Arising out of the hon. the Prime Minister’s reply, may I ask how so much misunderstanding can arise in regard to a publication such as this?

But it is very simple. The hon. member also misunderstands things completely, and if that is done in the green tree, what is there that cannot happen?

I just want to inform the House what the business for next week will be. On Monday we shall continue dealing with Orders of the Day Nos. 1 to 5, that is, the legislation that will be dealt with to-day. No. 6 will stand over until later in the week. If the Minister of Social Welfare is present, we shall also continue with his Bill, No. 8. After that we shall resume the Committee of Supply. There is a possibility that we shall also deal with the Committee of Ways and Means, but I still have to hear from my colleague the Minister of Finance whether he is ready for that.

I move—

At the outset I want to point out that the Rural Coloured Areas Act came into operation on 21st June, 1963, and that it has already been made applicable to 19 areas, with an aggregate surface area of almost 2 million morgen. Whereas this Act has now been in operation for almost four years, it has been found that certain amendments are essential so as to adjust a few minor yet important aspects to present needs and circumstances. I shall deal with them clause by clause.

Clause 1 amends section 5 of the principal Act for the purpose of making provision for the incorporation of an existing area with any other area. Section 5 provides that an incorporated area, that is an area which has been declared to be a rural Coloured area subsequent to the commencement of the principal Act, may be incorporated with any other incorporated area or an existing area, that is an area which was incorporated in terms of repealed Acts. However, at present there is no provision for incorporating an existing area with any other existing area. In this regard we have a case at present—namely Cystergrond, 15 morgen in extent, and Pniel, 49 morgen in extent—for which provision has to be made. The two existing areas in the Paarl Division are contiguous. The former is uninhabited, whereas Pniel is over-populated.

Cystergrond has the water resources and along with Pniel it may be developed into a properly planned residential area with provision for all inhabitants. However, in order to make the two areas a statutory unit, the contemplated amendment of section 5 is essential.

I shall deal with clause 2 at the end. As regards clause 3, which amends section 41 of the principal Act, I may just mention that it is necessary to make provision for the payment of rates and taxes in respect of leased property to divisional councils. In terms of section 41 of the principal Act, the board area will, for the purposes of the law relating to divisional councils or local authorities, be regarded as a single undivided property, and the board of management of such a rural Coloured area will be the only ratepayer to the divisional council. Fixed rates and taxes, calculated on the basis of the number of registered occupiers or properties, are being paid. The present arrangement is satisfactory in as far as it concerns the Coloured occupiers, but in certain cases of leasing for purposes other than the normal activities in a rural area, it causes certain irregularities attended by inconvenience and loss for the divisional councils in particular.

A board of management only levies and collects rates and taxes in respect of premises or properties owned by the registered occupiers or owners of its area. The rates and taxes payable to the divisional council are more or less the same. Under provincial legislation the divisional council and the village management board or the board of management would, in addition to rates and taxes in respect of the above-mentioned premises and properties, also have the power to levy rates and taxes on such property of the local authority or the State as is being leased. In that case the lessee is the ratepayer.

Particularly in the large areas in Namaqualand, where all sorts of minerals are to be found and a great deal of prospecting and mining activities are taking place in recent times, several tracts of commonage are being leased for the said purposes. However, for lack of provision in this Act, such leased land is not taxable. If one takes into consideration that the development which is taking place entails additional expenditure for the divisional councils—such as the increased cost of maintaining roads owing to heavier traffic, particularly heavy lorries—it is deemed justified to accommodate these boards by bringing the legislation in question into line with the provincial legislation.

Clause 4 amends section 52 of the principal Act so as to make provision for the payment of rates and taxes by certain persons to boards of control. The Act confers, inter alia, upon the boards of management of the areas in question the power to levy annually rates and taxes on assigned plots or properties in their areas and to collect them from owners and registered occupiers in cases where the right of ownership to State-owned land has not yet been granted. But experience has now shown that the rural Coloured is in the first place only concerned about obtaining possession of a piece of land which he may occupy for his own benefit, without having regard to the formalities which will lawfully put him in possession of such land. This is one of the main reasons why estates are frequently not administered. Accordingly there is not only a considerable backlog as regards the administration of estates, but also numerous persons who occupy land on a casual basis. In an area such as Haarlem, Coloureds bought pieces of undivided land from the Berlin Mission Society on a deferred payment system years ago. In some cases the purchase price was paid in full a long time ago, and several buyers have already died or resold that land to others, without obtaining transfer in respect of that piece of land. Sometimes this omission makes it difficult for the present owners of that land to obtain transfer.

Owing to the abovementioned and similar circumstances, the boards of management find it impossible in some cases to identify owners or registered occupiers for the purpose of collecting rates and taxes. Although a plot or a property is rateable and may be occupied by a person who is considered to be the rightful occupier or the de facto owner, the board of management may not. in terms of the provisions of this Act, hold him responsible for the payment of rates and taxes or prosecute him should he fail to do so. As a result of this the board of management loses badly needed revenue and its administration is hampered.

The solution, as in the case of provincial legislation relating to municipal rates and taxes, will be to make the occupier the ratepayer. It is therefore the intention to make by regulation detailed provision in respect of all cases, and so as to enable the Department to do that, the substitution of paragraph (c) of section 52 is now being proposed.

Clauses 2 and 4 (b) only amend the English text of section 34 (2) and paragraph (e) of section 52 of the principal Act. In addition a few minor improvements are necessary to bring the English text of the Act into line with the Afrikaans text. They are as follows: In section 34 (2) the word “thirty-one” should be substituted for the word “thirty-three”: and in paragraph (el of section 52 the words “betterment area” should be substituted for the words “board of management”. In this regard I may just point out that the English text of the principal Act was signed by the State President. I therefore move.

We on this side of the House will support this legislation. We think that it is necessary for those deficiencies to be rectified, and therefore this legislation has our support. However, as regards clause 4, where the occupiers are now being made ratepayers, we want to have the assurance that they will not be held responsible for arrear rates as well. We should like to have this rectified and we shall most probably move an amendment during the Committee Stage. As for the rest, we shall support this legislation.

In 1963, when the then Minister introduced the first Act dealing with this question, there was quite a lot of discussion because it was regarded as an innovation tq have legislation in regard to areas which had been in existence for some considerable time. If you study the Hansard of that time, Sir, you will find that the Coloured Representatives supported the Bill then, and I support this Bill as well. But I feel that one should say just a little more than has been said about this, and that one should try to get the hon. the Minister to expand in regard to these areas and the parts envisaged when the Bill was introduced in 1963. With your permission. Sir. I merely want to refer to Hansard, Volume 5 of 1963.

Yes, but the hon. member may do so just in passing.

I think it is important to remind the House and the present Minister of what was said then. The hon. the Minister then said—

I submit that this is germane to the amendment now proposed by the hon. the Minister to incorporate certain areas which are not yet part of a proclaimed area into such an area, such as at Pniel and other places, as the hon. the Minister has mentioned. The disappointment I have in connection with this is that I have not yet heard from the hon. the Minister any intention to develop these little areas in the way I think they should be. What I would like to see in these areas which are now going to be incorporated in terms of this Bill is that the hon. the Minister should consider collective farming for the Coloured people. The purpose of the 1963 Act was to encourage farming by farmers, but it has been on an individual basis. I do believe that as the Minister now wishes to bring in other areas into the proclaimed area, the Minister should consider very seriously whether opportunities should not be given to the Coloured people in these areas, as envisaged by the 1963 Act, to farm not on an individual basis but on a collective basis for the benefit of the community. You will see, Sir, that clause 3 refers to any person to whom land in a bought area is leased for the purpose of prospecting or mining for minerals, etc., and it says that they will have to pay rates on land used for that purpose. I feel that if the Minister would lease out land not only for mineral prospecting or mining but for farming, and not only to individuals but to the occupants as a whole, for the benefit of the community, he would find a greater upsurge of prosperity in these areas, rather than an endeavour by Coloured people to earn a living for themselves on a small piece of land.

There is not very much more that one can say on this amending Bill, except that I should like to support the point made by the hon. member for Gardens that whereas in the 1963 debate mention was made of places like Zuurbraak, where for years and years people had occupied land without taking transfer, I thought that we had overcome that by now, but the Minister mentioned that there are still cases where it was impossible. I think the Minister should consider introducing an Act granting the people who occupy the land, if they can substantiate that it has come to them by way of inheritance or by purchase years ago, the right to get transfer without cost. Instead of their becoming occupiers they could be the legal owners of that land. At any rate, I feel that the point raised by the hon. member for Gardens is a valid one. If the occupier is now to be liable for rates and taxes, he should only be liable from the time when this Bill comes into operation. Sir, I do not think there is very much more to say except that the extension of areas which the Minister now wishes to bring within the ambit of the law augurs well for the future development of these areas, and we hope that the aim of the 1963 Act will be realized and that prosperity will be brought to the people concerned.

I should also like to say something about this legislation. I feel that the rural development of the Coloureds is one of the significant things that have taken place recently, since they are also being afforded the opportunity of establishing themselves as farmers. Mr. Chairman, I am thinking of Haarlem where there has for years been a community which did not make any progress and where the State has under this scheme laid on water and brought about very fine development in that area. I am glad that this system of collecting rates and taxes is still to be extended to Coloured farmers, because I feel that for a long time to come we shall still have to regard such Coloured farmers as experimental farmers who have to be afforded the opportunity of proving that they can in fact make a success out of farming. Therefore I am in favour of this principle which will teach them to assume responsibility in the sense that they must pay rates and taxes on land. For that reason I think that we can accept the Act as it is being amended at present, because in this way we shall be able to afford those people a more decent living and teach them to bear more responsibility.

In reply to the plea made by the hon. member for Gardens, namely that these arrear rates and taxes should not be made to be of retrospective effect, I can set his mind at ease by saying that it is not the intention that rates and taxes will be of retrospective effect; they will come into operation when this measure comes into force.

The hon. member for Boland expressed his regret that he had as yet not heard of any intention to develop these rural areas. I think the hon. member should take the trouble to pay a visit to a few of these rural areas, and then he will be pleasantly surprised to see all the things that are being done in that regard. The hon. member also expressed the thought that some of these rural areas should be farmed collectively. To a certain extent one may describe the farming methods used there as being collective. Take the north-western areas as an example—the Richtersveld, Steinkopf and Concordia. There one has a very extensive area that is being inhabited collectively. Stock belonging to various Coloureds graze together in large camps which the Department has fenced for them, and in that respect it is collective, but it is collective for their own profit; it is not a Russian collective system in the sense that the proceeds are paid over to the Treasury. The Coloureds graze their stock collectively in that area, but it is for their own profit. I think that one should always be eager to retain that element of personal right in our legislation.

The hon. member also referred to planning. I can assure him that the Department is engaged in replanning all rural Coloured areas with a view to making better use of the land. In that regard a great deal of progress has been made in the past. When I paid a visit to Genadendal a few weeks ago, I was pleasantly impressed by what was already being done there. From now on it will be possible to carry into effect that new planning with much more momentum, because at present the attitude adopted by the Coloureds to the Department of Coloured Affairs is much better than it was before. Up to a few years ago they were very unwilling to co-operate with the Department in its projects. As a matter of fact, they actually adopted a sort of hostile attitude to the Department’s projects, and with the best will in the world the Department cannot launch development schemes if it does not have the co-operation of the people. At present that attitude has changed altogether. In all the rural Coloured areas I visited, there is an attitude of appreciation for the work that is being done by the Department’s officials, for the guidance and advice given by the professional officers, and thanks to the good relationship that prevails at present, we shall in the years that lie ahead be able to make much faster progress with the better planning and utilization of the land than has been the case up to now.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

I move—

That the Bill be now read a Second Time.

The Coloured Persons Education Act, No. 47 of 1963, was placed on the Statute Book during 1963 and was made applicable by proclamation to the Cape and the Transvaal with effect from 1st January, 1964, and to Natal and the Free State with effect from 1st April, 1964. After three years have passed, some amendments to the Act are now considered essential.

Clauses 1, 2 and 5 of the Bill amend sections 1, 4 and 34 of the principal Act. Sections 3 and 4 of the principal Act empower me, in my capacity as Minister of Coloured Affairs, to establish State hostels at State schools and to make grants-in-aid and loans to a governing body in respect of a school, which is then a State-aided school, and a hostel attached to such school.

In drafting the principal Act, Mr. Speaker, the word “hostel” was omitted from section 4 because the attitude was adopted that a hostel formed part of a school and that, in view of the fact that in terms of section 4 of the Act the Minister makes grants-in-aid and loans to the governing body of a school or college, it would follow automatically that such grants and loans would also be in respect of a hostel.

The position is therefore in order in so far as the Minister may establish hostels at State schools and make grants-in-aid and loans to a governing body of a State-aided school in respect of a hostel attached to such a school. Since then, however, a case has occurred in the Cape where a private body, i.e. the D.R. Missionary Church of Graaff-Reine established a hostel by means of a loan from the Provincial Administration, and where the Administration undertook to render aid to this body. The hostel concerned serves a State school in the area, however, and not a State-aided school. Some doubt then arose as to whether the Minister would in fact have the power to make grants-in-aid in such a case, and the matter was submitted to the Government law advisors, who held the opinion that the Minister did not have such powers. As far as this particular hostel is concerned the matter is still in order, as the commitments entered into legally by the Provincial Administration in respect of the hostels prior to the commencement of the principal Act devolve on the Department in terms of section 26 (b) thereof. At present, however, the Department of Coloured Affairs has no power to render financial aid to any further new hostels or extensions of existing hostels of this nature. Mr. Speaker, it may be mentioned that representations have been received for financial aid for the extension of such a hostel in one of the rural Coloured areas, namely the Emil Weder Hostel at Genadendal. If the proposed amendments to the principal Act are approved, it will be possible to pay a rent allowance there, just as in the case of State-aided schools. The policy pursued by the Provincial Administration in respect of private hostels at State schools is to redeem the capital obligation by way of a grant equal to the interest and redemption for the period of the loan, which has to be obtained at the lowest possible rate of interest and for the longest possible period, plus an amount equal to 1.25 of the erection costs of the building, to cover expenditure on maintenance and insurance. Once the capital has been redeemed, the rent allowance is taken into review. In cases where a loan is made from State funds it is customary that the body concerned acquires the land and transfers it to the State for the term of the loan.

The State will incur no further financial obligations and the governing body has to manage it for its own account, and eventual losses cannot be recovered from the State. Supervision will be exercised, however, to ensure that the management is sound and that departmental requirements regarding accommodation and care of boarders are complied with.

As private hostels render an important service at State schools, I consider it no more than fair that aid should be rendered in deserving cases, and in order to enable me to do so, the amendment of sections 1, 4 and 34 of the principal Act is proposed.

I now come to clause 3 of the Bill. Clause 3 proposes the addition of a new subsection to section 13 of the principal Act. Mr. Speaker, it was recently revealed that among the teachers taken over from the Transvaal Provincial authorities there were approximately 75 who, although in permanent service, did not contribute to the Transvaal Teachers’ Pension Fund. Consequently they are not members of that Fund. Although they are not members of the Transvaal Teachers’ Pension Fund the teachers concerned, if they had not been transferred to Coloured Affairs, would have been entitled, in terms of section 14 (1) of the Transvaal Teachers’ Pension Ordinance, 1959 (No. 2 of 1959), to a gratuity upon retirement on attaining the prescribed retirement age, upon the grounds of continued ill-health, etc. For the sake of clarity it is perhaps desirable that I read the relevant portion of section 14 (1) to the House. It reads as follows—

(1) A teacher—

1. (a) who prior to the fixed date elected not to become a member of the Fund or who was refused membership of the Fund; or
2. (b) who prior to the fixed date was not entitled to membership of the Fund on account of age and who did not elect to become a member of the Fund in terms of subsection (4) of section three;

After thorough investigation in co-operation with the Transvaal Education Department and the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions it appeared that neither the Transvaal Teachers’ Pension Ordinance, 1959, nor the Public Service Pensions Act, 1955, nor the Coloured Persons Education Act, 1963, provided specifically for the payment of a service gratuity to the above-mentioned group of teachers in respect of their service under the Transvaal Education Department, when they retire from service on a date after 1st January, 1964, on attaining the prescribed age. etc., under the Department of Coloured Affairs.

Mr. Speaker, in order not to prejudice the group of teachers concerned, it is essential that provision shall now be made in the Coloured Persons Education Act to be able to pay the gratuities, and in fact with effect from the date on which Coloured persons education in the Transvaal was taken over, i.e. 1st January, 1964.

Both the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions and the Transvaal Provincial Administration are satisfied with the contemplated measure, and as hon. members will notice from clause 3 (d) of the Bill, the gratuity will be paid from the revenue fund of the province concerned.

We on this side of the House will also support this measure. As you know, Sir, we feel very strongly about compulsory education for Coloured children. We will therefore support any measure which promotes education for Coloured children, and as the establishment of hostels will be of assistance in that direction, we are prepared to support this Bill. We do not, however, like the idea of private hostels. We would much prefer hostels which are controlled or administered by the State. We hope that this is only an interim measure and that the Government or the State will take over these hostels as soon as possible and administer them directly. We hope that it will not take very long before that step is taken but in the meantime we certainly support this measure, because at this stage we think it is necessary under the circumstances.

Then there is one other point I should like to raise. We would like to have the assurance that children of different religious denominations will not be denied admission to any of these hostels. I believe it has happened in the past in areas where there is only one hostel that they have denied admission to children belonging to another religious denomination. We would want an assurance from the hon. the Minister in this connection and we will probably move an amendment, if necessary, to make sure that children will not be denied admission.

As far as clause 3 is concerned, we support it wholeheartedly. Subject to these remarks we on this side support this Bill.

Sir, I was very interested in the hon. the Minister’s Second Reading speech. The original 1963 Act gives the Minister power to take over automatically any previous hostels that were attached to State schools, irrespective of the bodies by which they were run; that is the impression that I get from the original Act. The relevant section is section 3 (1) (c) which reads—

The Minister may after consultation with the Minister of Finance and out of moneys appropriated by Parliament for the purpose—

Then section 3 (2) of the original Act states—

Any college or school for the education of Coloured persons which at the date of commencement of this Act is being maintained by a provincial administration … and any hostel … established by a provincial administration … shall be deemed to have been established or erected under the appropriate provision of subsection (1) of this section.

As I read it this means in effect that the State schools whenever they had been erected or established by a provincial administration; I take it that that is correct. Clause 1 of this Bill amends the original definition of a “governing body” so as to include hostels as well as colleges, schools, homes or classes. The term “governing body” in terms of this Bill means “the person managing such college, school, home, class or hostel …” But a new definition is now being inserted in the original Act, a definition which defines a State-aided hostel as follows—

Section 4 (1) of the 1963 Act is then amended to include hostels as well as other institutions. The relevant subsection here, however, is section 4 (2) of the original Act, which reads—

The provisions of the Bill before us are intended, as the hon. the Minister has just said, to cover the establishment and erection of private hostels as well, so the Minister will be able, in effect, to determine himself the manner in which what are now to be called “State-aided hostels”, or private hostels, whichever you like to call them, can be financed and run. They may very easily be run, as the hon. the Minister has suggested, by one or other of the Churches. This is further clarified in clause 2 of this Bill by adding “hostels” to the list of institutions which can now be “State-aided”.

Clause 4 of this Bill deals with regulations made under section 34 (1) (c) of the original Act. The latter, i.e. subsection (c) of the original Act, is being substituted by a new clause conferring powers upon the Minister, as it reads at the present moment, “As to the making of grants-in-aid and loans to governing bodies of State-aided schools and State-aided hostels”. Reduced to plain language, this means that the Minister may now decide upon any particular method of payment where the financing of State-aided hostels is concerned in cases where they are run or managed by private bodies. Our experience in the past has been—the hon. the Minister has practically said so himself—that such private concerns are nearly always one or other of the Churches. Let me say quite clearly that we have no fundamental objection to the building of more hostels; in fact, we are very keen that more should be built, and neither have we any fundamental objection to the various Churches assisting in running such establishments. But what we do want to know from the Minister is whether he intends following the same system that was followed by the Cape Provincial Administration (and I believe the same system as was followed in the Transvaal) over the financing and erection of these hostels, where Church authorities are concerned. We would like a clear statement from the hon. the Minister in that regard. In the Cape Province, where I happen to have had the privilege of serving in the Provincial Council for a number of years, we had a system for many years, prior to 1963, when the hon. the Minister’s Department took over Coloured education, whereby Church bodies were permitted by the Administration to borrow capital moneys from private sources for the erection of hostels attached to State schools—not State-aided schools but State schools. The Administration, as the hon. the Minister knows, had no rights as a borrower of money, but they agreed to underwrite the undertaking by paying the Church concerned an agreed rental, which was sufficient to cover the rate of interest payable on the bond, redemption and maintenance costs. This rental was so high, with due respect to the Churches concerned, that it more than covered interest, redemption and maintenance.

