as chairman, brought up a special report of the Select Committee on the Wesleyan Methodist Church (Private) Bill, as follows

This amendment being necessary to cover Clause Eight of the Bill.

Report considered.

Leave granted to amend the preamble in accordance with the report.

With the indulgence of hon. members, I should like to move—

You mean something quite different.

My object is to call attention to the fact that the Minister’s refusal to answer a series of questions put to him to-day in the name of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) is subversive

It is not clear from the motion how the refusal of the Minister of Justice to reply to questions relating to the administration of the Department involves an interference with the administration of justice at Kuruman. Under the circumstances, I am afraid I cannot accept the motion as being sufficiently definite or urgent to be moved under Standing Order No. 33.

Will it meet the case if I withdrew the latter portion of the motion, leaving the reason assigned out of the motion ?

I think that it would be better if the hon. member were to consult the office, and it may be that the motion can be put in such a form as to be in order.

As the refusal of the Minister to reply to the questions took place in the course of the proceedings, it was difficult to consult Mr. Speaker beforehand.

I move—

I just want to explain in a few words to the House why I have introduced the motion. During the Milner regime a large part of the Transvaal was cut off and added to Natal, including also a small portion of Wakkerstroom, with which the motion deals. At the time the cutting off was done for political reasons. It was done to make the countryside of the Transvaal as weak as possible as against the Rand, but as we now have a Union, the reason no longer exists. The personnel of the Milner Government and its chief advisers, together with the press, were bitterly opposed at the time towards Afrikanders. The feeling of bitterness existed on both sides, English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking. If the Milner Government had not been in such a hurry at the time, and had waited a few years until feelings had cooled down and improved, such an unjustifiable step would probably never have been taken. To-day that feeling no longer exists, and the petition, with the exception of four persons, was signed indiscriminately by Saps, as well as Nats. There is no political lever behind it, but the necessity is felt of doing something to remove the inconvenience. The farmers and other inhabitants are not dissatisfied with their treatment by Natal, or the Natal administration, but they are exposed to inconvenience.

What inconvenience ?

It consists in the fact that the Natal beacons come close to Wakkerstroom, and then go westwards as far as the town of Volksrust. The town lands of Wakkerstroom were merely out off from the original district and the other part of the district added to Natal, with the result that farmers who only live a few miles from Wakkerstroom and Volksrust must go more than 30 miles to Utrecht for official business. For instance, when theft occurs, farmers sometimes do not take the trouble to notify the police because it would take too much time for them to get in touch with the police, and because the police cannot take affidavits. It takes them three days to go to Utrecht and back unless they have a motor-car, which they do not all possess. In connection with east coast fever, there has been great difficulty. The farmers there were prevented from using the Johannesburg markets, not for the reason, however, that there was infection in Wakkerstroom. No, that part was free from plague and just as safe as any other part of the high veld. Just, however, because it was situated in Natal, it was impossible to use the Johannesburg market. That is undoubtedly why the small bit of Wakkerstroom was annexed to Utrecht. If it was not done wilfully, then it was out of stupidity that the people were placed there in difficult circumstances. The farmers and inhabitants have for years been patient and submitted with the greatest humility to the unfair treatment. They do not intend to take any drastic step, and therefore they come to the House with their humble request. I hope the House will see the fairness of it, and that the Government will take the necessary steps as soon as possible to comply with the wishes of the petitioners.

seconded.

I would like to say that I have never seen this petition, and I do not know exactly how this area is to be cut off from my constituency. It seems an extraordinary thing that the hon. member has never consulted me seeing that Utrecht falls within my constituency. This is a far-reaching constitutional question as it will mean the alteration of the Act of Union because you will have to alter the boundaries of Natal and Transvaal. If you are going to allow a piece of the province to be lopped off in this manner where are you going to end ? The strange thing is that this petition is not signed by the people of Utrecht who are the people concerned, but by the people of Wakkerstroom. I hope the Government will consider it very carefully before agreeing to accept the motion.

It may appear strange that I also wish to say something in connection with this matter, but it happens that I am fairly well acquainted with the area. The last speaker said that the petition was signed by people from Wakkerstroom, but we must not forget that the Wakkerstroom district at the time was divided into two parts, and that one part to-day belongs to the Transvaal and another part of the original Wakkerstroom district comes under Natal. The boundary fence dividing Wakkerstroom from Natal runs about 20 to 30 minutes on the other side of Wakkerstroom, and the people live 30 minutes from the town of Wakkerstroom, but, nevertheless, come under Utrecht, which is 40 miles off. Those people go to Wakkerstroom to church, but as regards political privileges, or when they have to do with the magistrate, they have to go to Utrecht, which in some cases is a distance of from 30 to 40 miles. I ask hon. members to regard it from the point of view that this is a district which first formed one whole under the Transvaal, but of which a part was cut off and put under Natal. The proposal of the hon. member is to restore the old boundary, and I think it would be a good thing if the Government gave the matter its earnest consideration, and will consider whether it is possible to again incorporate the part cut off in Wakkerstroom.

I do not want to oppose this motion at all, but I would suggest to the Prime Minister that this is too big a question to be tackled in this fashion. If anything is going to be done in regard to the alteration of provincial boundaries, I think a commission should be appointed, and that we should go into the whole question. In my own district— Griqualand—we are closely allied to Natal in many ways, and it has always been a moot point whether it would or would not be better in the interests of the country that we should form a portion of Natal. I only mention this rather with the idea of urging on the Prime Minister that he should widen the scope of any commission that may be appointed. If such a commission sat, I think we should find, possibly, very many rectifications of boundaries that could be made, and the whole job could be done at one stroke.

I think that the petition is quite reasonable. I have been there and met some of the people and they are placed in a very inconvenient position. It is not an encroachment upon Natal, but it is only asked that the boundary line should be restored as it was before. I regard the request as fair, and support it.

Motion put and agreed to.

I move—

seconded.

Before the motion is passed we should like to know what the view of the Government is about the matter. We know, of course, that at the time the alteration of the boundary was a burning question, and that we Transvaalers felt very warmly on the subject. It is very difficult to judge about the merits of the question now and, consequently, we ought to be enlightened.

The Government is not prepared to express an opinion until the matter has been gone into.

Motion put and agreed to.

I move—

This is a matter affecting one particular department and one particular department only, and the reason why the Postal and Telegraph Association, which represents the men affected in this department, have raised the matter is that they contend that the circumstances affecting the Department of Posts and Telegraphs are entirely different from those of other departments, and they, therefore, want the Government to consider the advisability of not applying to their department the policy of retaining pre-Union Natal and Transvaal public servants beyond the age of 55. Briefly, the conditions before Union in the Cape and Free State were that the retiring age was 60. In Natal the Government could retire an officer at 55, or an officer could claim retirement at 55 if he had 30 years’ service. In the Transvaal an officer could be retired at 55, or he could claim to be retired at 55. In all the provinces there were special arrangements and special conditions under which service could be continued up to 65. Last year the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs said that it had been decided, as a matter of Government policy, to retain the services of men in all departments until 60, if they were efficient. He said in support of that that the age under the Union Act was 60, and that uniformity was desirable. The men for whom I am now speaking ask for this change because the conditions of promotion in the other departments are entirely different from the conditions in the Department of Posts and Telegraphs. It is essentially a question of promotion and stagnation in this particular department. In the post office operating division promotion has always been slow as compared with the clerical division. It is estimated that in the clerical division a man could expect after ten years of meritorious service to obtain a first-class appointment. I think it is generally estimated in the other departments that you can get promotion after ten years’ service. That is a perfectly reasonable time, and one does not take any exception to it as regards the other departments, but in the post office operating division there are, I am told, hundreds of men who have been in the service between 26 and 30 years and are still waiting for promotion. There are men nearly 50 years of age who have been recommended as fit for promotion, but there is no promotion possible largely as a result of the policy of this and the previous Government in keeping on these pre-Union Natal and Transvaal men who could be retired at 55. I am told that there is the anomaly in the department of father and son working in the same office and in the same class. The father cannot get promotion, and he has remained so long at the same class that his son is working with him in the same class. That only show’s what stagnation in regard to promotion there is in this particular department, and that there is something radically wrong about the promotion conditions in the Department of Posts and Telegraphs. This is not a new thing, because if one looks at the Public Service Commission’s report one finds that special reference is made to the stagnation as far as promotion is concerned in this department, and that they recommended that long service increments should be granted in the case of the lower branch of the technical and professional division and the executive branch of the post office. It is the executive branch of the post office to which I want to draw particular attention. I do not want to say anything unfair to these pre-Union servants who have been kept in the service after the retiring age, but I would point out that these men themselves have benefited by the fact that there was, until recent years, a policy of retiring men at 55, and that these men who are now being kept on until 60 do derive a benefit from the fact that their predecessors were retired at 55. I may say also that, recognizing the congestion which existed, the late Government, when they accepted the Graham commission report scale, issued a circular in 1921 making special reference to the men on whose behalf I am speaking. They pointed out that certain special arrangements were made in particular cases, and the only cases for which such arrangements were made were the general body of post and telegraph assistants. I would like to deal with one argument which has been suggested, and that is that this is an attempt on the part of the Cape men to get some advantage against the pre-Union Natal and Transvaal men. Not so at all. The Minister knows that the system prevails, except in regard to the higher appointments in which there are very few vacancies, that if there is a vacancy in one particular province pre-Union officers of that province to which the vacancy belongs, get the appointment. The service of these pre-Union men dates from about 1900, and I would point out that special provision has been made in the case of those who were in the republican service by the legislation which was passed last year. I would like to urge that the way to meet the cases now under consideration is the way I suggested when the matter was before the select committee. I made a proposal on the Public Service and Pensions Bill. Unfortunately, my recommendation was lost, but the Minister of Labour and Mr. Smit, the present High Commissioner, supported me. There were thus three of us who voted for this proposal, and against us were Gen. Byron, Mr. Giovanetti, Mr. Buchanan and Mr. Duncan, the chairman of the committee. This is what I moved—

