as chairman, brought up the first report of the Select Committee on Internal Arrangements, as follows—

1. (1) Weekdays:
   The use of the reading, writing, smoking and billiard rooms—
   1. (a) On Saturday afternoons and Saturday evenings, until 10 p.m.
   2. (b) On non-sitting nights, until 10 p.m.
   3. (c) On days on which this House does not sit, from 10 a.m. until 10 p.m.
2. (2) Sundays:
   The use of the reading, writing and smoking rooms, from 10 a.m. until 10 p.m.

The above-mentioned additional facilities are to be available to members only, and will not operate during any adjournment of the House for a period exceeding ten days.

Your Committee further recommends that Mr. Speaker be requested to authorise any expenditure that may be involved in respect of the provision of attendants.

stated that unless notice of objection was given on or before Thursday, 17th February, the report would be considered as adopted.

I do not know whether this is the proper place to move this amendment, but I will ask your ruling, Mr. Chairman. I wish to move to insert at the end of the clause—

I have mentioned this before as a matter of justice to the profession. A midwife is qualified in six months; a nurse takes three to four years.

Yes, you may do that.

I do not think that ought to go into the Bill as an amendment. If on this particular clause it is just agreed that “midwife” should follow “nurse,” I think the alterations further on in the Bill would follow as a matter of course. Personally I am disposed to agree to this amendment, always first to mention “nurse” and after that “midwife.”

It will not be a separate clause, but whenever we come to these words they will have to be transposed.

Amendment put and agreed to.

New Clause 2,

I move—

I would like to point out that whilst I am personally a professional man, I do not like to deprive any man who is in competition with me of a livelihood, for instance in the drawing of wills and so on. I do not know that many people will be affected thereby, but I am sure that no Parliament and no Government will deprive people of their livelihood at one fell blow.

Give us a few instances.

Surely the hon. member has been approached by a large number of people who prove conclusively by printed circulars and letters that if the Bill is passed in its present form they will not be able to carry on their business and earn their livelihood as in the past. I ask the hon. member, if tomorrow a law were introduced to deprive people who have drawn leases and so forth from doing so in future, would you not deprive these people of their living.

May I just draw the hon. member’s attention to Clause 95. That is a saving clause. I think it would be more appropriate to move the amendment there.

If that is your ruling, Mr. Chairman, I abide by it. I have consulted a constitutional authority on the subject, who said it would be advisable to move it at the very first stage. It is a guiding principle throughout the Bill and affects most of the clauses, and if you will allow me, Mr. Chairman, I will move it now.

The hon. member is entitled to go on. I cannot prevent him.

Well, I will move it.

An hon. member just now asked for instances in support of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Nathan). It so happens that there has just arrived an instance which, I think, may be regarded as typical. A man has written to me as his old commanding officer—

It seems to me that consolidating laws have not, as a rule, interfered with existing rights. Hon. members from the Free State will remember that when the laws dealing with legal practitioners were consolidated, a special exemption was made for those who were not qualified lawyers, but were practising as legal practitioners throughout the country. A provision was made that they would be allowed to carry on their living, but no additions to men of that description were allowed. I do not know that many instances have been adduced with regard to the danger to the public from the existing state of things. At the same time we all recognize that it is dangerous to allow unqualified men to go on unchecked in future, or to add to the number of unqualified, unregistered practitioners. The terms of the amendment would be little less than substantial justice, and I hope it will prove acceptable to the House.

I am sorry to say that I am not prepared to accept this proposed amendment of the hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Nathan). I do not know exactly what he means by it. If he means that anyone who has been practising lawfully and under any other existing Acts, must be protected under this new Bill, then ample provision for that has been made in the Bill; but if he means that unregistered persons who are supposed to have a vested right are to be considered as registered under the new Bill, then that goes against the whole principle laid down in this Bill, and I am certainly not going to accept that. If he means that persons who were unregistered before—could not be registered before—shall have the right to become registered under this Bill, he can deal with it under Section 34. I would refer the hon. member, as to vested rights, to Clause 14 [clause read] and the other provision is in Clause 95 [clause read].

If people had been practising contrary to law, they could not possibly come under this amendment, which applies to people who have been doing things lawfully. The Minister’s new clause refers only to medical practitioners, dentists and druggists, but what of the other people?

What other persons?

The masseurs. I have had a letter from a masseur at Wynberg, and I also have answered a masseur in Cape Town who, under the Bill, will not be allowed to continue practice, unless they submit themselves to examination and become registered. There are many members on both sides of the House who have been to the Cape Town masseur, and they can testify to the excellence of his treatment. The Wynberg masseur writes me that he earns about £.200 or £300 a year, and he says there have been no facilities for him to obtain the necessary qualifications under the Bill, and he understands there are no such facilities in South Africa. He urges that those who have been practising as masseurs should come under the Bill and be enabled to continue their practice. The Cape Town masseur has a diploma from America.

The hon. member (Mr. Alexander) has made a very thorough study of the Bill, but there are still some things which I tried to explain at the close of the discussion on the second reading which he has not grasped, and that is that under the Bill medical practitioners, dentists, chemists and druggists and, to a certain extent, nurses and midwives are considered to be close professions, but masseurs and dental mechanics are not inclosed professions. That is to say any masseur, whether registered under the Bill or not registered, will not be prohibited from practising.

With reference to what the Minister has just said about dental mechanics, it must not be forgotten that two classes of persons are concerned in the first place, the person who, to-day, carries on the calling of making teeth, putting them in and selling them, and secondly, the person who cannot pay £25 for a set of artificial teeth. The latter cannot go to a qualified dentist, but to a person who sells the teeth cheaply and as good as the qualified man can make. If the amendment is not passed, those persons who cannot pay £25 for a set will have to remain without teeth, and this will injuriously affect the health of many people. I hope the Minister will very carefully consider the matter. Many of our young fellows go to a dentist to learn how to do the work and, after ten or twelve years, they are just as good as the dentist himself. They dare not, however, go and start on their own making and inserting teeth, but must do so for a dentist who then inserts them. I do not think that we ought to go too far in the Bill.

I share the objection of the hon. member for Witwatersberg (Lt.-Col. N. J. Pretorius). As I read the Bill only people who have a diploma can be registered. It provides further that anyone who is not registered may not practise. In this way quite a lot of people who come under the law will lose their livelihood. I am against any law with such a tendency. These people have been earning their bread for years, and now it is to be taken away from them. The people now exercising their profession and working as dentists or something else ought to have the chance of being registered. New persons who do not possess the qualifications can be excluded and the number of those who do not possess the necessary diploma will die out of itself. I can never, however, vote for a Bill which robs so large a number of people of their livelihood.

I am very sorry indeed to see the Minister taking such a strong line in opposing my amendment. The answers to his arguments were very effectively put by the hon. member for Hanover Street (Mr. Alexander). Those arguments did not appeal to the Minister. I am sure they will appeal to the majority of the committee. Is it right for any Parliament to take the bread out of the mouths of the people for whom I am appearing? I cannot use strong enough language with regard to these people.

But it is in the Bill.

The Minister keeps saying it is in the Bill. If he says it will be permissible for these people to carry on the calling, why not accept the amendment, otherwise these people will be subject to prosecution.