Sir, it should not be forgotten that there was also a per capitation fee paid by the Provincial Administration to cover the cost of the children’s board and living expenses. They very often paid a cost-of-living allowance also, which was on a sliding scale, to the authorities administering the hostel, so that their expenses were more than covered. Then we also had a system in the Cape whereby at least 50 per cent of the salaries of matrons and other staff members were also paid by the Administration. The custom, in spite of provincial backing in the financial sense, which was very substantial, was for the Church concerned to appoint all the personnel controlling such a hostel, including a committee of management from amongst members of their own congregation. They virtually had a free hand in organizing the pupils—even to deciding, in certain cases, upon rights of admission— through “die huisvader” or “die huismoeder”, as the case might be, who decided, after interviewing the people concerned, whether or not the pupils were suitable for acceptance. Sir, not everyone was satisfied with this method of financing these institutions—which was done with the Administration’s backing—for the province virtually handed over all control to the Church bodies concerned. I must say that it is quite clear from the figures given in the provincial reports that some of the Churches at any rate made quite a substantial profit as a result of this financial arrangement between the province and the Church concerned. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he intends following precisely the same system. Sir, it is accepted that the majority of Coloured children in the Republic to-day are domiciled in the Cape Province. When the Government took over Coloured education from the Provincial Administration in 1963, as much as 90 per cent of all Coloured primary schools in the province were mission schools aided by the Department. In other words, they were all State-aided schools. In order to refresh the hon. the Minister’s memory I want to remind him that the total number of primary mission schools—because there are very few secondary and high schools for the Coloureds by comparison—when this Government took over was 1,169. There were only 162 board-schools and 12 special schools in 1963. These mission schools were attended by about 165,000 pupils. In 1963 financial assistance to hostels for Coloured pupils under private control amounted to nearly Rl½ million. Of the different denominations controlling and managing these primary schools the allocation of pupils was as follows: The Dutch Reformed Church, for instance, controlled 613 schools with 67,000 pupils; the Anglican Church 169 schools with 32,000 pupils; the Congregational Church 153 schools with 20,000 pupils, the Roman Catholic Church 93 schools with 23,000 pupils, the Methodist Church 88 schools with nearly 13,000 pupils and the Moravian Church 53 schools with 9,000 pupils. Sir, that covers a very wide field. In other words, the mission schools formed 90 per cent of all the Coloured primary schools in the Cape Province. In the 1963 financial year the amount paid out by the Cape Provincial Administration in loans and rentals for provincial hostels governed by private concerns was R23½ million. That figure, of course, is in respect of all races, and not only Coloureds. Sir, what we would like to know is this: If these mission schools are ultimately to be taken over by the Government, why have they not been bought out on exactly the same basis as all Bantu mission schools were systematically bought out after the transfer of Bantu education to a Government Department some years ago? It seems to us very strange that the Government’s policy in this regard in respect of the one racial group should be that any school or school hostel should be controlled by the local school board …

Order! I think the hon. member is going beyond the scope of the Bill.

Sir, I am referring to Coloured school boards and Coloured school committees.

The hon. member can raise those matters on the hon. the Minister’s Vote.

With respect, Sir, …

Order! The hon. member must abide by my ruling.

Sir, I am not going to talk about the Bantu. I am talking about Coloured school boards and committees which presumably will control hostels.

That can be discussed under my Vote.

Why cannot it be discussed under this Bill? This Bill provides for the control of hostels and I want to ask the Minister whether it is his intention that the school boards should conrol them? This is a perfectly bona fide question relevant to this Bill. It seems to me that we are entitled to ask this question and to have an answer. In any event, let us leave it at that. If it is the intention of the Government to allow the churches to borrow money, as was done in the past for this purpose, will the Government then continue to pay a capitation fee to cover the cost of living expenses of pupils? We would like to know that and we would also like to know whether it is intended to make the payments to these private bodies such that they will cover interest, redemption, maintenance, cost of living and the salaries of the personnel in the hostel concerned. We want to know also where the day-to-day control is going to lie. Will it lie with the Government Department or with the church? Because it seems to me that the Government itself will be far better able to provide capital direct for the erection of these hostels. The Government is not restricted in this regard as the province was restricted. It is surely in every way more suitable that State schools should have State hostels attached to them in future. Supposing this control by private bodies, by church bodies, for the purpose of giving Coloured education a boost, is a temporary measure, we would like to ensure that one of the terms on which the Government makes grants in aid or grants loans to these hostels should be an option to buy at the earliest possible date. We would like to have something concrete from the Minister in this regard. Then I would like to ask the Minister whether there are inspectors of hostels—I am not certain in my own mind on this score. However, if we are going to increase the number of hostels there have to be such people. If these establishments are not controlled by a local Coloured school board or by the department, proper profit and loss accounts must be submitted to the inspector of hostels and be audited by the department.

As far as the payment of capitation fees to boarders are concerned I would like to make a further point. The hon. the Minister said he thought there might be a loss and that the churches must be protected against that. But our experience of this in the past has shown exactly the reverse—there was more often a profit than a loss. So I would like to suggest that if there is any saving on maintenance and administration costs—as is very often the case —such saving or profits should accrue to the department or should be properly utilized for the provision of extra amenities for the hostel concerned. These are important points and, consequently, we would like the Minister to give us his views on them.

With regard to the question of religious denomination, when I was still in the provincial council I had a number of unfortunate cases where pupils were refused admission to a hostel serving a certain area because that hostel was being run by a church of a particular denomination. The excuse was that if they admitted half a dozen pupils belonging to another religious denomination, there was no teacher available to take that number on Sundays to another church. Otherwise they would have to go to a church which was alien to the denomination in which they were brought up by their parents. If any of these private bodies turn out to be churches, we submit that no such church shall have the right to exclude any pupil from a hostel on religious grounds. The conscience clause in existing provincial ordinances covers pupils in schools and colleges and in continuation classes but does not cover pupils in hostels, nor does any other legal provision cover them. Therefore we consider that it should be one of the stipulations that no grant-in-aid shall be made to any hostel unless such establishment is open to persons of all religious denominations.

We have no objection to the provisions of clause 3—in fact, we regard it as being a very necessary move.

Speaking on behalf of the Coloured representatives in this House, I wish to say that we welcome this amending Bill. According to the Long Title of this Bill its purpose is to amend the Coloured Persons Education Act, 1963, to provide, inter alia, for the granting of financial aid to private hostels attached to State schools—please note “private hostels attached to State schools”. I do not know whether this means that such an establishment must be within the school-grounds or be part and parcel of the school and that this will be the only type of establishment that would qualify for financial aid or whether such an establishment may be situated a little distance away. But I take it the purpose of the Bill is to include all such establishments.

I do not like to repeat at great length the arguments put forward by the hon. member for Wynberg in regard to supervision but I should just like to tell the hon. the Minister that from time to time we have had complaints from people about the running of some of these hostels, complaints which seem to indicate that the children do not get the benefit which they should get. But now that financial assistance is to be given to these hostels I support the plea of the hon. member for Wynberg for proper supervision in order to ensure that the children get the benefit of such financial assistance. Clause 3 introduces a new subsection into the principal Act for the purpose of assisting people in regard to their pensions. As the hon. member for Gardens said, this is a provision that is welcomed. We support it. However, quite a considerable number of teachers came to us and told us that they omitted to give the department notice in regard to their pensions from the province. I interviewed the Secretary for Coloured Affairs about the matter. I was very sympathetically received. He informed me that he was going into the whole question of helping those people who omitted, who failed to comply with certain terms relating to their pensions. Clause 3 does not specifically deal with this aspect; so I hope the hon. the Minister will take note of the few words I have said in this regard and to see that these people are assisted if possible. There is quite a number of them who are affected.

Otherwise we support the principles of this amending Bill.

With regard to the comment by the hon. member for Boland on the meaning of the words “attached to State schools”, I want to tell him that it refers not only to geography but also to the connection. It means that even if a hostel is situated at a distance from the school it will still come into consideration for the aid. To the hon. member for Gardens I want to say that as far as admission to the various church-aided hostels is concerned, the matter will be administered in such a way that other religious groups will not be deprived of the right to be admitted to a specific hostel. It is not the intention of the State that admission should be refused under such circumstances, and we shall therefore see to it that this does not happen. To the hon. member for Wynberg I want to give the assurance that the system of financing is still the same as it was under the provincial administration. When we took over Coloured education we accepted the status quo —that is, we accepted it as it was. Consequently the system of financing is still the same as previously. Furthermore, I want to inform the hon. member that there are no special inspectors for hostels—the work is done by ordinary school inspectors. As regards the appointment of special inspectors for this purpose, I leave it to the future to show whether the establishment of more hostels will justify such appointments.

As regards the treatment of churches, I want to give hon. members the assurance that we as a Department and a Government have the utmost appreciation for the part played by them in the education of, in this case, the Coloured child—-in fact, in this respect missionary churches have rendered services of inestimable value. If one visits a place such as Genadendal, one is shown buildings which were erected by the Moravian Mission Society for education purposes as early as 1713. Then only does one really appreciate how deeply the church’s interest in the education of the Coloured child is rooted. For that reason it is also understandable that we as a Government should show only the greatest appreciation to the churches—no matter of what denomination—for their contribution in this regard. When it comes to the question of compensation, I do not want to suggest a formula, but something much more important than a formula—the assurance that we shall handle it with the greatest consideration. In this regard hon. members need have no fears. We shall approach the question of compensation with the utmost consideration and fairness when it comes to taking over some church school or other. If we fail to do so, hon. members will be entitled to attack us on that point, because there will certainly be no justification for treating these people, who have done so much in this field, with anything but consideration.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The object of this Bill is actually of a threefold nature. Firstly, deficiencies in the existing Act which give rise to administrative problems are rectified. These amendments are contained in clauses 2, 4, 5 and 9 (a). Secondly, provision is made in clause 7 for paid sick leave. As a result of the insertion of the new section certain consequential amendments must also be effected, and these amendments are contained in clauses 6, 8, 11, 13, 14 and 16. Thirdly, provision is made in clause 10 for the insertion of a new chapter in the Act which is aimed at protecting and promoting the health and safety of employees.

I have already tabled an explanatory memorandum and I should now like to give hon. members further particulars. I just want to deal briefly with the amendments which rectify deficiencies in the Act. Clause 2 (a) contains a new definition which relates to the Chief Inspector of Factories. This amendment is necessary because in the new Capter VA, and also in the existing regulations, there are references to the Chief Inspector.

The Afrikaans and English texts of the definition of “employer”, as contained in the Act at present, are different. In the Afrikaans text the words “in of naby ’n fabriek” were omitted. The Afrikaans and English texts of the definition of “employee” are also different. The Afrikaans text refers to “ ’n persoon” whereas the English text refers incorrectly to “any employee”. In clauses 2 (b) and 9 (a) of the Bill the necessary corrections are proposed.

At present no action can be taken against an employer in terms of section 10 of the Act if he loses, defaces or destroys a provisional factory permit, transfer certificate or amendment certificate. These documents form part of a factory register and it is necessary that they shall be kept in a safe place just like factory registers and registration certificates. Clause 4 puts this into effect.

At present a provisional factory permit issued in terms of section 13 of the Act cannot be cancelled. It is essential that provision shall also be made to cancel such a permit just as in the case of a registration certificate, and clause 5 provides accordingly.

I now come to clause 7. As hon. members may have noticed, the proposed section contains virtually the same provisions as those contained in the Shops and Offices Act of 1964. The only deviation is that in the last-mentioned Act the sick-leave cycle extends over three years, whereas the proposed section provides that sick leave shall be granted on an annual basis. As the proposed legislation will be of application to factory workers and the vast majority of wage determinations in terms of the Wage Act and in terms of the Industrial Concilliations Act provide for sick leave on an annual basis, it is desirable that in this case sick leave shall also be granted on an annual basis to bring it into line with the existing measures.

As may be noticed, provision is made for 10 or 12 working days’ sick leave for five and six-day employees, respectively. To eliminate any abuse, it is also provided explicitly that an employee shall not be entitled to the full sick leave during his first 12 months of employment. In such cases he will be entitled to only one working day in respect of each completed period of five weeks of employment if he works a five-day week, and one working day in respect of each completed month of employment in other cases.

Medical certificates are also required in respect of any absence from work for a period covering more than two consecutive days. As in the case of the Shops and Offices Act, the proposed section in terms of clause 8 will not apply to employees who are subject to Industrial Council agreements, wage determinations, etc., which are binding in terms of the Industrial Conciliation Act or the Wage Act. Furthermore, clause 16 also provides that application may be made for exemption from the provisions of the relevant section if special circumstances exist which justify exemption. It may perhaps interest the House to know what the estimated number of workers is who will be covered by this measure. I have been informed that an estimated 130,000 White employees and 300,000 non-White employees will be covered by this legislation.

I now come to clause 10. which provides for measures that may be taken to protect the health of employees and to promote their safety. This legislation actually originated in measures taken by my predecessors. Even during 1958 a departmental committee under the chairmanship of the Chief Inspector of Factories was appointed to inquire into the incidence and causes of lune diseases in industries (excluding the mining industry) in general. The then Senior Medical Officer of the Workmen’s Compensation Fund, in terms of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, also served on the committee. The committee had to make recommendations on the measures to be taken to combat these diseases. The measures which are now invisaged in the proposed sections were recommended by; this committee. In order to enable hon. members to form a better grasp of the object of each section, I shall deal with them separately.

The first section 1 shall now deal with is section 38. At present industries use a large variety of substances in their manufacturing processes. Moreover, new substances are taken into use virtually daily, and their effects on the human system is not always known. In foundries, in particular, silica powder is used to dust moulds. This is an extremely dangerous substance and its use has been prohibited in numerous overseas countries. Similarly, the carbon tetrachloride which is used in dry-cleaning processes is extremely dangerous. As far as known there are more than 200 different substances which are used by industries and which may cause cancer. Section 38 is aimed at prohibiting the use of dangerous substances which are detrimental to the health and safety of employees.

I shall now deal with section 39. It frequently happens that the raw materials received by factories are relatively harmless. When there is a change in the process, however, the substance which is used becomes extremely dangerous. In certain processes, for example, a basic material called kieselguhr is used nowadays, which has been processed for years with few harmful effects. As this substance is pre-eminently suitable for filtering processes when it is exposed to a high temperature, it is being used to an increasing extent. As a result of this change in the process, however, the employees have contracted silicosis.

Another process which has a high health risk is sandblasting. In foundries, for example, sand is used under high pressure to clean moulds.

Order! Hon. members are not allowed to converse so loudly.

This sand contains a high percentage of free silica, which is essential to the cleaning process, but it has been found that the concentration of free silica inhaled by workers exceeds the allowable concentration by more than ten times. The proposed section 39 is aimed at prohibiting such dangerous processes, except on conditions which will ensure the health and welfare of workers.

The next section I want to deal with is section 39A. At present there are many industries in which workers are exposed to dusty working conditions, for example the manufacture of asbestos, foundries, stone quarries, potteries, tile and pipe manufacturing, etc. The proposed section empowers the Minister to specify these activities by notice in the Gazette, and all employees engaged in such activities will have to undergo periodic medical examinations. Furthermore, a prospective employee will also have to undergo a medical examination if he wants to go and work in such an industry. Workers who are already in employment can also be prohibited from working in such industries if their state of health is such that they endanger themselves or their fellow-workers. There is, however, a right of appeal to the Minister against such a prohibition, in terms of clause 12 of the Bill. Employers will also have to meet the costs of the medical examinations their workers have to undergo.

We now come to section 39B. At present industrial diseases occur in many industries. If timeous measures are taken or an early diagnosis is made, the disease may be prevented. For that reason the appointment of experienced medical practitioners is recognized throughout the civilized world as an essential measure for the prevention of industrial diseases. The proposed section envisages the introduction of medical supervision in factories or on premises where cases of illness have occured which may be due to the nature of any process or other conditions of work.

With regard to sections 39C and 39D I want to say the following. Section 31 of the Act provides for notification of casualties. In order to combat industrial diseases it is essential that such diseases shall also be subject to notification in order that the necessary investigations may be carried out. In terms of section 39C the industrial diseases will be prescribed by regulation, and it is envisaged that all the diseases which are at present subject to compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act shall be prescribed as industrial diseases for the purposes of this section. It is also contemplated including occupational deafness as an industrial disease, because this disease is becoming increasingly more prevalent as a result of excessive noise in industries. Unless measures are taken to combat it now, it goes without saying that it may assume grave proportions.

In terms of section 39D an investigation will be carried out into industrial diseases and inspectors will require employers to take measures to prevent their employees contracting the disease in question. Clause 12, however, provides for an appeal to the Minister against any requirement by an inspector in terms of section 39D (2).

The proposed sections may create the impression of duplication, having regard to the powers of other Government Departments, for example the Department of Health and Provincial Administrations, and also local authorities. I want to assure hon. members, however, that the proposed legislation will be implemented in close co-operation with all concerns involved in order not to cause disruption or confusion.

The legislation is aimed at the welfare of factory workers and it is therefore not inappropriate that the control measures should be taken under the Factories Act, as in other countries. In the case of mine workers similar measures apply in terms of a separate act, namely the Mines and Works Act. In exercising the powers conferred on him by the Bill, the Chief Inspector of Factories will be assisted by a senior State medical officer.

The other clauses, namely clauses 15, 16 and 17, relate to the promulgation of regulations, exemptions from certain requirements and the date of commencement of the measure, respectively. The regulations are necessary to give effect to the new Chapter VA. If circumstances justify it, exemption may also be granted from certain sections, and hence the provision in clause 16. Certain provisions, such as those relating to sick leave, can be put into operation without delay, but the commencement of other provisions will have to be postponed until regulations have been promulgated. Clause 17 provides accordingly. I move.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House will support this Bill. We think that it is a good thing that the Minister has seen fit to keep this legislation which concerns labour in line with developments in industry. These developments are occurring at a very rapid pace, and it has happened that because there has been tardiness, perhaps, to keep pace with the development of industry, we have found that certain processes in industries have been the cause of diseases which up to now have not been provided for by legislation.

The hon. the Minister referred to moulding and foundry workers. It is possible to develop silicosis there and I should like to take this opportunity of going a little further and telling the House what difficulties could arise through inadequate preventative measures being instituted in foundries particularly. In this regard I want to read from a recent report by the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company which states the following, inter alia—

I think that this Bill will provide that protection to the worker. When we come to physical examinations for this type of worker and other workers in industry using substances which may be harmful to the worker, I feel that it is not sufficient for the worker to be examined at the beginning of his employment in a particular industry, but that, as we have in the mining industry, there should be regular examinations of the person concerned throughout his working career in the particular occupation or trade. It is very important right at the start to institute such precautions for the workers because otherwise we may find that too many of the workers, who are perfectly well and healthy when they go into the industry, may after two years of work become liable to silicosis and other respiratory diseases which are mentioned in the report to which I have referred. It is not only the silicosis problem that the Minister will have to meet but I also find that there are cases occurring now of skin cancers due to the use of various types of dyes and irritant substances. Here again it becomes necessary for the worker to have ample protection through the years that he is working in the trade. I suggest that regular inspections be made by industrial medical practitioners who should be trained in the particular type of work that is required from them so that they could make the necessary inspection of factories throughout the country and make certain that the workers do not expose themselves harmfully to the irritating substances with which they work. Whether these substances are inhaled, whether they are contact substances, is immaterial; what is material is that a careful check be made of the worker throughout his career in the particular type of work. I will leave it at that, Sir, because I feel that the Minister is on the right track and will do what he possibly can to prevent workers from suffering disease unnecessarily. I would say to him, however, that where the Department of Labour needs advice in matters of health, not only should they have industrial physicians attached to the Department but the Department itself should work in close collaboration with the Department of Health. I think that if these two Departments worked in harmony there would definitely be a much better safeguard for the worker.

In the matter of sick pay I feel that all workers will welcome this provision, and we on this side, of course, are very pleased that the Minister has introduced this provision. We support it to the hilt. There will be, I think, one or two difficulties that the Minister may find arising in the course of the practical application of giving the worker sick leave. One of them is the necessity for certification after the second day of illness. That sounds as if it is a simple matter for a worker to go to a doctor and get a certificate to say that he was ill after the second day, but in practice it may become a little difficult, because the worker may quite easily not be able to afford to bring in a doctor for what is sometimes a complaint which is of a minor nature, but yet keeps him away from work. He knows that he cannot go to work because of this minor complaint, he knows that he can get better if he stays in bed for a day or two, and yet he will have to get a doctor and the doctor will have to issue a certificate to prove that he had been ill. Of course, in the past a lot of abuse has occurred because of people staying away from work unnecessarily. But I would say to the Minister that he should be lenient on those people who find it a little expensive to go to a doctor for a certificate after the first or second day of illness. I would say that unless a worker is away from work for three or four days, it should not be necessary for him to have a certificate, but he should at least inform the employer on the first day of his illness that he is not coming to work, and allow the employer the right, if necessary, to send a doctor. Especially if the employer knows that the particular worker belongs to a medical aid scheme or benefit society, he could suggest that a doctor be sent along and a certificate given.

As regards the question of certification, I am a little perturbed, because besides the necessity for the immediate certification of an illness, the Minister has introduced firstly, a new principle of certification in this Bill. He is not only asking medical practitioners to certify but he says further in the new section 39A that, “… unless such person has been examined within the prescribed period by a registered medical practitioner …”, and then comes this phrase which perturbs me, “… or other person holding such qualifications as may be prescribed …”. Now, I do not know who these other persons are. That Minister must please tell the House what he means by that and also who is going to prescribe these qualifications. There is no reference to the qualifications anywhere in the Bill and there is also no reference to who will prescribe these qualifications. I do hope that the Minister is not going to introduce a body of persons who will be allowed the right to examine an individual when he comes into an occupation, or that he will give this body of individuals also the right to certify in respect of absence from work. It is a completely new innovation, and I do not know whether the Minister has discussed this matter with the Department of Health, but I am certain that he is going to find that there will be a lot of opposition to this type of legislation unless he has a satisfactory answer to this problem.