That is what I suggested to avoid this very serious difficulty that a man should receive no chance whatever of promotion under these conditions. In these circumstances I hope the Minister will, at any rate, go into the matter again; that is all I am asking him to do. I am asking the Government to consider in the light of the facts I have presented the possibility of making special arrangements in regard to the post and telegraph assistants, to make special provision exactly as was provided for in the circular issued by the late Government in 1921 in connection with the fifth report salary scales.

seconded.

One must pay tribute to the manner in which the hon. gentleman has introduced the motion, whilst at the same time one cannot really agree with the points of view he has expressed. There is a good deal to be said for what he says, that there is stagnation, but I would like to point out to him that it is inevitable and exists in all Government departments. We hear the cry all over the world that there is room at the top, but there is not room at the top for all. The hon. member stated that they largely attribute this stagnation to the fact that the Government has decided not to retire all these men at 55. To show how little effect that has on the situation, I will tell the House just how many men are involved. The total number of officials over 55 at the present time in the department is 10; yet to reach 55, Transvaal 334, and Natal 151, making a total staff affected in the post office of 495. There are 495 officials who would be affected if the Government were to accept this motion and put it into force. I ask the hon. member what real effect in a derogatory sense has a retention of 495 upon the many thousands of employees in the post office? There is the added position that you are going to do a grave injustice to these 495 officials. It has been argued that these people, the Transvaal and Natal officials, joined under an Act which limited their service to 55, and that they would have to retire in any case at that age. That is perfectly true, but for purposes of promotion they only had to compete with other officials similarly situated. But when Union came about, the Public Service Act laid it down that the retiring age should be 60, and, apart from any other consideration, it does appear to me very illogical to say that one section of your public service—and that the vast bulk of it—shall have the option of being retired at 60, and your 495 pre-Union Transvaal and Natal officials shall themselves have to retire at 55. It is not only illogical, but it appears to me to be decidedly unfair. Even under your Public Service Act to-day, your 60-year-old officials can themselves be carried on year to year to 65, and I do put it to the hon. member that, to say the least of it, it is illogical to insist that one section shall retire at 55 in order to secure possibilities of promotion for others. I must emphasize the comparative figures: 495 is the number who are affected and can ever be affected, because when these have died, retired or resigned, the whole thing is finished, and your 60-year retirement becomes operative in respect of every official in the public service. I do suggest that under these circumstances the hon. member is making a mountain out of a molehill. I do not want to lengthen the discussion or to expand myself with regard to this question, but I do want to present seriously for the consideration of the hon. member that he and his advisers would be doing a most serious injustice to these gentle-men—and there are some ladies, too, I think— just in order to secure the possibility of that percentage of promotion for those who remain. I cannot for one moment think that if the 60-year officials were to be informed completely of all the facts and how small the effect would be, and, above all, how unjust it would be to their fellow-officials, they would not withdraw any determination they may have had to press this to an issue. I hope the hon. member, under these circumstances, will realize that the Government cannot possibly accept the motion, and I must ask the House to reject it.

There seems to be another phase which the Minister forgot to put before the House, and that is the question of the public purse point of view. Complaints have reached us that public servants are drawing pensions and are occupying other positions. This is a matter of the public point of view. I can well understand that public servants are anxious to get promotion, and it is a great pity they cannot all get it, but they cannot all get it; you have to consider the public purse, which is already overladen with expenditure.

In regard to that last point raised, the answer is a simple one. When these positions are filled the salaries will not be higher, but probably lower, so if the public purse suffers in one way it would gain in another way; it would lose on the pensions and gain on the salaries. If a man goes on pension a considerable portion of that pension is provided for by himself; it is on a contributory basis. The hon. member talks as if it were a gift from the public. I can assure the Minister, and he ought to know, that the organization of these men is one of the most efficient in the Union. I do not want to see injustice done, and under my motion no injustice would be done to any of them, because they could be retired at 55 under the law, and may elect to retire as well. I can assure him it is a burning question in the post office, and it is not a matter of a few men. It is a matter they feel very keenly about, and they will be very disappointed with the reply the Minister has given.

Motion put and negatived.

I move—

I am sorry to have to bring this matter up again, and I hope it is going to be finished by some consideration being paid to it at last. It seems to me there are many members who do not appreciate or follow the position in which the petitioner, Mr. Corderoy, finds himself to-day. The position is that he claims to have been treated unjustly, and that he has not had an opportunity of having the question submitted to the law courts in this country owing to the fact that 20 years ago, when he appeared himself in court, a decision was given by which he is barred from raising the issues that ought to have been raised, and he has been debarred for 20 years from putting his case either before Parliament or the courts. He was advised when the matter came before the Chief Justice in 1907 that—

Acting on that, he has come time and again to Parliament asking them to relieve him. One of the points he wants decided is that he was in a special position, and he could not be treated by way of dismissal the way the Government did treat him when he was dismissed in 1903. There are other matters that will have to be gone into. There is the question of the consent of Parliament not having been obtained. Parliament never agreed to his retirement, as is necessary under the law, although there was a misapprehension that it had so agreed. He cannot go into all these matters, because the judgment of 1907 is a bar against him. When he comes to Parliament, he is told he must go to the law courts, where there is a bar of perpetual silence against him. The only possible tribunal to which he can come is to Parliament, in the hope that some day Parliament will give him an opportunity of appearing before the courts and raising the issues which he wishes to raise. It may be said that he was to blame in that he was his own lawyer. Had he been represented at the time in a proper way, no doubt these issues that have never been decided upon would have been decided, and might have been decided in his favour. One must not forget that, being appointed under Section 20, he was under the disability of being a special officer doing special work, and was not eligible for promotion in any other department. The motion, in a nutshell, is simply this: give this man an opportunity of stating his case without a bar being raised on the technical issues. Let there be a full and final decision on the matter, and as the Final Court of Appeal, Parliament ought to give him a hearing.

seconded.

Motion put, and the House divided:

Ayes—12.

Ballantine R.

Bates, F. T.

Brown, G.

Buirski, Eli.

Christie, J.

Hay, G. A.

Sephton, C. A. A.

Snow, W. J.

Strachan T. G.

Waterston, R. B.

Tellers: Alexander, M.; Swart, C. R.

Noes—40.

Allen, J.

Arnott, W.

Badenhorst, A. L.

Bergh, P. A.

Boshoff, L. J.

Boydell, T.

Brink, G. F.

Cilliers, A. A.

Conradie, D. G.

Conradie, J. H.

Deane, W. A.

De Villiers, A. I. E.

Fick, M. L.

Fordham, A. C.

Hattingh, B. R.

Hertzog, J. B. M.

Kentridge, M.

Keyter, J. G.

Lennox, F. J.

Madeley, W. B.

Malan, D. F.

McMenamin, J. J.

Mullineux, J.

Munnik, J. H.

Naudé, A. S.

Nel, O. R.

Oost, H.

Pirow, O.

Pretorius, J. S. F.

Raubenheimer, I. v. W.

Reyburn, G.

Roos, T. J. de V.

Roux, J. W. J. W.

Van Broekhuizen, H D.

Van der Merwe, N. J.

Van Heerden, I. P.