Which people?

I wish you would listen.

Well, tell us.

I am not here to waste the time of the country. You must listen. I feel so strongly on this subject that I am going to call for a division.

The hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Nathan) has used a plausible argument to get a far-reaching principle accepted. He himself acknowledged that his amendment would have a far-reaching effect, and the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander) enlightened us a little more about its orbit. The House must be very careful and consider everything before it approves such an exhaustive amendment. This House is naturally the body to which every citizen has the right of looking for the protection of his vested rights, hut no one has the right to expect that vested rights will be protected if they are not in the interest of society as a whole. We can understand quite well the plea of the hon. members for Fordsburg (Mr. J. S. F. Pretorius) and Witwatersberg (Lt.-Col. N. J. Pretorius). We appreciate their anxiety with regard to the people hit by the Bill, but we are dealing with the Bill with the object of protecting the public as a whole, and if people to-day carry on an occupation which they are not entitled to do, in the interest of the general public, then we must regard the matter from the standpoint of the latter. The Bill makes provision for various qualifications and the registration of various professions, and I should prefer proposing the consideration of specific cases under the relative clauses than accepting such a general vague principle which is not in the public interests.

After what we have heard from the two hon. members, it is surely sufficient for them to vote against the clause. They have said that certain interests are going to be affected, and that we are going to take the bread out of the mouths of midwives and nurses. Clause 31 amply deals with the subject. That clause makes provision for the registration of midwives and masseurs. There is a further clause (38), where prosecutions can take place against nurses, midwives and masseurs who claim to be registered. There is no suggestion that any midwife or nurse shall be interfered with in her present avocation. The Bill only arranges that for the future we shall have a register for capable, qualified nurses and midwives. That is a very good thing. In spite of that, we still allow other people to do the work, but they must not put themselves forward as being registered. It shows to the public the people who have been trained and who have arrived at a stage of efficiency as against those people who have drifted into the work and have no particular qualifications for it. They may continue to do the work. The suggestion of the hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Nathan) is outside this Bill altogether. If the hon. member wants to go further, he can try and see what he can do on Clause 31. Either members have misunderstood the Bill, or are putting a position before the House which does not arise in the Bill.

The hon. member for Hopetown (Dr. Stals) has just said that the public must be protected against certain people, but I should like to know whether a person who takes employment with a dentist as a dental mechanic is entitled to do so?

Yes.

It is legal to learn how to make teeth, but then when he can do so well and wants to go out and make teeth cheaply to sell to poor people, it becomes illegal! No, now the dentists have to be protected against the persons who have been slaving for ten years from morning to night at a small salary when they are competent to make teeth and want to assist the poor part of the population. Now their livelihood has to be taken away! I do not think it is fair, and I regard the amendment of the hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Nathan) as a good one. We must give the people who have already been working some time the right to go on with their occupation. Let new people be prohibited from doing so, so that the right shall not be extended. I do not think, however, that it is right now to prohibit people who have sacrificed so much time and given such good work to the dentists. I know people who have worked for dentists for years and could not go to Europe to complete their studies. To-day, however, they are able to do the work and to sell teeth. Why should they be deprived of their living? I am not opposed to protecting dentists, but the mechanic who is already at work must also be given a chance to make a living. The profession is not so crowded that dentists cannot make a living, and therefore I think that it is fair to give people who have been working for some time the opportunity of gaining a livelihood.

I hope the Minister will stand firm and not allow this Bill to be watered down at all. Many members seem to think it is going to prejudice the rural communities. It is really going to protect the rural communities. The urban interests are, at present, able to get adequate medical and dental attention. It is the rural communities that are the happy hunting-ground for all sorts of quacks and all sorts of unqualified medical and dental people. I would like to single out the case of the dental profession more particularly because I doubt whether the country generally appreciates the far-reaching importance on the national health of sound teeth. Let me remind the House that the same condition held in England for a long time. The Dental Bill in England for many years allowed all sorts of unregistered practitioners to practise. The result was that in the end there were more unregistered practitioners than registered practitioners. An important commission was appointed by the House of Commons on this subject in 1919. The dental profession in England had suffered for nearly 30 years from a defective Bill such as the one that the hon. member for Hanover Street (Mr. Alexander) wishes to introduce. If his amendments go through, this Bill will be watered down, and all the worst features of the dental practice in England will be introduced in this country. The commission said that the Act as it stood—

These amendments of the hon. member for Hanover Street and the hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Nathan) will be the charter of the quacks and the unqualified charlatans who have been the curse of this country up to now. The report went on to state—

Just as bad coin drives out good coin, so unregistered practitioners came to drive out qualified men. We find the same thing in this country, not so much to the detriment of the urban communities, as to the detriment of the rural communities. The report says further—

I think that will be the position under the amendments which these two hon. gentlemen wish to introduce. The committee referred to certain evils which the practice of dentistry by unqualified persons was mainly responsible for, amongst these being that the dental treatment of the public had largely fallen into the hands of untrained and unskilled persons, and the existence in the public mind of the belief that there was no advantage in preserving the natural teeth, and that when they decayed it was time enough to have them attended to. I would call the attention of the House to the report of Dr. Leipoldt, our local expert on the subject, on the question of teeth in this country. We find that something like 18 per cent. of the school children in this country are suffering from defects of teeth, and that they are suffering from all these ills and ailments that follow a septic mouth or defective teeth. Under these amendments the hon. gentlemen are letting loose on the public a swarm of unqualified practitioners.

They exist to-day.

We are going to allow a swarm of unqualified practitioners, many of them quacks, not all of them, to do their worst on the mouths and teeth of the people. [Time limit. ]

I think the hon. member who has just spoken (Col. D. Reitz) cannot have read the amendments which I have placed on the paper, and I hope that he will do so before he resumes his speech. He has misrepresented the position in so far as my amendments are concerned. He states that in England Bill was passed to do away with these people who were unqualified. Has he taken the trouble to ascertain that the Bill in England allowed every one of these unqualified persons to be registered as a dentist? What is the good of his saying that I am asking the same as the people in England did? I am not asking that these people should be put on the list as dentists, and I have never asked for that. What he has forgotten to tell the committee is that, in spite of the evidence which was led before that commission, the House of Commons passed a law by which they put she whole of these 7,000 or 8,000 people on the register. My amendments do not provide that a single unqualified man shall become a dentist. What they do provide is this, that the mechanical part of the work, including the measuring of the mouth and the making and fitting of the teeth, shall be performed by a dental mechanic. To say that that is putting unqualified people on the list is going very far beyond what my amendment provides. I do suggest that you should give the dental mechanic the right to get she fruits of his labour. The taking of an impression of the mouth is, I consider, part of that. All I try to do is to protect the mechanical man and allow him, in the interests both of himself and of the public, to perform what is purely mechanical work. With regard to his remark on the amendment of the hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Nathan), the hon. gentleman does not seem to know that under the existing laws of the various provinces, the dental mechanic to-day cannot take an impression of the mouth. The amendment will not make it lawful for the dental mechanic to do that work. Let hon. members oppose the amendments on their merits by all manner of means, but not try and suggest that they mean something which their language cannot and does not mean. I admit, with regard to the Minister’s contention, that there is no clause definitely prohibiting certain classes who are not medical men, dentists and so on from carrying on. We did not intend in committee that persons like masseurs who were unregistered should not be allowed to practise. Does the Minister think that under his Bill the particular persons he refers to will be able to continue to practise for gain? The public do not think so. Tromp van Diggelen and other health schools who are doing good work—will they be able to carry on for gain?