Then also I feel that the Minister has given the inspector of factories too wide powers. I think that here the inspector, as is set out in the Bill and in clause 5 particularly—we will come back to this during the Committee Stage, naturally—has too wide powers. I should like a satisfactory explanation which may make things easier during the Committee Stage. If he will read clause 5 again the Minister will see that. “An inspector may in his discretion… He does not take advice from anybody. He works on his own. He may go into any type of factory at any time of the day and all that he has to do is “by notice in writing … vary any period … specified in a registration certificate or provisional factory permit or cancel any such permit”. I think that this clause 5 needs further study. I think that here the inspector surely must take his directions from some other body, some superior body. Not only is he able to cancel any such permit, but I cannot find any provision where an aggrieved party or a dissatisfied employer can make any appeal to any other body for a revision of the inspector’s decision. It is in his discretion, he has acted in a certain way, and that seems to be the end of the story. I should very much like the hon. the Minister to study this once more and give us some indication as to whether there is any method whereby the inspector can have his decision reviewed. It is very important to the employer; it is important to the employee as well, because by this man’s action he not only prevents the employer from carrying on the work of the particular factory but he can put out of work a large number of employees. I do not think that that is the intention of the Minister. Perhaps he will explain that to the House. I think that wherever in the Bill there is provision made for an inspector to take it upon himself to prevent a factory from continuing its work, the Minister should in those instances allow the owner of the factory, or the employer, the right to appeal against the decision of the inspector, and from the time when the bar is put on the factory until the appeal is heard, activities should be allowed to continue. That will do two things: It will not put people out of employment and at the same time it will hasten the work of the Department in those cases because I am sure that the Minister does not intend to allow employees to expose themselves to any dangerous practice in the course of their work.

I think there is another matter that we must consider. I do not know whether it comes under this Minister, but I think that this Minister should at least try and influence the Minister of Health to provide further opportunities for medical practitioners to interest themselves in industrial medicine. It is most important and I am sure that the Minister of Health, who is in the House at the moment, will realize that with the growth of industry in this country and with the rapid changes that take place in the preparation of articles and substances of all kinds it has become necessary for more effective steps to be taken to protect the persons who work in each particular type of occupation, trade or profession.

Order! The hon. member has been allowed to get away from the Bill, but he should now return to it.

I know that, Sir, and I agree that that is something outside the provisions of this Bill, but it is important to bring it to the notice of the House, and perhaps at a later stage I shall also suggest that the time has come that the Minister of Labour perhaps may even establish an institution for the study of industrial disease.

Again I want to say to the Minister that we on this side welcome the Bill, that we will support it, and we hope that the Minister will be able to give us a satisfactory explanation of those matters which I have brought to his notice.

Mr. Speaker, in reply to the pleas and objections raised here by the Opposition speaker, I want to start by giving the assurance that this Act will be administered with the fullest practicable consultation with medical interests. We intend being in the closest contact with them, as I shall now demonstrate to you in respect of some cases.

The hon. member pleaded amongst other things that inspectors should be specially trained people. The suggestion was also made that there should perhaps be provision at the universities for training people in industrial medicine. I may give you the assurance that we have already taken steps in that direction. Consultations have been held with the Provincial hospital authorities and also with the Pneumoconiosis Bureau to obtain the use of their x-ray apparatus, for example. A silicosis is one of the major industrial diseases that have to be combated at present, we have already established contact with those people. I may also give you the assurance, Sir, that we are in contact with the C.S.I.R., to enlist their assistance in this regard. We have also established contact with the universities to impres on them what the hon. member now has in mind, namely the introduction of training courses in industrial medicine. The University of Pretoria has consented to introduce a course in connection with the implementation of this legislation and the hon. member may gather from that that we are indeed giving thorough attention to this matter.

As regards other aspects raised by the hon. member in connection with the too wide powers of the factory inspector, I can just give the assurance that the factory inspector, who is not a medical man, will be in close cooperation with the chief medical officer of the Workmen’s Compensation Section. The hon. member expressed concern at the fact that there would be no revision of the inspector’s decisions. This is indeed done by virtue of section 42, and in terms of that section appeals may in fact be lodged. In connection with clause 39A, the hon. member also raised the question of the other persons, apart from medical practitioners, who can study industrial diseases. This relates to the deaf. As industrial deafness is now included under this section, we have to provide for it. I believe the technical term for such a man is an audiometrist. It is to provide for such an audiometrist that that reference is contained in the legislation, but the qualifications for such an audiometrist will in fact be prescribed by regulation. I may give the assurance that this person has nothing to do with sick leave. This relates only to the combating of industrial diseases. As regards the submission of medical certificates, I may just say that it is a requirement in all our other meaures which are administered by the Department, and in this case it should therefore pose no difficulties.

I think I have now replied to everything. At the Committee stage we can elaborate on it somewhat further. I appreciate the support for the legislation, because it is actually a new dispensation for our factory workers and a measure which is going to mean a tremendous deal to them, and it will mean that in future we shall have a much healthier labour force than we had in the past.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

This Bill opens a completely new outlook in the practice of the health services of this country and it will be necessary for me to refer to the dentist as well as to the doctor. I should like hon. members to understand that where I refer to the doctor I include the brother profession of dentistry.

Over the years the relationship between doctor and patient has been slowly built up. Originally the doctor had a personal relationship with his patient, and the patient was responsible to the doctor for his fee. The payment depended on the standing, the seniority, the skill and the reputation of the doctor, and it was adjusted to the means of the patient. In other words, it was a flexible system, which varied according to the quality of the service and the ability of the receiver to meet his indebtedness. In no other profession is such a principle accepted. But over the years that was the great principle which applied in the practice of personal medicine, and there was no outcry about the high cost of medical care and there was little trouble about doctors’ accounts. But in the latter part of the last century the increasing range and quality of medical care, the immense improvements in the efficiency of modern medicines, the increase of industry, the introduction of the motor car which produced crops of accidents and subsequent crippling, the prolongation of life and its associated problems, with the greater susceptibility of the aged to ill-health, combined with a usually falling income on retirement, produced the desire for pre-paid medical care in healthy days in order to provide for the sickness of the future. At that time life insurance had been in existence for years, and later came this period when the desire for health insurance arose. Just as early life insurance arose from groups of individuals meeting together and instituting the mutual life companies, so we find groups agreeing to collect premiums and use the money so collected to meet the cost of ill-health. Contrary to the habits of life insurance, these groups did not amalgamate and did not form public companies. They remained as individual mutual groups. The healthy youth paid the Bill for his age to come. That is the first introduction of a third party in the health contract between the doctor and his patient, this party being the medical benefit or aid society. The responsibility of the doctor remained unchanged, but the responsibility for payment moved from the patient to a third party, the mutual fund; and in general the quality and the standing of the doctor and the income of the patient became less significant. There was at first no great change in the personal relationship between the doctor and the patient. The doctor gave the same service and the patient owed a responsibility to his fund. I use the words “his fund” advisedly. The small mutual fund was to the patient a personal item, and he was careful not to abuse its use. In the course of time the funds became larger and no longer personal, and abuses arose. The commonest abuses were over visiting by the doctor and over-use by the patient. The financial stability of the funds was in jeopardy. The patient-doctor relationship was in no way disturbed. The doctor saw no reason to discipline his patient and get him back to work as early as possible, and the patient felt that his doctor was giving him adequate treatment. He welcomed the visits; he was not paying anyhow.

Then we come to the employers. They began to appreciate that they had a vital interest in the health of their employees. Absenteeism was important. There was work mans’ compensation for injury and the recognition of industrial diseases, like pneumoconiosis, which made them sympathetic to the suggestion that they should contribute to these funds. Now we have a fourth one coming in. and this one comes in purely with a financial interest, in the patient and in the fund. The payment of the health services and its organization interested him, and as his contribution becomes greater so he reasonably demands some control. This is important. We now have a group which is not interested in health, but is interested in the control of the money paying for health. It introduces the medical certificate, a pestiferous imposition on the doctor. In dealing with his employees, the employer uses his contribution to the fund as a bargaining counter in the wage struggle, and he seeks to obtain medical care in the cheapest market. He finds it useful to make membership of the scheme a condition of employment. He tries to use the doctor’s certificate as a means of disciplining his employees, and in general he disturbs the previous close and mutually satisfactory doctor-patient relationship. Much of the outcry against the high cost of medical services stems from the employer’s unwillingness to meet the extra charge caused by his contribution to the medical fund. In fact, historically, from the intrusion of the employer, we can take the commencement of the cry for cheaper service. The employer, as a business man, wants as much as possible for as little payment as possible.

In the meantime medicine has developed further. People are living longer and with age require more and more varieties of medical care and have a relatively smaller income with which to meet the cost. Medical costs have risen. It provides, more. Industry and commerce, unemployment insurance, companies doing third party cover, workman’s compensation, the aged, the pensioner, are all caught up in what was originally a simple arrangement between two ordinary people, the doctor as the supplier and the patient as the buyer. This is what we have come to to-day. This is the position at present, but to-morrow enters the fifth complicator, the State. With the entry of the State into medical practice, we enter a new era. This could be the last straw which breaks the camel’s back. By this time the doctor is sick and tired of the various agencies nagging him and the patient, and the patient frequently regards the doctor as his full-time employee, no longer expecting or even thinking of a personal relationship. He looks for slights and what he considers evidence of disinterest and perhaps neglect, and he makes complaints, and so for all practical purposes the old doctor-patient relationship has been completely disrupted. This is the tragedy of contract practice, where the patient thinks of his medical attendant not as a doctor but as a universal attendant always available by lifting the telephone, on instant call for 24 hours a day and seven days a week. This, of course, the doctor provides. The doctor has not changed, but the patient has changed. He is no longer responsible for his side of the contract. He does not meet the cost directly. More and more the middle-man is entering and spoiling our lives. The farmer sells his mealies for J 50 cents. By the time the consumer eats them, they are costing 300 cents. Too many hands have touched the mealie on its journey. Now we have the middle-man in medicine. The member pays his contribution, but before, it reaches the doctor there are three middle-men imposing conditions. The patient and the doctor remain the same individuals, but their out-took towards each other has changed. Three pairs of hands have slipped in between them.

The part played by the State varies from country to country. In Australia the contribution of the Government is restricted to accounting and auditing. In the United Kingdom the State has taken full responsibility for all services. The patient has all the treatment and no responsibilities. In the Bill we are considering to-day the part played by the State is not great, but it is the thin end of the wedge, and it is also aimed at interfering between the doctor and the remuneration he receives for his services, and no one will accuse the State of trying to increase that remuneration.

It eliminates any knowledge or obligation on the part of the patient in connection with the payment of the doctor’s fee. It dictates and it really takes control of these voluntary funds and it pays no contribution except possibly the salary of that instrument of dictation, the Registrar appointed under this measure. The State would have been better employed in more rapidly increasing the supply of doctors than in joining the queue of those intervening between the doctor and the sick man in the quest for cheap medical services. This, Sir, is the introduction of the Marketing Act into medicine. In this Bill lies the prospect of benefit to the sick and real control of moneys collected from the members of these funds, but it also attempts to limit the freedom and independence of the doctors in their care of the sick. It has in it the seeds of dictation to the doctors.

Doctors are South Africans and like all South Africans they resent dictation; they are trained to accept responsibility, the responsibility for the lives of men and the health and happiness of families. They are used to giving orders, not receiving them. This Bill will be of benefit in the short-term but I cannot refrain from warning that in the long run it may lower the standard of living of the medical profession, and with that will go a lowering of the standard of recruits to the profession and the slow deterioration of its high educational, its moral and its behavioural pattern. This effect will be slow but sure, and the high quality of to-day’s medical service will gradually disappear. In the intangible and the unwritten professional code it is dangerous to use the law to attempt to remould what free enterprise, since Hippocrates, from the centuries starting before Christ, has evolved.

Sir, there are parts of this Bill which we will attempt to change in the Committee Stage. I will not itemize them at present except to say that we feel that the council should have greater authority over its Registrar. A new era in medical practice is opened by this Bill— the entry of the State. It is not free from danger to our standards. We welcome the Bill bit it is a fallacy to believe that it will make the health rand spread any further. The average man must appreciate that he cannot have doctoring, X-rays, nursing, medicine, massage, hospitalization and convalescence for the amount he pays at present to the funds. All those who supply these services must be trained, trained at their own expense, and qualified through studies which they must themselves carry out, and when they are qualified they must live. They are entitled to live a life commensurate with their professional standing and as a reward for their prolonged studies and their devoted service. If they do not make a decent living, there will be no entrants and gradually the professions will disappear. To make provision for all necessary health services, the health rand must grow, and the real problem is whether the State shall undertake the burden or whether a member of a scheme must put his hand deeper into his pocket. This is an effort on the part of the State to control the services of those (not only the doctors) who provide personal health attention to the individual citizen and his dependants. It will affect all those who practise the professions ancilliary to medicine.

Whatever safeguards the authorities may wish to introduce for such organizations as are in the business of sickness insurance, the final persons to treat with such bodies are the doctors alone. They dare not sacrifice their independent status otherwise they become part of some kind of public service under bureacratic control. Sir, this matter is summed up in last week’s Sunday Times, in a leading article which said—

I want to agree with what the hon. member for Durban (Central) said. We all realize that medical science made tremendous progress during the past decade or two. Tremendous progress was made not only in regard to the knowledge and the ability of doctors and surgeons but also in regard to medical examinations and at present, with the paramedical services, better services are being rendered as regards diagnostics and subsequent treatment. Along with this progress there has been a substantial increase in the cost structure of medical treatment and at present medicines are much more expensive than before. The hon. the Minister realized this fact some years ago when he appointed a commission under the chairmanship of Professor Snyman to investigate the increase in medical costs.

The commission presented a very good report which formed the basis of further steps taken by the hon. the Minister and his Department which gave rise to the idea of placing existing medical benefit schemes on a sound and firm basis. The hon. the Minister appointed a commission to investigate the entire matter and I think the commission presented a very good report which could be used as the basis of the Bill now before us. I am grateful that the hon. the Minister accepted my minority report and granted my request to give recognition in this Bill to the Medical Association and the Dental Association. Perhaps the hon. the Minister expects me to be quite satisfied with the Bill in its present form, but unfortunately there are a few small matters to which I want to ask the hon. the Minister to give his attention.

At this stage I should like to mention a few of these matters in brief and I shall be glad if the hon. the Minister will give his attention to these matters during the few days before we take the Committee Stage, and if he will be prepared to accept my suggestions amendments may possibly be effected during the Committee Stage. I should like to thank the hon. the Minister for all the other changes effected by him to the Bill in consequence of representations made to him by various bodies and persons. I feel that the Bill still contains a few provisions which may cause difficulty. I refer, for instance, to clause 1 (xi), which defines a “medical scheme” as a scheme established with the object of making provision for “the rendering, free of charge, to members thereof … of medical, paramedical, nursing, surgical or dental services”.

Personally I feel that that is misleading and that that cannot be left as it is. We cannot have a scheme under which services are rendered free of charge. I feel that it is a sound principle that members of any society must make a contribution to the services rendered to them. After all, the basic idea underlying medical aid schemes is that members of the aid scheme remain responsible to a certain extent for services rendered to them or their dependants. I feel that that basic idea should be retained in this Bill and I want to ask the hon. the Minister to give his attention to the desirability of amending this definition of “medical scheme”. I feel that the words “free of charge” should not form part of the definition. If these words are omitted their omission will have the beneficial effect not only that members of such schemes will realize their own obligations but also that they will not make use of the services of doctors unnecessarily.

Another matter I should like to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister is the constitution of the council in clause 5. This clause provides that the council shall consist of a chairman, appointed by the Minister, and of seven to nine ordinary members of whom one shall be designated by the Minister as vice-chairman of the council. One of the seven ordinary members shall be a medical practitioner, one shall be a dentist, one shall be a chemist, one shall be a person who has special knowledge of medical benefit schemes, one shall be a person who has special knowledge of medical aid schemes, one shall be a person who has special knowledge of medical schemes established under agreements published under the Industrial Conciliation Act, and one shall be a person who has special knowledge of hospital services.

In this country we have always felt that our medical service should not be a State medical service; that we are to leave some measure of free negotiation between patient and medical practitioner. Seeing that we are going to establish a council which will deal with the interest of both the suppliers of the services and the receivers of the services, I feel that the council ought to be made a little more democratic by appointing the members from a panel of names submitted by the medical benefit and aid societies as well as the other societies concerned. I feel that that will lead to greater satisfaction amongst the members of these schemes. There was a time when certain representatives of such schemes were afraid that they would be dominated by the representatives of the suppliers of medical services, but now provision is being made for the appointment of a vice-chairman and two additional members who may be appointed by the Minister from the public. These members will be able to maintain the balance between the representatives of the medical profession and the representatives of these schemes. Consequently members of these schemes need have no fear that justice will not be done to them.

I think that the provision in the Bill that all disputes are to be referred to the central council or to arbitration for decision will remove all doubt for the benefit schemes and the medical aid schemes, because in that case no decision of the Medical Association or of the Dental Association can be enforced on them.

Clause 12 provides for the establishment of a National Association of Medical Aid Schemes and a National Association of Medical Benefit Schemes. I just want to ask the hon. the Minister whether the employers who also contribute to these funds should not be given representation on these two bodies. I feel that the establishment of these two bodies is a step in the right direction. The various medical aid societies and the various medical benefit schemes are now being brought together and will now be able to speak as from one mouth and the stronger ones will be able to assist the weaker ones, but in view of the fact that some industries also make contributions to the medical aid funds, I feel that they too should be given representation on this body which is now going to be established.

We then come to the fund established by clause 11. Every registered medical scheme shall pay monetary contributions to the fund at such times and on such basis as may be prescribed. In the recommendation made by the commission we requested that the Government should at least bear the administrative costs of this council. Clause 13 provides for the appointment of a registrar who, in my opinion, will be remunerated by the State. However, I should like to have the assurance that the State will also be responsible for the remuneration of the staff and for the provision of the offices which will be used by this council. If that is the case, I am, as far as that clause is concerned, very satisfied and grateful. I hope that the hon. the Minister will give me the assurance that that will in fact be the case.

In clause 20, paragraphs (d) and (e), it is provided that the medical scheme has to make provision “for the continuation of the membership of a member who retires on pension or terminates his employment on account of age, ill-health or other disability”; and “that the widow of a member is entitled to membership during her widowhood or until she becomes entitled to membership of another registered medical scheme by virtue of employment”. In this regard I think there is one difficulty. I just want to draw the attention of the Minister to the fact that the employers contribute to the medical aid funds of their own free will because they want to see that their people need not be concerned about costs during times of illness. Consequently they are prepared to contribute to the fund for the members in their employment. But if the member retires on pension or terminates his employment on account of ill-health, or dies, and the medical aid scheme is obliged to retain the worker or his widow as members, who, in view of the fact that the employer no longer has the advantage of the services of that person on whose behalf he was always prepared to make a contribution, is going to be responsible for that share of the contributions previously paid to the fund on behalf of the employee by the employer?

Then I want to ask why a contribution from employers is only expected in the case of medical aid schemes and not in the case of benefit funds as well? Here I want to refer specifically to the benefit funds of the mines. The mining industry probably is the biggest industry in our country up to the present time. I want to repeat that the working conditions of the mine-workers are poorer than those in any other industry in the country, because subterranean conditions create more possibilities of workers to contract diseases than exist for people who work on the ground. Why are employers of people who work in healthier conditions expected to make contributions to the sick funds of their employees whereas in this specific case no contributions are made to the sick funds of the mine-workers? I should like to hear what the views of the hon. the Minister are in regard to this matter.

I now want to refer to clause 31. The Afrikaans version of subsection (8) reads as follows—

Now follows the part which I do not like—

The terms and conditions of the relevant agreement between a medical practitioner or a group of medical practitioners and the employers usually make provision for a medical practitioner to retire from the service of such benefit scheme upon giving notice of 30 days or three months. However, this subsection provides that, notwithstanding that agreement entered into by him with the benefit fund, he may not withhold his services from a member or a dependant of a member of the scheme for whose treatment he is under that agreement responsible until such time as such dispute has been settled in the manner provided by this section. That dispute may last six months or longer. That means that this obliges one to render service to that scheme, whether or not one wants to do so. I should like this matter to be clarified. If I understand the matter incorrectly, I shall be glad if the Minister can explain it to me, because even in the English version we read—

This is when notice is given of a matter being jn dispute and prior to judgment having been given—

Consequently I feel that this should be clarified to a greater extent. I feel that it is not fair and just to compel a person to work for a number of months if he does not want to work for a scheme.

I welcome this legislation. I think it will bring a period of rest as far as this state of affairs is concerned which has caused trouble between medical practitioner and the schemes for many years. If we can still rectify a few of these matters, and I hope we shall be able to do so, I can only predict peace and quiet between the medical practitioners and the medical aid schemes and the medical benefit schemes. I trust that in the future everything will go well with the medical aid services..

In case there is any doubt about what the hon. member for Durban (Central) said, I should like to repeat again that we on this side of the House support this Bill. A Bill of this nature has become necessary as a result of the developments in our country over the past number of years. We are no longer living in the distant past; we are no longer living in those days when doctors regarded it as an honour to serve a hospital in an honorary capacity. To-day it has become a matter of rands and cents. Doctors themselves have to some extent contributed to the changes that have come about in our dealings with patients. Because of circumstances that have come about, because of the rising cost of living, there is no doubt that a natural corollary of this has been a rise in the cost of treating the sick. As a matter of fact, sometimes the cost is so high that people are prohibited from calling in a doctor at all—unless they get help of some sort. Doctors to-day are still willing to serve the public in the best possible manner. They expect a fee that will ensure them a living. That doctors are prepared to do this, is proved conclusively by the fact that doctors to-day are prepared to undertake work for medical aid and benefit societies at a reduced fee. Those of us who are still practising know that our consulting rooms nowadays contain patients in the main belonging to medical aid or benefit societies—in the main 80 per cent and in some cases even 100 per cent. Because of the help these societies are rendering to the patient in order to assist him to combat the rising cost of treating the sick there has, we find, been an increase in the number of medical aid and benefit societies. Doctors are willing to comply with the needs of the patient. There are, of course, exceptions as there are in all other fields.

