as chairman, brought up the report of the Select Committee on the Iron and Steel Industry Bill, reporting the Bill with amendments, and moved—

He said: Of course, we shall not go into committee unless the report and evidence have been printed and are before hon. members.

I trust you will give us time to read it.

If the report is not in your hands this week I shall move it off until Tuesday. I am putting it down formally for Monday.

I would submit that this is a matter of great importance and people in other parts of the country ought to have some notice of any alterations that have been introduced into this Bill. I hope the Government will give us a little more time. It is not so much for members of this House, but the country at large does not know what is happening and ought to have rather more notice.

Give a week.

I cannot give longer than Tuesday. There would be very little time between then and Easter owing to the budget coming on, and I propose to put the committee stage down for Tuesday. Tuesday is a private members’ day, and this order would probably not be reached on that day.

Report and evidence to be printed; House to go into Committee on the Bill on 29th March.

I move—

As hon. members know, our co-operative societies were in a difficult financial position a few years ago, and Parliament then decided by Act No. 32 of 1924 to empower the Land Bank to write off certain debts of the co-operative societies. The co-operative societies made heavy advances on the sale of maize; the maize dropped in price and it appeared that the advances made to members of co-operative societies were much greater than what the maize fetched when it was subsequently sold. The result was that members of the societies had to pay in a certain amount. A difficult state of affairs arose, and it was then decided in 1924 that the Land Bank could write off certain amounts up to 60 per cent. in favour of co-operative societies. The writings-off would be between the Land Bank and co-operative societies, but not in favour of individual members of co-operative societies, because the Government found that if it were to make writings-off between members, the result would be that traders who bought maize, and who suffered losses, would also come and share in the privileges and facilities. The Government felt that co-operative societies who had made advances which were too high, and as a result of which members became insolvent, would be hard hit as regards the rest of the members, because the latter would have to pay all the debts of those who went insolvent. That was the reason of the writings-off in 1924. The Land Bank allowed an amount of £258,000 of such debts to co-operative societies to be written off, but on the condition that it should only take place in respect of certain bad debts. Now it appears that the co-operative societies were in such a state that the amount of 60 per cent. was actually more than the bad debts which existed at that time, and the result is that it seems as if there as a tendency—I do not know whether it has already occurred, but it is possible—that in cases where co-operative societies under the Act want to dissolve in order to divide up amongst the members the money which has been paid into the reserve fund of the co-operative societies. The idea, therefore, is that even the amount of the 60 per cent. which was granted by the Land Bank, and which was not entirely spent on bad debts, can also be divided among the members. We think it will do much harm to the co-operative movement if we were now to permit societies to dissolve for the sake of the existing reserve capital and in so doing, to divide amongst their members the money which the State has given to such co-operative societies in the shape of special assistance. We feel that would be a great blow to the co-operative societies, and moreover not fair. Such a co-operative society would be able to go into liquidation, divide the money, form a new co-operative society, and again approach the Land Bank for advances. This Bill, consisting of only one clause, intends to prevent co-operative societies deciding to go into liquidation with the object of dividing the money which the State has given them to assist them in connection with their bad debts. Of course the Bill provides that when cooperative societies want to dissolve in a bona fide manner, the Land Bank and its board will be able to decide whether it is necessary that the moneys which have been so given to the Land Bank and co-operative societies should be repaid. The discretion, therefore, rests with the Land Bank, not to apply the provisions of this Bill in bona fide cases. If they see that it will be to the detriment of the farmers they can stipulate that it is not necessary to repay the money which the State has advanced. With regard to co-operative societies in general, it is certainly not necessary for me to say anything. Hon. members know how necessary it is to encourage co-operative societies, and I think we shall discourage them if we permit money to be played with which the State has advanced to assist them.

I am thankful that the Minister is trying by means of this Bill to protect agricultural co-operation, because co-operation amongst farmers is not yet sufficiently encouraged. I am glad that the Minister has found another means to prevent co-operation from being a failure. The Minister said that if it appeared that the dissolution was bona fide and was not with the intention of dividing the money in the reserve fund amongst the members of the society, then the money need not be paid back. It is said that the money need not be paid back if it appears that the dissolution will not be to the detriment of the farming population. I cannot, however, see how liquidation can take place without its being injurious to the farming population, and I am, therefore, not quite satisfied with the clause. The Minister must make it read that the money need not be paid back if it appears that the liquidation is bona fide.

I am sorry that much of what fell from the Minister was inaudible on this side of the House. Probably if we had heard him there would have been no necessity to have risen at all on the second reading. This clause is somewhat complicated, and unless an hon. member is fully aware of all the conditions which this attempts to deal with, the Minister will admit it is difficult to understand. What I find more difficult to understand in this little Bill is the proviso. The first part of the section deals with the various laws mentioned there, and if I understand the co-operative system correctly the liability is a joint and several liabilty of every member. Where part of the liabilities is written off by the bank it would relieve those members of their joint and several liability. Where the assets have been realized and disposed of in terms of sub-section 1 of Section 48 of Act 28 of 1922, there would be a balance of assets over. Those assets would under ordinary circumstances, go to the remaining members of the association, but then comes the proviso, which I find very complicated—

These words are very confusing and lead one into a terrible uncertainty. The moneys which the Land Bank disposes of are the moneys which have been voted by this Parliament, and belong to the general taxpayer.

No, it is not so. This is a reserve fund built up from business with the farmers themselves.

It is money which was given to the Land Bank by the country. You may call it a Government Bank. I am, as a taxpayer and representing taxpayers, wanting to know what has become of the money of the taxpayers. If I am wrong, I would gladly be enlightened. What information must they supply to the Board that the dissolution is detrimental to the farming industry? This is involved, and it is not clear. We are entitled to know exactly what the Bill means, and how tar it goes.

I think my hon. friend is quite right in desiring a full explanation of this Bill, but I hope the general feeling of this House will be to support the Minister in this measure. In 1921 there was a great speculative period in this country, and as my hon. friend says, a boom. Agricultural produce for a short period went up to high prices indeed, and co-operative societies did not have the pooling arrangements they have at the present time. Several individuals in the maize trade were selling individually irrespective of what other co-operative societies were doing. There was no doubt—I will not say whose fault it was—but there was an idea that maize was going up to 30s. a bag at one time. Some societies had sold their maize, and others had not. In a short time maize fell to from 10s. to 12s. a bag. Then the position was placed before the Land Bank, and it had a considerable reserve of money—something in the vicinity of £500,000—and although the money was advanced to the Land Bank by the State, interest has been paid upon every penny— which has been made up owing to the careful policy of the bank in charging a larger rate of interest to the farmers than would have been justified, under ordinary conditions, by the volume of business they were doing. They came to the conclusion that it would be nothing more than fair to take this £258,000, not in relief of the maize grower, but there were large numbers of maize growers who had got advances up to about 18s. a bag, whereas the price fell to 10s. or 12s. The result was that in a period of years after 1920-’21, the maize that was then grown had to repay excessive advances. A large number of farmers went under. As hon. members will see from Clause 11 of the Act of 1924, the Board was authorised to write off from the funds of the bank, wholly or in part, the debt owing to co-operative societies, provided it was created directly or indirectly by advances made by the society, prior to the 1st July, and provided further, that the amount written off should not exceed 60 per cent. of the debt so created. What I want the House to understand is that the advance was to a co-operative society, as a society, and not to individual members of such a society, and because that was unforeseen in 1924, no provision was made in Clause 11 of the Act of 1924. The Minister now finds it necessary to make provision. There are rumours that certain co-operative societies, owing to the effluxion of time, will go into liquidation, and there are others which have larger reserves than they otherwise would have had. I understand some of these societies are considering the advisability of going into liquidation for the purpose of paying out to their members this nest egg, which was given them to further co-operation. Perhaps some of them, after dividing this plunder amongst their members, will be reformed. We should uphold the principle that the advances were made to the co-operative societies for the purpose of maintaining and furthering co-operative principles, and should the societies go into liquidation that money should be returned to the Land Bank.

You really want to prevent mala fide liquidation, but we don’t want to stop bona fide liquidation.

Even if societies have had a large amount advanced them by the Land Bank we should discuss in committee whether some limit should be placed on the amount to be divided among the members. The House should adopt the Minister’s proposals as being in the interests of co-operation.

I do not think that the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) has put the matter correctly. The hon. member said that the reason why the Government at that time made advances to the maize co-operative societies is because at that time there was no central society to handle the maize, and that the losses were suffered as a result of that. Let me say that the hon. member is quite wrong. The same machinery which exists to-day with reference to the maize co-operative societies was in existence at that time, and was already ten years old. It was, however, during the war, and the prices rose to 25s. a bag. That was, however, the foreign price and not the local one. What happened then? The Government of the day immediately prohibited the export of maize with the result that we had a glut in the country, and that the price dropped from 25s. to 95s. The cooperative societies had then, however, already advanced 18s. a bag, because the Government had forbidden the export, and the price then dropped so that the loss of 9s. per bag on the amount advanced was the result of the action of the Government. The co-operative societies would have failed entirely had not the Government came to their help and said that on account of the great loss directly or indirectly suffered through the action of the Government, the Land Bank was to assist the societies. That assistance saved the societies, but all the damage was not covered. The man who could had to repay. The hon. member for Witbank (Mr. A. I. E. de Villiers), myself and hundreds of others paid in the difference between the advance and the price we received. Unfortunately one of the co-operative societies went into liquidation, but it is not the general feeling in the country that the societies should close down, and that they want to do so because members want to get hold of this money. If the societies had to pay the amount then they would possibly go bankrupt, because there is not one with so large a product that it can pay a large dividend, and it will take a good few years before they are strong. One society decided to liquidate, and now it appears that Government will lose money. I ask the Minister why the maize co-operative societies are now specially mentioned. Are there not also other societies which have been treated in the same way? Have not also advances been made to the wine co-operative society in the Western Province amounting to £30,000.

The Bill does not say that only maize cooperative societies will be affected.

That is what is being mentioned this afternoon. Will the wine co-operative society be able to retain the amount forever? The threat is now made that if a maize co-operative society wants to dissolve in two or twenty years, then the amount advanced by the Land Bank ten or twenty years previously, and already written off, will have to be repaid. If the Minister provides in the clause that liquidation after a period of five or even ten years will not have that result, then it would be fair, but we must not always allow the possibility of repayment to hang like a sword over the head of the societies. I regard that as very unfair.

My right hon. friend has stated pretty clearly what the position is, but I don’t think there is any need to gloss over what happened. From whatever source it came these co-operative societies got a quarter-of-a-million in cash more than they were entitled to for their maize, and the country had to write off £250,000 as a loss. If my right hon. friend is correct some of these societies are actually proposing to go into liquidation in order to divide the nest-egg amongst the members. That will not be much credit to the societies and I hope the right hon. gentleman is mistaken. We should all support the Bill the object of which I take it is that Government should get something.

It’s the farmers’ own money.

Farmers’ own grandmother! The money belonged to the Land Bank. It was no more these individual people’s money than it was mine or that of the right hon. member. What they did had to be done by the grace of Parliament. Now there will be a chance of getting something. Is the Minister in a position to tell us what amount he expects to get back out of the loss of £252,000? To my mind the object is clear enough and the proviso is sound enough and I see no objection to the Land Bank having this proviso because it is carefully managed.