Certainly.

If that is so, I cannot understand why the Minister should refuse to accept this perfectly reasonable amendment.

I do not know why the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander) waxes so excited. He seems to accuse me of saying a good many things I had no intention of saying. If you look at his amendment to Clause 35, that is the very thing that will undermine the whole dental profession in this country. You simply cannot convict a dental mechanic for practising as a qualified dentist so long as he camouflages himself by a so-called qualified dentist. If the hon. member’s amendment goes through, it is going to undermine the whole efficiency of the profession. It is going to sap to a very serious extent the Minister’s Bill as it stands. The hon. member has got unnecessarily warm on the subject, but I repeat that his amendment is going to undermine this Bill, and do away with the safeguards the public are entitled to, more especially with regard to dentistry. I would refer back to what Dr. Leipoldt says on the subject. He tells us that by far the largest percentage of defects in school children is furnished by defective teeth. In the Witwatersrand area approximately 23 out of every 100 were found to have their teeth so badly carious that dental treatment was absolutely essential. He goes on to say that the actual percentage was much higher, but it was only the very bad cases that came under observation. It proves that we are understaffed dentally, especially with regard to the rural community. We are not looking to the up-coming generation and we are not playing the game to the rural community by allowing these unfledged, unqualified dental practitioners to be let loose upon the country. The hon. member was very angry because I omitted to tell the House that unqualified practitioners who were on the register at that time are at 11 on the roll. That is so, and this Bill is going to do the same. We are not doing away with vested interests, or taking the bread out of men’s mouths, but this Bill does propose putting a stop to unqualified practitioners. We admit there are unqualified practitioners who have had many years of experience and are capable men of repute, and, as far as I read this Bill, there is no intention to disturb their vested rights. This parliamentary report goes on to say that neglect of teeth trouble is the cause of quite half the ill-health found among poorer people. I would remind hon. members who are posing as the champions of the poorer man, who cannot afford to go to a dentist, that these are the very men we want to protect. The comparatively well-to-do man will always go to a qualified dentist. In England it was found that unqualified practitioners were driving out the qualified practitioners.

You have no back-veld in England.

I do not quite understand the relevancy of that remark, but surely the same process will go on here. The qualified man cannot afford to go overseas and take years to study his profession and find on his return that the unqualified man who has had practically no study is on an equal footing with him. Thus the unqualified man drives out the qualified man, and the people to suffer are the poorer people. The hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander) has also an amendment allowing all sorts of other quacks to practise.

Is the hon. member in order in discussing amendments on later clauses?

The hon. member may casually refer to them.

I am discussing the whole principle of watering down this Act, because that is what the hon. member is trying to do. To show how he is trying to do this, he has also tabled an amendment providing that nothing in the section shall be deemed to apply to the practice of any form of drugless healing, or to the practice of the religious tenets of any church. It is quite clear to me that once you have an undermining clause like that on the statute book, the flood-gates are then open. This amendment will sap the Bill, and I repeat it is not the urban population who are going to suffer; it is our poorer classes. This parliamentary commission, which I commend to the attention of the House, goes on to say—

If, instead of watering down this Bill, the hon. member introduced an amendment introducing dental clinics all over the country, it would be conferring a great benefit on the people. In trying to undermine the Act he is not doing anything that will conduce to the welfare of the people. The report goes on to say—

I view the position in this country with very grave concern if we are going to force the Minister to water down the Act. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) is sorry for the country people, but they do not take much notice of him. That is why he is now representing a constituency in Port Elizabeth. It may be true that some of the dental mechanics are not competent, but many people on the countryside never see a dentist. Perhaps, it they are lucky, they may have a dental mechanic. Now I want to ask whether our sons who have worked for dentists must always remain servants of the dentists. What prospects will there be for them? The hon. member for Paarl (Dr. de Jager) laughs, but I can tell him that I had my first set of teeth made in Johannesburg by one of the celebrated dentists there and had to carry the teeth in my pocket. I went back later, and he did the work over again, but again I could not use them. Subsequently, however, I went to a dentist in Oudtshoorn and he had the set of teeth made by a mechanic better than himself. These teeth I could use. Will a dentist make false teeth himself? No, he will employ someone to do it. He will himself be too much of a gentleman to do it! When once a ring fence has been drawn round him the mechanic will be his slave. If my son were to work for him he would not be free for twenty years or more. Most of our children do not go beyond Standard VI, for that is the standard for compulsory education under the Provincial Administration. If some of them become dental mechanics they will have no future, and they will be in a cul-de-sac. The time for slavery is past. If a dentist is so high and mighty, let him make his own teeth, and do without mechanics. The latter are paid from £3 to £4 for a set of teeth for which the dentist charges £25. The dentist does not put a hand to the work and, in many cases, he does not even take the measurements. Then there is the question of midwives. On the countryside most of them are probably illiterate, but those who are good soon make a name and the neighbours soon know whether they are competent or not. The midwives are better than the hon. member for Paarl thinks. They must be given notice beforehand and be booked, and often a midwife has appointments with three patients she has to nurse. I see no objection to the system existing to-day, and which is approved by the public. The public is interested in the matter and able to judge. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) said that many of the dental mechanics did bad work, thereby causing disease. These mechanics, however, make the teeth cheaply so that people can afford false teeth. The countryside also wants to be protected. Conditions in England have been mentioned, but there you have no such remote parts. There you find almost more doctors and dentists than patients. I know a doctor in the House who went to a small place and there got a guarantee from the principal inhabitants of a certain income. Subsequently, however, when he got on he did not assist the son of the man who helped him, when he (the doctor) was asked to do so. We know that some doctors are good, and then the public supports them. The public soon enough finds out if a doctor is the right sort. I think, however, that we protect them far too much.

When the hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Nathan) was speaking I asked him what class of persons he wished to protect, but he could not tell me. As the Minister has said, doctors, dentists, chemists and druggists, midwives and nurses, are protected, and there is provision in the Bill for the examination and qualification of those who may enter these professions. There is provision made for dental mechanics, masseurs and the other classes of persons who may be registered in terms of the law. I think that the hon. member wants the Committee to introduce another new class altogether which is outside the scope of the Bill, but he ought to tell us which class of persons he wishes us to protect. He may have some reason and, if so, he ought to tell the Committee, but I am afraid his intention is to open the door to all kinds of unqualified practitioners who come from America. Apart from the training of these people, which is totally inadequate, we in this country do not allow to practise the most highly qualified American doctor—there is no reciprocity between this country and America for the registration of degrees. The hon. gentleman and his friends want us to recognize some fifth or sixth rate man who is totally untrained—a man who has not gone through the ordinary curriculum, and surely that is the height of absurdity. It would be just as unreasonable to say that if any medical student, who attends our classes here fails in his first, second or third examination, he should, nevertheless, be allowed to practise because he is a decent fellow, and it would be hard lines on him if we did not. It seems to me to be a backhanded or left-handed way of admitting a number of unqualified and untrained practitioners, and if we allow this, what is the use of Parliament voting money every year to keep our medical schools going, so that we may have trained medical practitioners? A period of at least six years has been laid down for which a man must be trained before he is let loose on the public, and here we are listening to arguments to have half-baked, untrained men let loose on the public. It is too ridiculous, and I hope that this amendment will be rejected.

