can make arrangements for prescriptions to be issued while he is away. Usually it is a doctor who wants a prescription immediately, and in that case an arrangement must be made. However, the fact that that can occur as an exception, does not mean that we must not introduce these practical measures. In any case, the hon. member has a point in that regard. It is a matter for which we shall have to try to find a practical solution. I think we can. I think it should be very easy.

*The hon. member and other hon. members discussed the five-year period during which the widow of a qualified pharmacist may continue with the pharmacy. I just want to draw the attention of hon. members to the fact that the board itself may extend the period if circumstances allow. That is how we have it at present. When a period of five years is prescribed, it is five years. However, the estate may be wound up long before that time and in that case the pharmacy may continue its activities. Basically we thought that this was not a sound practice to allow to continue and for that reason we amended the Pharmacy Act some time ago, but the board has the power to extend the period. Hon. members would do well to examine the section themselves.

As far as inspections and the question of a reasonable time is concerned, the question of what a reasonable time is remains a problem. There are many pharmacists who work through the night; consequently the question is: What is a reasonable time. After all, the man has to be there at night. This is something which is dictated by practice.

I think I have replied to the suggestion put forward by the hon. member for Pietersburg in respect of the hospital dispensaries and how the medicines can go through the process. However, I am afraid that in that respect, too, we are not entirely in agreement.

For the rest, of course, I want to thank him as well as the hon. member for Newcastle for having, as other hon. members did, made the status of the pharmaceutical profession the main theme of their speeches. I think it is extremely important for us to realize this. There are more than 5 000 people who have been professionally trained in the pharmaceutical profession. We are really trying, by means of this legislation, to see whether we cannot help the pharmaceutical profession by giving it its place as a profession of scientists. That is why we are trying to help them to give medical advice as well. This is a great responsibility. A well-trained pharmacist can become involved in the community. We want to involve the community in health, both in their respective positions. As such the pharmacist has in my opinion become a very important person in that community when it comes to giving advice on medicine, health, etc. That is why we are, with our modified legislation, moving in that direction.

†The hon. member for Hillbrow was also worried about the appointment of a person by a certain institution. For instance, it may so happen that within that period he ceases to be a member of that institution. In that case it is incumbent upon him to tender his resignation. He should do that. If he does not do so and we feel that he can stay on, that he is good enough or that they still want him, then there is really nothing that makes it so absolutely necessary that he should relinquish his position. However, if we consider it to be in the public interest, his term of office can be terminated. There is a section of the Act which provides for that, and we are thinking along those lines. We merely want to make provision to be able to handle the situation should anything like that happen, but usually we do not encounter any trouble in cases of this kind.

*As I said a moment ago, I want to say something in general. However, I think that I have already said enough and I just want to thank the other hon. members who spoke for having made such a thorough study of this legislation. In particular I want to thank them for the suggestions which were made, by the Opposition as well. The hon. member for Berea is always very interested in medical matters and I cannot reply to him on everything now—there is simply no time to do so—but perhaps we could discuss these matters during the Committee Stage. We are agreed on the other aspects, namely that the status of the pharmaceutical profession ought to be enhanced, that there are certain improvements which we are effecting in that respect and that we are rectifying certain things which were wrong in the past. The fact that I always receive positive criticism and not negative criticism when I deal with the Second Reading of a Bill such as this makes me a grateful person.