Van Rensburg, J. J.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Tellers: Naudé, J. F.; Vermooten, O. S.

Motion accordingly negatived.

I move—

It is certainly not necessary that I should say what the Buchuberg irrigation scheme is, nor where it is situated. For the past 30 or 35 years Parliament has known about the scheme. I can, however, say that it is not an irrigation scheme which has never been exploited at all. The scheme is named after the Buchuberg, from which the water has to be taken, and it runs through a large irrigable part alongside of the Orange River; it is half-way between Prieska and Upington, about 100 miles north of Upington. I may say in passing that the Government has, ever since the old days, owned land along the river which was not granted to the public, just because of the irrigable nature of those parts. About 35 years ago the old Cape Government actually went so far as to commence the irrigation scheme, and in that rocky part, 1½ to 2 miles of the water furrow was actually made, and £2,000 spent. It then, however, appeared that that would be a more expensive scheme than what was originally thought. [No quorum.] The scheme was left just as it was, and to-day the marks where the furrow was made are to be seen here and there. The alluvial ground affected by the scheme which belongs to the State measures about 3,000 morgen. Then there are approximately 2,000 morgen of alluvial ground belonging to private owners. That makes 5,000 morgen in all. The scheme, however, remained in suspense until 1921, when the Union Government gave instructions that it should be resurveyed. On account of the rocky area on which money had already been spent, the engineer who made the survey recommended that the water should be taken out four miles lower, in order to avoid the rocky part. I understand the cost of building the dam was rather high, so that the scheme would cost about £150,000. This amount again seemed to be too high to the Government, and therefore the matter again stood over from 1921 from year to year, and the Government have not yet got so far as to tackle it. I admit that if it will cost £150,000, it looks expensive for 5,000 morgen, viz., £30 per morgen; but if we remember that there is permanent water then it is another matter. The Orange River stops running for a bit once in ten years. The longest period it ceased running was for six weeks. We therefore see that the scheme does not suffer from a lack of water. Those parts are free from hailstorms. They are the exception, and during the last 20 years, since I have known the area, there never was, as far as I remember, a hailstorm which destroyed the crops. To give hon. members an idea of the fertility of the ground, I may mention that Upington has the same kind of ground. There is a case there where a man has 3½ morgen under citrus, and in a single year he has made £2,000. It was, of course, a record year when oranges were dear. I have myself seen that on six morgen 190 bags of wheat have been reaped, and I know of another case where sultanas were planted, and out of 1½ morgen of ground the man reaped one ton, i.e., 10 full bags of sultanas. I remember the visit of the Rebellion Commission, and one of its members (Mr. Evans), who was a lucerne farmer in Natal, made an interesting discovery there. A certain man made a claim for lucerne, and it was calculated on an average weight of 4,000 lbs. per morgen. It was said that there was not a part of the country where 4,000 lbs. of lucerne could be got from a morgen. When, however, Mr. Evans saw the lands and the nature of the soil, he said that never in his experience had he seen such lucerne. It is well known that as much as 12,000 lbs. of lucerne has been reaped from one morgen. The yield is certainly as great as of any other place in the country, and although the irrigation scheme looks so expensive, a better place cannot be found in the Cape Province. Therefore, I should like to see the House passing my proposal unanimously, to refer the matter to the Government for favourable consideration to see whether the scheme cannot be carried out. Before I sit down, I want to say that we must not confuse this scheme with a subsequent one. The object of the latter is the construction of a dam with a wall of 200 feet high, so that the water can overflow to certain parts of the desert. That is, however, a separate scheme which the country can consider later, and which posterity doubtless will carry out. This scheme is only to irrigate certain alluvial ground, a part of which belongs to the State.

seconded.

This petition in the form of a motion merely asks the Government to enquire into the Buchuberg irrigation scheme. It is very clear that former Governments have already often hesitated about this scheme. As the hon. member rightly said a beginning was made with the scheme under the old Cape Government, but it was abandoned. Later, however, fresh instructions were given to investigate the matter, but a complete survey has never yet taken place, because on inspection it immediately appeared that it would be a very expensive scheme. The furrow of the Buchuberg scheme, which would serve those 6,000 morgen that are to be put under water, would be more than 100 miles long, and that furrow would run through a large number of natural difficulties, and would cost a considerable amount for maintenance, and just where the dam is to come, the fall is only two foot per mile, which would cause great expense in keeping the furrow clean. As regards the fertility of the ground, however, I do not believe there is better ground than that along the river there. I quite agree with the hon. member; I have visited that part myself and went down the river. But whether it can be a question of an economic investment is another matter, and before such a large sum of money is spent the matter must be carefully gone into. There are many irrigation schemes in the country which do not to-day produce the money they ought to, and writings-off have constantly to be made. I want to avoid the construction of further schemes from which, after a few years, sums will have to be written off. Nevertheless, I am much in sympathy with this scheme, and can promise that the commission will again investigate the matter thoroughly, and if the commission finds that the dam can be built, and that it will be a payable dam, we shall try to go further into it to see if a survey can be made. Let me, however, tell the hon. member that there are about 200 schemes still awaiting execution, and that the Government, therefore, cannot undertake that this scheme, even if the payability of it is proved, will be commenced within one, two or three years. The commission will have to go into the matter in detail and then recommend the Government which scheme they think should be preferred. On the old scheme there are still thousands of morgen where there are no people to work, and let me say at once, therefore, that I think it would be wrong to go on with new schemes without first putting the old ones in order. In special cases, however, a commencement can possibly be made with other schemes, but they will, in any case, have to wait a year or two before the whole programme with regard to old schemes will be completed. Let me say further with reference to this scheme, that I am informed that the water rate alone will amount to £5 per morgen per annum. I do not say that it is so, because a detailed survey has not yet taken place, but the Irrigation Department mentioned that as the probable cost. If the water rate alone is £5 per morgen, then I do not think we should be improving the position, but making it worse. I do not, however want to say that there is no chance for the scheme. I will undertake that the commission will investigate it as soon as possible, and bring in a proper report, and if that is favourable, we will go further into it. I am, therefore, prepared to accept the motion on behalf of the Government and to promise that enquiry will be made.

Motion put and agreed to.

I move—

[No quorum.] The petition is one from a widow, and that is the chief reason why I make the proposal. I believe that it is an old matter, but the people will only be satisfied if it is referred to the Government for enquiry. The petition concerns an enquiry into damage suffered during the second war of independence. I have receipts before me issued at that time by the provost-marshal of Gen. Kemp, and because Gen. Kemp is now a member of the Cabinet, it is hoped that the petition will be favourably considered. We feel that it is a stale matter which should have been disposed of long ago, but as the widow is in need, I cannot do otherwise than ask the Government to consider the case. I do not think the House will reject my motion, as it is a case of a widow with three sons.

seconded.

Before you put it there is a big question involved in this motion, namely, the question of enquiring into any losses sustained owing to military operations during the Anglo-Boer war. There will be more coming. You will have one from me. I had a pair of horses, one commandeered by the Boer side and one by the British side. I did not put in a claim, but I suppose I am in a unique position. Surely there is a time when these matters should be closed. When shall we see the last of this ? I hope that the Government will tell us that they are going to close the door on this sort of thing.

Motion put and agreed to.

I move—

The position of our people in Portuguese territory is very sad, and they cannot get title to their ground because the Portuguese Government will not issue it. Their condition is very bad, and they want to return to South-West Africa. I hope the House will accept the petition.

seconded.

Motion put and agreed to.

Is the Minister serious in going on with this question when there is practically no quorum here? Does the Minister seriously intend to go on with it at the end of a private member’s day?

I see no reason why not.

The Minister is apparently determined to go on with an empty House with this important measure.

The Minister is not responsible for the empty House.

The Minister is, because he insists on going on with a Bill like this at the end of a private member’s day when nobody expected it. This is one of the most contentious clauses of the Bill. The Minister has exempted certain people, and has made no provision for others about whom a lot has been said in the discussion. He makes no provision for those who have been practising for years as drugless healers. He makes no provision for men who have been making a living as dental mechanicians for years, unless they possess a diploma. At the present moment any person in this country has a perfect right to make a set of teeth with the limitation that the law will not allow him to take an impression of the mouth or fit the teeth. You would have thought in this section the Minister would have made some provision that their living would not be interfered with. He admitted last time the matter was under discussion that the dental mechanician, even if he does not touch the mouth, will not be allowed to effect a repair except on the instruction of the dentist. The hon. member for Langlaagte (Mr. Christie) has an amendment to this section, but he is not here. I would like to move in the direction that the hon. member wants to go, and I think we shall get the result by taking out the word “ and ” in line 46 and substituting “ or.” I think the idea of the hon. member was that the examination in (c) should be by a board of examiners appointed by the Minister. I move—

I ask the Minister to be reasonable when a reasonable suggestion is made.