I am glad that the Minister will not accept the amendment, and I hope the Committee will support the Minister. There is no doubt that this is an attempt to water down the law, and if this amendment is carried the law will be of no use.

Is the law no use now?

There is no law at present. We must protect the country districts. I am sorry for the views of, the hon. member for Namaqualand (Mr. Mostert) and the hon. member for Witbank (Mr. A. I. E. de Villiers), because we are just as anxious to protect the country districts as they are. It is the country districts you must protect, because they suffer most from these unqualified men. I can see a picture of a man driving about with a cart and horse in future saying—

and afterwards you will find him doing all sorts of things—pulling and stopping teeth. I hope the Committee will turn down the amendment.

I want to compliment the mover of the amendment on his originality, and I must give him further credit for the very ingenious way in which the amendment has been drawn up. One detects the legal mind. A number of men are practising in Natal today who really have no right to practise as dentists. They are not qualified in the legal sense of the word. The law cannot condemn them at present, unfortunately.

Then there must be a law to prohibit them from practising. Is there such a law?

The law cannot condemn them. The same condition existed in England for a number of years. Clause 14 already makes provision for the registration of those entitled to registration, but the Bill goes further and makes provision for other registrations as well, as in Clause 31, for those who are not registered to-day; but even these clauses do not satisfy these two hon. gentlemen. What have they at the back of their heads? We have to do with a Bill that deals with very important principles, and we have learnt from our own sad experiences in the past that if we start with a new Bill in this direction we must start on sound principles. Our objects are wide and noble enough, and we must, at the same time, learn from the experience of others. There was a report to the British Parliament in 1919, and only two of the members were dentists and the rest were laymen. That report made very sad reading. When we have these lessons before us, and we know from our experience what has been going on here, and we know besides the very urgent business before this House to look after the health of the nation, and we see in the report of Sir Edward Thornton that South Africa is a third-rate nation in health, I say we must prevent tampering with the health of the nation. Something has been said about dental needs, but these who are not satisfied may avail themselves of the medical inspectors of schools reports we have in the Cape Province and the Transvaal. The hon. member for Namaqualand (Mr. Mostert) has referred to the conditions prevailing in France, but does he know what is going on in his own constituency? The poor people in Namaqualand realize that they need scientific advice and, consequently, they have started a public health association at Garies.

All the doctors who have discussed this matter in the House have not yet convinced me that the Bill will assist the poor people. The poor people have to pay for the protection given by this Bill to the doctors. I agree with the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) when he says that we are a third-class nation as regards health, but how does the Bill remedy this? Will the position be improved by granting a monopoly to dentists, midwives, masseurs, etc.? What will become of the toothless school children of the countryside? They cannot pay £25 for a set of artificial teeth. There are, however, many people in the country who have no diploma, but can make a set of teeth just as well as the dentists who have studied in England, Germany or America. We know of cases where someone who has got a set of teeth from a qualified dentist, has had to walk about with the teeth in his pocket, and has subsequently returned to an uncertificated man who has made the teeth fit. We must think of the children of the poor man, and I appeal to the Minister to assist this class of people. With such a monopoly for dentists, e.g.—I am not dealing with doctors—we are going to make things much worse. Nor is it such a very great thing the dentist usually has to do, and if there are people who can do it just as well as qualified dentists, why should they be prohibited from giving the people on the countryside an opportunity of getting a set of teeth at £5, £7 or £8?

The Bill permits it.

It seems that even the doctors in the House do not know the Bill. As I read the Bill it will prevent that, and take the bread out of the mouths of those people on the countryside. Apart from that, however, I plead for the poor man on the countryside who cannot pay £25 for a set of teeth.

I have listened to the discussion for the last hour or so, and it seems to me that most of it absolutely ignores the effect of the amendment and the Minister’s reply. The amendment says that nothing in the Act shall operate to prevent a person who, on January 1st, 1927, was lawfully practising a professional calling from continuing to do so. The Minister’s reply was that in so far as the amendment referred to doctors, dentists, nurses and so forth, they were dealt with specially in the Bill, but in so far as the callings of masseurs and so forth were concerned, he did not touch them at all. That was a complete answer and one with which hon. members should have been satisfied, especially as no attempt was made by the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander) or the hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Nathan) to meet the Minister’s argument. I have waited in vain to hear what they would say in reply. The Bill is called one to consolidate and amend the laws in force in the Union relating to medical practitioners, dentists, chemists and druggists, midwives, nurses, masseurs and other classes of persons, but if the amendment is carried, all consolidation effect will disappear, persons will continue to practise and, when they are prosecuted, they will say they derived their authority to do so from some law passed 50 years ago. Twenty years from now someone will be told that he is practising without authority, and in reply he will refer not to this Bill, but to some Act which this measure seeks to repeal. All consolidation effect will disappear if you insert an ambiguous clause like the amendment, which is extremely vague. The amendment says that everybody who, on January 1st last, was entitled to practise is entitled to continue to do so, but the law on the point is extremely vague. It is very doubtful in some provinces who can practise and who cannot, and it was hoped that this Bill would put the matter at rest. However, if the amendment is carried you may as well scrap the Bill, for all the ambiguities which exist to-day will be perpetuated. If the amendment were coupled with a proposal to have a register of these people, it would at least have the merit of being practical. Under the amendment the courts for the next generation will be saddled with the task of finding out whether a particular individual was, or was not, entitled to practise on January 1st, 1927. In England the difficulty with regard to unregistered dentists was solved by putting them all on the register, but my hon. friend’s proposal is about as hopeless a one as could be imagined. Any Minister would be obliged, if the amendment were carried, to scrap the Bill. I go this far with the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) that I will refuse to be a party to saying that anybody who is lawfully practising his profession to-day must be debarred from continuing to practise. That is why the Minister is very wisely giving registration to those Transvaal dental mechanics who have been allowed to practise under supervision. If we are going to say that certain people are to be entitled to practise, it should be done in a specific clause. By this clause my hon. friend, who is a member of the legal profession, will be providing more work for lawyers than any other clause, but I do not suggest he is moving the clause for that purpose. You will have floods of people claiming that, on January 1st, 1927, they were lawfully in practice.

The hon. member for Namaqualand (Mr. Mostert) emphasized that he wanted protection for the poor child who became a dental mechanic. I do not know for what child he wishes protection. Let me make the matter clear, so that he, the hon. member for Witbank (Mr. A. I. E. de Villiers), and other hon. members opposite, can understand. You have a dentist with two young men working for him as mechanics. They learn their work and, after five years, one commences secretly to sell teeth on his own account, usually through the post. He sends vulcanite to people, with instructions how to place it in their mouths, and in this way gets a model from which the teeth can be made. The other says he does not want to stop on with the dentist, but wants to become a qualified dentist like his employer.