I don’t agree with my hon. friend at all . . . . .

It didn’t belong to the co-operative society.

If the bank wishes to make a grant from its profits they have a right to pay it out . . . . .

Order! order! and “ we cannot hear.”

The last report we had was for the 31st December, 1925, and I advise the Minister of Agriculture to hurry up these reports. We have not got the report of last year yet. The balance of capital at that date was £7,698.000. That is the State’s money but they did not pay this from that money. That is the capital of the bank. They had a reserve fund of £460,000 and that amount is left after paying this out. It belongs to the bank at the present time. They made this grant as an act of grace. I want to emphasise there is no loss to the State. It is a perfectly fair proposition. Paragraph 70 on page 9 of the last report says—

I made them pay for the Railway Department facilities myself. As the chairman points out the money is intact and not a sixpence has been lost as the money has been paid from their own reserve fund and they still have £460,000 of that fund in hand.

Some hon. members who have taken part in the debate spoke as if the co-operative society which went into liquidation was a very inferior one. It was, however, the co-operative society at Frankfort, and it is not a small one, but one of the most important in the country, and in a district which produces the largest maize crop in the country. The co-operative society was organized on a very sound basis, and when such a decision is taken by a society which is respected—

Why then did it go into liquidation if it was so good?

The hon. member is in too great a hurry. When such a co-operative society takes a step having such far-reaching consequences, there must be some contributing cause. The hon. member for Fort Beaufort and the Minister spoke of the tendency which might arise among members of co-operative societies to share in the profits which are fairly large on account of the amount received from the Land Bank. I can, however, assure the House that that is not so with the majority of the members of the Frankfort society. There is, however, no doubt that the majority of the members do not possess the confidence in the central board that there ought to be.

The society can liquidate without sharing amongst its members money advanced to it by the Land Bank.

When one talks to the members you learn that they are suspicious of the central board. I am not here to say whether that feeling is well founded or not, although I am an active member and the first co-operative society in the country was formed in my constituency. I think, however, there is some reason for the feeling, because every year the central board has sold at a price lower than that one can obtain outside of the co-operative society for one’s maize. Hon. members may say that the non-member gets the benefit of the society without the responsibility, but it has occurred time after time that considerable offers are made for the maize of members, without the central board selling, although it subsequently sold for a lower price. It goes without saying that if such things occur the members are not encouraged to have much confidence in the central board. I want the Minister to specifically reply to my statement that it has often happened in the past that the central board was able to sell produce at a higher price than what it eventually did. That is the reason why the resolution to go into liquidation was passed by the Frankfort society. I have only read the minutes of proceedings at the meeting, and it appears the resolution was only passed by a bare majority and not by a two-thirds majority as required by law. I think this is a matter which the Minister should look into. The decision to dissolve has, however, already been taken, and the society is already incurring costs in that direction. As the Minister knows that cooperation is necessary for our farmers. I want to ask whether it is not possible to prevent those costs being made. Let the members who want to retire do so, but let the members who want to remain keep the amount which now has to be repaid, so that it can remain with the society to continue business with. I think it is clear that when the costs have once been incurred then a considerable amount of the sum which has to be paid back will possibly disappear in costs. The members and the Minister will, therefore, gain no advantage, and it will not assist co-operation in the future. If it is decided now that the amount can be retained for members who intend to continue the society, then not only the energetic members, who to-day belong to it, but others who have hitherto remained outside, will be moved to join up, because they are convinced that the members who remain on are acquainted with the advantages connected with it. The finances of the society will also be very strong then, and it will encourage people to join. There are various co-operative societies under the impression that the amount was advanced to save their members who were not in a position to pay the difference between the advance and the price recovered. I know that this is not in accordance with the law, but it has happened that co-operative societies have written off the amount which some well-to-do members owed to them, while others again were compelled to pay money which they were hardly able to do. The result is that some persons who could pay were assisted by the State, while others broke themselves in paying back the amount due. If the necessary legislation does not exist, is it not possible to introduce it in order to prevent unnecessary costs of liquidation? The amount which the State now wants to take can be left for the persons who want to continue the society, and others will be more anxious to join as well.

As a member of a co-operative society, I know what a hard struggle we have in the north on account of lack of proper co-operation. I know that the Minister will do anything to push co-operation, and I know that this Bill is intended to do so. I must say that I am sorry that the co-operative society at Frankfort has decided to go into liquidation. That is a society which is financially strong, and it is one of the oldest societies. Therefore. I am very sorry about it. As for myself, I feel certain that the salvation of the farmers lies in co-operation, in working together. As a body we farmers are worse organized than any section of the population, and if we want to make a success of agriculture we ought to co-operate. The hon. member for Klerksdorp (Mr. P. C. de Villiers) said that it was not sufficiently clear that where it would be detrimental to farming not to payback the money advanced, the Land Bank could make an exception. What are we to make of that? Take, e.g., a co-operative society which on account of its financial position is forced to dissolve. What is the position then? Moreover, this Bill hangs like a sword over co-operative societies for an indefinite time. It is perpetual. I do not think it is right. I think the Minister should lay down that, e.g., after ten years the provision shall no longer be binding. We are going through a very bad time as far as co-operation is concerned, and as to myself I almost believe that co-operation will never succeed in our country until we some day come to compulsory co operation.

The hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) says that it seems as if the co-operative societies wanted to go into liquidation to get the nest egg which is being built up to-day, the reserve fund. I am convinced that no society would for a moment think of going into liquidation for that reason. There are, indeed, societies, as the hon. member for Fort Beaufort has said, which discuss the question as to whether they shall continue, but that does not mean that they do so for the reason that they want to divide up the reserve fund. The societies are, I think, established for a number of years, five, if I mistake not. After five years the members must decide whether they will continue as a society for a further five years or not. At the voting two-thirds of the members must be in favour of continuing the co-operative society. Why this provision exists I do not know, but if two-thirds are not in favour of continuance, the society ceases to exist. I understand that in the case of the Frankfort society, there was actually a majority in favour of the continuance of the society, but not a two-thirds majority, and now, according to the regulations, the society must cease to exist.

Why should they have the advantage, if they go into liquidation by effluxion of time, of money which has been advanced for a specific purpose?

I am coming to that, but I first want to remove a misunderstanding. Why should a society dissolve for the reason mentioned? The co-operative societies have to battle with certain difficulties, one of which is that it takes a whole year before the proceeds of maize, e.g., are finally paid in full to the members. The maize is harvested in July, it is delivered at the end of July or August to the co-operative society. The society then takes charge of the sale, and it takes a full year before the final settlement takes place. In the meantime the farmer is given an advance, but he must pay interest on the advance till the settlement takes place. If the farmer has his farm mortgaged as well for money often obtained from the Land Bank, then he has to pay double interest, interest on his farm and on his produce. The farmer who remains outside the societies is better off, because when he sells his mealies in July or August he receives his money at once, and then he only pays interest on his bond. That is the reason why friction exists between the members of the co-operative societies and those who remain outside of them. The members of the societies enquire whether it is worth their while to remain members, seeing that the man who stops outside and makes no sacrifices is better off. Another objection is the payment of the cost in connection with the sale of the produce. It was originally said, I think, that to cover all the expenses of sale, 5 per cent. of the proceeds would be required. The expenses consist of sale, insurance, etc. But I think that with the control of the central body the expenses now come to 7 per cent. I ask anyone whether that is not too much for the sale of produce, and whether it is not likely to lead to dissatisfaction. Let me now enquire a little what the object of this Bill is. The Land Bank makes advances with the object of enabling the co-operative societies to give advances on produce to their members. The amount of the advances is fixed not solely by the society, but also needs the approval of the Land Bank. Advances were then made on mealies, 12s. 6d. in some cases, in others 15s., and in ft few other cases 18s. a bag. The sale price of the mealies for export was then about £1 or £1 2s. 6d. The then Government, however, then saw fit to refuse permits for export, with the result that the co-operative societies were left with large quantities of maize at the stations, without being able to get any permits for export. Moreover, maize was then imported from Mozambique and Rhodesia, and in the meantime the Argentine also came in, so that the price of maize dropped to about 9s. a bag. Every farmer, therefore, at that time received an advance which was much greater than the sale price of the mealies. The societies were, therefore, indebted to the Land Bank in a large globular amount, and the individuals in their turn were indebted to the societies. To assist the co-operative societies, the Government decided to empower the Land Bank to allow the societies to write off 60 per cent. of bad debts, i.e., of moneys which were over advanced and not repaid. The position, therefore, arose that the society had no debt to the Land Bank, because the Land Bank released it, but the societies were creditors of members of the society who actually had to repay to the society the surplus received by them as advances. The societies commenced to collect the amount, and they only lost the amounts of members who went, bankrupt or died. The societies, in many cases, I think, are still collecting moneys. It is paid to the societies, and used for the creation of reserve funds. Now it is provided in this Bill that when a co-operative society goes into liquidation and still has funds in the form of a reserve fund, that such a society must pay back there out to the Land Bank the amount advanced to it. But the money in the reserve fund is what the members have paid in. It is not money which the Land Bank has deposited there. The money which the Land Bank advanced to the societies was in respect of the debts of people who went insolvent. The question now arises whether the amounts being once given to the members as a free gift it is right to now demand them back again. And another point is that many of the societies have two reserve funds. The one consists of funds which they have themselves saved, out of their own money, and out of which they have built up a reserve fund, before the Land Bank wrote off the 60 per cent. It was a kind of amortization fund against buildings and works. There are societies who have a first reserve fund consisting of a few thousand pounds. Now I ask the Minister whether, if the Bill is passed and a society decides to dissolve the reserve fund, which they have built up out of their own money, will also have to pay back the amount advanced to members who have gone insolvent. It says in the Bill that the surpluses of the societies shall be used for that purpose.

There is one point I hope the Minister will clear up, and that is the meaning of the proviso. As I understand it, this Bill is designed to enable the Land Bank to get back moneys which in effect have been advanced to these co-operative societies, some of which are proposing to dissolve, and distribute the money among the members, assets which they would not have had if they had not been helped by the previous Act. I think we can all approve of the Bill; what I do not understand is the meaning of the proviso—

I do not see the force of that argument. Supposing a co-operative society is in a very bad position; it may have been badly managed, or dishonestly managed. It may be a very good thing for the farming community, but I do not see why they should be allowed to retain that money. Perhaps the Minister, in his reply, will make that plain. There is another small point which I do not understand. In the second clause it says the Act shall come into force on the 25th April, 1927. Perhaps we can be told the reason for that.