If the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander) has grounds for the amendment which he has introduced, then we are prepared to listen to him. He has, however, just proposed an amendment which he said was the only possible way to speak about the Bill, so that there should not be a chance of its passing.

I did not say that at all.

What did you say then ?

Absolutely incorrect. I said the House was not disposed to discuss the Bill because the House is not here, but if the Minister intended to go forward we must bring the amendments forward now. Does the hon. member expect us to be quiet and not bring the amendments up.

I understood that the hon. member wanted to delay the House.

You understood wrong. I never said that.

I accept that, but otherwise I wanted to tell the hon. member that we have not come to Cape Town to waste half days. If hon. members are not here it is their own fault.

For instance, in line 43 this advantage is restricted to those people who have practised for ten years. They must satisfy the council that at the commencement of this Act they had had ten years’ practical experience of dental work. Supposing a man has only had nine years’ practical experience, he does not fall within this clause. In other words, although for the last nine years dental work has been his sole or principal means of livelihood, he is prevented hereafter from carrying on his calling. The other day the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell), when I moved a little amendment at the beginning of the Bill which would have safeguarded the people who had been earning their livelihood in this way, said that the courts would be engaged all the year in listening to these cases. I made bold to say nothing of the kind would happen, and that there would be no difficulty in satisfying the court where a man had not been earning his livelihood in this way. I have had a petition signed by some 60 or so people asking me not to push this matter, as it opens the door to fraud. I can assure them it does nothing of the kind. It simply allows a man who has been earning his living in this way to continue to do so legally. I would like to see this period of ten years altered, but if the Minister is determined to leave it as it is, then I will not press it any further. It is extremely unfair to deprive these people of their livelihood. I maintain that a law which seeks to bring everything into line should not be retrospective. Supposing by some misfortune the hon. member for Witbank (Mr. A. I. E. de Villiers) has been practising as a dentist at Witbank for only nine years, would the Minister feel that he was justified in saying—

The hon. member for Middelburg (Mr. Heyns) is practising dentistry.

Cannot he use his undoubted influence and ability to persuade the Minister not to take away the jiving of these men ?

I have been trying very hard.

I really think that this House ought not again to go over the same ground as that to which we recently practically devoted a whole day. The amendment now proposed is precisely the same as that on which last time we spent so much time, and about which the House took a decision. The amendment now proposed is in effect and principle the same as the amendment proposed the other day by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (North) (Mr. Strachan), which the House rejected. I just want to say again that the present clause was drawn, not by me as Minister of Public Health, but by the select committee of this House, which we—if we only look at its decision with reference to drugless healers—must admit acted very liberally. After all the evidence which the select committee heard from dentists and dental mechanics, it was, with the exception of one vote, unanimously decided by the committee to put the proposal before the House in this form. The only exception was the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander), who then introduced the same amendment as he has now done. That time he was alone, and all the other members of the select committee thought differently. For the hon. member, therefore, to now accuse me of not wanting to make a concession on that clause amounts not only to an accusation of me, but also of the select committee who sat a few years ago and of which the hon. member was also a member, and which would not make the concession. I again say that the House, before it leaves the clause as here drawn in connection with dentists and dental mechanics, should think twice. If what is proposed in the amendment is passed, it makes the clauses futile. The amendment proposes, that if any person has practised for two years as a dental mechanic, he shall have the right to practise practically in the capacity of a dentist. The same proposal was made in Clause 35, and in the new clause which was proposed between Clauses 35 and 36, and both motions were rejected, and I cannot see how the House can go back on its decision and pass the motion of the hon. member.

It is wonderful how the Minister rushes to the select committee on those amendments on which I was unsuccessful. I only wish he would have been equally consistent and taken the amendments in select committee on which I was not only successful, but which were carried by a large majority. The remarkable thing is that he has thrown overboard the select committee on those amendments where I was successful, but on those amendments where I was in the minority on the select committee he is pleased to bring the select committee forward. If the Minister would take the recommendations of the select committee, I think they would help him, but he wants it both ways. Where the select committee made improvements on the Bill he rejects them; where the select committee refused to make improvements on the Bill he follows them. That is the consistency of the Minister in this respect. There is one other amendment which I wish to move in regard to this clause. I am glad that the hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Nathan) raised this point, because I think ten years is too long a period. I will move—

Question put, that the word “ ten ” in line 43, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the clause,

Upon which the committee divided:

Ayes—47.

Ballantine, R.

Basson, P. N.

Bates, F. T.

Boshoff, L. J.

Brink, G. F.

Buirski, E.

Cilliers, A. A.

Close, R. W.

Conradie, D. G.

Conradie, J. H.

Creswell, F. H. P.

Fick, M. L.

Giovanetti, C. W.

Grobler, H. S.

Grobler, P. G. W.

Hattingh, B. R.

Havenga, N. C.

Hertzog, J. B. M.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Keyter, J. G.

Krige, C. J.

Le Roux, S. P.

Louw, J. P.

Malan, D. F.

Munnik, J. H.

Naudé, A. S.

Nel, O. R.

Oost, H.

Pretorius, J. S. F.

Pretorius, N. J.

Raubenheimer, I. v. W.

Reitz, D.

Rider, W. W.

Rood, W. H.

Roos, T. J. de V.

Roux, J. W. J. W.

Sampson, H. W.

Stals, A. J.

Swart, C. R.

Terreblanche, P. J.

Te Water, C. T.

Van Heerden, G. C.

Van Rensburg, J. J.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Vosloo, L. J.

Tellers: Collins, W. R.; Vermooten, O. S.

Noes—11.

Allen, J.

Christie, J.

Heyns, J. D.

Kentridge, M.

Mostert, J. P.

Pearce, C.

Sephton, C. A. A.

Snow, W. J.

Van Broekhuizen, H. D.

Tellers: Alexander, M.; Nathan, E.

Question accordingly affirmed, and the amendment in line 43, proposed by Mr. Alexander, dropped.

I would like to put another matter to the Minister that I am not quite clear about, and that is in connection with par. (c) of Clause 36, in so far as it applies to sub-section (2). I would like to ask the Minister whether he would be prepared to accept an amendment as a result of which those dentists who fall under paragraph (1) and who hold degrees from other universities might receive a certificate without having to undergo further examination, because it seems to me very unfair to go these people and say—

I am afraid it is very difficult to accept an amendment as suggested by the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge), because that would be introducing an altogether new principle in this Bill—to register under our existing laws people who have passed examinations in other countries which have no reciprocity with us; but even in the case of countries where there is reciprocity, the acknowledging of such certificates is a matter not for the Minister but for the Medical Council. If such certificates or diplomas are of a standard equal to the requirements we lay down under the Act, I think there is no real difficulty on the part of such persons passing the examination.

I do not propose to ask the Minister to apply a new principle. In the case of those who have already been practising and who hold diplomas, now that legislation is taking place, surely they should be accepted. It is not opening the doors to the future recognition of colleges and universities which are not entitled to reciprocity, but barring the doors, to those who already hold these diplomas.

I do not know what case the hon. gentleman has in mind; if he has in mind a case like one of the Koonins, I can only reply that provision has already been made. An amendment was moved by the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander) to cover that case, and I accepted it.

I have a specific case in mind, of a dentist who is practising in Johannesburg, and who has been practising for many years. He holds the diploma of some American university, and unless some provision is made of this kind, he will be excluded from receiving a certificate.

On this point I wish to bring to the notice of the Minister one case that probably falls under this category—that of a lady dentist who has qualified abroad, and has passed an examination the standard of which is equal or superior to ours. As proposed in the Bill, she will not be able to practise in future. The position is very peculiar. I believe there is no reciprocity between South Africa and Holland on this point. She is domiciled in South Africa, and as the Bill stands she will not be able to practise. I hope the Minister will give it his consideration.

The hon. member for Hopetown (Dr. Stals) has mentioned a hard case in his constituency, but we have to do with the whole Union. Every hon. member will be able to mention one, two or three hard cases. In this way it will be seen that there are quite a lot of such cases in the country. I therefore say that if there is one case which will be hard, then it is that in my constituency. The Bill will operate hardly, of that the Minister may be assured, and I hope that he will think again before he pushes it through.

I would like to support the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) in what he has stated. This would cover the case I referred to the other night, which is a very hard case, and I do not know whether there is another one similar to it. The man in question will be thrown into the street.