Where must he get the money from to study?

Where did his employer get the money? He must anyhow serve three years as a mechanic to become a dentist, but after he has completed the five years he does not want to remain where he is, but to become a fully qualified dentist. Which of the two boys needs protection—the one who remains stationary, and who does not wish to progress, but to make money surreptitiously, or the one who possibly gets into debt or gets his father to borrow money in order to obtain a proper diploma? No, it cannot be argued that the quack ought to be protected. The other should be. If the former is protected, the dentist will say that he cannot employ one of the children, and that he will do the work himself. This means that both will be out of work. Where does the protection of poor children come in? That sort of protection will not pay, and it is not the way to help our young men. The one who wants to go ahead and get his diploma must be protected. Nor does the work consist in merely making the vulcanite meet and the teeth to bite. When the patient goes to a properly qualified dentist the latter extracts the bad teeth, fills those he can, and removes the impurities in the mouth. If these are allowed to remain there may be poisoning. Most people suffering from rheumatism, gout and other pains have to thank bad teeth for it. The dentist is the person who can protect the public against this, because he can clean the mouth so that the man remains in good health. If the vulcanite, however, is sent through the post, and the teeth made according to pattern, then the impurities remain in the mouth, and go into the body, so that the man loses his health.

So!

The hon. member now knows more than the doctors! That is the kind of knowledge one, unfortunately, meets with to-day on the part of people who know nothing, talking about the protection of the public without the slightest appreciation what the best interests of the public are.

If the mechanic makes the teeth then the impurities will also come out of the mouth.

The mechanic can make the teeth, but after two months the man’s health is undermined.

Is all well when the dentist does it?

When the dentist has examined the mouth, cleaned it and taken the impression he gives it to his apprentice and tells him to make the teeth. The dentist sees that they fit properly, and then the patient has the benefit of the scientific knowledge of the dentist and the full capacity of the mechanic— which is so loudly being preached. The opponents will now feel that they were wrong, and now that the matter has become clear to him, the hon. member for Witbank must no longer close his eyes. If we are seeking to protect the poor people then we must protect the child who is doing his best to get the greatest amount of knowledge and to take his degree. That is the standpoint which should be taken up.

Members of the medical and dental professions will possibly be surprised why there is such strong opposition by the farmers about the ring fence being drawn round doctors and dentists. The whole position is, however, this—whether they know it or not—that the doctors and dentists in the outside districts fleece the people. If there were provision in the Bill for the Medical Council to regard it as unprofessional conduct to render an unreasonable account, then some of the opposition will disappear. The Minister says that the patient can go to the court, but I have just received a letter saying that a doctor had gone 75 miles to treat a poor policeman, and that he had sent in a bill for £75. The doctor’s account is often far too high in the country districts, and in such cases it can be stated that they are acting unfairly. I am one who feels strongly that we should not place the medical and dental professions in the hands of Dick, Tom and Harry, because it will be best for our people to have only good men in those jobs. It is said that the poor people for the present will suffer on that account, and I believe it. I have, however, seen unqualified men teaching our children, and that the change to certificated teaching made a great improvement. The former often did good work, but the change was for the benefit of our people, and the youth on the countryside has by that means been saved.

Did the Education Department sacrifice the uncertificated teachers or look after them?

It is right that the posts should be gradually filled up. Unqualified teachers were kept on, where qualified ones could not be appointed. I can understand that the question of people to-day making teeth is difficult. Dentists have themselves said that the making of false teeth was the most profitable part of the profession. If that part be taken away from the dentists and they be only permitted to extract and to do the difficult work about the mouth, while the unqualified man does the most profitable, what will the result be? Will not the charges for extracting and filling go up by 300 per cent.? What the countryside requires is not false teeth, but to have their teeth properly looked after.

Will the Bill have that result?

No, but the quack will also not do it, and cannot do it. Therefore I am in favour of protecting the professions. I do not see why we, as representatives of the countryside, should open the door to all sorts of quacks. I go so far as to say that the doctors and dentists are to-day sucking the people of the countryside dry, but, on the other hand, I see that it cannot keep on for ever, because if there is money in the job, then my sons and those of others will go in for it to end the unfairness. If we, however, permit quacks to practise, then there is no chance for our children to go in for it. As an hon. member has said: “Bad money in circulation always pushes out good.”

It seems to me many of the members have not paid attention to this little amendment. Under it all that I asked was that those people who were lawfully practising on the 1st of January this year should not be interfered with. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) said that the courts would be sitting all the year round if this amendment were accepted, but they would be doing nothing of the kind. If a person was prosecuted, evidence would have to be led to convict him. A person is practising lawfully if he has not been practising unlawfully. The member for Dundee (Sir Thomas Watt) has attacked me this afternoon wrongly, I don’t say unworthily, when he says I want to open the flood-doors for all these people to start practising, I don’t want to do anything of the kind. But these people who have been earning their livelihood for themselves and their children in the past must be allowed to live. Where are you going to drive them to? Are you going to drive them into concentration camps? Or are you going to drive them to Johannesburg? We, in the Transvaal, have to pay what is not paid in any other province, a tax of 15 per cent. on income tax for education and unemployment. All I can say is that if you want to pass a Bill preventing people from working who have been lawfully working before, I am not going to be a party to supporting such a Bill. It has been said if this amendment is passed the Minister might as well withdraw the Bill. It does not mean anything of the kind. I hope the Minister will relent and see the point.

On the question of drugless healers or unqualified or unregistered practitioners, there was a cable last year reporting a speech of Mr. Neville Chamberlain in the House of Commons, and quoted by the Minister of Labour here—

My amendments and this amendment of my hon. friend do not go so far as that. When the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) referred to the question of men being put on the register, he did not seem to realize the difference between the position we are taking up and the position in England. In England all these men to whom he takes such strong exception were made dentists. In the evidence given before the Select Committee of 1923. page 28, a question was asked why in England they admitted all these men, and a quotation was given from a statement by Lord Knutsford which I may be permitted to read—

I say that it would be intolerable if men who have been lawfully carrying on a proper calling should be prevented by this Bill from doing so. The Minister says he is not proposing to prevent them, but if he is not preventing them. I do not understand the objection to this amendment. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell), although be strongly opposed this amendment, said that if a person was lawfully doing something before this Act, he should be allowed to continue doing so. I would remind the Minister that the second reading of this Bill has been passed without a division. He must realize that there is a considerable difference of opinion on the various clauses, and I hope that he will see that it would be a wrong thing to obscure the merits or the discussion on any particular clause, by treating this purely as a party matter. It is not a party matter; there is a difference of opinion, and I hope that when the voting takes place, hon. members will vote on the merits of the proposals.