I am glad to see that most hon. members are in favour of this Bill. If there are certain provisions which are not clear, I am quite prepared to make the necessary amendments in committee, so that the meaning shall be plain and no misunderstandings shall arise. Hon. members have said that the position regarding co-operation is such that we shall have to come to compulsory co-operation. Let me say at once that that is impossible. We are having difficulties to-day with voluntary co-operation, and will certainly not be able to expect compulsory co-operation to be a success. In the meantime, I am sorry about the opposition there still is in our country to co-operation. The hon. member for Bethlehem (Dr. D. G. Conradie) said that the writing-off was a free gift which was made, and asks if it is right to say that the moneys must be repaid. Let me just say that he quite rightly said that the writing-off at that time took place between the Land Bank and the co-operative societies, and not between the Land Bank and members of the societies. The free gift was not for members, therefore, but the tendency exists to-day to give it to members by going into liquidation, and so to divide among the members the moneys that there still are. The hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) rightly said that people have died or gone bankrupt, and that it would be unreasonably hard on the remaining members of co-operative societies to have to pay the amounts of those members who, for those reasons, did not pay, seeing they have already paid back their own amounts. If we, however, had not written off the amount the members who remain would have had to pay for the people who were in default in paying back the excess advances they had received. On the other hand, it was impossible to make the people who did not go insolvent also pay back the excess of their advances, because then the traders who had also suffered loss through the dropping of the price of maize would also claim compensation for their losses. The object was only to assist the co-operative society, and to prevent members who had paid their own debts from being saddled in addition with the debts of the bankrupt members. When the Land Bank made the writing-off it was stipulated that if the co-operative society went bankrupt two years after the date of the writing-off, the provisions would no longer apply, but the Land Bank did not say that after two years the moneys which the State had advanced could be divided. If the provision with regard to the repayment of the amount written off for members who went bankrupt or died is not sufficiently clear, I shall be prepared in committee to amend it. Hon. members have asked whether it is necessary when a society goes into liquidation to compel it to pay back the amount of the balance of the money advanced it has. But if any business goes into liquidation the assets are used to pay off debts, and the co-operative societies are also business undertakings. Then the provision has been discussed that when there is not a two-thirds majority in favour of the continuance of a co-operative society, at a vote taken on the subject, then that such a society is dissolved. That is the law. We actually had a case at Frankfort where there was a majority, but not a two-thirds majority, in favour of continuance, and the result is that the society will be dissolved. As I stated, it is left to the discretion of the Land Bank and the Land Bank board on liquidation to decide whether it is a case of bona fide liquidation, and whether it is desirable to demand the repayment of the 60 per cent. or not. If uncertainty exists about that we can make an amendment in committee. An hon. member has also said that people remaining outside the societies are possibly better off than members. Dissatisfaction with the central board was referred to, but the business transactions are done by business men selected by the cooperative societies themselves, and if the members choose to elect people who run up the expenses of the societies and do not run matters on proper business lines, it is their own fault. The central agency which has been referred to is elected by the members of the co-operative societies, and they ought to select people who have business capacity. The hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. van Niekerk) asked that the period within which the amount should be paid back might be fixed at ten years, and the hon. member for Klerksdorp (Mr. P. C. de Villiers) said that the liquidation of co-operative societies would not be advantageous to farming, and that the provision in that connection would increase the difficulties. The Land Bank will, however, bear the circumstances in mind. The hon. member for Waterberg said that I should not be afraid because one society went bankrupt. I am not afraid of that, but I can assure the hon. member that if there is a chance of members of a co-operative society on liquidation, each getting £50, e.g., of the money which the State had given, the tendency exists to decide on liquidation on that account. I have information that there are societies that are thinking of dissolving for that reason, and I also have a telegram here from a society indicating the same thing. I, however, want to point out that if we had not made the writing-off, the hon. member for Waterberg who paid his own debt, would also have had to pay the debt of those who went insolvent. The hon. member for Waterberg said that the provision with reference to repayment should not be perpetual, and that a limitation should be made, e.g., that ten years after a society has gone into liquidation, the reserve capital of the society can no longer be touched. We can see whether an amendment in that direction can be made in committee, so that the stipulation shall not be perpetual. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Sir William Macintosh) has stated that it is not right that the money of the taxpayers should be used for the co-operative societies, but the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) gave a clear answer to that objection, viz., that the advance was made from funds which the Land Bank had itself accumulated. I, therefore, think that the hon. member will see that his objection is without foundation. The hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Nathan) wants more clarity, but I think we can go into detail in this connection in committee.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time: House to go into Committee on the Bill on 28th March.

There have already been so many amendments proposed that I shall also take an opportunity of proposing one. I move—

When this clause was before the committee on the last occasion, the Minister took over the amendment which in the first case was moved by the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford). I hope that since then the Minister has gone over the matter more carefully, and now realizes that it would be a mistake to put forward this amendment. It is quite obvious that in view of the statement the Minister made on the second reading that the chemists’ and druggists’ profession was a close profession, it will no longer be a close profession if he intends that poisons can be sold by any dealer. Dispensing can also be done by doctors, and the sale of poisons is proposed to be handed over to a large number of general dealers. I would submit that the amendment moved by the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) would certainly tend to help in bringing back to that profession what the Minister claims for it—that it is a close profession. Instead of giving way to the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford) and other hon. members, the Minister should listen more carefully to the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbours) (Maj. van Zyl). It is much better to restrict the sale of patent medicines, whether they do or do not contain poison, to chemists, who can advise or warn the purchasers regarding any danger which may attach to their careless or indiscriminate use. The chemists should be given this little measure of protection, as it is in the interests of the dwellers in the country that there should be chemists in country towns, for chemists are of great value to the local people, and assist them in many ways. If chemists are encouraged, they will be able to set up business in small towns much more readily than they are able to do to-day, when they have to face unfair competition from storekeepers. If the sale of poisons is extended to general dealers, there will be very little hope of chemists being able to open establishments in small towns, the volume of business to be transacted being necessarily of a very limited nature. The Minister should not allow a single concession so far as the sale of poisons is concerned. No doubt hon. members will remember the case of a Free State farmer, who drank some thousands of bottles of sixpenny Dutch remedies, to his ultimate ruin and death. As a result of the continued encroachment by general dealers and stores on the chemist’s business by the sale of articles which naturally and properly fall within the sphere of the chemist’s operations, chemists are fast being driven into introducing other classes of trade into their pharmacies, and I can foresee in the near future that they will develop into the American drug store system, when they will have to follow in the footsteps of chemists in the United States. This regrettable change would mean that pharmacy would be the smallest part of a chemist’s operations. That this is not in the interest of the future training of chemists is obvious. It would be detrimental to the country, as the knowledge regarding the sale of outside articles of the most profitable nature would be of more value than a good professional training. To illustrate how pharmacy has drifted in the United States, I have here a cutting from the “New York World ” which throws a side-light on the way in which American chemists are becoming not professional men, but ordinary storekeepers. The cutting contains questions which, it is suggested, candidates for a chemist’s diploma should be called upon to answer. These questions include the following—

1. 1. How little chocolate may be used in frosted chocolate before the customer complains?
2. 2. What are the issue dates of the New York telephone and city directories?
3. 3. What is a good book for a boy 11 years of age?
4. 4. What is the first class postage rate on a 2½ ounce letter?
5. 5. What effect has the safety razor had upon the drug trade?
6. 6. What cold cream is best to use before the application of what rouge? Of what powder?
7. 7. How many nickels should a druggist with three telephone booths begin the day with?
8. 8. What is a good 15-cent cigar?
9. 9. How many years will a box of $2 a pound chocolates remain “ fresh ”?

This is no laughing matter, but shows how American pharmacy has drifted. [Time limit.]

Now we can see why the clause was inserted, and why the extra demands were made upon shopkeepers. No one has ever yet been poisoned on the countryside through the sale of poisons for agricultural purposes. The farmers, indeed, complain that they cannot kill jackals, because the poison they buy from the druggists is too bad. I know of a case of a man who gave a cat to a druggist in Cape Town to kill, but although he was a qualified man, and did his best, the cat would not die. I can well understand the farmers’ complaints, because the druggists cannot properly make up the poison. One hears of housewives who complain that the Dutch medicines are adulterated, and it is because the druggists are so much protected. Surely the farmers are also specialists in their department, because the boys have to work for 15 or 20 years for their fathers, and are therefore practically indentured for the time being. Is it now to be said that persons who have not been trained as farmers, such as attorneys and doctors, may not farm? The poison is under proper control to-day in the shops because it is sealed up in bottles and cans, and is not so dangerous as hon. members want to make out. The last speaker now wishes farmers who live 50 miles from the village to go to the druggist, and the latter is also not satisfied to work in the large towns, but wants to extend to the countryside. One can understand that the people in the large towns who have all these facilities do not object to the Bill, but things are different for the people on the countryside.

The remarks of the hon. member for Langlaagte (Mr. Christie) can only be described as a ridiculous extravagance. He tries to frighten the House with the prospect of the Bill going to pieces because a few storekeepers are allowed to sell ordinary household preparations for cleansing purposes, although they have been doing this for generations. Even so, they cannot sell these articles except with the consent of the Minister. If the hon. member will read the clause, he will perceive that the Minister has entire control of the sale of even these small preparations. I wonder the hon. member does not suggest that even soap should not be sold by a general dealer, because it may contain deleterious matter. We are asked to go to a perfectly ridiculous extent, and some hon. members are trying to frighten the House regarding the sale of articles concerning which there is no danger to the user. These people want to stop the general dealer from selling things which they have sold for generations. This Bill is going to protect the public because anything that contains the slightest trace of one of these poisons must be passed by the Minister’s officials. We have heard from the hon. member for Langlaagte (Mr. Christie) a kind of threat that unless he gets what he wants in this Bill, there are not going to be any chemists in the small towns. How would he like it if the general dealers in the small towns said—

Everybody knows that 75 per cent. of the profits of the chemist comes from articles sold by the retail trader. It is ridiculous for him to say that it would prevent chemists starting in small towns because the general dealer is to be allowed to sell ordinary household preparations which have been sold for generations. It is the weakest case I have ever heard placed before the House.

It appears now that we are engaged in making laws which are like tangle foot for flies. Throughout all my life the poison mentioned in the clause has been sold by the shopkeeper. It is necessary for us on the farms that that should be so. I have never yet heard of the terrible number of deaths in consequence of it. In most of the small villages in the Free State there are no chemists, and the people who are served by the shops have always obtained such articles. The clause gives the magistrates the power to use their discretion, but it is only too clear to me that if there are three or four shops at a place, only one will get the licence. That will have an undesirable result for the people in that neighbourhood.