Here we have an hon. member talking of a hard case. He says that the dental mechanic has a diploma, but that the dentist will no longer give him work because the dental mechanic was competing with him. There are, however, hundreds of dental mechanics who were competing with dentists, and who did the work efficiently. It is asked that here and there one shall be let in, but will it not be better for the Minister where a dental mechanic has been practising for a certain time and has proved his efficiency to let him in? I think the Minister should reconsider the matter of including persons who have been doing work for a certain time in a competent manner.

The speech of the hon. member for Namaqualand (Mr. Mostert) only shows the necessity for the Minister to remain adamant on this question. If he were to deviate from the strict course he has followed so far, he is going to open the door very wide. I must say I am rather surprised at the hon. member for Hopetown (Dr. Stals). He wants the Minister to recognize this particular case, and there is no reciprocity between the institution where this lady got her degree and South Africa. Reciprocity is a protection for our South African people, and I think the Minister ought to stand firm on the point. The Minister can depend on our support in trying to protect our South African students and also their parents, who have been put to very great expense—the spending of thousands of pounds—in having them properly trained at recognized institutions in England, on the continent, and in America. The profession of dentistry has reached such a stage, that Parliament should recognize it as being worthy of support, and should protect it in the interests of the public.

If we are to mention cases regarded as hard cases, and if provision is to be made for everyone in the Bill, we may create the impression of being very merciful, but we may put a bad law on the statute book. It is a well-known rule that hard cases make bad law, and I think as much as possible that we should be opposed to that. The Bill meets as far as possible all the deserving cases. The hon. member for Hopetown (Dr. Stals) mentioned a case which has already been brought to my attention, and which is one of the hard cases. If one were to follow the promptings of your heart, then you would like to provide for it, but if once you provide for such a case you do not know where to draw the line. The case mentioned by the hon. member is that of a South African dentist married to a Dutch lady also qualified as a dentist. He is sick at present, and it is a somewhat lengthy illness, and he is very anxious for his wife who cannot practise here, because there is no reciprocity between South Africa and Holland, to be permitted to do his work while he is sick. Why should we, however, permit it in this case because the lady is married to a dentist? Shall we not also then have to do it in the case where a lady with a Dutch diploma is married to a shopkeeper, in order to prevent the shopkeeper losing his business? If we provide for the one case, we give an opening so that later we shall not know where we are. It is better to put a, good law on the statute book, and then we shall store up no troubles for the future.

I hope the Minister will not take up too definite an attitude in the matter, and I trust he will not listen to the appeal of the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige), who is always inclined to adopt a strong attitude where an injustice is to be done. I propose to move an amendment which will not prejudice the South African student who is a dentist or who is going to become one. I know a case where a man is practising today—

Practising illegally?

He is practising in Johannesburg. Hard cases are supposed to make bad laws, but frequently aphorisms are wrong. I move the following amendment—

I am glad that the Minister is himself now speaking of hard cases. We are pleading on behalf of hard cases. I am glad that the hon. member for Hopetown (Dr. Stals) now also sees that there are hard cases. Why cannot we permit the people who have already practised to continue to earn their living? We shall not thereby open the door, but we are closing the door by this Bill to those people who have been successfully practising for years. The hon. Minister said—

We ought to do that. We must not deprive the people of their bread. The hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) said that owners have spent thousands of pounds on their children. That is so, but they are allowed to practise, and we are only asking for those who have already practised to be permitted to continue their work. That can easily be done.

I have a letter from Johannesburg from a person who has practised there for 14 years without a certificate. Why should we exclude these people? The person referred to will not have an opportunity of becoming registered. I think it is only fair that the Minister should concede the point.

I am glad this matter has been brought to the Minister’s notice. I think he realizes now a great deal of injustice is likely to result and that point of view is represented on both sides of the House. He would find a great deal more opposition from members on his side of the House if they were not supporting him on party grounds. Take the case brought up by the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge). Under his amendment a man who holds a recognized degree, that of doctor or dental surgery, just because it has been given by an American university, has not the privileges under this section which are given to unqualified persons. This man has been practising in Johannesburg and is certainly a case that ought to be provided for. I understand the Minister’s position with regard to reciprocity, but you should make provision for a man who has been in the Union for years. The amendment of the hon. member for Troyeville does not open the door to a large number of cases, there may be a few. The Minister mentioned another case, that of the wife of a dentist. I do not see why that case should not be met. There is nothing wrong in her qualifications. This lady has become a South African by marriage and the Minister says, because it will complicate the Bill, that this woman is to be prevented from practising. But why should she not come in if she has a recognized degree from a Dutch university ? She is a citizen here at the time of the passing of this Act. She is not qualified in the legal sense, but she is in the sense that she is a qualified dentist at present practising and with an understanding how to deal with human beings. She is quite capable of doing her work with the necessary skill and experience. I submit the hon. member for Hopetown (Dr. Stals) has a very strong case.

I have listened with astonishment to the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander). He is an advocate, a much sheltered profession. Will he then allow any advocate from Germany, France or even Czecho Slovakia to practise as an advocate here? We have here to do with the medical profession, and because there is reciprocity between South Africa and a number of universities on the Continent, does he wish anyone from the continental universities to practise as a dentist in South Africa? If his amendment is passed, we shall open the door to all the dentists in the world.

I do not agree with the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige). We have a case of a lady married to a South African. She has become a South African citizen. I agree with the hon. member that we cannot admit anyone from Holland, Germany or any other country, but here we have a case of a woman certificated in Holland who is married to a South African. There is no question of quackery, but a medically qualified lady who comes in the category of a dentist, and whose husband, the South African, has become sick. Why should we stop that woman from practising? If the hon. member for Paarl (Dr. de Jager) were married to a lady with a doctor’s degree, he would certainly not want to stop her from practising. There are cases in the Transvaal and the Free State where lady doctors have done excellent work. There is a lady in the Free State who practises as a doctor and who is married to a doctor. She practises just as successfully as her husband. I admit that we cannot admit dentists from all countries, because then we should deprive our own sons of their livelihood, but this case of a lady of Dutch birth married to a South African is a different thing, and I hope the Minister will be prepared to concede the point. It seems to us sometimes that the Minister sits there like an immovable sphinx, but I hope on this occasion we shall be able to move him.

The amendment of the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) does not open the door to a lot of unqualified people to practise in this country. It is only to enable the qualified to continue to practise in the Union. It is a strange thing that almost every Act we pass in this House deprives people of their bread. We make laws, and nearly every time by those laws we take the bread out of people’s mouths. The amendment of the hon. member for Troyeville is a very reasonable one, in my opinion, and I shall certainly vote for it.

I think it is time to enlighten the House a little with regard to the proposals now being made. The hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) and now also of Beaconsfield (Col. Sir David Harris) have spoken about a case in Johannesburg. If that person has legally practised hitherto he will also be able to be registered under this law. Therefore, they are apparently pleading for someone who has hitherto been practising illegally, because, otherwise, he could also be registered under the new law. The question, therefore, is: if we as a House should go and register people under the new law who have hitherto practised illegally. What the hon. member for Troyeville wants is that the man who was qualified to work as a dental mechanic should now have the right under the new law to registration as a qualified dentist, without his being required to pass the examination demanded from other dental mechanics who want to become dentists. It amounts to a single case where a person is to be exempted. Hon. members have so much referred to what has happened in England, where the vested rights of dental mechanics were protected, when the new law was passed, and they represent matters as if we should merely follow the example of England. Let me tell hon. members again that not a single dental mechanic in England, qualified as a dental mechanic, was admitted under the new law to be registered, without examination as a dentist. The hon. member for Troyeville is pleading for a special case where a man has a certificate, but one that is not recognized here. If the proposal of the hon. member is passed, we shall be introducing a principle which is not acknowledged in this Bill, viz., that the certificate of people from countries with whom there is no reciprocity will be accepted. I think we cannot meet that special case, and I don’t call it a hard case.