Doctors are willing to help, and there should be no necessity for them to fear the future. As a matter of fact, the standing of the doctor will remain high and, what is more, he wishes to build it up even further. They will make sure that they can provide the services for the sick as has been done in the past. There is no difference in our make up to-day; there is no difference in our attitude to-day to the patient. The difference lies in the fact that, because of the circumstances which have arisen, it is almost impossible for the patient, to get services from a doctor at a reasonable cost, and also to meet the extras flowing from a visit to a doctor. This is where the difficulty lies. It does not lie between the doctor and the patient. In most cases there still is a first class association between patient and doctor. This has not disappeared. Of course, you get the exceptions where a patient makes unnecessary demands upon a doctor and where a doctor himself is not playing the game. These, however, are the exceptions. I have patients on my books, and I am sure it is also the case with other hon. members of this House who are medical practitioners, who to-day have exactly the same level of association with me as they had when they were private patients. The fact that they have become medical aid patients has not affected the standing of the one towards the other. Of course, it can get damaged in the process of the years, damaged by certain unreasonable people whether they are doctors or patients. But as things stand at the moment doctors and patients are willing to get together to combat the unfortunate rise in the cost of treating the sick.

I welcome this Bill particularly because I regard it as a start towards something better. We are going to be faced with difficulties when it comes to implementing the Bill. As a matter of fact, the hon. member for Geduld has already pointed to certain of these difficulties. I agree with him that we are going to get difficulties. I am sure, however, that through trial and error we can improve what has been presented to us in this Bill. I won’t condemn this Bill because it has certain faults in it. The principle of the Bill is what is of importance now and this principle at least gives us a chance to build something better. If the circumstances created by this Bill are not perfect, then let us work towards a perfect state or as near to that as we possibly can. We have difficulties in respect of certain provisions of this Bill but these difficulties we shall voice when the clauses concerned are being dealt with in committee. I, for instance, do not like the registrar being the controller. I do not want the registrar controlling the council but should like to see the council controlling the registrar. I should like to make sure that the Minister impresses upon the registrar that he shall be a servant of the council and take his instructions from the council, not the reverse. But these are things we can straighten out during the Committee Stage. Another clause provides for the establishment of a fund, a fund which should be used to the benefit of an unfortunate patient needing some special treatment, a type of treatment the cost of which cannot be met by the resources of an ordinary medical aid or benefit society. The way this provision is presented to us creates doubt in our minds about the exact object of the fund and also puts doubt into one’s mind about whether the State is contributing sufficient towards this fund. The State should be prepared to put its hand into its pocket and supplement, if necessary on a rand for rand basis, those contributions made by medical aid and benefit societies to this fund. These are matters which can be straightened out only on the basis of experience in the next couple of years.

I should like the House to know that in treating a patient it is not so much the fees the doctor charges that create difficulties. There is not a single person in this Chamber who will say that doctors, ignoring the exceptions, overcharge. I say what is grossly unfair are the charges levied by certain nursing homes—as a matter of fact, in certain cases it is cheaper to go to the best hotel in the country than to go into a nursing home and get a feed. It is far more expensive to go into a nursing home. For a private bed in a nursing home to be presented with an account of R20 per day is not unusual. And what does this charge include? It virtually includes only bed and breakfast and in many cases the breakfast is not even eaten because the patient is too sick for that. The food you get in a nursing home is not at all comparable with the food you will get in an hotel where you have to pay R20 a day— that is for sure.

Excluding the hotels in Cape Town.

I make no exclusions. What is important is to see what small percentage of the total cost of illness goes to the doctor. What does medicine, for instance, cost to-day? I am shocked when I sometimes read what people have to pay for medicine and then to look at the share market reports and see what the distributing pharmaceutical companies are paying out as dividends and how their shares are gradually going higher and higher. These profits must be coming from somewhere. I think the time has come for us to investigate what exactly is happening. The Minister will agree with me if I say that it is not the doctors who are levying exorbitant charges—these exorbitant charges come from the services given to the patient after the doctor has left his bedside and has presented him with a prescription and instructions.

I think this Bill is a start in the direction of combating these excessive charges—in any event, that is how I look at it. If this proposed council is to do its work properly it will not only encourage medical aid societies to come into being, it must not only encourage the best utilization of the facilities we have at the moment, but it can also be a watchdog as far as excessive costs are concerned. That can also be done through the benefit societies and medical aid societies. Because at the moment there happens to be a shortage of beds is primarily the reason why nursing homes can dictate costs. We do not have a sufficient number of beds available and the demand is larger than the supply. As long as these rising costs are not checked medical aid and benefit societies are going to be loaded with increasing demands and they in turn can only meet such demands by increasing the contributions of their members. The Government is not doing anything to alleviate this position at the moment. I am not afraid, as perhaps my hon. friend the member for Durban (Central) is. that the State should give a contribution towards the costs of medicine. What I do not want is the State to interfere in the running of a doctor’s practice. I do not want State medicine to come into being in South Africa. However, I do want the State to take a hand in alleviating the cost factor. If we can do that the State too can keep its eyes open for any unwise expenditure of money and for unwarranted demands made by services outside the doctors’.

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

Afternoon Sitting

Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few words about the question of disputes in a matter of fees between doctor and medical aid or benefit society. I think that the arbitration which is provided for in the Bill is satisfactory, but there is one point which I think needs some clarification. During the evidence that was heard in select committee and during the commission’s sittings, it became quite apparent that the Medical Council was not prepared to discuss differences of opinion in regard to medical fees when the complaint was brought by a medical aid society or a benefit society. They were concerned mainly with the question of patient and doctor without any intermediary. The position is somewhat one-sided because if the patient has a complaint against the doctor, a complaint of any kind whether it be in regard to a fee or unprofessional conduct, the patient can go directly to the Medical Council and the Medical Council can go into the matter and decide what steps should be taken. There is also the question of arbitration between medical aid societies and general practitioners and here they can arrive at a satisfactory conclusion. But where a medical aid society feels that a doctor has been abusing his privilege and has perhaps been over-visiting a patient or perhaps over-prescribing, one wonders whether it should not be possible for the medical aid society in question to be given an opportunity of having its case heard by the Medical Council. I do not think that the doctor would object to that. I do not think so but the Medical Council does not want to take that responsibility of interfering in a dispute between a medical aid society and a doctor. Although I cannot imagine a medical aid society or a benefit society making a frivolous accusation against a doctor, that medical aid society has no opportunity of putting its case before the Medical Council for investigation. I wonder if we could not do something about this matter so as to give the doctors an opportunity of stating their case when allegations of this sort are made and at the same time allowing the medical aid society to voice its opinion in these matters. But perhaps the hon. the Minister would be able to enlighten the House as to any possibility that we may have of getting this difficult matter settled.

In the few minutes that are left to me I want to say a few words about the composition of the Council. I feel that the composition of the council as it is stated is quite good. If we find that it has to be increased in size, or we find later that it is too big and there may be certain members of the council whom we may find redundant, that is beside the point. What I think is pertinent is how persons are going to be appointed to serve on this council. Who is going to make the appointment? Obviously the Minister is going to have the last say in this matter. I was wondering whether or not it would not be a good idea for the Minister now to allow persons to be selected by him from a panel of names which would be submitted to him by the relative body representing a group on this council. Now that the Minister has decided through his amendments to recognize the Medical Association of South Africa, I think that it would be quite satisfactory in all ways for the Medical Association to submit a panel of names of doctors. The same would apply to dentists. The Pharmacy Board would perhaps be able to help by submitting a list of names as well. That would of course obviate any difficulty or criticism which would be levelled at the Minister concerning the choice of persons whom he is going to put on this council. It can do no harm at all for the Minister to receive these panels of names. I would suggest to him that if such an amendment is moved later, he should accept it.

Finally, I want to say that this Bill is necessary. When one thinks of the large number of persons affected by medical aid schemes or medical benefit societies, one realizes that almost half of the white population is covered by one or other of these schemes. If some sort of control or direction is not introduced it is quite obvious that we are going to meet all sorts of troubles in the further development of prepaid medical assurance. I feel that the Minister must regard this Bill as one which will have to be altered from time to time. It is a new direction and new controls are going to be introduced. Doctors may find later that provisions of this Bill are cumbersome and do not work properly and medical aid societies or medical benefit societies may find like disabilities in this Bill. I would say to the Minister that he should give it a chance to see how it works and then come to this House, after perhaps a year or two, and effect any amendments which may have been suggested by him by the interested parties. I must say that the Minister has been quite fair and he has acceded to the requests of the Medical Association as well as the requests made by those persons interested in the Industrial Conciliation Act. There we meet difficulties about a minimum standard of benefit. Minimum standards of benefit are very important indeed but we will find that some medical aid and medical benefit societies cannot measure up to those minimum standards. It may therefore be necessary for the Minister to give exemptions to these medical aid and medical benefit societies. I would say to the Minister: Let us see how the scheme goes. Make them realize from now onwards that the control and the promotion of the medical schemes will be in the hands of the council and not in the hands of one individual and I think that he will find that the contributor to the schemes and the doctor will derive some measure of protection from this Bill and that all of us will eventually be satisfied with these provisions.

Mr. Speaker, the provision of medical services to the public of our country was represented by the Snyman Commission as a triangular relationship in which the medical profession played a major and the most significant part. I think that nobody will disagree with such a view. It is a part which has been justified historically and which has its origins in tradition. Since this Act is being described as an Act which will open up for us a new chapter in medical services in South Africa, I want to glance back briefly at the distant past. To my mind the private medical practitioner in the history of medicine in South Africa has always been the most important person in the provision of medical services. They were the free medical practitioners. As far back as December, 1657, we read that a certain Jan Vettema, who was the chief surgeon of the D.E.I.C., tendered his resignation because he wanted to be a free surgeon to all of the Free Burghers. Even in those days this man’s fees were not enough. He requested further privileges, inter alia, permission to take part in the liquor trade. This did, of course, assure him even more patients. Even in that time it was said that there should not be any monopolies. That has always been the story of the medical practitioner, namely his relationship with patients and the remuneration for his services. I find that the first recorded account was specified rather well. In the year 1698 a certain Paul le Fevre visited a widow Geel and he sent her the following specified account—

After that he said—

He did not say what the account was. Nor is it stated whether this account was paid. The first record of a paid account we only find years later, in May, 1766. A certain Haszing, a medical practitioner of the 18th century, visited a minister’s wife, and his account was specified as follows—

His fee for that amounted to 4/6 or three rix dollars. That is the first account on which the words “paid with thanks” appear underneath. After that we see another account which he rendered on 6th January, 1767. For his visit to a certain Le Roe’s wife he was paid a carload of fire-wood. As far back as 1713 the sum of three rix dollars was paid to a certain Dirk Smit—he was a medical practitioner at Stellenbosch—in respect of one year’s medical and barber’s services. We have come a long way. At present the profession has at least become somewhat more refined. We no longer receive wood and things of that nature in remuneration. We no longer have to provide barber’s services in practising our profession.

In my view the success of this Bill will depend on the co-operation the Minister and the public of our country will be able to obtain with the medical profession. I trust that this co-operation will be obtained, even if it does happen that concessions will be asked in respect of minor points here and there. Concern about high costs can only harm the average patient. In the International Code of Medical Ethics the medical profession professed the principle that a medical practitioner should not allow himself to be influenced simply and solely by the profit motive. It is also stated in the Geneva Declaration that “the health of my patient will be my first concern”. I want to elaborate on this by saying that I hope that this Bill will also lead to the following slogan being adopted by our South African medical practitioners, namely that “the health of my people will be my first concern”. This Bill which seeks to make provision for the control and promotion of medical schemes, does, of course, embrace a certain form of coercion and regimentation, but that is a characteristic of all forms of legislation to which all of us have to subject ourselves for the common good. We must tolerate it. However, in this process of legislation one feels that the interests of all groups should be justly taken into account. The average medical practitioner is not very fond of rules and laws extraneous to his personal task. He accepted his conscience clause when he started out in his profession. That is the Hippocratic Oath which, inter alia, reads as follows—

The medical practitioner’s ability is a highly individual characteristic. His relationship with his patient is an intimate and personal matter. His hours and the demands made upon him know no rules. Because of the nature of his work, his background and his profession it is no easy task to get a medical practitioner to adapt himself to rules and laws outside his profession. At the same time I believe that there are few professions to which more respect and compassion are shown in our country than to the medical profession. This is a voluntary association which has, to my mind, originated and resulted from the fine relationship between the family doctor of the past and his patient, to whom he has always been not only a technical person, but also a teacher and a friend. This relationship is a precious thing. It has been a preservative element in our society. I should not like to see this relationship being impaired.

But during the past few years this relationship has been clouded. It is steadily being clouded more and more, because of ever-increasing medical costs. But we should be fair in this respect. The reasons for this increase cannot be laid at the door of the medical practitioner only. The position in South Africa is the same as that in other countries. In its report the Snyman Commission said the following—

In addition to that we find that we ourselves show a slight lack of balance in our consumer pattern and in our sense of values. In 1959 the average consumer in South Africa spent 4.67 per cent of his income on liquor, but in respect of personal care and health he only spent 4.35 per cent. That, too, is a charge against us, in the preferences we set for ourselves. Although these higher costs are therefore comparatively speaking not so bad, the medical practitioner is seen as the central figure in these rising costs. Whether or not this is fair, I shall leave to you to decide. The medical practitioner knows and accepts the trend towards socializing health services— with certain provisos—as well as insurance against illness. As long ago as 80 years Bismarck introduced a social health service, in the face of very strong opposition by the public. We know that the concept of life insurance preceded this concept of health insurance. As far back as 1830 a medical practitioner, in the person of Dr. Sam Bailey, was appointed to act on behalf of an insurance company.

In the past few years we have seen how this trend has developed further. Britain has socialized her health services completely. Sweden, New Zealand and other countries followed suit. In our own country, too, we have had certain benefit funds for years. The Sick Fund of the South African Railways is an example of this. We also have the Mines Benefit Sick Fund. Then we started getting these medical aid schemes. We are all conversant with the United Banks Medical Aid Society and others, and it could be expected sooner or later that this form of social service, if it worked well, would have to be taken further. The need became greater all the time, because the inflationary rise in medical costs created a dilemma for all of us. In this respect the medical profession has to be willing to surrender, Jo a certain extent, the right to determine fees, because then its relationship with the public will, in my opinion, be maintained. To my mind it should also accept the responsibility of even making concessions in being subjected to legislation. We all know that legislation is not a solution to all complaints. Quite often we have to admit that legislation is too negative. But I think that we have an Act here which is positive in many respects. It does not pretend to solve the problem of high medical costs. On the contrary, it is an Act which merely seeks to remedy a position which is developing further and further. This scheme development which is already in progress reminds me of one of the great professors in surgery we had in this country, Professor Charles Saint. He was also one of my Professors, and he always held up to us four principles which we had to bear in mind when we had to contend with a surgical problem, and I think that one can also apply them here. These four principles were: “Remove the cause, combat the effects, assist the reaction and prevent complications.” I should say that the hon. the Minister has already tackled the first two principles of these four when, by means of the Drugs Control Act, he provided legislation for the purpose of bringing down or controlling the rising cost of medicine. But as far as this Act is concerned, we are dealing with the third principle, namely “assist the reaction”. That is the active extension of medical schemes which have come ta stay and under which more than half of the Whites in our country are already being provided with certain services. But so far this task has only been one of encouragement. This is where the fourth principle comes into play, namely the complications. The complications which arose in connection with these medical schemes which developed freely and without any statutory regimentation, were as follows: there was a lack of uniformity in the various schemes, there were various premiums for the members, the conditions for membership were applied arbitrarily, there were various benefits, poor administration and even exploitation. It could not go on that way. I think that this Act is tackling the latter two principles, namely to assist the reaction and to prevent complications. That is why we find that the two most important characteristics of this Act are the determination of tariffs on a uniform basis and the standardization of the rules of medical schemes and benefit funds.

As regards the determination of tariffs by law, this is nothing new in the history of this country. As far back as April, 1807, according to Burrough’s Medical History of South Africa, the Earl of Caledon introduced control over the professional medical practice at the Cape, and he included a tariff of fees which could be charged, and the reason given for this was as follows: “In order to induce the regularly educated part of the profession to remain in the Colony by preventing the wicked practice of under-cutting.” Even at that time the problem of price-wars among people was to be found. These fixed tariffs were valid for 15 years, until 1823. I may tell you that in those years the tariff for a visit in Cape Town was fixed at a minimum of one rix-dollar or Is. 6d. In that way the principle of minimum prices for the medical profession as well, was laid down as long ago as that. In view of the fact that the fixing of tariffs is therefore not an entirely new principle, one feels that it is specifically for the benefit of all those people who need it as security, the average man, for whom it may now be possible to provide extra cover, and this enables him to maintain his doctor-patient relationship. He may still choose his own doctor. Therefore I am very pleased that this principle of being able to choose one’s own doctor will continue to apply in respect of these medical aid schemes, although to a much smaller degree in the case of medical benefit schemes.

Although legislation is not the solution to all problems, I nevertheless want to mention just one or two positive aspects of this Act. As far as I am concerned, this is still not the socializing of medicine, and I also want to oppose the idea that we shall have socializing of medicine in South Africa. I think I have said enough to indicate how important the doctor-patient relationship is, and I think, that that will be damaged irreparably if we should follow the course taken by Great Britain, namely that of socializing medicine entirely. I feel that we should guard against that, and the view I take is that we should rather move in the direction of medical benefit schemes where a free choice still exists. Within certain limits the free choice of doctor and patient still exists, and we are pleased about that. There are better conditions and protection for members in these rules which can be applied to medical schemes. Something that pleases me a great deal, is the following: It happens that medical schemes are quite often not in a position to indemnify their members fully when they have to cope with exceptionally high medical expenses. In this respect we may mention cases of open-heart operations and other major and protracted set-backs which may result in such great expense that the medical scheme simply does not have the funds to cover such a person. Fear of this is to a large extent being reduced and removed in that there will now be a Central Fund for these medical schemes, a fund in which money will be available for these exceptional cases involving very high expenses. Then there is the elimination of abuses for which satisfactory provision is being made in this Act and which may be extended further by way of regulations. I want to say that I am glad that as regards section 32 of this Bill—which made provision for certain penalties and which we feel is not the sort of provision that is worthy of the medical profession—the Minister was willing to accommodate us by abandoning this section and putting section 31 (8) in its place. I also believe that the fact that the hon. the Minister was prepared, after initial differences, to recognize the Medical Association of South Africa as the mouthpiece of the medical profession of South Africa—and also the Dental Association of South Africa—can only have the effect that, when this Act comes into operation, it will meet with the general approval of the public and the goodwill and blessing of the medical profession. Where points of friction do occur, we may eliminate them in time to come. I want to express the hope that this Act will usher in a new era of constructive co-operation, not only between the doctor and his patient but also between the doctor, the patient, the general public and the State, and that there will in future be fine co-operation among them for the common good.

May I say to the hon. member for Gordonia that I endorse wholeheartedly his remark that this Bill will result in a new era in so far as medical schemes and medical benefits to the public are concerned. I want to say at the outset that we on this side of the House support this Bill. We believe that improvements can be made, and any criticisms which may be offered in the committee stage or in the Second Reading Debate, are offered in a sense of constructive criticism with the idea of producing a Bill that will work with amity and efficiency. We regard this as a very important measure; we regard it as having far-reaching benefits for the people of South Africa.

Sir, it is my pleasant lot for this side of the House to express a word of appreciation to the officials who took part in the work of the commission, who made the commissioners’ stay and work in Pretoria so much more pleasant because they made facilities available for them and provided them with whatever they required for their work. I would like also to pay tribute to the chairman of the commission, Dr. Coertze, the former member for Standerton who, with his legal experience, was of great assistance to the commission and was responsible for the friendly manner in which negotiation were conducted at all times, both among the members of the commission and jn so far as the witnesses themselves were concerned

Now I want to come back to the remark made by the hon. the Minister in his Second Reading Speech. Let me quote his actual words—

Sir, I believe that the Minister had no intention of nullifying the work of the commission when he said that. I want to refer firstly to the three points of difference to which the Minister referred in his speech, and then I want to point out that when one compares the Bill which the commission prepared as a result of its deliberations, with the Bill which is before us to-day, one finds that there are more than three differences. I can find at least another ten differences, and I feel, for the sake of the record, that it is fitting that we should record these differences. The Minister in dealing with these three points of difference said firstly that in so far as the schedule of fees of medical practitioners was concerned there would be practical difficulties in including these fees in a schedule. With this I agree, and the change which is now being brought about means that the fees can be published in the Gazette in a much more convenient and practical way. The second point of difference to which the Minister referred was the question of the registrar. The commission felt that the registrar should be a semi-independent person. This Bill makes him a high-ranking public servant. Personally I have no quarrel with this arrangement as long as the registrar functions under the control of the council. The third point which the hon. the Minister made was the recognition of professional bodies. Speakers before me in this debate, all of whom are medical men, have referred to this and have recorded their approval of this change. I believe that recognition of the voluntary professional bodies will be a means of ensuring that this Bill functions more satisfactorily than it would have under the old arrangement.

Then, Sir, I wish to refer to some of the differences to which the Minister did not refer. I want to refer firstly to clause 4. The draft which the commission recommended suggested that the council should be a body corporate capable of suing and being sued. Sir, you will recollect that in this Bill, that particular provision has been removed. Then we come Jo clause 5 which deals with the constitution of the council, and we find that there was a specific provision for representations concerning appointments. Other members in this debate have referred to the desirability of professional organizations placing before the Minister a list of names from whom the Minister will then appoint members to the council of medical schemes. Actually the wording in the Bill of which the commission approved was quite specific; it said—

To me, Sir, that is a serious omission. The commission took this decision in its wisdom and I believe it is one which should have remained in this Bill. Then there is another omission to which I feel attention should be drawn and that is in regard to clause 5 (d), where provision was made in the commissions’ Bill for the appointment of provisional or temporary alternates. In the light of the fact that the members of the council, apart from the chairman and the vice-chairman, are not to be paid members, I can see no objection, from the expense point of view or any other point of view, to the appointment of alternate members who will then be available to attend when a member of the council for some reason or other, is prevented from attending. That provision too has been omitted from this Bill.