I think the position has been somewhat obscured during this debate by mixing up two different things. The hon. member (Mr. Nathan) knows that there is a great deal of support and sympathy for the amendments which the hon. member for Hanover Street has placed on the Order Paper in regard to drugless healers or other than medical practitioners. This debate, which has been going on for the greater part of the afternoon, has been on the merits of that particular issue, and not so much on the merits of the amendment of the hon. member for Von Brandis. So far as I can gather, there is nothing in the Bill which justifies an amendment on the lines moved by the hon. member (Mr. Nathan), because all he asks is that those persons who to-day are lawfully entitled to practise certain things shall continue to be lawfully entitled to practise. The Bill makes specific provision in that connection, so that if any outside the list are doing something which they are lawfully entitled to do, they will not be affected by anything in this Bill. I do not think the hon. member’s amendment is necessary, because there is nothing in the Bill which prevents those who to-day are lawfully entitled to practise from continuing to practise after the Bill is passed.

I do not think that the Minister intends to throw people out of work by means of this Bill. It cannot be so. In the past there were hundreds and thousands of practitioners—I do not know whether they were entitled to practise or not—but I think that it is wrong to suddenly throw them on the streets. We must go slowly. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) Col. D. Reitz) has shown much sympathy for the children on the countryside and the care of their teeth, but I cannot understand him. Does he think that the position will be improved by prohibiting a number of people now treating teeth from doing so?

That is not the intention.

That is just where the whole argument comes in. I am opposed to pushing the people out—whether they practise legally or illegally—and to reducing the number of dentists. I warn the House against this form of additional monopoly and the drawing of fences round the farmers. We require more dentists and cheaper treatment. Examination of children at school is necessary, but if the number of dentists is further reduced, it will become impossible. I shall oppose it as long as I can.

It seems to me that the committee is unreservedly accepting the contention that a man must be registered before he is qualified. As far as the dental profession is concerned, I know members of the profession who are fully registered but who are not fully qualified. There is no doubt whatsoever that men employed on the mechanical side of dentistry are far more qualified to make a set of teeth than are many of the registered dental surgeons in South Africa to-day. In view of the fact that a number of medical members of this House are taking a prominent part in the debate in support of the Bill, I would like to ask your ruling, Mr. Chairman, as to whether these members who are directly interested in obtaining the passage of this legislation should be permitted to vote when a division takes place. Should this Bill pass through the House in its present form, the dental mechanician will be the only tradesman in the Union prevented by law from taking the measure of his job.

The hon. member for Middelburg (Mr. Heyns) seems to be under a misapprehension. We are not advocating cutting out the men already in the profession, qualified or unqualified. I have repeated over and over again that I am not in favour of interfering with vested interests.

What are you going to do with the dental mechanics?

As far as I understand the Bill, they are already provided for. The Bill safeguards vested interests. All we ask the Minister is not to allow the Bill to be watered down. I was not discussing the particular amendment to Clause 23 which the hon. member for Hanover Street (Mr. Alexander) is bringing forward. I was discussing the general principle of the amendments, because the general principle of them is to water down the Minister’s Bill to such an extent that it will be scarcely worth while bringing it forward at all. I was hoping that the Minister would stand firm and not allow the Bill to be watered down to the extent of all these amendments on the paper. I was not discussing any particular amendment.

I should like to propose an amendment to provide that the public shall also have a voice in the Medical Council. The Bill proposes to give the Minister power to nominate five doctors and one dentist to the Medical Council, but the public is not represented.

I just want to point out to the hon. member that we are not yet on Clause 2, but are dealing with the amendment of the hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Nathan). The composition of the Medical Council will come up later.

Proposed new clause was put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—25.

Allen, J.

Byron, J. J.

Conroy, E. A.

De Villiers, A. I. E.

Duncan, P.

Fordham, A. C.

Gilson, L. D.

Henderson, J.

Heyns, J. D.

Keyter, J. G.

Malan, C. W.

Marwick, J. S.

Mostert, J. P.

Nel. O. R.

Nicholls, G. H.

Pearce, C.

Pretorius, J. S. F.

Sephton, C. A. A.

Snow, W. J.

Steytler, L. J.

Strachan, T. G.

Struben, R. H.

Van Rensburg, J. J.

Tellers: Nathan, Emile; Waterston, R. B.

Noes—60.

Alexander, M.

Arnott, W.

Ballantine, R.

Basson, P. N.

Bates, F. T.

Beyers, F. W.

Blackwell, L.

Boydell, T.

Brown, G.

Buirski, E.

Chaplin, F. D. P.

Christie, J.

Cilliers, A. A.

Close, R. W.

Conradie, D. G.

Creswell, F. H. P.

Deane, W. A.

De Villiers, P. C.

De Wet, S. D.

Fick, M. L.

Geldenhuys, L.

Giovanetti, C. W.

Grobler, H. S.

Havenga, N. C.

Hay, G. A.

Heatlie, C. B.

Hugo, D.

Jagger, J. W.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Lennox, F. J.

Le Roux, S. P.

Macintosh, W.

Malan, D. F.

Moffat, L.

Moll, H. H.

Munnik, J. H.

Naudé, A. S.

Nieuwenhuize, J.

O’Brien, W. J.

Oost, H.

Payn, A. O. B.

Pretorius, N. J.

Reitz, D.

Reitz, H.

Richards, G. R.

Rider, W. W.

Rockey, W.

Rood, W. H.

Roux, J. W. J. W.

Swart, C. R.

Terreblanche, P. J.

Van der Merwe, N. J.

Van Heerden, G. C.

Van Niekerk, P. W. le R.

Vermooten, O. S.

Vosloo, L. J.

Watt, T.

Wessels, J. B.

Tellers: De Jager, A. L.; Pienaar, B. J.

Proposed new clause accordingly negatived.

On Clause 2,

I move—

My object is to give the public just as much say as the doctors themselves. The doctors do the work, but the public pays. I cannot agree to our giving a monopoly to the Medical Council and putting everything in their hands. They would then be able to do just what they wished. They will be able to proclaim areas where doctors and nurses require a diploma, and the public have merely to swallow what the doctors say. That is not right. The Minister said the other day that I did not know much about the Bill, but the Minister certainly knows less about the countryside than I, very much less. The medical ring has existed all these years, and now an additional ring has to be formed— a medical council consisting only of doctors. Only yesterday I received a letter from Middelburg about a doctor being called in to examine a lady, unfortunately a poor person. The doctor said that she only needed a little chloroform, and that all would be well. She got the chloroform and in ten minutes was dead. Who is there now to enquire why the poor innocent woman died? If it is done, it will be done by the Medical Council, and it is the etiquette of doctors never to condemn each other, and if a mistake has been made, the whole lot say that her heart was too weak. It is not right to exclude the public and to give the doctors a monopoly. The doctor who prescribed chloroform ought first to have seen whether her heart was strong enough.

I wish, at his request, to propose the amendment on the Order Paper in the name of the hon. member for Krugersdorp (the Rev. Mr. Hattingh), who is absent—

This amounts to much the same as the amendment of the hon. member for Middelburg (Mr. Heyns), but I think it is clearer.