I think the discussion of this clause has clearly shown that various interests are in conflict with each other. On the one hand there are my friends behind me who think they represent the farming population, and that the interests of the countryside require more facilities for the sale of poison there. Then we also have the interests of the chemists who, as far as possible, want to keep the sale of poisons and medicines in their own hands, and not to allow them to pass into the hands of the general dealer, and then we have the interests of the general dealers, who say that there is no reason why the chemists alone should have the right of selling poisons. These three interests are arguing against each other, hence the long debate in the House. Let me say that this tug-of-war between the various interests also came out fully in the select committee which sat in connection with the matter a few years ago. The committee took much evidence, and came to the conclusion that by drawing the article as it now stands the various interests would be best served and met. I now want to deal with the various amendments, and make my position clear. In the first place, there is the amendment of the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford). I have already said that with a small alteration I am prepared to accept it. Complaints are made by the chemists, but I cannot see that they are entirely well founded, because the general dealer will only sell poisons under certain regulations. They have the right under the regulations to sell fairly strong poisons for agricultural, horticultural and veterinary purposes, and why should these people be prohibited from selling poisons for cleaning and purifying houses? There is no difference in principle between the two. The sale of poisons will take place under regulations drafted by the Minister. Then we have the amendment to paragraph 2 by the hon. member for Pretoria (North) (Mr. Oost), and another by the hon. member for Ceres (Mr. Roux). The one is to strike out the payment of £1 for a licence, and the other to reduce the amount to 10s. I think it is only fair that the Government in this case should bear the expense of the administration of the Act. The general dealer gets certain rights, and he is asked to pay a reasonable fee for a licence. A note has to be made in books of the poison and to whom it is sold, what kind of poison, and what quantity. Then the police have from time to time to inspect the shop and the book. The police have sometimes to go out by motor to make the inspection, and it is only right that the cost thereof, up to a certain amount at any rate, should be covered. I am, however, prepared to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Ceres, and to reduce the amount from £1 to 10s. That is surely more than reasonable, and I hope hon. members will make no further objection. Then there is an amendment by the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl), about which I have already expressed my opinion. I cannot accept it. He proposes that a certificate shall only be granted to a general dealer if the magistrate thinks that it is in the general public interest, but he wants the magistrate only to be able to act on the recommendation of the medical council. I cannot accept it. The medical council only meets a few times a year, and local knowledge is necessary for the issue of licences to decide whether the issue of the licence is desirable, and the medical council does not possess that knowledge. We must do justice to the local interests. Then the same member also has an amendment in paragraph 4 to delete the stipulation that in accordance with the judgment of the magistrate a man must be suitable to have a licence. The issue of the certificate is subject to various conditions. A person who gets a certificate must be at least 21 years old, and able to read and write one of the two official languages, while the magistrate must also be of opinion that the man is fitted to receive a certificate. The hon. member does not want those words to be in. He thinks that injustice might be done to a deserving man. I just want to say on what evidence the select committee drafted the clause in that way. It answers at the same time the Statement of some hon. members that the sale of poison by general dealers has never yet resulted in any crime or death or accident. Finally we judge in a somewhat limited way about such a matter as crime, but the select committee heard the evidence of the secretary for public health, who said that it was necessary, in view of the number of startling cases of suicide by poisoning, and the poisoning of other persons, that the control over the sale of poisons should be made much stronger. He said that poisons are possibly not obtainable so easily in any other civilized country as they are in South Africa, and that there is a certain amount of recklessness in the sale of poisons here. Then I have lists here from the various Attorneys-General of crimes of poisoning in **21 (the year before the select committee sat). They are men who have to do with crime, and are in a position to judge. The Attorney-General of Natal called attention to the fact that in the urban areas a large number of the general dealers are Indians, and that in the past years there has been visible a large increase in arsenic poisoning, and in this connection he points out that in India it is very prevalent, and that Indians, and also natives, have little repulsion against depriving anyone of his life by poisoning. The Attorney-General points out that it is very difficult under existing circumstances to supervize the sale of poison. That is the reason, too, why the magistrate must have authority to judge whether the person is fitted to have a licence for the sale of poison. In this way we can prevent people, who we cannot entrust with the life and death of others, from getting the right to sell poisons. Therefore precautions are necessary, and someone acquainted with local conditions must judge whether a person is fitted or not to sell poison. The hon. member for Witbank also moved an amendment to paragraph 5. He is opposed to general dealers being obliged to keep poison in a separate cupboard, and to sell it from a different counter to other necessaries of life. He thinks that we are laying a heavy burden on the traders, end consequently on the farmers on the countryside. The farming population is organized. They have agricultural societies throughout the country. The societies express the views of the organized farming population of the country, and this matter is discussed at agricultural congresses. The agricultural congress of the Cape Province, which met in 1921 at Cape Town, passed the definite resolution of asking the Government for better control over the sale of poisons, and the following year the agricultural congress of Natal passed a similar resolution. They even went so far as to send a delegation to the Government and to demand legislation for the control of the sale of poison. We must here choose between the views of the agricultural congresses, the representatives of organized farmers, and hon. members here who say or think that they are expressing the views of the farming population. If we compare the provision with regard to the sale of poison in this Bill with that in other countries, then we can only be blamed for being too lax. What is the position, e.g., in England? There a general dealer who wants to sell poison must make application to the local authorities. His application is advertised for a time, so that the public can know that he has made such a request. Finally the matter is dealt with in a court, where objections can be made to the issue of a certificate. There are two other amendments to paragraph 6, one by the hon. member for Namaqualand (Mr. Mostert), and one by the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander). The amendment of the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) clearly rests on the supposition that the magistrate, in issuing a licence, acts in a judicial capacity, and that the trader should have the right to appeal from his decision to the Supreme Court. Let me point out here that a magistrate can act in a twofold capacity, viz., in a judicial capacity, and also as an administrative official. He often acts on behalf of the Government to carry out the laws and regulations in his district, and in this case he will be acting in an administrative capacity. He assists the Minister in carrying out the law. The hon. member for Namaqualand wants the provision to read that the magistrate, if he has good grounds for cancelling a licence, may cancel it, and not as the Bill says, shall cancel it. In this connection it is strange that in the Bill, as it was originally introduced into this House, the word was “ may,” but the select committee without any division altered it to “ shall.” Now the hon. member wants to revert to the original text. I would prefer to submit the point to the decision of the House, but will myself vote against it.

The Minister has just indicated he is going to refuse practically every amendment and now he says—

I think the Minister must realize that his is not the only opinion in this House. Anything more unreasonable than absolutely refusing to accept any amendment I have seldom listened to. He told the committee that if my amendment were carried a magistrate would be compelled to issue licences to persons he considered unsuitable. That is absolutely incorrect. In my amendment there is discretion for the magistrate; it leaves the words “ may be granted ” in. Under my amendment a magistrate will have free and unfettered discretion as to whether he refuses or grants a licence. So the Minister has entirely misapprehended my amendment and given an incorrect version of it. The Minister even refuses the common remedy of an appeal to the courts. What is the argument he uses? That a magistrate is sitting in a ministerial capacity and not a judicial capacity. Has he forgotten Clause 18— regarding the Medical Council; are they judges, are they magistrates?

It is quite a different case.

Of course, it is a different case because it does not happen to suit the Minister. I do not see any difference between a person aggrieved by the decision of a body of doctors, who are not judicial officers, and a man who feels himself aggrieved by the decision of a magistrate and who has not got the remedy of going to a court. If there were an appeal, the magistrate’s evidence would have to be clearly recorded and it would then be clear whether he had a genuine reason for refusing a licence. The Minister will admit that there is no law with regard to the various degrees or certificates that the Medical Council may consider equivalent in capacity and equivalent in authority to the degrees of this country, and yet he gives them power on purely a question of a medical degree to go to the Supreme Court on any decision on which they are aggrieved. Then he turns round when you ask for a similar principle to be applied in Section 51 and says that is a different case. One is a doctor, and the other is a general dealer, but the two cases are exactly the same. I should have thought that particular amendment at any rate with regard to an appeal to court would have been one to receive the sympathetic consideration of the Minister. One must not forget that under this clause there are safeguards with regard to how poisons are to be kept and there is also a provision by which the licence may be refused and a provision by which it may be cancelled afterwards if necessary. I do not think it is desirable that not too great powers are entrusted to the magistrate, or if they are, in a given case of injustice that there should be an appeal to a higher tribunal. I am dissatisfied with the refusal of the Minister of the various amendments, which I think would have improved this clause.

The hon. members for Namaqualand (Mr. Mostert) and Witbank (Mr. A. I. E. de Villiers) want to make out that they alone represent the farmers, but I am a farmer as well, and will not leave my interests in this matter to them. If there is one thing about which the farmers are dissatisfied then it is that poison is so easily obtainable. If the hon. members get their way the result will be very undesirable. Very valuable horses and stock have already been poisoned by ill-disposed persons, and it is difficult to find out where the poison is obtained because the sale is made so easy to-day. With regard to selling poison over the counter, hon. members know that children sometimes sell goods. If poison can be kept at any place in the shop then the danger is so much greater. There ought to be no objection to keeping poison in a separate place. Cooper’s Dip, e.g., is sold in packets. The packets often break so that the poison can fall on the counter, and hon. members will see for themselves that there is a great danger here. I cannot understand the attitude of the opponents of the clause, and I agree with the Minister that the position should be that only persons who absolutely need poison should be able to get it.

I know that the opponents of the clause mean well, but I do not think they had carefully considered the matter before they proposed the amendments. I quite agree with the Minister and will support him, because the actual object of the clause is the protection of the public. The business men will not be damaged, but the public will be protected.

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

The Minister told us that the agricultural union had asked that the sale of poisons should be more strictly controlled, because it constituted a great danger. The Minister did not, however, say that there were proofs that poison in cases of poisoning had been bought from chemists or shopkeepers. The provisions of the clause will only cause greater expense to the shopkeepers and to the public.

The attention of the purchaser of poison in the circumstances stated in the Bill will be called to the fact that the poison may be dangerous.

That is also done to-day, because a man who buys poison has to sign his name in a book. The agricultural unions mentioned by the Minister are all in the Eastern Province where the districts are small and the people have all facilities. The farmers in the outside districts like mine do not ask for this clause. We want the poor man to be able to buy poison for agricultural purposes at reasonable prices. We have nothing against the Minister, but we notice that his technical advisers are sitting close by and it looks as if he has to do their bidding. I can understand that large towns, like Cape Town, want the Bill, but it is not necessary on the countryside, because the articles will cost more as a result of the Bill. The countryside is not like Cape Town which gets in 1½million pounds in taxesand then wastes it. Notwithstanding that expenditure Cape Town is still one of the dirtiest towns in the Union. The countryside is clean, but the Bill will make it dirty, because the chemists will go there and sell things of which the people to-day are ignorant. The amendment which we have moved will be a convenience to the people on the countryside, and that is why we are pleading so hard.

Hon. members are trying to ridicule my arguments, but they do not understand what I am pleading for. I do not want the price of poison for agricultural purposes to be raised, and that will be the result of the passing of the clause. If my amendment is adopted, then the clause will still provide that the poison must be kept under proper supervision. We must not forget, moreover, that many farmers buy on a year’s credit from shopkeepers, and the passing of the clause will in this respect cause more difficulties. The hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. Buirski) is a shopkeeper, and he knows what the position is, but he is not speaking on the matter, in order that it should not be said that he is talking in the interests of his own business. We are arguing here against the injustice which will be done to those living on the countryside.

Before the Select Committee the Attorney-General pointed out that there had been a marked increase in the number of cases of arsenical poisoning. But how can the Minister prevent people getting hold of arsenite of soda and other poisons when they are used all over the country for dipping cattle and spraying trees? All the laws in the world will not stop this. Possibly more care might be exercised in the safe keeping of these poisons, and that is provided for in the Bill The Minister did not read the whole of Dr. Mitchell’s evidence. He did not read that Dr. Mitchell stated that farmers as the result of malicious poisoning have begun to recognize the need for more stringent precautions in the keeping of these poisons. From the evidence, however, I can see no indication that he makes any complaint with regard to the manner in which general dealers keep poisons. The Minister might very well adopt a more reasonable attitude and be more ready to meet reasonable objections. There is a danger of autocratic action, and there should be some appeal if not to the courts at any rate to the Minister.

I am much surprised that the two hon. members are trying to force their view on to the whole House. This clause has already been debated three times, and yet the discussion is needlessly continued. If I have poison in the house to spray trees with, or to eradicate locusts, then I put a white man there to see that none of the poison is taken away. I have a place where I lock it up, and I cannot see why hon. members object to shopkeepers having a separate place in their shop for the poison they sell to the farmers. I am surprised that the locust poison has not caused many more deaths among people and animals. I hope that before hon. members who object will go no further. I even think that the Minister should apply the closure, because not one of the hon. members’ amendments is acceptable.