Then in clause 8 (2) the commission’s draft contained a provision that the council may acquire and dispose of property. This has also been changed. I have no particular quarrel with that. Clause 11 of the Bill, submitted by the commission provided that out of moneys appropriated by Parliament there should be made available each financial year, an amount of not less than the administrative expenses of the council for the previous financial year. The corresponding clause in this Bill does not make specific provision for that. I would be very interested to hear what the hon. the Minister has to say in this regard when he replies, and I hope sincerely that he will set at rest the minds of the people who are concerned that the commission of this provision which is contained in the commission’s Bill, means that the State itself is not going to contribute in any way to the expenses of this council.

Sir, in clause 11, the draft Bill indicated that the funds should be administered by the council. We find in this Bill that the funds shall be administered by the secretary for health. I do not think there is much objection to that; I think once the intention of the changed clause 4 was accepted, then this change became of consequential importance. Clause 13 deals with the appointment of the registrar. There has been a certain amount of discussion on the appointment of the registrar and the hon. member for Rosettenville has indicated that he did not want the registrar, as he expressed it, to be “the big boy”. I think the commission had definite views on this because in their wording of this particular clause they provided for the appointment of the registrar “who shall be under the control of the council and exercise all such powers and perform all such duties as are assigned to him under the Act”. I note, Sir, that this wording was the same as the wording in the original Bill put forward in 1965. I feel that it should be made quite clear that the registrar is in fact under the control of this council to be established by the Minister.

Now in clause 28 of the commission’s Bill, the designation “Chemist and druggist” was included in three particular sections. That designation has been omitted in this Bill. I will deal with that point later on. At this stage I merely want to draw the attention of the House to the fact that that is a further omission. Then in clause 28 (5) (b) we find that there is an addition; it is provided that where an association fails to submit names for the adjudication of disputes, the council shall have the power to make appointments. I believe that is a very necessary provision, but it is nevertheless an addition which took place after the commission had made its recommendations. In clause 40, the regulations clause, we have a provision in respect of which I would like an explanation from the hon. the Minister. We have an addition there, sub-clause (4), which reads—

Subsection 1 (c) deals with the making of regulations relating to the basis on which the subscription, payable in respect to the benefits provided by a registered medical scheme, shall be determined. What is the reason that the Minister of the Interior should be involved in this particular matter? I hope the hon. the Minister will be able to give us some explanation of this. There is a further alteration— the addition of clause 43. This is a new clause and makes provision for the determination of the tariff of fees for dentists in the absence of an agreement. Although this is a far-reaching provision, there is, as far as I can see, no objection to it. Ultimately it will make for the smoother administration of the Bill.

I have now dealt briefly with the differences between this Bill and the Bill put forward by the commission. In introducing this Bill on the 7th April of this year the Minister said (Hansard, Col. 3845), “We went out of our way to incorporate all reasonable requests and suggestions in this Bill”. But despite this I have pointed to ten differences—some major, some minor. What is more, the Commission had the services of members of the staff of the Department. The secretary of the commission, for instance, was a member of the staff of the Department. The commission also had the assistance of Dr. Reinach who has been investigating all aspects of medical schemes since 1960. He assisted the commission in an advisory capacity with the unanimous approval of all members of the commission. Furthermore, the commission had the benefit of the services of a legal draftsman—also a departmental official.

Order! Is it really necessary for the hon. member to go into all these details?

Mr. Speaker, the point I am trying to make is that the commission was appointed to do a certain job of work. That it did and submitted a Bill. But this Bill has been amended in several instances while the House has not been made aware of those amendments. I feel this should go on record …

Those details can be dealt with in committee.

As you wish, Sir. Then I should like to refer briefly to the amendments which the Minister placed on the Order Paper, subsequent to the introduction of the Bill. In this connection I should like to express my appreciation of the fact that these amendments have been placed on the Order Paper timeously, thereby enabling us to study them properly. I shall refer only to those of major significance. These have an important effect on the Bill as it stands. Firstly, I refer to clause 2(1) (b). The commission agreed that the sick fund of the S.A. Railways should be included under the jurisdiction of the proposed council. But the Minister has given notice of an amendment whereby this sick fund is specifically excluded. This is one of the largest sick funds operating in the country at the present moment. The commission, however, deemed it necessary specifically to include this sick fund. It indicated that provision could be made for a choice in the matter of disputes. But, as I have said, the Minister intends excluding this fund specifically. I should like to point out that this specific sick fund has been enjoying a large subsidy—a semi-State subsidy. It has 130,000-odd members with 250,000 dependants. The subsidy these people enjoyed during 1965 was R1.67 million. During the years of its existence this fund has enjoyed a subsidy of altogether R27 million. I believe that a sick fund of this nature should come within the ambit of this measure—as a matter of fact, I think that it is most important that this should be done because the idea of this council is to control, improve and develop all types of medical schemes.

Then we have the exclusion of those schemes falling under industrial conciliation legislation. The commission, after having heard evidence, recommended that these should be included but now the Minister has given notice of an amendment excluding them. If I may say so, I think this decision of the Minister is a wise one, despite the fact that the commission, on the basis of the evidence it considered, was of the opinion that these schemes should be included. However, the objections which have since come to hand indicate that there will be considerable difficulty for schemes of this nature to comply with such as are being laid down in this Bill.

The Minister has given notice of a new clause to follow clause 36 whereby he intends establishing a Medical Schemes Appeal Board. This is a very necessary provision and as such is to be welcomed, because it is important, especially if the powers of the council are to be diminished, to have an appeal board. As such it will perform a very useful function The Minister has put forward a further amendment which meets with the approval of the medical and dental profession. This recognizes their voluntary bodies to represent them in all matters concerning their professional activities.

I should now like to deal with the broad aspect of medical schemes. In this connection there are four facets worthy of consideration; the first facet is what the public wants in so far as medical schemes are concerned. In this connection we must take into account what the Reinach Committee and the Snyman Commission recommended. Then it may be as well to examine what the commission on medical schemes decided and recommended. Well, as far as the public is concerned, I believe that basically John Citizen wants an insurance and a protection against cost of illness. He wants to be protected in so far as curative and preventive measures are concerned. Taken on a broad basis this would include medical, surgical, specialist and ancillary services plus radiography, physiotherapy, pathological services, hospital and nursing services, dental services and pharmaceutical services, i.e. the supply of medicines. This is what I believe John Citizen wants. What is more, I believe the Reinach Committee arrived at a similar conclusion. Where it expected practical difficulties, it referred to them. However, if one studies the report of that committee, it confirms that most of these requirements were accepted also by it. These, however, they visualized being brought about by extensions to existing medical schemes and by the provision of further cover by the introduction of new medical schemes and not, as the hon. member for Gordonia said, on a national health service basis. One of the qualifications of the Reinach Committee concerns dental services. These services, it says, should not be compulsory but should be included as supplementary. Here they referred specifically to the needs of children in the say of extractions and fillings.

In so far as medicines are concerned, the Reinach Committee states that medicines are practically indispensable in the treatment of sickness but recommends that no obligation in respect of medicine should be placed on medical schemes. Then it refers to difficulties, to abuses and to high costs. There have already been references here this afternoon to the high cost of medicine. I agree that the cost of medicine is high but at the same time I submit that one must look at this matter in its true perspective. If one does and one takes, for example, the price of a small bottle of antibiotic capsules costing some rands, one must bear in mind that by ordering those particular capsules a doctor has eliminated hospital treatment. In the case of pneumonia, for instance, a treatment of antibiotic capsules can take place at home and can eliminate perhaps visiting nursing services and it can under certain conditions obviate nursing home or hospital services. It can eliminate too, I believe, frequent visits by the medical man because a medical man can call on his patient and diagnose the condition and prescribe the capsules, expensive as they are, and he can go away knowing that if the person takes those capsules, there is every possibility of that patient’s being in a satisfactory condition when next he calls. He may be able to avoid a second call right there. While the cost of the medicine itself may be high, it is reducing other costs. I believe that we must regard this in its true perspective.

Now I want to deal with the question of a State subsidy. I have referred to the fact that the commission felt that there should be some form of State subsidy and the Reinach Committee endorses that. This is what it says—

Then it went on to recommend a basis. It estimated that in 1962, on the basis of the information it had regarding the medical schemes then in operation, an amount of R294,800 per annum would form a satisfactory subsidy. That seems to be a very conservative estimate when one considers, as I have already said, that the South African Railway Sick Fund receives an annual subsidy of approximately R1.7 million. To sum up the Reinach Committee’s recommendations, I believe that it would be fair to say that they were in favour of a central fund’s being created, they were in favour of medical aid schemes being levied and they were in favour of the State’s making a contribution. They laid down the basis on which the State should make a contribution and certain minimum requirements which the medical schemes should provide. I believe that in the main this Bill has made provision for these minimum requirements. I am referring primarily to provision for dependants, pensioners and widows of deceased members, pensioners who retire from their particular occupation and who still remain members of their scheme and obtain benefits, and also the automatic acceptance where there is a change of employment which may necessitate a change from one scheme to another. They also recommended, and I believe that this is a very important aspect, that high claims on account of unusual sickness should not be a condition which could terminate membership of a scheme. Those were the recommendations of the Reinach Committee. The final endorsement comes from the Snyman Commission. I feel that it is of such interest and of such significance in relation to this Bill that I wish to quote recommendation No. 49 on page 193 of the Snyman Commission’s report—

The Snyman Commission report which I believe is very significant, endorsed what the Reinach Committee said, namely—

An interesting point arises from an examination of the report of the Reinach Committee which I believe will have a bearing on the approach to this Bill once it is enacted. That is a recommendation which appeared in small print but which I think is most important. Paragraph 69 of the Reinach Committee’s report says the following—

The hon. the Minister will recollect that only a few days ago we discussed this aspect of the activities of district surgeons. This obviously envisages an extension in that direction.

Where do you get those district surgeons?

Pay them and you will get them—that is the motto. The Snyman Commission endorsed that view because it said—

I think that this is one of the fundamental issues in the satisfactory working of medical aid schemes. If people in the lower income groups are excluded from the schemes, where their income justifies it, I believe that it will make for easier operation and place less strain on many of the members of the medical aid schemes, healthy members in the middle income group, who to a large extent are called upon to subsidize these members. I believe I have made it quite clear from the background that the State should in this instance accept financial responsibility in this Bill and I hope that the hon. the Minister in his reply will indicate that that is the intention, although to me it is not clear.

The next aspect, namely what the Medical Schemes Commission decided and what the commission’s draft Bill provided for, I have already dealt with in part and I do not wish to incur your displeasure, Mr. Speaker, by going into further detail. I do believe, however, that this Medical Schemes Commission selected what was good and practical and embodied it in this Bill. I believe that in the main, apart from the differences to which I have referred, this Bill embodies what is good and practical. This was the finding of the commission after considering memoranda from 61 individuals and oral evidence from 30 bodies or individuals· I believe that some of the cardinal points which arose out of these discussions and the commission’s findings could be summarized as follows: There should be a free choice of doctor, dentist or supplier of medicine; bodies should have the right to nominate members of the Council; the State should contribute and there should be no State controlled national health schemes.

There is one aspect to which reference has not been made and I feel that for the sake of record, it would be well to refer to it, namely religious objections. The report of the commission referred to it saying—

I want to deal with one omission, which I consider to be a glaring omission in this Bill. I have referred to the fact that the term “chemist and druggist” appeared in clause 28. I am aware of the fact that “chemist and druggist” is defined in the first clause, and that in terms of the constitution of the Council a “chemist and druggist” is to be a member. I wish, however, to make it quite clear that this afternoon I am speaking as a member of Parliament advocating, as I believe, what is best for the public. It is my firm conviction that it would be in the interests of the public if the recognition granted to the medical profession and to the dental profession, were granted in kind to the pharmaceutical profession. I say this advisedly because just as the medical and dental professions, I believe, have made certain sacrifices in the interests of this Bill and its satisfactory working in the future, so will it be necessary for pharmacy to be embodied in this Bill in so far as the supplies of medicines are concerned. I realize that the Reinach Committee and the Snyman Commission admitted that it would not be possible in all instances for medical schemes to provide medicine benefits, but reference has been made to their high cost. At times it can be a course of embarrassment to be faced with a sudden high charge for a medicine when it is quite unexpected. I believe that there is a growing tendency to extend the benefits offered by medical schemes to the provision of medicines. I quote as an example the medical plans operated by the medical associations in the various provinces. Negotiations have been finalized and I understand that from now on, medicine benefits are available to those who wish to have them and who are prepared to pay the premium. I wish therefore to ask the hon. the Minister whether he could not give consideration to the inclusion in this Bill, perhaps at a later stage in the Other Place, of the term “chemist and druggist” and to make full provision for the rendering of the service of the supply of medicine. I know that there are difficulties. I appreciate in this instance, that you have the service of a professional man and that a professional man is supplying an article, an article for which he has no direct control over the price. I say that advisedly because it is the manufacturer in the first instance who fixes the price. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Berea will forgive me if I do not follow up on his speech in every detail. Since this Bill deals with the co-ordination and expansion of medical schemes I should like to give this House an example of one of the reasons why this Bill is important and why we welcome it so wholeheartedly. One day, it was on a very busy Monday, I was called to a case after 12 o’clock. I was told that a woman had had a heart attack. As you know, if one hears that a person has had a heart attack, one drops everything. You get into your car and drive there as quickly as you can. Fortunately I knew the people at once. I was able to diagnose at once that it was merely a typical case of hysteria. I then asked the mother who was present: Why is your daughter like this? The mother then said: I shall tell you. You doctors have put her husband in prison because he did not pay his debts. I then returned and went through the records. If a person has too many debts and too little money he is either declared bankrupt or he is placed under a magisterial order. I then checked to see why I had had this poor man put in prison. I then found that he owed an amount of R800. At the bottom of the statement I found my name as well, with an outstanding amount of R2.10. What it all amounts to is that the medical profession is the one which is called in the easiest. When it can be criticized it is the one which it is the easiest to criticize. The large debts at outfitters and garages were not mentioned, that R2.10 was the most important aspect.

With the introduction of this legislation, which is being welcomed throughout the entire country as a step in the right direction as far as health services are concerned we are now being afforded an opportunity of discussing relationships. There is for example the relationship between the doctor and the patient, the relationship between one doctor and another, the relationship between one medical scheme and another, the relationship between the patient and the scheme, and now too the relationship between the State and the patient, the doctor and the scheme. All these relationships are contained in this Bill. It is confidently being hoped that this Bill is not only intended to keep the costs of medical services as low as possible, but also to keep the aforementioned relationships as high as possible, to maintain them on a sound basis and also to extend them. As a result of altered patterns of living and altered norms these relationships have in the past become rather tenuous and strained, but fortunately they have sometimes also been strengthened. All that this legislation deals with are the material relationships between doctor and patient and scheme as a result of which the service may be compensated. However, it also affects human relationships. I am mentioning in the first place the relationship seen from the point of view of the patient, because he is after all the one who receives the services. Unfortunately we also have to draw a dividing line here between a person who is ill and a person who is healthy. I can assure you that there is quite a different relationship in regard to medical services when one feels healthy—as I hope we all do here to-day —and when one is sick and lying in bed. Then our relationships to health services are completely different. Very few of us think of the day when we will need medical services. Nevertheless it is an established fact that all of us will at one time or another need these services. It could be at any time. It could be during the day or at night. But somebody will have to provide that service for us. There is only one person who can provide that service, and that is a doctor. Whatever the nature of the illness is, one does not expect healing only. One also wants reassurance. You want the reassurance that you will recover. Whether one has a serious illness or whether it is merely a psychological ailment, there is only one person who can give that reassurance. We have heard so much about the house doctor. So much has already been written and said in regard to the relationship between the house doctor and his patient. Another member said that a few years ago one could still bring a suckling pig or a leg of mutton from the farm. I would just like to quote what was said two years ago at the World Congress of the Medical Association (translation)—

That is possibly why, justifiably or unjustifiably, we sometimes talk about a horse-doctor. Sir William Osier condensed the gist of the entire matter in one sentence: “The practice of medicine is an art, not a trade; a calling, not a business, a calling in which your heart will be brought into play to an equal extent as your intellect.”

I do not want to go into the origin and development of all these benefit schemes and medical aid schemes. I only want to extract examples of things which could give rise to the confusion and the marring of the doctor-patient relationship. As a result of our economic problems and the rising cost of living, people have become involved in this process. In this way the various medical schemes have begun to complete amongst each other. The one scheme competes with the other to provide services. What they provide are material services. I am mentioning only a few examples. Former illnesses are not covered by one scheme. In another scheme dependants are. not covered. A third scheme states that they will not accept responsibility for confinement costs. A fourth states that they will no longer pay for medicines. A fifth states that they are no longer able to provide psychiatrical services. And then there are still the various ways in which remuneration takes place. One scheme maintains for example that when one becomes a pensioner and retires on pension, they will have nothing more to do with you. All these factors, if taken together, have made this Bill essential in order to, as the hon. member has put it, bring about a co-ordination of all these schemes so that there will be one approach and one level on which we can operate. All these deviations are being projected into the doctor-patient relationship. How many times have. I not walked into a sick-room, seen one patient lying there and examined her, only to be told when I was finished: “No, but you are not my doctor; you must go into that room.” What had then transpired was that they were two sisters and the one belonged to this scheme and the other to another scheme. Sometimes it also happened that the father was perhaps lying in another room and he had to get in another doctor because he belonged to a third scheme. These are problems which mar the doctor-patient relationship. And then they compare notes. One doctor gave a certain type of pill for a certain disease, while the other doctor gave the other sister, who had the same disease, a different type of pill, and the father had been given an injection. So these aid societies have become a source of auctioneering business. One may even read in the newspapers that in the advertisements for some post or other it is stated that there is a free medical service. The medical profession is being sold as it were. I should like to express my thanks to the hon. the Minister for the fact that the S.A. Medical Association is being recognized. I want to state very briefly that the existence of the S.A. Medical Association is not based on these material matters. It owes its origin to the challenge presented by disease. The doctors came together to discuss their cases with one another, to exchange ideas in regard to methods of treating diseases. They came together to exchange the fruits of their experience, their studies and research. When a doctor attends a congress, he tries to learn from the experience of others who have made a deeper study of the matter or who have more experience. If one were to consider the next congress of the S.A. Medical Association one will find that at least 10 to 15 world experts in certain fields of medicine are coming to address the congress. This is how it had its origin, but subsequently, as a result of these material things and this question of benefit funds and sick funds, and the development of medical services, certain groups developed. The surgeons formed a group and the interns formed their own group and the general practitioners formed their own group, because they have interests in common. And much later, after the introduction of sick and aid funds the Medical Association also began to give attention to the material aspects with which we are dealing here to-day. Then, after the appointment of these sick benefits and aid funds a third unsympathetic figure entered the picture, the Associations which arrange in what way these services are to be remunerated and how they are to be carried out. Now I just want to inform hon. members what it is the profession fears most.

Order! Are the fears of the profession relevant? Are they mentioned in the Bill?

I want to discuss the direction in which health services can develop. The medical profession fears that matters are tending in the direction of State medical services, and they have good reasons to believe so. This is the prime factor in the marring of doctor-patient relationships. The doctor sees in this the danger that he will subsequently be carrying on a trade, that the standard of medicine will be lowered, that he will lose his individuality, and that his status will be lowered in the eyes of the public because he will become a paid official. As far as this legislation is concerned, there are certain aspects which do tend in that direction, and the most important of those is the existence and the development of the aid funds. In conclusion I should just like to mention a few examples of how the aid funds influence the medical services, because they not only control the compensation but also the entire medical service as such. Regulations are laid down by the management of the aid funds for doctors in regard to what medicines they may provide. They are also restricted to certain drugs and they are restricted to certain speciality services, and the doctors are regulated in such a way that the patients are confined to certain hospitals. The patient is restricted to one doctor, and when relationships may be marred, when the doctor is misused, this organization, the management of the aid funds, expects the onus to rest on the doctor and that he should play the policeman and say: “You must not misuse my services.” The execution of this profession must never be turned into a question of supply and demand by legislation. Bids must never be made in regard to this matter.

Order! Before I call upon the next speaker I want to make an appeal to all subsequent speakers to return to the Bill now.