Two amendments have been proposed to Clause 2. Both of them aim at the principle that persons outside the medical profession should be represented on the Medical Council. I think there is a great deal to be said in favour of that principle. If there were nothing else to be said than that much of the suspicion against the Medical Council would be removed, it ought to be acceptable. For this reason I am prepared to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Krugersdorp (the Rev. Mr. Hattingh), proposed by the hon. member for Heidelberg (Mr. de Wet), with a slight amendment, so that in future there shall not only be representatives of the medical and dental professions on the Medical Council, but that other persons also shall serve on it. My proposal is—

It amounts to this, that the number of members mentioned in the Bill will be increased by one, viz., from 24 to 25, and that the additional person will be someone who is not registered under the law. He can thus serve as a protector of the interests of the public, while there will be another, as the Bill now reads, who will be appointed by the Minister. He also will be a person who cannot be registered under the Bill and will be a member of the general public.

I, not being a member of the medical profession, must confess I do not know what the full effect of this will be. The point was never raised in the select committee, and it seems to me this should not be sprung upon the medical profession. It is a novel procedure. Supposing the Government proposed to put two laymen on the law society—

That may happen yet.

Then I can only say it is socialism in our time. I don’t know how the medical profession looks upon it, but as a lawyer I shall look upon it with disapproval.

In less than five years you will have it.

Then I will fight it tooth and nail. For any body to have lay policemen put upon its board is a bad principle to introduce. I am sure the medical profession and the dental profession will be up in arms. I would strongly disapprove of the Government appointing a policeman on a body like this. The point in question is one of principle why the Government should appoint a lay policeman on a professional body, because that would be their function. You are going to have two laymen on the Medical Council who will have a vote in a profession of which they have no knowledge. If the Minister proposed to put two non-barristers on the legal board of the Law Society, we should be up in arms. There can be no object in doing so, except as liaison officers to act as spies and play policemen over the medical profession. I know of no principle in any professional body—

In England—

Have they got a layman acting as a policeman on the Medical Council in England?

Not exactly as a policeman.

Surely the function will be that of a policeman. But is it a fact they have laymen on the Medical Council in England appointed by the Government?

Yes.

I don’t think so, either in England or anywhere else have they lay nominees appointed by the Government on a law or a medical professional body. I move—

until further clauses of the Bill have been dealt with. I think we ought to hear what the medical members of the House have to say about it. It is a startling innovation for the Government to introduce lay policemen on a body of that sort.

I cannot see why this clause should stand over. This Bill has already been before the House ten years. A postponement is now asked for the doctors to be heard. Was there a request any year that the public should be heard? No. Now some of the lawyers are afraid about their own profession. If years ago there had been laymen sitting on the councils of the advocates and attorneys there would not have been so many poor whites today. There were a man and wife in Oudtshoorn recently who had an only son. He was a sturdy lad, but the doctors said that his tonsils should be cut out, that it was a trifling little operation, and that he would then be quite well. They administered chloroform and he died under the operation. If you brought the doctor before the Medical Council you would be told that it was not his fault, but that the child’s heart was weak. If you go to another doctor he will not get his colleague into trouble. The devil, of course, will not reprove sin. Before chloroform was given to the child its heart should have been properly examined. I will tell you what happened. Usually there is a mask on which the chloroform is thrown and the chloroform and air must be equally mixed. If the mixture is not equal or the mask is allowed to drop too low then a man with the strongest heart will collapse. The doctor does not himself hold the cloth, and does not himself pour the chloroform on it. It is usually someone else. The doctor often has a look, but if the cloth is allowed to drop the patient is dead. I challenge any doctor to say that the mixture must not be equal.

Must the two laymen on the Medical Council say how it is to be done?

I want, when doctors do that, that there should be someone on the Medical Council who is not a doctor, and who can be complained to. I am glad that the Minister said that the appointment will remove suspicion. When a doctor makes such a mistake and is suspended for six months it will have a good effect. Will the doctors say that they make no mistakes? Their mistakes are represented by grave stones. Will they tell me that there are not doctors who drink whisky and soda on the day of an operation? The lay members will be able to keep a watchful eye, and the doctors will be more careful what they do. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) said that laymen would also be put on the lawyers council, but I promise him that it will be the case on all boards within five years. We ought to have had it for years. I see that he is afraid of his own council, that is why he is so touchy.

I want to point out to the hon. member that the Committee is considering the question of this clause standing over.

I want to discuss that. Now that the medical profession sees that other persons can be on the Medical Council they want to postpone it to give the doctors an opportunity of starting an agitation.

The hon. member is discussing the clause itself. The question now is whether the clause shall stand over to a later stage or not.

I was just pointing out that it was strange the proposal came from the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central), a member of the legal profession, and not from the doctors themselves. The public has not been consulted all these years.

I had not intended to say anything on this Bill at this stage; but some things that the hon. member (Mr. Mostert) said made me rise. He said he objected to the point being raised by a lawyer instead of a doctor. I think that those of us who are not doctors should say something in defence of a profession which he has maligned rather severely. It seems to me that the remarks made by the hon. member and several others would give the impression that they think the majority of the doctors of this country are rascals, and want watching. We must realize that we have got doctors in this country who have extraordinarily high qualifications, and the vast majority of whom are men of a very strong sense of honour. The hon. member quoted the case of an accident under chloroform. We have accidents of all sorts—

I have just ruled that the question before the committee at present is whether this clause should stand over. Hon. members cannot go into the merits now.

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) introduced the motion because he looked round the House and noticed that there were no doctors present to defend themselves.

The question is whether the clause shall stand over or not.

I am trying to argue that it should not stand over, as the doctors are now here. If they object, they can say so now.

Motion proposed by Col. D. Reitz put and negatived.

I am glad that the Minister has put this amendment forward. He has shown a proper spirit in considering amendments on the paper on their merits. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) has compared this Council with the Law Society, but that is no analogy at all. The Law Society only has control over the legal profession. The Medical Council under this Bill is going to have control not only over all its registered practitioners, but also over a number of persons who will be allowed to continue their calling under the Bill. You will have a number of classes placed under the supervision of the Medical Council who will not be entitled to nominate a member of that Council. Under his amendment, the Government of the day will be able to see that the general body of persons interested in this Bill who are not entitled to elect a member of the council will be represented. I think it is a very reasonable amendment. I cannot understand the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) calling it—

and rubbish of that kind.

I am sorry that the hon. member for Namaqualand (Mr. Mostert) has left the chamber, because I wanted to tell him that I think South Africa lost a brilliant recruit to its medical profession when he decided to turn his attention to the sterile field of politics. I am sure that nature marked him out for a great doctor. Now what are these two men referred to in the amendment going to do on the Medical Council? The hon. member for Hanover Street (Mr. Alexander) said they are going to be put on to represent those various classes of people who are to be brought under the supervision of the Medical Council. What guarantee have we of that?

And the public also.

Yes, exactly. The hon. member’s argument was that they are going, to represent certain classes of people who will be under the supervision of the Medical Council and who are not represented on it. Hon. members opposite think these two men are going to control the medical profession. As the hon. member for Barberton (Mr. Rood) said, they will be in a great minority, because they will be only two members out of 25. In my opinion, they will be there absolutely as useless members. Another thing the Medical Council will have to do is to control the medical profession and prevent members from indulging in non-professional practices. What do men outside the profession know about the etiquette of the profession? Or about what is unprofessional, or what professional conduct allows? They know nothing. They will sit there as people who are dealing with matters of which they have no knowledge, and I cannot see what use this is going to be. I do not agree with my hon. friend that they are going to be police, they will not know enough; but supposing they did, in what way could they exercise any function either as police or as controlling the medical profession? It is an unnecessary concession to an idea which is itself fallacious, that is, that the general public can in some way control the medical profession by putting one or two members on the Medical Council. It is a fallacy, and I am sorry that the Minister has agreed to give countenance to it.