I do hope that the Minister will be as reasonable towards this amendment as he very often can be. We know that in some matters of very much greater importance than the question now before the committee—I refer to the Asiatic question, a national problem—the Minister has shown great reason, and even to some extent changed some of the preconceived ideas which he had. I do ask him to take a reasonable view in this matter. The point that the Minister has made about whether a man has had the right to practise or not is, after all, not so serious as it appears on the face of it. In the Transvaal the position has been this: In 1904, under the Milner regime, when anything that had to be done in the Transvaal was on the basis that a, person must have a British qualification, the Dental Law was passed, and there has been no amendment since. Here is the case of a man who went to the Transvaal subsequently to the passing of that law, and he probably knew nothing about it. He did not know that in 1904 Lord Milner and those associated with him would pass a law which would exclude all sorts of people and all sorts of universities. He qualifies in America, he gets his diploma, he comes to South Africa, becomes domiciled in this country, marries in this country, has children in this country, and he practises. It is perfectly true that legally he is not entitled to practise as an official dentist as a result of the 1904 law. The other point that the Minister overlooks is this: That, although he was not allowed to practise as an official dentist, he had certain rights which are being taken away from him because he was allowed to practise, at any rate, as a dental mechanic without the supervision of a dentist, and the proviso to Clause 35 of this Bill provides that he must practise to the order of another dentist. No other dentist will give him an opportunity of doing so because in the past he has been a competitor. I do ask the Minister to consider this point, and if he wants further time to make enquiries as to the number of people who may be affected, I would ask him, in fairness to the point I put to him, so far as this clause is concerned, to postpone a decision on it until he has had an opportunity of enquiring into the matter.

I have a similar letter to that referred to by the hon. member. The dental mechanic studied in an American college and has been working here for fourteen years. He is married to a South African girl and has children, but he says now that he will be excluded by the Bill. It is a very hard case. I think the Minister should be reasonable, and not take the people’s bread out of their mouths. It hurts me very much to see that there is a tendency in the House to exclude certain persons from a certain class of work, and to draw a ring fence round others. I cannot agree to such legislation.

The hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) said we should protect our sons, but he surely meant that we ought only to protect our sons who become dentists. The poor devils who want their teeth drawn he does not want to protect. It is the dental mechanic who has kept the prices down so that dental assistance is within reach of the poor man. We find to-day that the countryside is already taxed to build colleges so that the rich man’s children can be educated, and now hon. members want, in addition, to prevent a poor man from getting a set of teeth. It is said that the poor man will be assisted, but the profession to which the hon. member for Caledon belongs, has never yet worked cheaper for the poor man than for the rich man, and his profession is the greatest cause of poor whites in the country. The countryside is suffering heavily through attorneys. The doctors admit that many diseases arise from the teeth and, therefore, dental assistance ought to be put within the reach of the poor man. If the mechanic can no longer do the work then the price of a set of teeth will be raised generally to £20 or £25. There are hundreds of hard cases of dental mechanics in the country, and our sons who want to become farmers and be the backbone of the country will have to defer to these parasites. We must look the matter in the face. Shall we get better doctors and dentists if the Bill is passed ? No, worse, more likely, because there will be less competition. Let us rather pass a Bill which places doctors under certain limitations. Doctors are only human and have faults just like me. I have seen people, who are not doctors, but are much better people. A wolf changes his hair, but it never gives up its vices, and a diploma will not alter a man. If the Bill will improve doctors, then there is something to be said for it, but I think they will become worse when competition disappears. When a new doctor comes to a place he looks for one or two cases to make a name, but when he has made it then you notice the difference.

I have not the least hope of convincing the hon. member for Namaqualand (Mr. Mostert) that he is wrong, and I do not think that anyone of those associated with him can be convinced. I must, however, protest against the attack which he has made on doctors and dentists. Possibly there are people outside who will believe him, and who will attach importance to the stories he has told here. We ask for protection for our sons and daughters—

Who become doctors.

The best protection for the country is that the persons who are licensed to practise as doctors or dentists are competent to do the work, properly study their calling and have passed the necessary examinations, and have had the necessary experience.

What if a dental mechanic has had fourteen years’ experience ?

The hon. members who interrupt me imagine that the quacks are such honourable people that they will humbug no one. The fact, however, is that, from the commencement they are out to sell the public an article of little value. They are not qualified and have no diploma, but with the little knowledge that they have got in the backroom of the dentist and of the doctor, hon. members want them to be allowed to practise. If hon. members opposite, who talk like that, go shopping then they usually buy the expensive article because it is the best; the cheap article, as a rule, is the worst.

We are now pleading for qualified persons who have Dutch diplomas.

They are not qualified in such a way that we can admit them. The two principles on which the Bill rests is that the diploma must be just as good as those granted in this country, and secondly, that there must be reciprocity, viz., that the country must admit our sons to practise there. It is useless saying that there is a case in a certain constituency. We have just had two hon. members mentioning the same case. It is like the battlefield. Twenty-five persons all see the same dead man, and because twenty-five people have seen it, there are twenty-five dead. There are few hard cases. The hon. member for Pretoria (South) (Dr. van Broekhuizen) wants to make us believe that because the man is a dentist, therefore his wife—

That is nonsense. The wife is qualified.

The other day the hon. member spoke so much of his respect for doctors and dentists, but now he insults the profession. We must provide a good and thorough profession in this country which can be held in honour, and not always be troubled with quacks. We must see to it that our sons get a proper education and are properly qualified, and that they have the best diplomas in the world. Then we shall be looking after the best interests of the country, and it will not be permissible for a man to creep in by the back door, and undermine the qualified man. It is not honest, and it does not provide proper protection for the public.

The defence of the hon. member for Paarl (Dr. de Jager) makes me think that the doctors to-day are no longer worth their salt, because if they were it would not be necessary for them to be protected against quacks. I think the public nowadays is sufficiently enlightened to make the protection of the qualified man superfluous. But here we have to do with dentistry. The health to a great extent depends on the teeth and we ought to assist the public to get attention for their teeth. Why should we stop the poor public making use of a man who delivers them a set of artificial teeth cheaply ? I fear that by protecting the certificated man by drawing a ring, we shall make the prices mount so that the poor man will no longer get artificial teeth. I think, the public is, however, educated to such a pitch that legislation is no longer necessary to see that they are only treated by a certified man. We feel that the people on the countryside who often cannot get medical assistance in those far off parts should not be prohibited from making use of the unqualified help that is available. That is unjust towards the public and the House may not do it. If we draw this ring then we are acting in conflict with the interests of the countryside people.

The hon. member for Paarl (Dr. de Jager) says that he will anyhow not convince us. If he wants to convince us he must adduce proper arguments. He, however, puts up bogeys and says that we want to force quacks on to the public. Where are we doing that? I am sorry that there are so many professional men in the House who carry the day on a division and who want to protect a group of people. Is it not unfair ? In the amendment in my name I propose that a person who has carried on a profession for twelve years shall be allowed to continue doing so in the future. I can assure the House that there is a person in my constituency who has practised for twelve years, who gets patients from Port Elizabeth and other places because he is the best dental mechanic that anyone could wish for. He has the confidence of the public. I do not wish to insult the profession as a whole, but he draws teeth better than many certificated persons, and he does it very cheaply. I appeal to the Minister not to crush us because he has a majority in the House in favour of the Bill, with the support of the Opposition. What harm are we doing if we allow a man who has practised for twelve years and who has never had a sentence against him to continue to practise.

What sentence ?

The hon. member for Paarl surely knows well that if anyone practises illegally he can be prosecuted by the police. But that has not occurred in this case in all the twelve years because the people are entirely satisfied with his work. He works day and night and no one is dissatisfied. The hon. member for Paarl laughs. That is all he can do. Any one who has treated teeth for twelve years without giving dissatisfaction has surely proved that he is able to do so. I therefore move—

1. (b) satisfies the council that at the commencement of this Act he had had twelve years’ practical experience of dental work within any province of the Union and that such work was his sole or principal means of livelihood; and (c) within three months after the commencement of this Act makes application to the council for such certificate; or

I cannot allow the amendment. Another amendment which comes subsequently to that of the hon. member has already been disposed of.

May I ask why not. It is not clear to me

According to the rules of the House no amendment can be proposed before an amendment which has already been passed. The Committee has already decided in the matter of an amendment appearing in line 43, two lines lower down than that where the hon. member wishes to incorporate his amendment.

Cannot the hon. member move his amendment in line 45?

Yes, if the hon. member moves it in another place I may possibly be able to accept it.

Would the hon. member not be in order in moving the fame amendment lower down ? In reply to the lecture delivered by the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige), I would like to say that in the first place there is no analogy between a dentist and an advocate. I may tell the hon. member for Paarl (Dr. de Jager), that hilarious laughter is no argument. The laws of every country in the world are different. They are man-made laws. A man may be an excellent lawyer in France, Holland or Germany, but useless as a lawyer in South Africa, because we run South Africa on different laws. But the laws of dentistry are the same all the world over.

That is a lawyer’s argument.

I thought the hon. member would appreciate that, as he is a member of the side bar.

I move the amendment just named in line 59.