I rise with some trepidation not only because of the request you have just made, Sir, but also because I follow a discussion which so far has been restricted to members of the medical profession and to chemists and druggists. I trust that you will be lenient with me when I express the views of the patients or the customers. I rise to say that in supporting this Bill I think that the Commission correctly indicated its value to the ordinary members of these medical schemes in that it will provide, firstly, an easy and rapid method of settling the disputes which do arise from time to time between the members and the controllers of these schemes. The Commission also had evidence before it from the Medical Association in which the Council indicated its fear that the development of these medical aid schemes might result in a reduction in the number of free patients in hospitals which they said would result in a shortage of clinical material for the training of medical practitioners· I want to say that having been associated with the administration of a group of teaching hospitals in the Cape, I support entirely the conclusion arrived at by the Commission that that fear was unfounded. I want to indicate that in Cape Town at present, at the teaching hospital Groote Schuur, they are swamped by clinical material. One finds that last month there were some 48,018 out-patients and 29,813 in-daypatients dealt with, which shows that there was a more than an adequate supply of clinical material during that month. That is in spite of the growth that has taken place in the number of medical aid schemes. But in considering health services, I believe that there is an overemphasis on firstly the fact that health services involve medical and dental fees, and secondly that health services involve medicines and drugs. Very little is said, in discussing the cost of health services, of the actual cost of hospitalization. The hon. the Minister, under clause 40, will have the power by regulation to prescribe what benefits in so far as hospitalization is concerned, shall be provided by the approved scheme, and I wonder whether the hon. the Minister, in replying to the debate, will be able to indicate to what extent he has in mind that regulations should be framed under the terms of this Bill to provide for such hospitalization. Sir, the cost of hospitalization is now assuming frightening proportions. If one takes the position, again at Groote Schuur, admittedly a teaching hospital, one finds that its Budget for the current year is R6,973,900, and one finds that salaries and wages of the medical, administrative and paramedical staff, absorb 57 per cent of the Budget, that is to say, about R4 million per annum; one finds that the pharmaceutical supplies absorb 14 per cent, which is just under R1 million of the approximately R7 million which it costs to run the hospital. One finds that same break down in costs, whether one goes to the lower income group maternity hospitals, those providing for the non-whites, or whether one goes to the children’s hospital where 90 per cent of the patients are nonwhites but which is a teaching hospital. I mention this because the general cost of hospitalization has a bearing on the cost of running any nursing institution, including private hospitals. The Minister, as I read the Bill, can stipulate in his regulations, under clause 40, that the scheme shall cover hospitalization, but nowhere in this measure is the power conferred upon the Minister to control the charge which may be made to the patient by the private hospital or by any provincial or any other hospital. When once hospitalization has to be covered, then the scheme is at the financial mercy of the proprietor of the hospital, and I wonder what the hon. the Minister has in mind to rectify this position? As he knows, the practice of the Provincial Administration is that the teaching hospitals are closed to persons who are members of medical aid schemes, unless they go in for an open-heart operation or for some emergency treatment. That is the position in the Cape at any rate. The patients are then driven to an open provincial hospital where there is a limited number of beds, and even with the application of the means test—I am only speaking for this province as I am not sure what the position is in the other provinces—since the re-introduction of hospital fees, a man with a very meagre income might be called upon to pay as much as R5 per day for himself or a member of his family who is hospitalized. He has to pay R5 per day plus the initial admission fee. I wonder what the hon. the Minister’s intentions are to cope with this problem. I am not suggesting that private hospitals are overcharging. Some of them are showing handsome profits according to the accounts which have been published, but at the same time one cannot get away from the fact that the cost of providing these services is constantly increasing. If the medical aid schemes, under clause 40, will be required to provide for hospitalization costs, then it must lead either to the provision of substantial subsidies by the State for these schemes or, in the alternative, it must result in private hospitals being unable to admit persons who belong to medical aid schemes. They would then only be able to take private patients who are prepared to pay their fees.

Or it may result in increased subscriptions.

Alternatively, as the hon. member for Rosettenville correctly says, it may well result in increased subscriptions to medical aid schemes. Sir, this is a practical and real matter which arises from this Bill and I should be glad if the hon. the Minister would deal with it in his reply to the debate. I am sure we all support the view of the commission. We do not want to advocate a form of control which is in the form of a State-controlled national health service. The commission says “that the control should be exercised by a statutory body constituted in such a manner that the present spontaneous and voluntary development of medical schemes will be promoted”. We would all like to see this development without the necessity of State control, but unless some effective machinery is found whereby the burden and the cost of hospitalization can be covered, these schemes will not grow. One feels that one must face up to this position, as a corollary to this Bill, that either free hospitalization in some form must be provided by the State or the hospitalization must be subsidized in so far as members of medical aid schemes are concerned. Sir, the answer to my problem might be in the report of the Schumann commission—I do not know—we have not seen it yet. At the moment, however, we are supporting this Bill as a step in the right direction. I would point out, however, from the point of view of the ordinary man in the street, that there still remains this burden and his fear of heavy hospitalization costs.

In this legislation triangular shape is being given to what has up to now existed as a loose relationship between patients, medical scheme and doctor. As has been stated repeatedly here, this legislation is merely ushering in a new era, it is not establishing a new order. It is merely attempting to establish order in a situation where order and regularity is very essential. It has been a familiar one in this country for many years, but I want to state here that it is owing to the co-operation of the medical profession as such that these schemes have been allowed to continue, to flourish and to meet a very essential need. Mr. Speaker, it is a known fact that the medical profession adheres to very exacting ethical norms with very high ideals, and that it would like to devote itself to the task which it feels itself called upon to undertake, i.e. the healing of the sick and the alleviation of suffering. But unfortunately the doctor is also a normal human being with normal needs and temptations who must also make use of money as a means of exchange to supply his existential needs, and because that is so, much of his time and attention is taken up by the collecting of debts, etc. That is why these schemes are being welcomed because they play a very important role in the economic existence of the medical profession in that they relieve the doctor of that concern and set themselves up as debt collectors and as guarantors of the money owing to the doctors. Mr. Speaker, it has already been said that initially there was a great deal of opposition to this Bill. One of the principal objections by the profession as such was the fact that the right to determine what the value of the services to the patient is going to be taken out of the hands of the doctor. Now it is simply the case that any person who has certain rights will not willingly part with them, and that any professional person appropriates for himself the right to place a specific value on his services. That is why the medical profession finds it very difficult to part with this right of determining the value which they have hitherto possessed. However, it has now become clear, and the medical profession has also come to accept it, that for the sake of the success of the scheme, for the sake of their good names, they ought not to insist that they alone should have the say as regards the determining of fees, and they have agreed that another body, on the basis as laid down by the Medical Association, will in future be able to decide what fees may be charged. I say that this is a major concession because, as I have already said, every professional person as probably entitled to place his own value on his services. But because the services of doctors are rendered in such a different field, on such a personal level, it is ridiculous to want to value a doctor’s services on the basis of the life which he has saved or that specific invalid whom he has restored to health. In the same way it is ridiculous not to take into consideration under what specific circumstances, under what working conditions, under what mental strain, etc., those services are rendered. I want to contend that all these factors should be taken very thoroughly into consideration when determining the value of the services rendered by doctors.

Paragraphs (c), (d) and (e) of clause 20 of this measure contain provisions which in my opinion are very sound and are generally welcomed. These provisions stipulate that all dependants of members must be accepted as members of a scheme, that members retiring on pension must be assured of continued membership, and that widows shall remain entitled to benefits of the scheme of which their deceased husbands were members until they remarry. Although I welcome this clause it still suffers from one deficiency. I should very much like to see provision being made in this clause for dependent children of those widows, until such time as she remarries or they have a stepfather, or become independent. I find little sense in a window of a member of a scheme being entitled to benefits under a specific scheme while the children, who in many cases have far more need of such benefits than the mother, are deprived of those benefits.

Another matter which has evoked a great deal of reaction, particularly amongst the members of the medical profession, is the question of provident funds. Former hon. members have referred to the disadvantages of these funds for both doctors and patients. My personal conviction is that these funds should take a permanent place in the medical pattern of this country, that they supply a very great need, and that we cannot under the circumstances allow these funds to disappear. It must be borne in mind that these funds have 660,000 members at present, mostly people earning low wages who, if they cannot be assured of medical attention in this way, either have to do without medical treatment or to have to make use of the free services of the State and the Provinces.

One of the major objections to these provident funds is that the members of such funds make misuse to a great extent of the services of their doctors. I readily admit that, but then I want to make an appeal straight away— and the hon. member for Brentwood also referred to this—that doctors should not be expected to discipline their patients in a case of provident funds as they would probably expect the management of the provident funds to do. There is a specific doctor-patient relationship which is essential if the doctor is to have any success with his patient. As a doctor I do not regard it as my task to quarrel with my patient because I think he calls me in for nothing, or calls me in too late, or calls me up in the middle of the night when he could have called me earlier on. That disturbs the important doctor-patient relationship and can only lead to a deterioration in the standard of medical treatment which one is able to apply in those cases. As I said, that is not the function of the doctor. To a far greater extent it is the function of the management of that provident fund to discipline their members, to ask them to make their calls on time, to ask them not to make unnecessary use of the services of their doctors, and to see to it, on their part, that that doctor-patient relationship which is so essential is not prejudiced in any way.

A nation’s most valuable asset is the health of its people. Any measure which is aimed at promoting the health of the individual and the community ought to be generally welcomed and treated with sympathy. Where new concepts are being established in legislation it is possible that such a specific Bill can suffer from certain deficiencies, loopholes, or shortcomings. This is undoubtedly the case with this Bill. It will be the bounden duty of each one of the components of this triangle which I mentioned in my opening sentence—i.e. the doctor, the medical aid fund and the patient —to make a positive contribution to the successful functioning of this Bill. It must be done in a spirit of goodwill and in a spirit of co-operation, because then only can this measure have any hope of success. Nothing must be done to disturb this very essential relationship between the patient and the doctor. The doctors of this country are able to provide these services. The auxiliary schemes ought to make this rendering of service possible on a sound basis. The nation demands it.

Mr. Speaker, if one looks at this Bill it is clear that its primary object is to keep costs as low as possible for a person who becomes ill. I also want to say at once that if it is the object of this Bill or if anybody considers that it should be used, whether by doctors or patients, for one to discipline the other to his own advantage, then I think this measure is heading for disaster. To me the object of this Bill lies in bringing about co-operation between the patient on the one hand and the doctor, or other suppliers of services, on the other hand. It is therefore my hope that we shall obtain that so necessary harmonious co-operation, the possibilities of which are embodied in this measure. I also want to say that the task of the council which is to be established, and pre-eminently the task of the registrar of the council, will be an exceptional one. It will be within the ability of the registrar to place the health of this country and the health services, in so far as they affect the doctor and the patient, on a very high level, and it will also be in his power to cloud this issue completely. The whole matter will therefore have to be handled with the utmost caution.

As previous speakers have said here, there are three components in this cost structure: Firstly, that of the suppliers, doctors, dentists, chemists and others, paramedical services; secondly, the recipients of these services, i.e. the patients; and thirdly, the authorities or the State. Each of these three components plays a particular role in the cost structure of the medical services which are supplied. There are two important points with regard to each of these components, namely the range of the services required and secondly the quality of the service supplied to or demanded by the patient. It is fairly easy to determine the range of the service. It has to meet the demands made by the patient. The greater the demands, the higher the costs. The cost of quality, on the other hand, is not so easy to determine. Just as it is an economic fact in society that an improvement in quality is accompanied by an increase in cost, it is also true in medicine, and if the modern community insist on the best service it must appreciate that the cost of this service is an important factor. On the one hand this need of a better medical service with ever-increasing costs is also an important stimulus for the promotion of the medical science.

Therefore it is also quite clear that unless the medical practitioner is allowed a proper living that stimulus, which is essential to the progress of the science, will also disappear. This progress is spectacular, and it will suffice if I say that the South African doctor has contributed his share to it. It is therefore irrefutable that the progress in the medical science has brought about an increase in the cost of medical services. On the other hand, as regards the second component, namely the consumers, we do not think only of the man who is already ill, but we also include the person who may still become ill. In fact, it is the entire object of this Bill to bring in the person who may yet become ill, in order to design a scheme in the nature of insurance which will spread medical costs over a number of years. The costs will in fact depend on the demands made by that man, and those costs are related to the service required by the patient—and allow me to say once again that in this entire constellation the patient is of course the most important person, although the interests of others who are involved should not be lost sight of. Let me make it clear that because these costs are rising to such an extent that they threaten to strain tha existing patient-doctor relationship, it is essential that we should provide for such costs. This is where the third component, namely the authorities, plays its part in making a contribution.

We ask ourselves what the task of the authorities should be. The task of the authorities is of a two-fold nature. In the first place they have to provide services, hospitalization and other health services which are well known to you. But through this Bill a second component has also been added to the function of the State, namely stipulation. Hence this Bill.

I want to come back to the task of the doctor. The doctor of this country and in fact all over the world finds himself in an honourable profession. It is a profession which has made its contribution to the health and well-being of mankind through the centuries. It is a profession which has been subject to exceptionally high ethical codes.

May I ask the hon. member what this has to do with the legislation before us? Will the hon. member please return to the legislation?

Sir. the contribution made by the medical profession with regard to the cost is such that it has had a reducing effect. I want to put it to you that a large portion of the services supplied initially by the medical profession were prodeo services. Later they went as far as helping to organize medical aid schemes and to develop them. Now this Bill has to be introduced to contribute towards developing even further those services which were established with the assistance of the medical profession. If it is the object of this Bill, or if people think that it is the object of this Bill to limit the incomes of doctors, I see no future for this legislation. I may just mention that according to the 1958 figures of the Receiver of Revenue of 3,470 doctors earned a taxable income of less than R4,000 in respect of that year. 4,270 doctors earned an income of less than R6,000. Under the Medical Practitioners and Dentists Act it was also possible to submit to the Medical Council any accounts which were considered to be too high. From 1954 to 1961 204 accounts were submitted. Of these, only 14 were proved to be too high.

What were the reasons for the increase in the costs? Hospitals have become more expensive. Modern techniques require more assistants. Complicated laboratory tests are carried out. Better medical training intensifies the demand for better care. People who would previously have died, create, concomitant with their care, the need for protracted attention.

The public, on the other hand, has been a cost factor in these increases. The public is well informed. They require better services. Advertisements also have the effect that the doctor has to prescribe medicines when he would not have done so otherwise. Plastic surgery has the result that patients make demands for cosmetic purposes. Thus many factors may be mentioned as reasons for this rise in costs.

The Snyman Commission Report, on which this Bill is based, contained the conclusion that the reasons for more expensive medical care were so closely bound up with both the quality and the range of the service that they will continue to exist to a large extent in the further development of medicine. The conclusion is therefore that the overall medical costs can be expected to remain high and may even increase further.

What were the reasons for the increase in we see the task of this legislation? I want to make this clear. As I said at the beginning, I see the importance of this Central Council for Medical Services. I believe that you will be able to rely on the co-operation of the Medical Association and the doctors. I believe that agreement has been reached on the most important issues, namely that the demand that the medical benefit funds should fall away, has been relinquished. It is still my considered opinion, however, that in order to make a success of this it is in the interests of both the profession and the patients that the Council should work in the direction of aid funds. Furthermore, the demand made by the Medical Association was relinquished that a ceiling should be placed on the incomes of people admitted to aid funds. I therefore believe that the major objections have been eliminated. I see the possibilities of great progress in this legislation, provided that it does not mean the beginning of the socialization of the medical profession, the medical services in this country. I want to conclude, Mr. Speaker, by just reading to you the finding of the Snyman Commission with regard to this so-called socializing—

It is my considered opinion that the service which this legislation seeks to introduce will depend on how well, how thoroughly and how fully—I repeat, fully—this Central Council for Medical Schemes will fulfil its function, because I believe that it will be of no avail to establish schemes which only have to remunerate doctors. If those schemes cannot also provide for hospitalization, medicine and for other services, then in my view it is only a half-service. I look forward to a full service which can be created, and I hope that the Council will endeavour to work towards a set Of regulations which will bring about some uniformity, in order that a doctor, when dealing with an aid-fund or a benefit-fund patient, will know exactly what he has to do, in what respect he has to complete forms, to whom he has to send an account, which services may or may not be rendered. It is those confusing systems of regulations which made the hon. member for Brentwood remark a moment ago that he simply started from one end by examining the most attractive of the three sisters.

I should like to convey my sincere gratitude to hon. members on both sides of the House who contributed to this debate in such a kind and constructive spirit. I want to use this opportunity to express our gratitude once again towards the members of the Select Committee who for the main part prepared this Bill for us and submitted it to us. I hope that they will have the satisfaction of knowing that through this Bill a foundation has been laid which we hope will prove to be a great contribution to the medical services of our country.

The hon. member for Rosettenville pointed out that this Bill is in actual fact largely a pioneering Bill. It adopts a new policy. As yet we cannot foresee the results of the new policy. Every action has reactions and consequential actions. As a result of this Bill many developments must take place. We cannot foresee now what all those developments will be. We only know that they will in fact take place. We must just be prepared at all times to adapt ourselves to them and to find the best solution for those new developments. I also want to assure the hon. member that the intention of this side of the House can never be to create iron-bound legislation, but rather legislation which will adjust itself continually to all the new circumstances which may arise.

This Bill has a great objective, which is in fact to bring about good co-operation between the medical profession and those unfortunate victims of disease, who need the assistance of the doctors so much, and to eliminate all the irritations, as the hon. member for Geduld called them a few times, the unpleasantness, and to make the medical service of our country a truly happy and pleasant service. In my Second Reading speech I referred to some of the major differences between the Bill as it is now before us and that submitted to us by the Select Committee. It was not my intention to cover all the differences. In the nature of things there are various minor differences which one may actually deal with at the Committee Stage. I hope the hon. member for Berea does not think that I tried to conceal something from them. In fact, I cannot do so because in every clause, as it will be discussed at the Committee Stage, everything will naturally be clearly revealed. Since I furnished the explanation I have met the Federal Council of the Medical Association and also the Committee of the Dental Association. I also received memorandums from the industrialists and from the Railways. All the objections and difficulties were discussed and considered. It is as a result of that that the amendments of which I have given notice in the Minutes of the House will be introduced. In the discussions to-day all the members raised different interesting points. But these were points which relate to various clauses. I know, Mr. Speaker, that you will stop me if I try to deal with those issues now. I think hon. members will expect me to deal with those points at the proper time, which will be the Committee Stage, when we shall deal with these clauses separately. There are just a few general observations which have been made here and on which it is necessary that I should say something. Certain points which were raised were more in the nature of points of principle. The hon. member for Durban (Berea) said that he considered that the State should contribute to the various medical schemes. I presume he meant that the State should also contribute, just as the member and the employer contribute. If I understood him correctly, I want to say that it is my conviction that the time is not yet ripe for doing so. As the hon. member for Fauresmith rightly remarked, the general feeling in South Africa is one of fear at the prospect that we may introduce a State medical service. We are aware of all the disadvantages of that and we know how impossible it is to introduce something of that kind in South Africa.

Could I ask the Minister whether he would be in agreement with the State giving a sum to the medical schemes council which it could use in its discretion to help either individuals or individual schemes, and not so much that each scheme would receive a definite subsidy?

That is an interesting variation on the same idea. I appreciate the hon. member’s attitude, because there are many schemes which can collect so little from their members that they are unable to provide an ideal service, and one should perhaps seek a source which may contribute to such funds. But I want to tell the hon. member that in my modest judgment the time for that is not ripe. I think that at the moment everybody still fears that this will be the thin end of the wedge to change it into a State medical service. But I also believe that once we have progressed a year or two and it is realized that there is no such danger, it will by no means be impossible to approach the State, and that the State may perhaps be willing.

The hon. member said furthermore that the freedom of every member of an aid scheme to go to any chemist for his medicine should be guaranteed, just like his freedom to go to any doctor for services. Now the hon. member will appreciate that we are here dealing with a contractual relationship between the scheme and the doctor. The doctor gives something to that scheme, and for its part the scheme makes a promise to the doctor. The doctor renders his services at a reduced rate and the scheme provides the doctor with the assurance that he will receive his fees regularly. This is an agreement between the two of them and I presume that if there were to be any question of something of that kind, the Pharmaceutical Association would have to approach the schemes for a similar agreement, in which the chemists should declare themselves willing to charge reduced rates and to provide medicine at, for example, two-thirds of what they usually charge, but then the schemes, in turn, must provide them with certain benefits. This possibility is not excluded, but as the legislation reads at the moment, I do not believe it is possible to provide for that because that contractual relationship would first have to be created.

The hon. member for Durban (Central), whom we all hold in very high esteem, was most pessimistic. He felt that this was actually the beginning of a downhill slide for the medical profession. He thought that the medical profession would eventually be forced to receive only a small income, such a small salary that they would not be able to make a decent living. I want to reassure him. I do not think anybody in this House adopts that attitude to the Bill. We know that the medical profession is one of the finest professions and one of the most eminent professions in the country, and that it renders honourable services to the country. I think a country would be foolish to harm such a medical service and to make it impossible for it to fulfil that great task in an honourable fashion. Surely one should bear in mind that the man who has to provide the doctor’s income is the patient. Now it is surely essential that just as we have to provide the medical practitioner with a respectable income, we cannot make the patient’s burden unbearable. We should not cause that burden to break the family. Nor does the medical profession want that. Nobody wants that. We must maintain the balance between the two by treating the doctor generously, but not so generously that we break the patient in doing so. If we can maintain that balance, I think we have attained the ideal of this Bill.

The hon. member for Green Point raised a most important point, and that was the alarmingly high cost of hospitalization. This is an infinitely difficult problem, but I do want to remind the hon. member that it is not the Minister who determines what the doctor’s fees are to be. Nor is it the Minister who determines what chemists charge for medicine. It is an agreement between the scheme and the doctors. Then the doctors say: We shall charge the members of your scheme two thirds of our normal fees. If there is therefore to be an agreement on hospital costs, it will also have to be an agreement between the schemes on the one hand and the hospitals on the other hand. Through this Bill we are entering an interesting new phase, because the doctor will no longer have to negotiate with every scheme separately. We bring all the friendly societies together under one national society, and all benefit schemes under one national benefit society, and they will now be able to negotiate with the doctors and also with the hospitals. Obviously, just as they tell the doctors that all their work will go to the doctors who charge fees at a reduced rate, they may also enter into an agreement with the hospitals and say that they will send their members to hospitals which charge them reduced rates.

But there is no competition between the hospitals.

Yes, this places the hospitals in a stronger position, of course, but there is no shortage of doctors either, and yet in this respect the doctors are very reasonable in the rates they charge.

Another point was raised by the hon. member for Cradock. He asked why, in view of the fact that this Bill provided for provision for the widow by the scheme, it could not also provide for the child who has a great need of it. But now the child is in an interesting position. The Bill provides that a scheme should provide for a widow and for every dependant. In other words, as long as the widow is a member of the pension fund her children are also covered. In the event of the widow’s death it is customary that the children are adopted by an uncle or an aunt or other relatives, and then those relatives will also be members of a fund, and in that way the child will also be covered. As regards the major principles, I think that this Bill will offer a solution to the problems which we all anticipate. I just want to thank hon. members once again for their contributions to the debate and to say that as we are now entering a new era we should do so in the spirit that we must always be willing to solve one another’s problems; then I think this Bill must be of great benefit to the medical profession and to the public of South Africa.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

If one examines the amendments in the proposed Bill it will be seen that out of the 30-odd sections of the original Forest Act, only sections 12, 15 and 28 are affected.