I am surprised at the hon. member who has just spoken blaming us for delaying the Bill. The hon. member is now so keen on the Bill, but it was under consideration ten years ago, and the S.A.P. Government were always afraid of putting it through on account of becoming unpopular.

The hon. member must confine himself to the matter under discussion.

I am sorry that I cannot answer the hon. member, but I suppose the present Government must bear the unpopularity which the last Government refused to do. The provisions of the clause will cause great inconvenience to the farmers on the countryside.

That has been said many times.

The danger of poisoning is mentioned, but the danger will not be decreased, because all the articles will still be obtainable from chemists. I am not in favour of the sale of poison being done in a careless manner, but we must not exaggerate the matter and provide too many restrictions. The farmers will be placed in an awkward position if the matter is made too complicated.

As a result of the clause the shopkeepers who do not make a large profit on poison will say that they will no longer stock the article, and that will mean that the farmers on the countryside will, in many cases, have to go further to make their purchases. I am surprised at the remarks made by the hon. member for Witwatersberg (Lt.-Col. N. J. Pretorius.) I am glad he provides a cupboard for poisons on his farm, but the clause does not demand that from farmers, but from shopkeepers who will have to pay for it in the first instance out of their own pockets, but will subsequently pass it on to the farmers. The shopkeepers will now have to incur extra expense.

What expense?

The shopkeeper must make a cupboard and put in a separate counter, but the poisons for agricultural purposes are in tins, bottles or closed cans, so that the danger of poisoning is not so great as made out.

The opponents of the Bill have now acquired a certain amount of popularity on the countryside, or possibly, notoriety, but they are now going too far. It looks to me as if they want to be stubborn. They are now going against the farmers’ interests, because the clause provides that poisons should be handled carefully. The hon. member for Namaqualand (Mr. Mostert) is now even opposed to the poison being kept in a cupboard, or a canister. I wonder if the hon. member knows how many accidents have already happened in the country as a result of negligence with poison. Children get to the tins which possibly have a leak, and they are poisoned. The life of a human being is worth much more than the trouble which will be required in consequence of the clause. As to the necessity for a separate counter which is complained against, I might possibly understand it, but if hon. members continue as they are now doing, then it will have the result that we shall lose the respect that we still have for them.

I also am surprised at the long opposition of the hon. members. I admire a fighter when he fights a just cause; and I will support him, but the fight in this matter has now continued a little long. I want to ask the hon. members whether they put the dipping powder alongside of the food in their houses.

All we want is to prohibit the shopkeepers doing so in their shops. If hon. members want to protect their families it is the duty of Parliament to protect the public against the same thing in the shops. Cooper’s Dip should be prohibited from being stocked there, alongside of coffee, sugar and other foodstuffs. Hon. members use strange arguments which are not at all in point. They complain over the expense to the shopkeeper in connection with the restrictions which are imposed. Why are they afraid of the great expense of a cupboard to put the poison in? It will surely not cost so much. We must keep proper supervision so that the poison and the foodstuffs are not mixed up together.

We are not opposed to Clause 51 (5). That says that the sale of poison must take place under proper supervision. In Namaqualand alone there are more than 800,000 sheep which are dipped every year, and I want to ask the hon. member how large the cupboard must be to contain all the dip. It is not a small cupboard. In the Western Province thousands of trees are sprayed. How large must the cupboard not be to put all the poison in? But all the poison is in cans or pots and is packed on the shelf separate from other things. Now every shopkeeper has to make a cupboard which will cost him about £70 or £80. If he stocks a large quantity he will have to build a separate room.

He can put several cupboards on top of each other.

But he must then keep them in a separate room.

I should like to say that I am surprised at my hon. friends here. I like to agree with my companions, but I cannot any longer stand by them. They argue just like an old man and woman. The two have been quarrelling all day, and subsequently the wife could not carry on any more and all she said was “ nevertheless.” The hon. members are just like that old woman. The Minister and other members have explained the position and the licence of £1 has been reduced to 10s. and now the hon. members bring up the story of the cupboard. I can see from their faces that they are not serious. They only want to show their prowess. They do not speak for the farmers either, but for the shops. The cupboard story is too silly. Let every shopkeeper just take a cupboard and put a 6d. padlock on it, and the matter is finished. I do not say that the hon. members are obstructing, but they are themselves laughing up their sleeve. They want to create the impression outside that they are the great champions of the farmers, but the farmers do not agree with them at all. The farmers are in favour of proper supervision over the sale of poison.

I just want to speak once more about the clause. We have done our best and my conscience is clear. We are not here to make a name, but hon. members from the countryside will yet regret their attitude. They are following the hon. member for Langlaagte (Mr. Christie), and the whole object is to protect the chemists to the detriment of the farmers. The general dealers must be prohibited from selling poison, but the countryside will quickly see the effect of Clause 51. We saw the same thing with the medicine tax. That also pressed heavily on the farmers and we shall have the same thing here. We have studied the Bill from beginning to end and know what we are talking about.

The hon. member for Riversdale (Mr. Badenhorst) lives in a village where he has many shops, and if one shop refuses to stock the article he can get it at another. In my constituency people sometimes live 100 to 200 miles from the nearest station, and they do not even have a telegraph office. They are only too pleased if the small shops in their neighbourhood stock poisons. Our chief objection was not against the £1 for a licence, but against the great expense which the restrictions would cause to the shopkeeper. We know from experience that the extra expense will be recovered from the farmers and possibly more than the actual cost. We are not speaking in order to make our names. Our constituents are used to our doing our duty. The hon. friends will find out what their constituents think about their attitude. There is sufficient supervision. The magistrate supervises the sale of poison and the police keep a watchful eye on it, but the extra expense which will be caused by this Bill will fall on the consumer.

Amendments proposed by Mr. Roux put and agreed to.

Amendments proposed by Maj. G. B. van Zyl and Mr. Alexander (in sub-section (3) and in lines 37 and 38) put and negatived.

Before you leave sub-section (5), may I move an amendment?

If it is not upon a part of the clause previous to that upon which amendments have already been dealt with.

I want to omit the words in line 50—

I am sorry, the hon. member cannot do that. We have already passed sub-section (5).

Amendment proposed by Mr. Mostert put and agreed to.

Amendments proposed by Mr. Oost and Mr. A. I. E. de Villiers put and negatived.

Amendment put, proposed by Mr. Alexander in sub-section (6), upon which the Committee divided:

Ayes—12.

Boshoff, L. J.

Gilson, L. D.

Harris, D.

Hay, G. A.

Heyns, J. D.

Mostert, J. P.

Pretorius, J. S. F.

Rockey, W.

Snow, W. J.

Steytler, L. J.

Tellers: Alexander, M.; De Villiers, A.I.E.

Noes—53

Allen, J.

Badenhorst, A. L.

Ballantine, R.

Barlow, A. G.

Bates, F. T.

Blackwell, L.

Brink, G. F.

Brits, G. P.

Buirski, E.

Christie, J.

Close, R. W.

Collins, W. R.

Conradie, D. G.

Conradie, J. H.

Coulter, C. W. A.

De Villiers, W. B.

De Wet. S. D.

Fick, M. L.

Giovanetti, C. W.

Havenga, N. C.

Hertzog, J. B. M.

Jagger, J. W.

Keyter, J. G.

Krige, C. J.

Lennox, F. J.

Louw, J. P.

Madeley, W. B.

Malan, C. W.

Malan, D. F.

Malan, M. L.

McMenamin, J. J.

Moffat, L.

Moll. H. H.

Mullineux, J.

Nel, O. R.

Nieuwenhuize, J.

O’Brien, W. J.

Pienaar, J. J.

Reitz, D.

Reyburn, G.

Roux, J. W. J. W.

Smartt, T. W.

Stals, A. J.

Strachan, T. G.

Terreblanche, P. J.

Van Broekhuizen, H. D.

Van der Merwe, N. J.

Van Heerden, I. P.

Van Rensburg, J. J.

Vermooten, O. S.

Wessels, J. B.

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

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 55,

I move—

The reason for the amendment is that there can be no chemist shop or other business on the countryside where strychnine is sold. Let us include a provision that a magistrate shall also have the right to sell it.

I understand that the position to-day is that many people can only get strychnine from magistrates, and it is now requested that a magistrate, after the passing of the Bill, shall have the right at places where there is no chemist’s or other shop that sells it to supply strychnine.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 56,

I move—

If my amendment is passed then the constituent parts of all sorts of Dutch medicines will have to be mentioned on the bottle, and if a doctor makes up a prescription then the constituent parts of the medicine will have to be written on each bottle, and not in the language which only he and the chemist can understand, but in one also that I can understand. Then the public will know how much water there is in the medicine, and how much poison. The Minister comes and says that he is so sorry for the public that he must protect it against quacks, but I want to test the Minister now to see if he really is so sorry for the public, and really wants to protect them against quacks, because I believe that the doctors are the greatest quacks in the country—not because they are incompetent and do not know their business, but because 90 per cent. of the doctors make it their object to make as much money as possible. I have an amendment later on the Order Paper providing for the fixing of doctors’ fees, and requiring specified accounts, but everything depends on this amendment. The public should know what is put into the medicine bottle, because when the doctor makes up a specified account, he will otherwise merely be able to say: To a bottle of medicine . . . £1. All the public knows to-day is that the doctor makes a large profit on the bottle of medicine. But the patient must once and for all know what he is taking. Many kinds of medicines are prescribed for various complaints, but it often happens that the medicines cause another complaint or make one worse. Nowhere does the Bill protect the public, but only the doctors and chemists, but now I want the public that has to take the medicine to receive a little protection. I should like to prevent the adulteration of medicines, and I want to know how much poison I am drinking when the doctor prescribes medicine for me.

Business suspended at 6 p.m. and resumed at 8.7 p.m.

When the House adjourned I was saying that doctors often use a certain kind of medicine for a complaint, but that the medicine created a new complaint. We know that a person treated by a doctor, not by a quack, has already got blackwater fever. We also know that the poisons which the doctors put into their medicines cannot be thrown off by the kidneys if the man’s constitution is bad. Is it then noticeable that we on the countryside are less weak people than in the towns where all the clever doctors and all kinds of medicines are to be found? There is more money, and there are more facilities in the towns, but the people are very much more sickly there. In Europe, e.g., there are nations which are exterminated by consumption, although they have some of the cleverest doctors. I should like the Minister to accept my amendment so that the contents of a bottle of medicine can be written on the outside. It is true that the chemists will possibly say that they will then have to close their shops, and I am prepared to believe it, because many of the medicines are very cheap, because for the most part they consist of water. To-day, however, they are sold for a big price. If we know what the constituent parts are, then we can make an attempt to get a reduction. If it is not stated on the bottle what is inside, then it is no use getting a specified account from a doctor, because then he will merely say: 6 bottles of medicine . . . £6.