I understand that the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander) desires a law to protect him in his own profession which does not concern the health of the people, but he objects to a law protecting another profession which is very closely concerned with the health of the people. I should have thought that he would have desired anybody to appear in a court in which a case was being tried by a jury, and I would be much more inclined to go with him if he would bring forward a Bill to enable anyone to appear as an advocate in cases in the Supreme Court in which only juries are concerned. Being a member of the closest preserve of any profession I know of, he has no objection to turning loose in the country any number of people who may do an enormous amount of damage to the health of the inhabitants. When he begins to practise a little more charity in his own profession the Committee will be more inclined to pay attention to his views than it is at present.

The hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) is not going to put me off by repeating the stale arguments of the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige). I did not say that I wanted to reserve any special privileges for lawyers, but what I did say was that the laws of a country must be understood by those practising in it, as the laws of every country are different. Personally I would allow anybody who came here and showed a thorough acquaintance with our laws to be allowed to practise. The hon. member may know a lot about medicine, but very little about legal proceedings. There may be cases in Ireland in which there is no law in jury trials, but in this country whenever a jury sits there is also a judge. The jury can only give a verdict on the facts, the judge deciding the points of law. With regard to men from other countries, it is an absurd misstatement of our position that we want anyone to practise who is not qualified. None of my amendments would permit unqualified men to practise, but I have pleaded that dental mechanics who make teeth should be protected under the Bill, and I have pointed out that they will no longer be allowed to make teeth—even where they do not touch the patient’s mouth, except to the order of a dentist.

I can assure the Minister that on this side of the House we are not talking for fun, but we do it as farmers and country members who have no ring fence round us. We still stand outside and can see what is going on inside the fence. I am certain the Minister thinks that we have a certain amount of justice on our side. We want to begin on a new basis, and not that we should immediately deprive those of their living who in the past have made it out of this work. If they have not made their living legally, then the doctors and dentists would have seen that they were brought before the courts. The Minister must clearly understand us. A great number of these people have done the work for ten or twelve years, and devoted their full time to it and done good work. Now they should not be suddenly deprived of their work by the Bill and be put on the street with their wives and children. The majority of hon. members opposite who support the Minister are professional men who have their legal and medical unions, but we have not got any unions. We still regard the matter from the point of view of those who are outside. Let the Bill provide that the man who has efficiently done the work for ten or twelve years and never been before the court should be permitted to carry on. It is very unfair to take the bread out of their mouth. It looks as if those who have ring fence around them have no heart for other people. I hope, however, that the Minister will have sympathy. Why are our farmers, who are not so much concerned, so sympathetic? When once a ring fence is drawn around the dentists they will, with their professional etiquette, soon enough say that the price of a set of teeth cannot be less than £25. There will be nothing in the world to prevent that, and the farmers will be the suffering party.

I am sorry that the hon. member for Paarl (Dr. de Jager) has left the House, because he has attributed things to me which I have never dreamt of saying. The hon. member for Hopetown (Dr. Stals) mentioned a hard case, and in that connection I referred to a lady qualified in Holland who was married to a South African, who had adopted South African citizenship, and we should not prevent her from practising as a dentist. To say that I am in favour of permitting uncertificated people from abroad to practise in our country is a completely distorted representation. We are much concerned about the interests of South African boys, we think about the interests of those who have studied and want to protect them. What has happened in the past in conflict with such a policy? I know of a young man who studied engineering in Delft. He returned to his fatherland (South Africa), but could not find work. He is now an engineer in Java, which shows that we had no room for our own qualified sons. But the instance I have mentioned is a hard case, and we do not compromize anything if we permit such a lady to practise. We also plead for the young men who have come back from Germany and other countries and established themselves as dental mechanics in this country. They are efficient, and should not be prevented from earning their bread.

I want to ask a question and to have a straight answer to it, viz., whether these people have always practised illegally in the past ? It is said they have. Why, then, this Bill ? If they have always practised illegally, they could surely have been prosecuted under the old law. We are thinking about these things. No, this legislation will make it illegal for the people who have no certificate to continue practise, and therefore the farmers are frightened. I am sorry to oppose the Minister, but I shall oppose him as long as I can to prevent the ring. We are not advocating that quacks should also be registered in the future, but that the people who have successfully practised for years should not be prohibited from doing so. They will not be permitted to carry on their work under the new law.

I move—

We have had a long discussion on this clause, and important amendments have been moved, and I think the Minister ought to be given time to consider them

I am sorry, but I cannot accept the motion for adjournment. We have thought for ten years about the matter, and have been discussing this clause all the afternoon.

I also want to ask the Minister to accept the adjournment, and not to use the steam-roller against his own supporters. We on the countryside feel very strongly about this Bill, and want more time to talk about the matter.

I should also like to ask the Minister to accept the adjournment. We should like him to consider the matter a little more, in view of all the amendments that have been proposed.

I do hope that the Minister will for once in connection with this discussion listen to his many friends and supporters who are making an appeal to him not to pass this clause at this stage, because, obviously, at any rate the amendment which I have moved is an amendment which he has not had an opportunity of considering before. I do hope that he will not listen to the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige), but that he will rather be guided by his friends who want to help him to do something which is appealing to the vast majority of his supporters. At any rate, he might agree to the proposal of the hon. member for Hanover Street (Mr. Alexander), and consult with his department.

I appeal to the Minister to meet us. The Bill has a hundred clauses, and this is Private Members’ Day, and now the Minister is using the afternoon and is taking off the gloves against his own supporters. I have never yet seen a Minister adopting such an attitude, and appeal to him to accept the motion of the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander).

Motion proposed by Mr. Alexander put, and the Committee divided:

Ayes—17.

Boshoff, L. J.

Brits, G. P.

De Wet, S. D.

Harris, D.

Hattingh, B. R.

Heyns, J. D.

Kentridge, M.

McMenamin, J. J.

Moll, H. H.

Mostert, J. P.

Pretorius, J. S. F.

Raubenheimer I. v. W.

Steytler, L. J.

Van Broekhuizen, H. D.

Vosloo, L. J.

Tellers: Alexander, M.: A. I. E. de Villiers.

Noes—28.

Ballantine, R.

Beyers, F. W.

Buirski, E.

Cilliers, A. A.

Close, R. W.

Conradie, D. G.

Conradie, J. H.

Coulter, C. W. A.

Fick, M. L.

Giovanetti, C. W.

Havenga, N. C.

Krige, C. J.

Lennox, F. J.

Malan, D. F.

Naudé, A. S.

Nieuwenhuize, J.

Payn, A. O. B.

Rood, W. H.

Roos, T. J. de V.

Smartt, T. W.

Smuts, J. C.

Swart, C. R.

Terreblanche, P. J.

Van Heerden, G. C.

Van Rensburg, J. J.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Tellers: Roux, J. W. J. W.; te Water, C. T.

Motion accordingly negatived.

Amendment proposed by Mr. Alexander, in line 46, put and negatived.

I should like to urge the Minister that he should not now prohibit the people, who, for about twelve years, had worked as the slaves of the dentists, and who are efficient to do this work independently. If the Bill is passed it will mean that we want to make slaves of them for ever. It can surely not he the intention that they should he put on the street without any future.

Why can’t they go and study ?

The hon. member can easily talk, but these people did not have the opportunity for study. They, however, went to work for the best dentiste for a mere song, and does the hon. member now want to tell us that they cannot make a set of teeth ? It is practice makes perfect. Even if the hon. member had had a diploma to farm, then he would not yet be able to farm, even if his father had given him the opportunity of going to study for the purpose. We must hold to the principle that the labourer is worthy of his hire. When a shoemaker has had a boy in his service for twelve years, then the boy after that time can often make better boots than the man who taught him. Now we want to protect the man who has obtained a diploma against the man who has proved that he can do the work. The hon. member must remember that they also must earn their bread, and must not be the slave of another man who possibly does the work much worse than they do.

May I appeal to the Minister ? He has disposed of one amendment and has rejected a motion to report progress, thanks to the support of the South African Party members. I am sure he does not want to defeat his friends with the help of the Opposition. He should now please his friends by accepting a motion to report progress.

I want to support the hon. member for Namaqualand (Mr. Mostert), and will vote for the amendment because it is very unfair to now throw cut of work people who for years have done the work efficiently, and not had any cases against them. I am, however, opposed to obstruction. Let us vote now. I make an appeal to hon. members.