Section 12 deals, inter alia, with the grading of timber and clause 1 (a) of this Bill extends the right of the State President to provide for inspection not only by an officer of the Department of Forestry, but also by any other person designated by me. Clause 1 (b) provides that the proclamation may prescribe that the specifications of the Bureau of Standards may be used if these specifications are regarded as being in the best interests of the industry. Both (a) and (b) are intended to allow the Government to use the inspection services and specifications of the Bureau of Standards in respect of structural timber if deemed desirable.

Mr. Speaker, in order to improve the quality of timber marketed in this country, all sectors of the forest industry agree that such timber should be graded. In spite of the considerable improvement in the general quality of South African softwood structural timber that has been apparent in recent years, very inferior timber, in sufficient quantity to affect the general reputation of local timber, is still being sold. In November, 1965, the grading of timber was discussed during a meeting at which all sectors of the industry were presented. The meeting then decided that, the private sector should be given the opportunity to apply voluntary grading and only after this has failed or proved impossible, then the Government should be requested to introduce the compulsory grading of timber. The South African Lumber Millers’ Association was given the opportunity to apply voluntary grading but after a period of six months, advised my Department that voluntary grading of timber was not making any impact and requested the Department to introduce compuslory grading.

The Department at that stage contemplated using the present powers in terms of clause 12 of the Forest Act, 1941, to give effect to compulsory grading but after legal opinion was obtained, it appeared that should those powers be used, the Department of Forestry will not only have to establish an inspection service but will have to describe the grading specifications in detail in the relevant proclamation.

Having regard to the fact that the South African Bureau of Standards in conjunction with the timber industry has a timber inspection service in the field and has drawn up specifications for structural timber, it would be a waste of manpower and funds to establish a duplicate organization in the Department of Forestry to carry out the inspection services that will be coupled with compulsory grading.

For this reason it was decided to amend subsection 2 of section 12 to the extent that I may designate to the State President any person to carry out these inspections. It is. as stated above, my intention to have these inspections carried out by officials of the Bureau of Standards. It is the intention further to issue a proclamation in terms of section 12 of the Forest Act, 1941, whereby all structural timber must be graded and must be marked to indicate the appropriate grade. Structural timber will be defined in the proclamation and length and dimensional descriptions will be included in the definition. For those members who may have any qualms I may mention that structural timber will not include poles or any round timber. It will only include timber which has been sawn on all four sides. It is also not the intention to prohibit the sale of under-grade timber. What is aimed at. is to give the end-user the opportunity to decide whether he wishes to buy graded structural timber or even for that matter under-grade timber, but each must be marked accordingly.

A question that will undoubtedly be asked is where will the grading be done? The grading will be done at the sawmill and the timber will be marked there and the grading at this soot will be done by the saw-miller himself or one of his employees subject only to periodic official inspections.

Clause 2A must be considered an enabling clause which I may use if I am satisfied that the interest of the timber industry will be served best by prescribing by proclamation that certain S.A.B.S. specifications be used as standard of quality and marking of timber. These specifications will thus only apply if prescribed by me by proclamation.

In terms of clause 12 of the principal Act, I may only issue such a proclamation after a notice setting forth the purport of the proposed proclamation has been published in the Government Gazette and in which all interested persons have been called upon to lodge any objections against the proposed proclamation with the Secretary for Forestry within 30 days of the publication thereof. All persons interested will, therefore, be afforded the opportunity to lodge complaints against the proposed introduction of grading and these complaints will be considered after which I will decide whether to proceed with the proclamation as published or whether certain objections will necessitate an amendment of the proposed proclamation. The S.A.B.S. specifications will only apply if I approve thereof and it is incorrect to assume that clause 2 fa) gives the S.A.B.S. authority to prescribe standards under the Forest Act, 1941.

At this stage the forest industry (State as well as private) considers it necessary that the grading of structural timber only should be made compulsory. There is no need to apply compulsory grading of boxtimber. The proclamation which will enforce compulsory grading will be issued by the Department of Forestry in terms of section 12 of the Forest Act, 1941. It will contain a clause that will prohibit the sale or transport of any structural timber for any sawmill or from any port unless the timber has (a) been graded in accordance with certain specifications prescribed in the proclamation and (b) are clearly marked to indicate the grade of the timber. Although no attention has as yet been given to drafting the proclamation and although the proclamation will be drafted in collaboration with the S.A. Lumber Millers’ Association I foresee that two grades of timber will have to be prescribed viz. merchantable grade, and utility grade. In addition under-grade timber may be sold if it is marked as such. It will be left to the consumer to decide what grade of timber he wishes to purchase. Where circumstances demand that the merchant should re grade merchantable and utility grade timber, provision will be made in the proclamation for this.

The fees for services rendered, which also include inspection service, by the S.A.B.S. are prescribed by the Minister of Economic Affairs by regulation in terms of clause 27 (e) of the Standards Act, 1962. In respect of timber at present sold under the S.A.B.S. mark, an inspection fee of 0.4 cent per cubic foot of processed timber applies. As far as I am aware a sliding tariff scale js not in force at present and all saw-millers who wish to sell timber under the S.A.B.S. mark must pay the fee direct to the S.A.B.S. I have given my Department instructions to negotiate with the S.A.B.S. for a fee in respect of the inspection services connected with the compulsory grading of timber. These negotiations have commenced and I hope will be concluded to the satisfaction of all concerned.

The Department does not intend prohibiting the sale of undergrade timber. The only intention is to have undergrade timber marked as such so that the consumer, should he decide to buy such undergrade timber, is well aware that the timber is of inferior quality. It is anticipated that the introduction of compulsory grading will result in developing an added inducement to timber growers to produce self-sufficiency of quality structural timber and to curb the demand for the importation of so-called high quality structural timber.

Clauses 2 and 3 amend sections 15 and 28 of the principal Act dealing with what is described as the “major” and the “minor” penalties, respectively.

The proposed amendments of section 15 are aimed at the infliction of more severe punishment for offences. The penalties for major offences under the Forest Act, such as lighting of fires, theft of forest produce, injury to beacons or boundary fences, as well as contravening any proclamation or condition thereof, will be increased to R1,000 or two years’ imprisonment. The maximum penalty for fraud in so far as the marking of forest produce is concerned or the wearing of forester’s uniforms by unauthorized persons, will also be increased likewise.

The penalties prescribed in clause 15 of the Forest Act, 1941, will also apply for breach of the conditions embodied in the proclamation with regard to structural timber.

The integrity of officers and employees of the Department of Forestry must be of the highest order and although it was as yet not necessary to institute any proceedings in terms of section 18 (b) of the Forest Act against any such officer or employee, I feel it will serve as a deterrent to these employees if the maximum penalties for offences under section 18 (b) are also increased to R1,000 or two years’ imprisonment.

In connection with the increase of the penalties for lighting of fires, I wish to state that the increase was decided on after representations had been made by the Soil Conservation Board.

The amendment proposed in clause 3 is also aimed at increasing the penalties for minor offences, such as entry of forest reserves where entry is prohibited, contravention of conditions of licences and permits, or the contravention of any regulations. In both cases the penalties stipulated are maxima and the court itself decides what penalties should be imposed in each case.

The amendments proposed in clause 4 are consequential and need no explanation.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House support this Bill. However, there are one or two matters to which I want to make reference. First of all, let us look at the ambit of the Bill; let us see just what it covers. I think that it is clear from what the hon. the Minister has said, and also from the new subsection (2) (a), that what is provided for here is the grading of sawn timber—the Minister referred to timber sawn on all four sides. In other words, other forest products are not dealt with. He specifically made reference to poles and timber of that kind, what we call “round” timber, and manufactured timber products, pulp, and so forth, things that do not come within the ambit of this Bill. This Bill deals with sawn timber. That is the first point that I should like to make.

When we come now to the question of the grading, I must say that we agree entirely with the Minister that he should have the power to ask the Bureau of Standards to undertake the grading and to use the officials of that particular organization. They, as an organization, have as one of their functions the protection of the standards of South African produce, and we agree that the time has come, and that this is a step in the right direction, to see that the high standards of South African produce is maintained at as high a level as possible. The question of under-grade structural timber has been a thorny question for many years past, and we from this side of the House have often pleaded in the past with Ministers of Forestry, gentlemen who occupied this portfolio before this hon. Minister took over, for some steps to be taken so that the grading of sawn timber could be put on a proper basis.

The Minister has said that there is no intention on the part of the Department of prohibit the sale of undergrade timber. In other words, there will be what the Minister called “merchantable” and second-grade timber, and then there will be an entirely low-grade timber. What he is concerned with is not to prevent the sale of that under-grade timber but that it shall be marked so that the purchaser shall see precisely the standard of timber which he is buying. We accept that. But I also want to go further than that. I want to say that one of the points which will in future, when this Bill comes into operation, have a most significant bearing on structures in South Africa, will be the fact that graded timber can be specified in specifications laid down by architects and building authorities for the purpose of the structural timber which is to be used in connection with any building projects which they may have. The owner of a building, except in very exceptional circumstances, probably does not see the timber that is used in the construction of his building. In town it can be taken almost for granted that he will not see it. But the authority responsible for the building will see it. He will know whether the timber which has been specified in the specification in fact is being used or not.

Such a lot of our trouble in regard to South African-grown timber has arisen from the fact that there has been, shall I say a “variation” from what would have been a strict standard laid down had this Bill been in operation, and where the authority concerned with building could have said, “I am not satisfied until I see the S.A.B.S. mark on that timber.” Here provision is made for every piece of the timber to be so marked. So it is not a question of buying so many cubic feet of timber which the seller claims to be of a certain grade, and when the timber is delivered at the building site a number of pieces have no mark on them. That will not do. Here the authority responsible for drawing up the specifications, which must now be complied with, will be in a position to examine every piece of timber sold and delivered at the site of the structure to see that that timber is marked with the S.A.B.S. mark, that that piece of timber is of that standard. We are glad that we are going to have this whole matter centralized. Let us have it centralized in the S.A.B.S., instead of there being the possibility of varying standards because of different ideas being entertained in the minds of different authorities who may be charged with the responsibility. The S.A.B.S. is a body established by law for the purpose of dealing with the maintenance of standards, and here is a case where we are ad idem with the Minister as regards his intentions in this Bill. We believe that this Bill is going a long way towards helping to put South African building timber on the plane that it should occupy. The continual complaints that imported timber is specified rather than South African timber are repeated over and over again and when you inquire into it, you find that so often there has been an odd lot of timber which has not been up to specifications. You will always get the one individual here or there who will spoil a good thing. Most of the public millers and sawyers will maintain high standards without the law to compel them to do it, but there will be the one man who will come along and put in low-grade or under-grade timber, thereby ruining the name of South African timber. The Bill now sees to it that that odd man out is not permitted to degrade our timber and to bring South African-grown timber into disrepute.

I want to move on to clause 2 which increases the penalties in the case of people convicted of certain crimes from £50 and 6 months imprisonment to R1,000 and 2 years imprisonment. Let us take the £50 as being R100. The increase is therefore from R100 to R1,000 and the imprisonment is increased from 6 months to 2 years. Amongst other such crimes there is the question of arson. One has only to read the last report of the Department of Forestry which unfortunately takes us only up to March, 1965 to see the damage that is done to State-owned plantations by fires deliberately started and fires which come about as a result of rank carelessness on the part of someone. When it comes to the private sector, one of the bugbears of the forester’s life, the man who is making his living out of forestry, is the risk of fires over a period of two to four months of the year, when conditions are dry and winds are high and when the circumstances are such in most of the timber producing areas of the Republic that a fire once started can so easily get out of hand and, in spite of all normal precautions in connection with fire breaks, etc., the damage that can be done is absolutely catastrophic. We are therefore entirely at one in regard to the rising of these penalties. We hope that the courts are going to view as a most serious crime, the deliberate or careless starting of fires in these timber areas where the disastrous consequences can be so far-reaching, and particularly where it is deliberate. We in South Africa must realize that the deliberate starting of fires, not only in regard to forestry, if I may say so at the moment, but in regard to other matters as well, is one which must be controlled very strictly and severely indeed. Possibly in regard to timber plantations because of the time that it takes for timber to grow, the damage is so much more serious. It is heartbreaking when a man who has put in his money and time and perhaps 20 years of his life caring for his plantations and watching them grow to a certain height, and then because of the circumstances, perhaps because of a strong hot wind blowing someone who has a petty spite decides that that is the opportunity he will take to start a fire., and 20 years of waiting, effort and capital investment just go up in flames.

Should the penalties be further increased?

Mr. Speaker, the people usually responsible cannot pay the fines. If the courts will take a serious view of this and they impose a fine or a certain period of imprisonment, the result is that the people concerned will have to serve the term of imprisonment. I do not know how much further we can go until we take the whole question of deliberate arson and we provide for it in terms of a different law altogether—perhaps by putting it on the same basis as to-day we put the crime of sabotage in South Africa. The two are sometimes very closely associated. In no more dangerous proximity do they approach one another than in the firing of timber plantations. The firing of timber plantations can have the characteristic of sabotage. It may well be that the Government in its wisdom at some time or other may take the whole matter in review. At the moment we are satisfied to leave the proposals in this Bill, but I want to say quite frankly that if this matter were viewed from a different angle by the Government, without committing this side of the House, I think that there are many on this side of the House who would be prepared to say that that is right and that that is what we must do if we are going to face this menace adequately. It concerns not only timber plantations but I cannot go into other forms of agriculture where under certain circumstances we are entirely at the mercy of people who act with a complete lack of responsibility, through the desire to do harm through petty spite or from the point of view of sabotage, or through sheer bloody-mindedness, if you will excuse the expression, Mr. Speaker. I have experienced this. I have been telephoned at half past two in the morning in Durban by my son who, starting at 10 o’clock the previous evening, had stopped ten deliberate fires started over a mile and a half of my plantations. In one night a firebug went along and started fires at 200 yard intervals. He started ten fires between 10 o’clock in the evening and 2.30 the following morning over a distance of 2,000 yards.

He must have been very cross with you.

No, he was not cross with me. In that particular case it started off with a group of young men between the ages of 16 and 19 who had some meat which they wanted to cook. So they made a fire in my plantation to cook their meat. That was how we managed to catch them. We found the remains of the meat they had cooked and bones and bits of paper. Then one said to the other “While we are about it why not let us start a fire to light us on our way home”. So they started a fire in the plantation. When they had got 200 yards one of them said, “It’s getting dark, let’s start another fire”. For 2,000 yards they lit their way home and when they were caught they admitted quite frankly that they had started these fires to light their way home, the path being through my plantation. I do not think that this provision is too harsh under those circumstances. I know of cases in Government plantations where the nature of the crime is such that it comes very close indeed to sabotage.

We therefore support this Bill and we agree entirely with its provisions. We leave it to the Minister and the South African Bureau of Standards in whom we have great trust to see that jointly they ensure that the standard of South African grown timber shall be raised to the highest possible standards.

Mr. Speaker, I think all of us are aware of the fact that we must improve the quality of timber. Not only the members of this House but also industry is aware of the fact that our timber should maintain a high standard. As regards what has been said by the hon. member for South Coast, namely that it is not the Minister’s intention at the moment to prohibit undergrade timber, I want to say that the position is that the timber industry is facing a period of overproduction. When looking at the figures, we see that we will have an over-production of almost 60 million cubic feet of timber over the next ten years. According to estimates the position of over-production may continue until the year 2000. It may be necessary to raise our standards in future or to eliminate certain grades. When that becomes necessary this measure will be a weapon in the hands of the Minister to improve the quality of our timber and also to ensure that only the best grades of timber are placed on the market and that other grades are then diverted to other products or are used for other purposes. It is very necesssary that we should grade our timber. We have the competition from other materials such as steel, aluminium, cement and plastic which renders the position of timber less bright than what it was some time ago. As the hon. member for South Coast said, we should also see to it that the builder can be satisfied that the quality of the timber he uses for his building is such that he will not insist that timber should be imported. We are therefore very glad that this Bill is being introduced now, because we are sure it is necessary to protect the quality of our timber. I just want to submit one thought to the Minister. He is now going to make the grading of timber compulsory. I wonder whether he will not also have to pay attention to the logs which the State plantations provide to the sawmills. There was no grading in the past, except so far as the thickness of the log, the length of the log and the number of knots were concerned. I wonder whether it would not be necessary for the Minister to pay attention in future to other aspects of the timber provided by State plantations. I think of aspects such as the poor quality of timber one gets from the poorer species of trees, timber with twisted grain, a high percentage of soft wood inside some of the blocks which gives the timber a poorer quality, uneven year rings, warping and irregular thinning out of plantations producing poor quality timber. I think the State will also have to pay attention to these aspects of grading. While our timber is now going to be graded and while we ask that imported timber should no longer be used at all, it is very necessary that we should give the consumer, who will be compelled to use South African timber, the assurance that he will get good quality timber.

Mr. Speaker, if I may start off with the last point mentioned by the hon. member for South Coast with regard to fire and arson, I would say to him that admittedly the legislation only specifies an increased fine of R1,000 and the period of two years in gaol for this type of fire. But I would also point out to him that arson, committed for the purpose of sabotage, is dealt with separately under the Sabotage Act. There the penalties are very severe. This deals with what one would call the carelessness of people. Naturally if there is a great deal of carelessness, the court takes it into consideration and may possibly impose the full penalty.

[Inaudible]

Unless it constitutes sabotage, as defined in the Sabotage Act, that is to say deliberate arson with sabotage as intent, the charge cannot be made under the Sabotage Act. I realize that a matter of deliberate arson in the case of forest fires is a very serious offence. During the recess I shall undoubtedly go into that aspect of deliberate arson, as apart from what we would call careless lighting of fires.

I quite agree with the hon. member in regard to the grading of structural timber. I have had certain experience in this regard and I know that a chain is judged by its weakest link. If poor quality structural timber is sold, all structural timber acquires the reputation of that poor quality structural timber. I have seen it happen in many cases to the detriment not only of the producer, but of the manufacturer as well. When one manufacturer has produced a completely inferior article, he has given a bad name to South African industrialists as such. I think the hon. member will appreciate that it would not have been right for me or for the Government to prevent the sale of what amounts to under-grade structural timber. It would have been too severe a hardship. At the present moment what we insist on is that it must be marked as under-grade timber so that it cannot be sold to the consumer as structural timber and so that the supplier cannot get away with supplying under-grade timber, without it being marked accordingly.

The hon. member also made mention of architects and specifications. They can now see that properly graded or S.A.B.S. marked timber is stipulated in the contract. They can therefore check on it. I should like to point out that that is the position not only in that instance. The hon. member will know that local authorities will now be protected. In their specifications they can insist that a Bureau of Standards mark should be placed on timber for a housing scheme they may have in mind. Therefore, in that regard as well, the ultimate consumer is protected. The opportunity is given to all South African timber growers and lumber millers to be proud of the commodity they offer the consumers as structural timber. In that way I am convinced that South Africa, as it has advanced in so many other commodities, will gradually become self-sufficient in its requirements of structural timber.

The hon. member for Humansdorp raised, inter alia, matters of grading. I think he had in mind that the grading could really be extended to cover the grading of logs. This is a matter the Department has considered. At this stage it has not really felt that it could proceed with a scheme, as it has done here, which would be to the satisfaction of all concerned. All this is under consideration and the Department will undoubtedly tackle these aspects in due course. It wants to see a quality of structural timber produced in South Africa which will mean that merchants will not need to call for imported timber.

Finally I should like to thank the House for its approval of this measure. I hope that as it becomes more effective, it will achieve the hopes and ambitions which we all have in regard to its use, both as regards South Africa and the consumer.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Chairman, I must say that when I sat here two days ago listening to the objective discussions which were taking place in regard to agricultural matters in this House, I found it a real pleasure. This is just another indication of the seriousness with which not only this House but also the country regards the care being taken of farming these days. I want to thank all the speakers who have participated up to now for the objective way in which they have approached the matter. The hon. member for Newton Park said that the farmers were being accused of making use of poor farming methods but, he said, the Government must search its own heart before accusing the farmers. I may just say that I, as Minister of Agricultural Technical Services, have never accused our farmers of being poor farmers. I think that our people in South Africa are farming very well under the circumstances prevailing here. But it is true that we can in general improve the farming industry considerably. The hon. member for Newton Park stated what he thought had to be done to improve our methods, and inter alia he stated that our farmers were insufficiently educated for their vocation and that they should receive more training. I agree that more training should be given, but I nevertheless want to mention today what is in fact being done by us in that direction.

We must remember that farmers are not only being trained by the Central Government, but that in these days in which we are now living there are considerably more agricultural high schools where students are being given a sound basic training. I know a few of those schools in the Free State, which are doing really excellent work and where large numbers of boys are being educated. The same applies to the Cape and the Transvaal, but I am not so certain about Natal. In addition we have the land service movement, and here a tremendously great deal is being done to make the youth aware of agriculture. This movement only began a few years ago and last year they already had 18,000 members. It is a movement which contributes a great deal towards making our youth conservation conscious. Then we have the formal training at our agricultural colleges. Since 1965, as hon. members know, we have converted the two-years diploma course into a one-year course so that we can train twice the number of farmers, and the training has not been prejudiced as a result. Use is being made of new methods and it is generally accepted that in the one-year diploma course the ordinary farmer can be trained as well as he would have been trained in the two-year course. At our five agricultural colleges there is accommodation for 570 students, and a sixth agricultural college has already been approved. In addition we are offering a special three-month course in sheep and wool at Grootfontein and Glen. At Glen special training is also being supplied to dairy technologists. At all the agricultural colleges various short courses are being offered annually for farmers in various directions of study. These short courses last between one and two weeks. The attendance is not always what it should be, but the facilities are being supplied to the farmers.

Then we have the agricultural faculties. Last year 1,042 students were enrolled at the four agricultural faculties at the universities. These faculties could easily take a further 500 students. At the agricultural faculty at Bloemfontein a three-year degree course in agriculture, a course which is intended more specifically for farmers, and not for research workers, was instituted in addition to the four-year degree course. I want to express the hope that more young farmers will make use of that three-year course in order to acquire a degree in agriculture.