I think that if the hon. member for Namaqualand (Mr. Mostert) well understood the existing position, or if he had read the Bill which I have already laid on the Table, then he would realize that his amendment is unnecessary, and I, therefore, hope that he will withdraw it. With regard to the present position, I can only say that the prescription for medicine which is given by doctors to patients is hot the property of the doctor, but of the patient, and he can at any time demand it from the doctor or the chemist, and find out what the contents are. I understand that the great point the hon. member wants to make is that medicines are often sold under a false label. It is represented as a certain kind of medicine, but it subsequently appears that it is composed of other things. I admit that such cases occur, but the other Bill which I laid on the Table some time ago, viz., the Bill in the matter of adulteration of foodstuffs says that nothing may be sold under a wrong label, and that if it is shown that it is something else than as represented, then the seller will be punishable. The hon. member will meet me if we will assist in putting this Bill on the statute book.

The Minister said that the prescription is the property of the patient and not of the doctor, but on the countryside the doctor makes up his own prescriptions and does not give them to his patients. When the doctor gives a prescription in the towns, then 99 out of 100 people do not understand it, and it, therefore, does not assist the patient if he owns the prescription.

He can ask somebody.

If he asks another doctor, for instance, then the doctor will say that it is not the right kind of medicine, and he will then prescribe other medicine: The patient will not know the difference between the two kinds, although they possibly taste different. The patient will, however, not know the constituent parts.

Amendments proposed by Mr. Mostert put and negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

On Clause 60,

I move—

May I say that power is taken by the Minister in exempting specified preparations. One concerned in this, points out in regard to fly poison papers that there is a special provision in the Act of 1891, and they are doubtful what their position will be under (f). They want the position to be put clearly in the Bill as it is in the old Medical and Pharmacy Act of 1891. My amendment, in other words, is to try and put the same words in this Act as are in the Act of 1891.

I wish to point out that 60 (F) is of such a general nature that it would certainly cover the case mentioned by the hon. member, and if there is a good reason for including under this provision fly papers, what reason is there for excluding a number of other preparations in which the ingredient of poison is very small? There is no reason whatever. It can do no harm, but I think it is altogether unnecessary. The clause is quite general.

It might be dangerous to specify fly papers.

It might be dangerous, yes.

Amendment put and negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

On Clause 62,

I wish to move an amendment here, or rather it amounts to a re-draft of this clause—

It has always been the intention, and under the existing laws it is actually so, that a chemist and druggist who manages a pharmacy for a body corporate could import habit-forming drugs. It is the intention in future that he should do so, but there is some doubt as to whether his case is met by the clause as it stands here, and after consultation with the law adviser we think it is best to make that point sure, and to insert these words which I have moved. I may say, incidentally, that the same point was brought up by the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) in an amendment which he has put down on the order paper. If my amendment is accepted it also meets his case.

The Minister is now introducing into the Bill something entirely foreign. I may not manufacture medicine, but a chemist can start a business and subsequently transfer it to other persons who are not chemists at all, and they will then be able to manufacture the medicine.

You are now discussing another clause.

I should like the clause to stand over, because proper notice has not been given of it.

The amendment appears on the Order Paper.

Amendments put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 65,

On the motion of the Minister of Public Health, an amendment was made in the Dutch version which did not occur in the English.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 66,

I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 69,

On the motion of the Minister of Public Health, an amendment was made in the Dutch version which did not occur in the English.

The article provides—

Do the two words “ smoke ” or “ use ” mean the total prohibition of dagga smoking?

Yes.

I should like to know how the Minister is going to apply it. I understand it is prohibited to sell dagga or to keep a place where dagga can be smoked, as is the case with opium houses. It will, however, be difficult to prevent natives in their locations, or native kraals smoking dagga and having pipes in their possession. I do not know if it will be possible to prevent it.

It can surely be prohibited.

We must, however, not insert anything in the Act which cannot be carried out in practice.

I think it is also prohibited to-day.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 71,

I move—

I hope the Minister will see the necessity for this amendment. In the Cape Peninsula there are a large number of cases of dagga smoking and selling in which coloured people are concerned, and coloured detectives are employed to investigate. In native areas native policement are employed, so there seems no reason whatever to confine it to European policemen. This amendment is really in favour of a more strict supervision over dagga selling, and is a much more practicable way of dealing with the matter. In native areas you may not be able to find a European member of the police force, and you may defeat the whole object of your Bill.

I think that in theory and in practice a good deal may be said for the view of the hon. member, and if, by his amendment we can make sure, as he expressed it, that coloured people and natives can be looked after by coloured and native policemen, and white people by white policemen, there would be no harm in that, but powers are given to policemen to enter premises, and to make a search without a warrant, or without any instruction, and, I think, under the circumstances, it would sometimes result in something quite different from what the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander) wants, and would give power to a non-European policeman to enter the premises of a European, and to search the person of a European. Equality may be quite right in theory, but we must take into account, in this country, all the circumstances and the feeling which exists. Under the circumstances, I think it would be very unwise if the word “ European ” was deleted.

Amendment put and negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

New Clause 73,

I move—

precede Clause 73:

1. 73.
   1. (1) No person registered under this Act shall enter into any agreement or associate himself in any way with any other person in order to make or fix excessive or unreasonable charges for services rendered or to be rendered or for articles supplied or to be supplied by him by virtue of his being so registered.
   2. (2) Any person contravening the provisions of this section shall be guilty of an offence and may also be dealt with by the council or board as provided in Chapter IV.

The object of the new clause is to prevent combines being formed to charge excessive prices, and the public will therefore be protected by the new clause.

I move—

1. (2) No person entitled under this Act to sell any articles shall be entitled to make more than 25 per cent. profit on such articles.

The proposed new clause moved by the hon. member for Heilbron and the amendment moved by the hon. member for Namaqualand seek to limit the charges and profits of persons registered under the Bill. In my opinion, the proposal constitutes a new and important principle which was not contemplated by the House when the Bill was read a second time, and I am therefore unable to put the clause or the amendment to the committee without an instruction from the House.

I move—

Agreed to.

stated that he had been directed to report progress in order to obtain Mr. Speaker’s ruling on his decision.

Do hon. members wish to argue the matter?

If we, e.g., draw a ring fence around bakers or bootmakers, then their prices must be fixed, otherwise it will be unfair to the public. The Chairman has now ruled that I may not put my amendment, but I am obliged to ask you whether I shall be in order in asking that progress be reported and leave asked to sit again, so that I may get the consent of the House to the introduction of the amendment.

I disclaim any sympathy whatever with the amendment on its merits, but very dangerous effects would flow if Mr. Speaker upheld the Chairman’s ruling. The first amendment proposes to lay it down that no person registered under the Act shall make excessive or unreasonable charges for services rendered or articles supplied. If Mr. Speaker upholds the Chairman’s ruling, that decision may have a very dangerous limiting effect. The Liquor Bill, as amended by the select committee, contains half-a-dozen or more amendments in restraint of trade and comparable with this very amendment. The title of the Bill is to consolidate and amend the laws relating to medical practitioners, dentists and chemists, and by this Act we are bringing into force laws which control the whole of the operations of the medical profession. If it seems right to the House to restrict the amounts doctors or chemists may charge, that should be germane to a measure of this sort.

I think there is something to be said in favour of the contention of the hon. member for Namaqualand (Mr. Mostert), although I don’t often have the pleasure of agreeing with him. The Bill proposes to lay down most stringent conditions by which the professions of chemists and medical practitioners are protected from outside competition. That is done because it is supposed to be, and I think it is, in the public interest that it should be so, but it is not foreign to that particular principle that charges which the members of these professions are allowed to levy should also be fixed by a law containing these stringent conditions of monopoly under which members of these professions are allowed to practise. It is germane to the Bill that with the privilege conferred on these professions there should also be an obligation as to charges. That principle is not unknown in regard to other professions, and I submit that in a Bill like this it would not be ungermane that there should also be laid down the fees they should be allowed to charge.

I take it that this particular point falls within the scope of the Bill, but if the committee wishes to discuss it it should report progress and refer the matter to the House. I don’t see how the matter can be brought up now.

There is a little point of which hon. members, and also the chairman of committees, have not thought, viz., that under the existing laws which are consolidated by this Bill, sufficient provision, at any rate in one case, has been made for the limitation of fees chargeable by doctors. The Free State law of 1908 contains such a provision in Section 4, viz., that except in special circumstances no doctor shall have the right to demand greater remuneration than is payable by custom for such services. That is a law which deals with medical fees, and perhaps it will assist you, Mr. Speaker, in giving a decision in this case.

I want to ask the Minister whether there is any clause in this Bill dealing with fees or anything of that kind.

No.

I think, in view of what the Minister has mentioned about the Free State law, this point is of some importance, and I should like to consider the matter further. I should therefore be glad if the clause is allowed to stand over a little. The clause will therefore stand over.

stated Mr. Speaker’s ruling.

Further consideration of proposed new clause to precede Clause 73 to stand over.

On Clause 73,

I move—

I should like to propose an amendment to insert after the words “ every doctor is entitled ” the words “ except in a village or town where a chemist carries on business as such ”. The reason for my amendment is that we feel that the tendency to-day is more and more that the doctors themselves make up the medicine they prescribe. The chemist is there, and the chemists in the country districts are quite prepared and competent to make up the medicines, but the doctors do so themselves. Not that the public gain any benefit, because the doctor usually asks just as much or more than a chemist, and I do not think it is fair towards the public to permit it, and it is, moreover, not fair to the chemist. The doctor, therefore, often does not only his own work, but also that of chemists. I also want to ask the Minister whether a doctor who makes up his own medicine keeps books, and enters up everything. It is not mentioned in the clause. He ought to be subject to the same provisions as the chemist. In all cases the constituent parts of the medicines should be clearly stated, so that we can prove if poison is given. It is necessary, where doctors make up their own medicines, for them to be subject to certain restrictions.

That amendment is impossible. Doctors are often called in to urgent cases, and in the villages the chemist shop is often closed. The doctor cannot in that case give any medicine to the patient. In the large towns the chemists are open at night, and medicines can always be obtained, but that is no so in the small villages. We therefore expose ourselves to the danger that a doctor cannot treat a patient because no medicines are procurable.

I think this is worth the Minister’s consideration. I don’t approach the question from the chemists’ point of view at all, but it does seem wrong that the man who prescribes the medicine should also make up the medicine and subsequently sign the death certificate. I think that is wrong. By having two persons engaged between the prescribing and dispensing and the signing of the death certificate I think would be much better. I think from every aspect it would be much better if this amendment was adopted and I ask the Minister to accept it. As far as the large towns are concerned, a doctor does not dispense his own prescriptions, but this is not the case in the smaller towns. Doctors sometimes complain of chemists trespassing on their preserves by diagnosing and I have no doubt that in these small towns where the doctors do their own dispensing, the chemist feels he has a legitimate grievance and is tempted to go over the border line. Therefore I think this amendment would be in the interest of both parties concerned.

It is really amusing to see how one section of the professional men now want to be protected, but object to the other section also being protected. Now the chemists are afraid that the doctors will get too many rights. The amendment is impossible. Chemists often lock their doors to go to the bioscope or elsewhere. When a doctor gets to a patient he cannot give him any medicine. A doctor is also called up in the middle of the night sometimes, and the patient would then just have to wait for his medicine. I appeal to the Minister not to accept the amendment.

I know the Minister will not accept this amendment. What is going to happen in a town with one chemist with an irresistible thirst? You will have an immovable law on one side and an irresistible thirst on the other. What will happen if the chemist is ill, or anything is wrong with him? It will mean the doctor is going to sit with his hands tied.