The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) talks as if we had to do with the question of providing control of the medical profession. The point is not that there should be control, or, as the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) has said, the appointment of policemen to watch the profession. There was a case a few years ago in Cape Town, of which I have information, where a lady was sent by Mrs. Burton and Mrs. Sauer to a certain institution in Cape Town for a small operation to her feet. The lady was well, but is to-day crippled for life as a result of the scandalous operation the doctor performed. I have mentioned the names of Mesdames Burton and Sauer to show that the lady was not sent to a cheap place. At the same time that this lady was undergoing the operation, another lady went to a country hospital in Zoutpansberg for the same thing, and within a month the latter was well and strong again. The former, however, is unhappy for life. The case was mentioned to another doctor—I think he is present here—and to another doctor, a member of the Medical Council, but the one will not give the other away. They talk of professional etiquette, but I call it leaving the unfortunate patient to his fate. The two laymen on the Medical Council will not be there as policemen or as a controlling factor—as the hon. member for Yeoville alleges —but only as a resort when the doctors will not take up a matter. I will at once say that I have the greatest respect for the medical profession, and that I am in favour of the public being protected against quacks. The public, however, also need protection against the qualified doctor who is a quack. I suppose the Minister will not appoint ignorant people and asses to the Medical Council, but people who would be able to learn what medical etiquette is. Matters can be brought to their notice, and they will be able to investigate definite cases. Steps must be taken against ignorant doctors who treat their patients like animals, or I should say against doctors who are not good enough to treat a good horse or dog, although they give themselves out as treating human beings. Their mistakes are camouflaged. Other doctors will not interfere. It is always difficult to get definite statements from them in court. When you listen to the evidence, it is usually “that may be so, but possibly not.” They will not make a definite statement against a colleague. I want to heartily thank the Minister for the concession, and I hope he will not withdraw his amendment. There ought to be two laymen appointed to the Medical Council for the protection of the public.

We hear from member after member from a small group over there some very excellent test menials to the medical profession, excellent within limits. The hon. member for Barberton (Mr. Rood) says he has the highest respect for the medical profession, and then proceeds to condemn practically the whole of the profession by relying upon one isolated case which he quoted.

It just shows you what can happen.

But does the hon. member really realize what the medical board is? He is entirely in sympathy with keeping out the quack. The board will do that.

The quack doctor with degrees.

Very well. He says he wants these two men put on the board for the protection of the public. Will he tell the House how the public is going to be protected in that way?

They will bring cases forward.

The board exists to see that properly qualified persons are on the register, and for exercising certain disciplinary powers. There is no one who has a greater respect for the medical profession than I have; we also know that here and there in every profession there are people who do not adorn that profession. But if the hon. member will look at chapter 4, he will find that the Medical Council have power to deal with cases of disgraceful or improper conduct. If it is a question of professional conduct, the Medical Board exists for the purpose of protecting the public against cases of that kind. I am not a betting man, but I am prepared to make a bet that the hon. member will not find a single case that the Medical Council will not deal with. We have had the Medical Council in the Cape for a good many years and no one can point to any dereliction of duty in regard to dealing with any offending member. We have the hon. member who has just gone out and the hon. member for Namaqualand (Mr. Mostert) coming along with purely hearsay statements concerning two or three cases. The information the hon. member gave the House was not only laughable, but ridiculous. How does he think those isolated cases are going to be dealt with?

They are not isolated.

Has not the board over and over again struck off or dealt with men who are a disgrace to the profession? Are there not those who make the work of the Medical Board most difficult? There are members of the public who make the task of the medical profession difficult sometimes. I, for one, have confidence in the medical profession that we will get a board of the kind we have always had— a board that has justified itself and done an enormous amount of good in the public interest. Hon. members also seem to forget that, quite apart from the protection of the public from improper and disgraceful conduct under Section 41 of the Act, there is, of course, the legal remedy if a man has not behaved properly.

They will not give evidence against one another.

Can the hon. member say that and believe what he is saying? If so, I am sorry for him, and he must have had a remarkable experience. I am against the proposal.

I want to propose a further new clause to permit persons who are given up as incurable by a doctor to go to someone else and be treated by him for reward.

Is this the proper place for an amendment like that?

It is moved as a new sub-section 2.

is this the proper place for a new sub-section? It is dealing with the constitution of the council.

That is a new clause, and ought to be put after Clause 2 is disposed of.

Amendments proposed by the Minister of Public Health put and agreed to.

amendment put.

Might I ask the hon. member whether he would not withdraw his amendment in view of the amendment of the Minister which meets the same point in a better form?

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

Might I suggest to the Minister purely as a matter of wording that it should come after “dentist” rather than after “medical practitioner”.

I move, as an amendment—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

I want to propose an amendment that, notwithstanding the provisions of this Bill, anyone who, for a period of at least five years before the coming into force of this Bill, has treated sick people successfully arid been paid therefor, shall be permitted to continue practising for reward.

The amendment is out of order, I think, and I just want to ask you, Mr. Chairman, if it does not come under Clause 34? We have had to do here with the appointment of the Medical Council, and now we are on the further provisions in connection therewith.

If I am out of order I am sorry, but the legal adviser advised me to propose it here.

I think the hon. member must allow it to stand over till the relative clause is reached.

I have a new clause here about which I have just spoken. People who are given up by doctors as incurable ought to have an opportunity of looking for help which may alleviate their pain or possibly cure the disease entirely. The law permits this, but anyone who has saved another’s life in this way may not demand payment. When then a doctor who is qualified and of whom the doctors in this House think so highly has given someone up as incurable the sufferer ought to have the opportunity.

What was said about the amendment of the hon. member for Middelburg (Mr. Heyns) applies also to this new clause.

On Clause 4,

I think the intention of the Minister is not clearly stated in this clause, and I move—

That surely is the meaning of the Minister.

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 6,

I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 14,

I move—

With leave of Committee, amendment withdrawn.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

On Clauses 15, 18 and 22,

On the motion of the Minister of Public Health, certain amendments were made in the Dutch version which did not occur in the English.

On Clause 23,

I move—

1. (2) Any British subject who has been domiciled in the Union during the ten years preceding the commencement of this Act and is the holder of a degree, diploma or certificate in dentistry to which the provisoes to sub-section (3) apply and whose degree, diploma or certificate is of a kind that has been recognized by the General Council of Medical Education and Registration of the United Kingdom, may be registered as a dentist in the Union.

I might explain what the amendment is. Under the old Bill—

If the hon. member will excuse me. I had an idea of reporting progress at 6 p.m. and adjourning for the rest of the day.

I will only be too pleased. When I asked a little time ago whether the House was going to sit to-night, I was told that it was going to sit. I am quite prepared to let the clause stand over, but I do not want the clause to go through without moving my amendment.

On the motion of the Minister of Public Health, it was agreed to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

House Resumed:

Progress reported; House to resume in Committee on 16th February.