The hon. member says that he will vote for the amendment, but that we are obstructing. It is not obstruction. The Minister did not get up and say that he could not accept the amendment, nor give his reasons. The hon. member for Paarl (Dr. de Jager) objected to the amendment, but I think the Minister should get up and give his reasons why the man who has worked for ten or twelve years and has satisfied the public should not be permitted to carry on. Then we could understand the matter. We should like a statement by the Minister, and that is the reason why we want the discussion adjourned, so that we can have an opportunity to think over it. It is an important matter to many of us, and the Minister ought not to push it through merely with a majority from the South African party. They are practically all professional men, except for a few farmers, one of whom thinks that scab in goats infects sheep. I want to appeal to the Minister not to treat us with contempt because we have great support in the country. If he sits so quietly we will keep on till 12 o’clock. The Minister must give the reason why he cannot accept the amendment.

I did not know that the grievance of the hon. member for Albert (Mr. Steytler) was that I had not replied to his amendment. The reason why I cannot accept his amendment is simply that if I accept it will create a greater grievance with other people who have also practised for twelve years—that is the special case which the hon. member has in mind—against the law, but who have actually been prosecuted, simply because they were not so fortunate as the person the hon. member is thinking of, but had by chance a complaint made against them.

I think that the Minister is acting wrongly. The man did not appear in court because in all the twelve years he practised he gave satisfaction, and not because he was not reported. We can surely take it that a man who has practised for twelve years without appearing in court has proved that he is capable of doing the work.

He can pass an examination.

How can it be expected of an old man of 60 years to go to Europe to pass an examination ? How can we take the bread out of the mouth of a man who has been practising for twelve years? I think the attitude of the Minister is unwise.

It seems to me as if the appeal to the Minister is useless. The Minister is doing a wrong thing by relying on the support of the Opposition and using it as a steam roller on a Nationalist party. I have received many letters from Middleburg, so many that I cannot answer them. They unanimously support me in my attitude with the exception of the doctors, and they praise me very highly. We are fighting here on behalf of the public, not for our personal interests.

I should also like to appeal to the Minister to agree to report progress and to ask leave to sit again. Unfortunately there are so many professional men in the House who are all in favour of protecting this group. Much can possibly be said in favour of professional people being protected, but yet I think in this matter we ought to think of the public, and not go too far. The public quickly sees what a person is worth, but if we protect the profession the danger exists that a weak person gets an opportunity of doing much more harm in the protected profession than the good man in the unprotected one. Hon. members are not asking here to give the incompetent man an opportunity, but the competent man who can pass a practical test. If the Minister were to say that the theoretical examination would not be demanded, but that a person’s practical knowledge would be tested, then there might be something to be said for it. The amendment of the hon. member for Albert (Mr. Steytler) speaks of twelve years, but I think that period is much too long. When the law for the protection of the legal profession was passed, there were also many people who had set up in small villages as law agents. Some of them had very little legal knowledge, and gradually acquired knowledge, but notwithstanding their insignificant knowledge of law, the old Cape Parliament said that the class of people who had old-established businesses could continue practising until they died out, and that only in future cases certain demands would be made in the profession. Cannot we apply a similar principle here, or in any case say that the people who can pass a practical test shall be given an opportunity to continue in their occupation.

We ask the Minister to consider the matter a little more. The countryside feels strongly about the matter, and the man who has worked successfully for twelve years can surely be considered competent at his work.

Amendment proposed by Mr. Steytler put, and the Committee divided:

Ayes—21.

Allen, J.

Boshoff, L. J.

Brits, G. P.

De Villiers, A. I. E.

Fordham, A. C.

Hattingh, B. R.

Hay, G. A.

Heyns, J. D.

Kentridge, M.

Mostert, J. P.

Mullineux, J.

Naudé, A. S.

Raubenheimer, I. v. W.

Reyburn, G.

Snow, W. J.

Steytler, L. J.

Strachan, T. G.

Van Rensburg, J. J.

Waterston, R. B.

Tellers: Alexander, M.; Vermooten, O. S.

Noes—27.

Ballantine, R.

Basson, P. N

Brink, G. F.

Buirski, E.

Cilliers, A. A.

Close, R. W.

Conradie, D. G.

Conradie, J. H.

Coulter, C. W. A.

Fick, M. L.

Havenga, N. C.

Heatlie, C. B.

Krige, C. J.

Lennox, F. J.

Malan, D. F.

Nieuwenhuize, J.

Payn, A. O. B.

Rood, W. H.

Roos, T. J. de V.

Smartt, T. W.

Smuts, J. C.

Te Water, C. T.

Van Heerden, G. C.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Vosloo, L. J.

Tellers: Roux J. W. J. W.; Swart, C. R.

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Amendment proposed by Mr. Kentridge put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—17.

Allen, J.

Brits, G. P.

Brown, G.

De Villiers, A. I. E.

Fordham, A. C.

Hattingh, B. R.

Hay, G. A.

Heyns, J. D.

Mullineux, J.

Raubenheimer, I. v. W.

Reyburn, G.

Snow, W. J.

Steytler, L. J.

Strachan, T. G.

Waterston, R. B.

Tellers: Alexander, M.; Kentridge, M.

Noes—32.

Ballantine, R.

Basson, P. N.

Boshoff, L. J.

Brink, G. F.

Buirski, E.

Cilliers, A. A.

Close, R. W.

Conradie, D. G.

Conradie, J. H.

Coulter, C. W. A.

Fick, M. L.

Havenga, N. C.

Heatlie, C. B.

Krige, C. J.

Lennox, F. J.

Malan, D. F.

Mostert, J. P.

Naudé, A. S.

Nieuwenhuize, J.

Payn, A. O. B.

Rood, W. H.

Roos, T. J. de V.

Smartt, T. W.

Smuts, J. C.

Swart, C. R.

Te Water, C. T.

Van Heerden, G. C.

Van Rensburg, J. J.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Vosloo, L. J.

Tellers: Roux, J. W. J. W.; Vermooten, O. S.

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Amendment proposed by Mr. Alexander, in line 63, put and negatived.

I should like to ask the Minister to amend sub-clause (c) a little and to meet us there. The clause now requires the passing of an ordinary examination in all the details of dental science which anyone who has passed the examination and been in practice for ten years after his studies would not be able to pass easily. How will anyone who has not made a special study be able to do so? Even if he has the diploma of another place it will not be too easy for him to pass. Therefore I move that a board of examiners appointed by the council should be satisfied by a practical test that the man is capable of doing the work. I think that this at least should be worth the Minister’s consideration.

Let me say that the whole point of the hon. member is met by the clause as it is. If the intention had been that an ordinary examination in dentistry had to be passed it would not have been necessary to include the clause. It is clearly a special concession, otherwise it could be demanded that the ordinary examination of the school of dentistry should be passed. Here it is a special board of examiners who will have persons before them who will only have to satisfy the special board that they are sufficiently competent to be registered. I think that is as far as we can go to meet the case. We cannot say that he persons must only do practical work, because theoretical knowledge must in some cases also be demanded, e.g. about the state of the mouth before the false teeth can be inserted. The theoretical test cannot be entirely excluded. The whole intention, however, is to make a special concession in a special case.

Will the Minister be satisfied if the word “ oral ” is inserted so that it will be clear that it will not be a written examination ?

Yes.

I move—

I want to point out to the hon. member that it is more difficult for many people to pass an “ oral ” than a “ written ” test. If a man has an opportunity in the examination room of sitting and thinking he can find an answer which will not always be the case if he has to answer “ orally.”

I would like to ask the Minister whether he is quite satisfied with that because if it is limited now to an oral examination would not that exclude the practical test ?

Oral will mean practical as well.

I take it that the Minister wants to have it to the satisfaction of the board, that the man could do the thing practically that he wants to be authorized to do. I am not quite sure that the Minister will be wise to accept the amendment as it stands.

I think it is better to leave the matter in the hands of the board of examiners. In one case it is possibly better to hold an oral examination, and in another to take a written test. I think if we say orally alone we shall have unnecessary difficulties.

We have had some experience of this sort of thing. Acts which were passed last year about which similar points arise constantly warn us to be careful. The Ministers always say, “ the Bill says so and so.” If I then instead of the word “ oral ” put “ oral and practical ” will the Minister be satisfied ? I move—

I want to ask that the whole clause should stand over. Many amendments have been proposed, and I think we ought to consider the matter further for a moment.

Might we ask the Minister now if he is prepared to report progress and ask leave to sit again ?

Let me just say that practically no further amendments on this clause are possible, because amendments have been put and rejected or accepted right up to the end, so, according to your ruling, Mr. Chairman, we cannot make any more amendments. The Clause as a whole deals with exemptions. I do not think there is any member who thinks these exemptions should not be granted. I do not think there is anything to be gained by postponement.

Clause as amended put and agreed to.

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 to-morrow.