I hope the Minister will not accept the amendment. How can a doctor do his work properly if he cannot always give his patient medicine. We shall cause great trouble to the people in the country villages with this amendment.

I hope the Minister will not accept the amendment, and I want to put up another reason. In the small towns where I once practised myself, the customs of the people are different from large towns like Johannesburg, Bloemfontein and Kroonstad. People consult the doctor and get the medicine where they like. They don’t understand it unless they get the whole thing in one account. If the doctor charges half-a-guinea for a consultation he does not understand what it is for, but if he charges 12s. 6d. for the consultation and the medicine then he does know what it is for. I practised in Winburg years ago, where there were three doctors and one chemist, and we worked together all right. We know the chemist does not limit himself to the selling of chemists’ products. I know one who had a soda water factory.

I hope the Minister will not accept the amendment, but I suggest he might accept this amendment. I move—

I hope the Minister will not accept this additional amendment. Surely if you give a doctor the privilege of also practising as a chemist he must also take out a chemist’s licence.

He does not practice as a chemist.

Of course he does, if he dispenses and charges separately. I am quite agreeable that the doctor should practise as he does now in the country districts, but to ask that the doctor should practise in competition with the chemist and not pay the licence which is charged to the chemist is unfair and I, therefore, hope the Minister will not accept the amendment of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (South) (Mr. O’Brien).

I am afraid I cannot accept the amendment of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (South) (Mr. O’Brien), because I really think it is unnecessary. The hon. member is afraid, it seems, that if this clause is passed as it stands then a licence fee will be imposed on medical practitioners. I wish to point out that that is clearly not the case under this clause, which reads—

So no licence fee is imposed by this clause. It simply leaves the door open for legislation in future and if a licence fee is imposed under the ordinary licensing laws only then, of course, would this clause come into operation. There is plenty of opportunity when any alteration is proposed in this House to the licensing laws to oppose that, but I think it is only right that the door for any future legislation should be left open as it has been in this clause.

†*I want to express my great satisfaction at the fact that the hon. member for Middleburg (Mr. Heyns) and I are in entire agreement about this amendment. I particularly appreciate it, and am thankful that the hon. member for Middleburg has so strongly appealed to me not to accept it, and that I am able to comply with his request. Further, I am glad that something else appeared from his speech, viz., that he finally appreciates the services of the doctors, and that he does not want to put any obstacles in their way of treating people. I fear that the people in the outside parts of Pietersburg will not appreciate this amendment of the hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. J. F. Tom Naudé). Supposing a doctor comes to a serious case and has to prescribe, but the only chemist shop in the village is closed; he is powerless, and cannot assist the patient. I want to mention another case. Doctors in Pietersburg, e.g., have often to visit patients at long distances, and when they are called in they do not know what the illness is. They have first to diagnose the case to find out what medicine is required. It is often necessary for them to take their medicine chest with them, so as to have the most-used medicines at hand. The chemist shop is not so dependent for its existence on the doctor. That is not the chief business of a chemist shop, but it sells many other things, and can exist without making up prescriptions.

I want to thank the Minister for not accepting the amendment. But now another thing. The wolf is not yet dead, yet the doctors and chemists want to divide the skin. If it is so before the Bill is passed, how will it be when it becomes law, and the ring is drawn round the doctors and chemists? They are not so sorry for the public. The hon. member now wants to prevent the doctors from dispensing medicines. Originally the doctors all dispensed their own medicines, but they had to give too much credit, and so hit on the plan to make the people go for their medicines to the chemists, where they had to pay cash. In this way many chemist shops came into existence. It is amusing to see the quarrel between the professional men, and I fear the day will still dawn when we shall pray to be rid of the professional men.

I just want to point out to the Minister that it is exactly because I know conditions in Pietersburg, I have moved the amendment. The doctors dispense their own medicines, and it is necessary that in preparing accounts the doctors should state precisely what charge they make for medicines. A doctor sends in an account for £2 or £3, and we do not know at all how much of it is for medicine. And may I just point out that the Minister suggested that a doctor had to take his medicine chest with him in order to be able to give medicine when he got to the patient. What is the possible result? If he has not the exact medicine, he just gives something else. That is dangerous. The doctor should carefully diagnose the disease, and then return to the chemist shop to get the proper medicine.

After the explanation of the Minister, with the consent of the committee I will withdraw my amendment.

With leave of committee, amendment proposed by Mr. O’Brien withdrawn.

It is now said that the doctor must take his medicine chest with him. As for medicines, it is only a question of colour in most cases. It is blue, yellow or green, but there is not much difference, and it is foolish to want to propose that one should have to go 100 miles to a chemist shop to fetch the same yellow stuff, and then have three times as much expense.

Amendment proposed by Mr. J. F. Tom Naudé put and negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

New Clause 74,

I move—

1. 74. If requested in writing by the patient or his representative any person registered under this Act shall be obliged to render a specified account.

I have no objection to the amendment. I think it is only fair, if a patient asks a doctor for a specified account in order that he shall know how much he is paying for treatment, medicine and travelling expenses.

New clause put and agreed to.

New Clause 75,

I move—

1. 75. No person registered under this Act shall be entitled to represent himself or to practise as a specialist without the written consent of the council, who alone after a thorough inquiry into his academical qualifications and experience may give such consent.

I am sorry that I cannot accept this amendment, because I think it is impracticable. There is no means of saying whether someone is a specialist or not. There is no test laid down for a specialist. If a doctor has had a general training, but has a special bent and experience in a certain direction, is he a specialist or not? It is very difficult to determine this. Clause 33, to a certain extent, makes provision for what the hon. member wants. The clause provides that the doctor can only be registered in respect of a degree or a diploma that he holds.

I am sorry that the Minister will not accept the amendment, because I have heard in Cape Town of this man or the other being a specialist in eye or other diseases, but now it is stated that some of them are not specialists, but quacks in their special department, because they have no special diplomas for them. Now the Minister himself admits that some of the specialists are quacks. I am glad that he now wants quacks to be considered, for I think he is now converted, and ought, therefore, to withdraw the Bill.

I am sorry, but I cannot see the Minister’s difficulty. Doctors go to Europe to specialize in one department or another, and why, then, cannot they be registered by the medical council as specialists? I want it provided so that a doctor cannot come to South Africa and practise as a specialist in a certain department if he has not qualified himself in it. What the Minister quoted is not quite satisfactory, and I therefore hope that it is desirable to include the provision. In Pretoria a young man went to America, and not to a recognized university, and the question is whether he could properly specialize there, or merely went on a pleasure trip One should not be able to say, when one has been two years in America, that you are a specialist.

Amendment put and negatived.

On Clause 74,

I move—

I know this is quite a small matter, but especially after the recent Imperial Conference, I think the word “imperial” has acquired a new meaning, in the sense that the sea power of all the dominions and of Great Britain will be included. That is surely not the intention of the Minister. I find the official name of the British fleet is the “ Royal Navy,” and that the name of the English army is usually “ British Army.” The amendment will prevent there being the least misunderstanding.

Prima facie there is much to be said for the amendment, but I do not think that the matter is thereby improved. The object of the clause is to make the Bill apply to our own South African forces, but not to the naval or air or other forces of any other oversea country, of Great Britain, Canada, Australia or New Zealand. What was in the mind of the drafters of the Bill was merely the naval station at Simonstown, where there are always sailors stationed who will be treated by their own medical officers. If we insert the word British ” then it will certainly include the Navy and other powers of the United Kingdom and subordinate territories, but it would not exclude the Canadian and Australian forces, and we can, therefore, imagine a case of cooperation between the British fleet in the narrower meaning of the word and Canadian and Australian forces, and they may all come to False Bay and Simonstown, and the Bill would then be applied to the British forces, but not to the Canadian and Australian forces. It was agreed at the Imperial Conference that the word “ imperial ” can be used in the freer meaning of including the United Kingdom and all the dominions, and the expression, therefore, is technically quite in order.

I now understand the Minister better, because I am not an expert in the matter of terminology. I am quite prepared to accept that the word is suitable, and I withdraw my amendment.

With leave of Committee, amendment withdrawn.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

On Clause 75,

I move—

This is a rather important matter affecting certain wholesale chemists who are at present in existence and whose constitution will not fit in with this particular law. There is one very big firm in town which consisted originally of two chemists, and the two persons who originally constituted the business are dead. It is now one of the largest companies. Provision is made in the Bill, save as provided in the next section, that you cannot carry on as chemists unless the individuals constituting the firm are registered. As this Bill is drafted they would have to appoint a chemist and druggist as managing director. A man may be a very good chemist and druggist, and not be a business man at all. It certainly would be very unfair to the shareholders if suddenly they would have to get rid of a director who may have been there for years, and appoint a chemist and druggist in his stead who would be useless in that position. A memorandum has been presented to me on behalf of some of these wholesale firms suggesting the difficulties which would ensue unless my amendment is carried. Of course, they must have chemists to do the work of chemists.

When I saw the hon. member’s amendment, I was very doubtful whether he had read Clause 76. I find that he has in view only chemists and druggists. Clause 76 deals with corporate bodies, and in sub-section (c) it is stated that this condition shall not apply to a body corporate lawfully carrying on the business of a chemist or druggist at the commencement of this Act. This gives everything that the hon. member has in mind.

Sub-section (c) applies only to the registered name. Sub-sections (a) and (b) will still apply. I will withdraw my amendment and move it on the next clause.

With leave of Committee, amendment withdrawn.

I go rather further than the hon. member. We have to remember that we are not necessarily dealing only with small chemist’s shops in the charge of one man, but we are dealing with manufacturing concerns, and it is perfectly clear that if we have manufacturers establishing factories here on a large scale, they will necessarily have commercial men as well as chemists to conduct the business. In any part of the world large manufacturing enterprises are run on the financial side by financial men and on the chemical side by scientists. It is not a question only of firms which are already in business here, for surely we are not always going to import a big proportion of our chemists’ requisites, and if we get people to invest a large amount of capital in the establishment of factories of this nature, they will organize the business on the same lines as they do in England, Germany or America.

It would not fall under this Act.

Anyone selling chemical products comes under this measure. Clause 76 deals practically only with limited liability companies, but you may have private firms doing this business. Either the clause should be deleted or we should add something to the effect that such persons should appoint one of their number as managing chemist to such business. I agree entirely that the Department of Health should be able to fix the responsibility on a particular individual in case of infringement of the law, but it is immaterial whether that individual is working in conjunction with a financial or business man. The Minister will find if he makes inquiries that all big associations of chemists have, combined with their scientific knowledge, financial and commercial men who are working in unison with them. I think we are going very far if we prevent the development of the industry by such a clause as we have here. I don’t know whether the Minister will accept it, but I will move as an amendment—

such persons appoint one of their number as official chemist and druggist to such business”.

This section does not apply to chemists at all. It is in the next clause.

Clause 75 applies to every profession in the Bill, including chemists. It is only fair to the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford) to point out that chemists are included in this clause.

Here we have the same thing again. It need not be necessary for the manager himself to be a chemist, but when anyone drops on such a business, it is on the manager. When it is said, therefore, that he need not be a chemist, then I might as well make up medicines and sell coloured water. We now want to make the ring fence wider so that the shopkeepers can become dispensers without having passed the dispenser’s examination. The farmers constantly are the prey of these people. I hope the ring fence will not be drawn so wide.

I hope the Minister will give a good deal of attention to this clause. I will put a case to him. Supposing a partnership of the same character, say, of the firm of Messrs. Burroughs and Welcome manufactured chemical products, and not only that but vaccines and serums, and suppose they wanted to establish a branch in this country. Surely the Minister would realize they should have an opportunity of appointing as their managing director the best business man they could lay their hands upon. As long as you have in the chemists and pharmaceutical section a qualified chemist you must not interfere with the appointment of a business man as managing director.

That is provided for in the next section.

I don’t know where it comes in. It does not seem to be provided for under Section 76 where the managing director must be a chemist.

And quite right, too.

I don’t think that it is in the best interests of the running of such a business.

But it need not necessarily be the managing director.

I understand Clause 75 is subject to the provision of Clause 76 and if so then a partnership or corporate body must have as managing director a qualified chemist.

The meaning of Clause 75 is, that outside companies and bodies corporate, such as limited companies who are dealt with in the next section, no partnership, society or association of persons, shall use any description or title for which they are not registered under the provisions of this Act. You cannot have a partnership styling itself as chemists and druggist. If a big manufacturing firm came here and made chemicals and vaccines they would not be chemists or druggists. It is really to prevent a partnership of chemists and druggists unless they are registered as chemists and druggists or medical practitioners unless they are registered as medical practitioners.

I think I ought to point out in regard to what has just been said that there is no such fine dividing line as a firm being engaged purely in the manufacturing of medicines, and another simply of selling them. All these wholesale firms on whose behalf I have made representations, are manufacturing chemists too. They manufacture millions of pills in their factories. They certainly would be affected, because it is not a case of a firm coming out and manufacturing, and confining themselves purely to the manufacture of these medicines, because all these wholesale chemists and druggists here, besides being wholesale chemists, are also manufacturers.

Amendment put and negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

On Clause 76,

On the motion of the Minister of Public Health, an amendment was made in the Dutch version which did not occur in the English.

I move—

I would point out to the Minister that as this Bill was originally drafted and as it appeared on the last occasion before this House, it did not include those two officials. The original text was that the body corporate shall appoint a chemist and druggist to be its managing director, and there was no reference to general manager or principal executive officer. The chemist and druggist who shall be the managing director under the Bill is now personally responsible for any infringement of its provisions. I submit that that being so, it is only-right that he should be on the board of directors, since the board of directors control the policy of the company. I think it is also fair to submit that the addition of those two alternative officers cannot possibly affect the big wholesale houses referred to in the previous clause, because I believe that all the wholesale chemists and druggists have on their board one chemist and druggist, and in many cases the board is composed entirely of chemists and druggists. The only exception that I know is one big firm, which is really an English firm with a depot here in Cape Town. That firm has not got a chemist and druggist on its board, and yet the manager in charge is placed in the position that as a result of any direction that the board of the company may give, by which the principles of this Act are infringed, he will be responsible in the eyes of the law, and he will have to answer any charge which may be laid against his firm and although this manager has expressed himself in favour of the alternative offices, it is clear that he speaks only from his company’s outlook. It seems to me that this change can only have been made in this clause with the object of meeting this one specific case of an overseas firm which has a depot here in Cape Town. I have a telegram from the Transvaal Pharmacy Board, and they seem to be very much alarmed about the position. The clause as it stands will make for exploitation in many directions. It opens the door to evasions of the intention of the Bill; it further admits of a chemist and druggist appearing in a triple position, serving three different companies, but differently designated by each company. There seems to be no reasonable necessity for this and there is every danger in persisting with it.

I think the hon. member is under an entire misapprehension. He will find that under our criminal procedure any secretary, manager or director can be charged with an offence. You still have your general procedure applying. The proposal of the hon. member does not carry us any further at all. This memorandum was put before me last year by a very eminent lawyer and he mentions three of the largest wholesale firms here as being affected by this. You are now going to dismiss your business man from managing a concern.

No.

Hon. members have not read the Bill—

You are now going to say that the managing director shall not be a business man unless he is also a chemist. There are three of the largest firms seriously affected and by this clause. It is a complete change of policy in connection with these big firms and you are going to disorganize their business. In the next Clause 1 (b) there is a very serious thing there—

They say it is an impracticable thing. You must make it clear. We have got to see the law as it is passed, not as hon. members think it should be interpreted. I am told that it is the rule in these big factories to employ, say, a pill-maker. Are you going to make the name of that pill-maker appear on the factory?

He works under the supervision of a chemist and druggist.

But it is not his business. These provisions are all very well with regard to ordinary small retail shops, but they do not fit in with a wholesale business at all. The business is responsible for the contract, and not the pill-maker. If a name is to appear at all it should be the name of the firm, and not that of a subordinate official. The Minister can get all the information with regard to these firms under the Companies Act and the Factory Act. I think the Minister will be very sorry afterwards when he finds the far-reaching effects of the clause, which was only intended to deal with small shops. I move, as an amendment—

I quite agree with the amendment put forward by the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander), and I think it is necessary, but I am afraid he is confusing the position. He seems to think that it is only the large wholesale houses who are bodies corporate. There are many small retail firms trading as corporate bodies, practically the whole of the shares being owned by unqualified chemists, and the intention is that there shall be no getting behind the law and having one name covering two or three different shops. A general manager may be picked up at the street corner in the shape of a down-and-out chemist, who would be used merely as a cover. To insist on the managing director being a registered chemist is the only safe plan to prevent the law from being evaded. As to having names over a factory, that does not enter into the matter, for it would be quite easy to have a definition of a pharmacy something to this effect, that it is a shop or dispensary for the dispensing of prescriptions, sale of poisons to the public, etc. Many concerns are springing up all over the country for the running of chemists’ shops without adequate skilled supervision, but under my amendment that state of affairs should be rendered impossible, and hence the public would be protected.

I am somewhat surprised to hear what the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander) says, because the firms mentioned by him asked me four years ago to put forward an amendment which has the contrary effect to what he now suggests. This year two of these firms again approached me and requested me to move the following amendment—

Clause 36 provides that no unqualified person may carry on the business of chemist and druggist, and Clause 75 provides that no partnership of unqualified persons may carry on the business of chemist and druggist. Now in Clause 76 it enacts that if they take advantage of the protection given under the Companies Act and they form a company, they need not be qualified persons, and may thus avoid the responsibility of having to have only qualified persons to run the business. It then becomes a protected partnership, and, in addition, they have the privilege of placing anyone they choose on the board of directors. In no other profession would this be permitted, for no unqualified man can be a partner in an attorney’s practice or enter into partnership with a medical man in his profession. Not only is it unfair to individuals, but also it is unjust to the public. You are giving them benefits they have no right to have. I think we should try and protect the public and the profession. My amendment provides that at the death of an unqualified man, no man except a qualified man shall be appointed in his place. Four years ago it was strongly held that a limited liability company should be in no better position in regard to running the business than an ordinary partnership, and in this the Medical Officer of Health supports my contention.

The amendment suggested by the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) is more restricting than ever. He sees the injustice of this clause, and goes halfway to cure it. He says it shall not become operative in the case of a present corporation, but immediately the men who run the corporation have died, it shall become operative. I cannot see the logic of that. If it is wrong now, it should be put right. The hon. member suggests we have put ourselves in a worse position by passing Clause 75. I agree, but we should have accepted the amendment I suggested in Clause 75, then you would have been in a logically correct position. At the next stage I suggest you alter Clause 75, to bring it in unison with Clause 76. The amendment of the hon. member for Langlaagte (Mr. Christie) closes the door altogether. He must be the managing director, or nothing at all. In all big businesses, the chemist is the last person to be the managing director. The managing director controlling the business will be a financial man, but the hon. member for Langlaagte (Mr. Christie) wants to wipe him right off the slate. I suggest that the clause would read much more satisfactorily if it ran somewhat as follows—

It would be perfectly clear, then, that the person in charge of the technical end of the business will be a chemist and druggist, and he will not only be responsible to the company for that work, but he is responsible to the Health Department in seeing that the conditions under which that business is worked are in accordance with the Act. That, I submit, will clear up the Minister’s difficulties entirely, and put the whole matter on a business basis, so that it will be possible for corporations to handle big business in the chemist’s line in South Africa. I know the difficulties, and I can quite understand the views and arguments of the hon. member for Langlaagte, but he must know that in every other big country in the world—and some day we shall be a big country—it has been to the public interest to have very big corporations handling this chemists’ business, and there does not seem any reason why we in this country should put up a bar, definitely once and for all, against such companies working their business in South Africa. In order to carry out the wording that I read just now, I will move—

I think that will make the clause very much more workable, and I hope the Minister will accept the amendment.

I hope the Minister will stick to his clause. To my mind it meets the situation well so far as regards the ordinary chemist and druggist in a large way of business. In a large corporation conducting a business of this kind, a limited company, you require two kinds of ability. In the first place, you require the ordinary business ability of a business man with a certain amount of initiative and judgment to carry on the commercial side of the business from a business point of view, but at the same time you must also have a certain amount of technical or scientific knowledge in a business of this kind. So far as I can see, that is provided for, and the interests of the public are taken care of. You have got to have a technical man in the shape of either the managing director or the general manager or the chief executive officer. One of the three chief officers must be a trained scientific chemist, and he must be responsible to the board for the operations of the company, and so forth. You may have people who have put money in and are quite content to see the business run by a good business man on business lines. Therefore it would be folly to lay down that the directors, who look after the financial or commercial side of things, must be trained chemists. So I do hope the Minister will stick to his clause. There is only one criticism I have to make. I presume this does not apply to the wholesale manufacturing chemists. Take Chamberlain’s place, this side the tramway station.

It is not a pharmacy. It is a factory.

I have looked up your definition of “ pharmacy,” and I do not think it is sufficiently clear. It is defined on page 62—

This says nothing about manufacture. The difficulty is I do not think the Minister has been sufficiently definite in defining the difference between wholesale manufacturing chemists and the retail trade. I hope some means may be found by which the wholesale manufacturing chemist is not brought in.

I think the Minister would be wise if he reported progress, or else let the clause stand over, because it seems to me he will be doing a very serious injustice— which I know he does not intend to do—to certain businesses. With regard to what the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) has said, of course, these people are chemists and druggists. Unless this is made clear, apparently a great deal of confusion is going to result. At any rate, I may tell him that the manufacturing chemists think they do come under it. A very serious injustice is being done. The hon. member for Langlaagte (Mr. Christie) said that pharmacy only meant the retail trade. The law is otherwise, as we can see from the clause. There is no doubt that as far as existing concerns are concerned, they are going to be very hard hit. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) admitted that there were certain business men who ran the place, and certain chemists who did the scientific work. But he does not see that under this clause if the general manager is not a chemist he has to be turned out.

Oh, no.

If it is a limited liability company the managing director will, in many cases, be a man who is not a chemist. As a rule, the hon. member is fair to persons in large concerns, but in this case he is not fair to their contention. I quite see that the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) has made a proposal in one form. Personally, I prefer the way I have put it. I am not exactly wedded to the terms of my amendment, but I want to see these people protected, and if anybody else can suggest a better way of protecting them I will accept it. I suggest to the Minister that he should report progress and ask leave to sit again, and consider all the amendments which have been made on this.

I think the request is quite reasonable.

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.