Then we come to agricultural instruction. The Department realizes the importance of this. In 1947 there were 93 posts for extension officers, of which only 76 were filled. In 1958 the number of posts had been increased from 93 to 229, of which 179 were filled. Today there are 265 posts, of which only 16 are vacant. To increase the efficiency of the information services, the Department has in the past few years taken the following steps. I shall mention them to you one by one. A post-graduate course at the agricultural faculty of the University of Pretoria has been introduced to provide professional instruction for extension officers. Just as teachers are specially trained for their profession, we are also providing the extension officers with special training for their profession. Extension officers who have received this training, do their work much more efficiently and more purposefully. Secondly, technical and administrative auxiliary services are also being supplied to extension officers, by means of which they are able to increase their productivity considerably. In this way, for example, they are being assisted by 133 information technicians and 283 soil conservation technicians. These technical officers also receive special training. In addition the information offices are also being provided with clerical assistance and for this purpose 134 female assistants have been appointed in the past few years. Therefore our extension officers are now receiving a great deal of clerical assistance. As a result of the financial assistance which is being given in respect of soil conservation, in the form of subsidies and loans, the extension officers have to do quite a good deal of office work and administrative work. They must also give assistance to other Departments, for example to the Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing, in regard to drought assistance, and also to the Agricultural Credit Committees. Agricultural shows also have a claim to the services of extension officers, etc. A break-through has recently been made in agricultural instruction in that extension officers in various districts have established farming study groups and planning committees. To my mind that is a tremendous break-through. These study groups are making a study of their farming problems and are working together in order to solve the problems. A few hon. members have told us how well this is working in their neighbourhood. Where those committees have been established they are exercising a great influence in increasing the efficiency of farming in their vicinity. The hon. members for Lydenburg and Bethal have already mentioned this fact. I agree that it would be the ideal state of affairs if there could be an extension officer and a veterinary surgeon in every district, but this ideal will not be realized soon, and there are reasons for that. South Africa has a small white population on which great demands are being made in all fields. There will never be enough scientists available in all fields. Nor can there be unlimited State expansion. In the Budget debate the Opposition has already expressed severe criticism of the Government because Government expenditure is increasing so rapidly. Last year I attended the opening of the S.A. Agricultural Union Congress, and there the chairman mentioned that in 1963 28.7 per cent of the white working population was in the employ of the State. Therefore 28.7 per cent of the white population are Government officials, and he then posed the question: “Can we justifiably insist that the Public Service should be expanded even further?” He also said: “It seems to me that a restriction on the expansion of numbers, particularly as far as Whites are concerned, has also become urgently necessary.” I do not want to say that he is correct, but I just want to point out that a tremendously large percentage of our Whites are already Government officials, and we simply cannot go on increasing the number. There is a limit to expansion as well. In view of the fact that the possibilities of increasing the establishment are limited, my Department is concentrating on making its service more efficient. Our farmers can make their contribution to this too, for example by obtaining information themselves, by visiting experimental farms, and by attending farmer’s days and short courses. The hon. member for Bethal read from Georganiseerde Landbou to illustrate how the liaison committee of the Natal Agricultural Union was working in close co-operation with the Department in order to acquire information. My Department has requested all the Agricultural Unions to convene such liaison committees. Good cooperation with the unions has already been achieved. There is a great deal of information available and I want to make an appeal to our farmers to acquire it and make use of it. I may just mention here that our agricultural publications are of such importance that Russia has already published them in 300 languages, and are distributing them throughout the world. I think that is a singular honour for our Department and the publications which they issue.

Mr. Chairman, at the beginning of the Session I set out my policy in regard to soil conservation at length in the Other Place. I should just like to make a few remarks on that topic: (1) A shortage of funds has never impeded soil conservation. Each year part of the amount which was provided in the Estimates for subsidies and loans is paid back. In 1965-’66 an amount of R2,850,000 was voted for soil conservation; the expenditure only amounted to R2,765,173. In other words, there was an amount of R84,827 which was not allocated. In the Soil Conservation Loan Estimates provision was made for R1,250,000 in 1965-’66; of that amount R1,131,629 was spent; in other words an amount of R118,371 was not spent. You see therefore that there has never been a question of there being a shortage of funds. (2) It is being complained that farmers are financially unable to construct soil conservation works. I have the greatest sympathy with our farmers; I know that they have been through a rough time and I know that soil conservation works are not works which pay immediate dividends. It is a long-term business and it costs the farmers quite a lot. I know of a farmer in our district who did not ask for a subsidy but who managed to reclaim three morgen of land. It cost him little more than R2,000. Once the land has been reclaimed it is worth R40 per morgen. This man had to do so in order to prevent further wash-aways. Soil conservation is an expensive process, but in addition to 55 per cent subsidy which is paid out loans can be obtained at 5 per cent interest from the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure. In catchment areas farmers are able to receive subsidies in excess even of 55 per cent. In areas which the State regards as catchment areas, such as the Orange River, where the work has to be done, the farmers can receive a subsidy of up to 95 per cent on their works. (3) In spite of severe droughts, the number of soil conservation works, which has been approved and completed has nevertheless increased considerably. In 1963-’64 37,000 works were approved; in 1964-’65, 42,000; in 1965-’66, 52,000. During these three years 18,000, 21,000 and 600,000 works respectively were completed, more than in any other previous year. That shows us how farmers have become soil conservation conscious. Good progress has been made even during the dry years and a larger amount of works has been approved and larger amounts of works have also been completed in these years. (4) According to the Soil Conservation Act it is the responsibility of soil conservation committees to draw up district plans and to see to it that they are carried out. This is where the trouble lies. My Department is now going to make every effort to train the committees and to furnish them with the necessary guidance. The committees which have already been trained, are functioning much better. I have the greatest expectations of these attempts which are being made to train our soil conservation committees so that they can in fact contribute their share to the entire process of farming conservation. It is of no avail drawing up farm plans if farmers do not carry them out. The Agricultural Advisory Council has already recommended that future drought assistance should only be rendered if farmers can prove that they have carried out the prescribed soil conservation measures. The hon. member for Bethal made an excellent speech in this regard here yesterday. You know, Sir, the young agricultural experts sitting in this House make a Minister feel uneasy. They have a thorough knowledge of their subject.

Particularly those on this side.

You need not be afraid of them; all they do is thank the Government.

Oh, no. As I have said, the hon. member for Bethal advocated that future drought assistance should only take place if farmers could prove that they had carried out the prescribed soil conservation measures. The Agricultural Commission will also give attention to this matter. I may just say that we have made a break-through in this field. Even the S.A. Agricultural Union is now recommending that assistance should be linked to achievements. Personally I have great sympathy with this idea, but it is not so easy. There are a tremendous amount of problems connected with the question. When we experience difficult times of drought, such as the one we have just had, what are we going to do with the farmer who has perhaps not been farming very well? Must I then tell him, “Old chap, this is the road which leads you to the devil?” We cannot do that. We will have to take that man by the hand. There are many problems associated with this. I think that we shall have to devise a method of connecting State aid in such times to a certain extent with achievements on the part of the farmer.

Mr. Chairman, even in rich countries such as the United States of America they are not making the progress with soil conservation they would like to make. It was emphasized over and over again yesterday by hon. members on both sides of the House that a great deal is being done in regard to soil conservation in South Africa but that we are progressing too slowly. Soil conservation is not something which one will ever be able to perfect; it will always have to remain relative.

The destruction is out-stripping the conservation.

I wonder whether that is correct, though? When I travel through South Africa it does not appear to me to be so. Last year I left my farm to go to a certain area and travelled along a road which I had known as a young man and I was surprised to see how that area had improved after 20 years. Because we are so obsessed by, and rightly so, the idea of conservation we notice every eroded piece of land, and we are vastly concerned about it. But I think we are exaggerating if we say that the destruction is out-stripping conservation. There are areas in South Africa where the destruction is taking place rapidly. The other day we had a photo in the newspaper taken of the Deputy Minister at such an area. There are various areas like that. We have major problems. Here in the dry areas where we are providing more and more water it is a tremendous problem because as soon as those people have more water at their disposal there are certain farmers who are inclined to overtax their soil and allow the soil to degenerate. I explained very emphatically here last year how concerned I felt about the new licks, especially if farmers were to misuse them and thus destroy their soil. We have our problems. Each break-through in one direction results in problems in another. I do not know whether it was a United Party man who told me the following little anecdote the other day. According to him termites buried grass seeds in their nests during times of drought and when the rains fall they bring out the seeds in their millions in order to clean their nests and provide new food. In this way they sow. Suppose we were to eradicate all the termites, what would happen then? But I think it was only the United Party man who told me that!

Even in countries such as the U.S.A. they are not making the progress with soil conservation which they would like to make, as I have already said. I am quoting from the book by R. J. Morgan entitled Governing Soil Conservation, which has recently appeared. In that book the following is stated—

Although more than 98 per cent of the land in farms is now incorporated within soil conservation districts, and about half of all farm operators now have conservation agreements with soil conservation districts, only about one-third of the farmers have basic conservation plans.

We must remember that they began with soil conservation work in 1937—that is to say, nine years before we did—nevertheless only one-third of the farmers there have, according to the writer, “basic conservation plans”. In South Africa on the other hand 34 per cent of the farmers already have such schemes. Morgan goes on to say—

Because these matters require long-term plans and labour before they yield results, farmers throughout the world are inclined to nibble at this matter reluctantly, as we would put it. This does not only occur in South Africa, but throughout the world. The writer also states—

During the past 30 years America has spent more than 9 million dollars on soil conservation. I am just mentioning this to indicate that in America soil conservation legislation has after 30 years not progressed as far as one would have expected either. We have only been applying soil conservation for 21 years. But because we are not such a rich agricultural country as the United States of America is, soil conservation is all the more essential to us and we have to succeed in our campaign against soil erosion and veld deterioration as quickly as possible or we will have no future. I admit to this candidly. My Department also admits it. The Government admits it. But we must not always be running our own people down and saying that they are worse than other people in other parts of the world. We must also give our people credit for what they are doing. The hon. member for Newton Park asked me what became of the scheme whereby persons were to be appointed to assist us in measuring and inspecting soil conservation works. I may just say this. Up to now we have received 169 applications from outsiders to assist us with soil conervation work. 23 appointments have already been made. Now hon. members will probably ask why so few have been appointed if we have received 169 applications, but these people have to give satisfaction in respect of the work which has to be undertaken by the State with the taxpayers money; for that reason we must also make sure that they are people who know their work. Their ability must be tested, and it is for that reason that there has been a slight delay with this matter. Nevertheless, I think it will proceed much more rapidly now.

The hon. member for East London (City) asked that the veld reclamation scheme be extended. The hon. member for Newton Park asked by some farmers who had participated in the scheme now wanted to withdraw unilaterally. Was it because the scheme did not pay them enough? Well, I will now reply to that question. When my Department and I were considering this scheme we felt that certain areas in the disaster drought areas, areas which had been shown by the officials of the Department of Agriculture to be areas where proper conservation farming over a given period of time would not succeed in reclaiming the veld, should be declared to be disaster drought areas, and that was done. In those areas the stock had been decimated to a tremendous extent and it was in those areas that we introduced the scheme. But in actual fact many farmers are being compensated for withdrawing stock which they did not in fact even possess. They no longer possess that stock. If I could farm with 300 head of cattle on my farm and 100 had died then I would only have 200 remaining. A farmer is compensated for the withdrawal of one-third of his land on which he has grazed cattle, cattle which he no longer possesses. That fact must be borne in mind. I think that this scheme is in fact a very paying one. Up to now we have received the following applications and the given amount of land has been withdrawn. In the Transvaal 920 applications were received and 569,000 morgen has been withdrawn. In the North-Western Cape 152 applications have been received and 209,813 morgen have been withdrawn; in the North-Western Karoo we have received 79 applications and 159,321 morgen have been withdrawn. Altogether therefore a total of 1,141 applications have been received, and a total of 936,457 morgen have been withdrawn.

The hon. member for East London (City) also asked—and he has discussed this matter with me in the lobby on various occasions— that we expand this withdrawal scheme even further than is the case at present. I may just say this. If this scheme appears to be a real success—and I have no doubt about that— and there are parts where it can be proved that despite the fine rains which we have had over large parts of the country, recovery is not possible, I will not hesitate to recommend to the Government that new additions be made. But I want to say again that our funds are limited. We need a great deal of money for agriculture and for that reason we cannot be too extravagant.

The hon. member for Swellendam applied for more applied research. He stated that Stellenbosch was paying too much attention to basic research. That is what I understood the hon. member to say. Well, my Department prefers not to speak of basic and applied research. The policy is to carry out purposeful research with the aim of solving farming problems. If there is insufficient knowledge available to apply it, advanced research, or in fact basic research will have to be done. At Stellenbosch and Elsenburg applied research is being carried out, for example the cultivation of new varieties of wheat, oats and barley. All the tests being carried out on sheep are applied reasearch, for example the breeding and improvement of German merinos, the dormer sheep, fodder experiments such as the processing of hay in tablet form, fertilization experiments, etc. That is all applied research. After all, the new canning peaches which are of inestimable value for the farmers and the canning industry are also the result of applied research. Since the professors have to train post-graduate agricultural students it is obvious that they must have a thorough scientific grounding and that can only result from advanced or basic research; without basic research applied research is impossible. I just want to say that I really believe that we in South Africa do at this stage need purposeful research. Basic research also forms part of purposeful research. Let me mention the example of the “vermeerbos”. It is a complicated problem to find out what the poison is and how it reacts. How can it be identified? That is basic research, but it is also purposeful research if I am able to say, as I said last year in regard to the quick sickness: The farmers’ animals are dying and it is of no avail making high-flown research for science as such. Research must be done here and now in regard to this disease. We have appointed a team of research workers in this connection, but it is obvious that those people will do basic research which is at the same time purposeful research.

The hon. member for Vryburg spoke about the terrible problem which the farmers in his constituency had to contend with, i.e. bush invasion in general. That fine cattle veld is being destroyed by bush invasion. What makes me sad is that although that problem began to assume serious proportions some time ago it is clear to me that our farmers have only now realized that something must be done about that matter. At the moment, as you know, my Department, in collaboration with the farmers, is undertaking research there in regard to bush eradication. But it is an expensive operation. Perhaps I was very unfortunate, but how many times did the machine not break down while we were standing there? [Interjections.] The hon. member says twice, but I think it broke down three times in the half-hour we were standing there. It is an expensive operation. It is now being stated that the land can be cleared of bush at approximately R8 per morgen. The hon. member said yesterday that if the land is cleared of bush—and I do not want to mention the wrong figures—then five morgen per head of cattle will be necessary. At present 22 morgen per head is necessary. That is according to the Department’s figures. It is clear to me that clearing that bush is an economic proposition, but it would also be economic for the farmer if he were able to obtain assistance by way of loans, etc. At this stage the State cannot afford to undertake the task of eradicating bush. What I do think is that we must consider granting these people loans under the normal State system in order to help them eradicate that bush. I am not certain, but last year it seemed to me as if grass would not grow again where those bushes had once been, for in the past that bush had been controlled by means of fires. From time to time the farmers set that bushveld on fire and the young bushes were destroyed. Now that they are farming so intensively, there is no more grass to burn there and the bush has proliferated. I am an old farmer and I believe that setting fire to the bush is, under certain circumstances, when it can be scientifically controlled, a good thing. I want to express the hope that with this wonderful season which we have had certain parts of that bushveld can now be set fire to again. I want to ask that a note be made of this. If such a section of bush has been fired, then it appears to me that it would be much cheaper to clear it of bush than is the case to-day. The bushes will still be young and it will be easier to eradicate them.

The hon. member for Lydenburg asked whether a demonstration farm could be established in their area. It would be a good thing to have demonstration farms everywhere. I know that they play an important role in our farming. I know that there are progressive farmers, but unfortunately I cannot afford to have demonstration farms everywhere. The hon. member for Lydenburg did in fact tell us how many demonstration farms there already are in that part of the Transvaal. He supplied me with this argument: We cannot afford any more of them at this stage, but once the funds are available, I should like to establish another demonstration farm in that region. South Africa is a large country and a great many demonstration farms ought to be established.

The hon. member for Gordonia pleaded that the research buildings at Upington should now be constructed. I may just say that those buildings have already been planned. I would have had them constructed a long time ago, but I am afraid of the United Party. They say that the State is spending too much. They say that we must be more careful with our expenditure. I subsequently decided that Upington would have to lag behind a little. [Interjections.] No, Sir, I am saying this as a joke. But we do not have all the funds to construct the buildings which we would like to construct. I was there in person and I saw those buildings myself. They are poor. I hope that we will also be able to erect those buildings. The other day the hon. member for Kroonstad drew my attention to the poor condition of the building in which our veterinary surgeons at Kroonstad have to work. He almost moved me to tears. I want to state this afternoon that in spite of our fight against inflation we shall in future have to obtain a little more money for agricultural buildings.

The hon. member for East London (City) spoke about the deterioration of the Karoo veld, and he also spoke about the Karoo caterpillar. Research is continually being carried out in this regard. It is alleged that the life of the Karoo caterpillar is short. This caterpillar occurs over a wide area. It is therefore very difficult to find a remedy against it. I want to give the hon. member the assurance that we cannot stand by and see our best sheep grazing area in South Africa being destroyed by a parasite like that. We are engaged on research. I am also a sheep farmer, although I am not a bushveld farmer. We shall do our best to see whether we cannot speed up the research in regard to the Karoo caterpillar. However, that research is being carried out.

The hon. member for Etosha asked for a foot-and-mouth disease institute to be established at Onderstepoort so that it will not be necessary for us to import the vaccine against foot-and-mouth disease from England. It would be a good thing if we were able to do that. The building plans have already been drawn up. I hope that it will within the foreseeable future be possible to manufacture that vaccine at Onderstepoort, and that it will no longer be necessary to import it. When we will be able to commence building operations I do not know.

The hon. member for Harrismith elaborated on the value of the radio talks in regard to soil conservation being given by Dolf van Niekerk. I may just say that Dolf van Niekerk is our man. It is our man who is giving those excellent talks. I am grateful that the hon. member appreciates it so much.

The hon. member for Waterberg expressed his appreciation of the fact that the locusts and finches were being eradicated. I may just say that the hon. member for Waterberg has been a frequent visitor to my office. I shall ask Waterberg to supply me with a new carpet in my office. But I am glad that he was able to report that we were giving the finches a hard time.

The hon. member for Albany discussed the shortage of veterinary surgeons again. As far as that matter is concerned I can inform him that our list of vacancies for veterinary posts is a very short one—in fact, as far as approved posts are concerned, there are only five vacant posts. But the hon. member raised another aspect, an aspect which I have been discussing with my Department for several years—the question of temporary veterinary surgeons. On the surface it may seem a good plan to make use of the services of temporary veterinary surgeons. But unfortunately everything in the garden is not lovely. If we were to allow a number of veterinary surgeons to establish themselves in the rural areas to-morrow, and they were to be remunerated by the State on a part-time basis, I predict that we would lose many of those people which we have in our employ at the moment. Therefore we must be very careful here. Although we are obliged to make use of the services of part-time medical men, such as district surgeons, even without it being possible for us to exercise satisfactory control over them, it is a different matter when we have to make use of the services of part-time veterinary surgeons for to treat animals. What we are prepared to do for people, we cannot compare with what we can and must do for the animals. I can nevertheless say that my Department is considering the idea of giving part-time veterinary surgeons a fixed amount to keep an area clean once that area has been cleared of a listed disease. Attention has been given to this plan for a number of years already, but it has not been possible to implement it. I intend giving further attention to this possibility at once. However, I am not prepared at this stage to recommend the appointment of part-time veterinary surgeons.

†The hon. member for South Coast queried the reduction in respect of veterinary field services of R95,300. This has been caused by the postponement of the erection of a fence along the border between the Republic and Botswana, which in turn is due to the fact that an accurate determination of the border has not yet been finalized. A lesser amount is also being asked for for the control of rabies. This is due to cheaper methods of control having been devised. In respect of subhead R—Plant Pest Control—the reduction there has been caused by less new equipment being required and no large scale campaign against finches or locusts being envisaged—that was when the Budget was drawn up. That has been spent; so that we shall have to budget for any further funds in the supplementary estimates.

I now come to the “Centraal Bureau voor Schimmelcultures”. It is a Dutch organization of worldwide reputation which undertakes the identification of moulds, etc., for its members.

What is its English name?

The same. It has no English designation—just as “Mitchell” remains the same in English and in Afrikaans.

Could the hon. the Minister perhaps give us some further information in regard to “dikkop”, and also in regard to the use of films?

Yes. The hon. member spoke about research in regard to “dikkop”. I can inform the hon. member that this research is being carried out. The research is taking place at Middelburg. In addition we have mobile vans which travel from place to place and undertake research. However, the final work is done at Onderstepoort. As I have said, we are busily engaged on this. The other day I received a letter from a farmer in the Transvaal in which he gave me no less than 11 remedies for “dikkop”. I shall even investigate these remedies—that shows how worried I am about this question. I want to express my sympathy to the farmers once again, because hardly has the drought under which they were suffering passed, than “dikkop” comes to trouble them. Although I am a farmer, and the hon. member for South Coast is a farmer, I wonder sometimes whether it is not foolish to become a farmer. The setbacks which farmers experience are tremendous. It is said on so many occasions that farmers are not prepared to stand on their own feet. But we must remember that there are few industries in the world where so many natural disasters have to be dealt with than is the case with farming. What group of people who have been subjected to drought conditions for seven years, will not complain, if, as soon as those drought conditions have cleared up, the moths and caterpillars come out to devour their crops? That happens in farming—after all the years of worry, hard labour and sweat, when deliverance is at last in sight, it is accompanied by other plagues. At Middelburg the farmers came to see me.

Truly, one feels sorry for them, for now that there has been a deliverance from the drought, there are other hardships to bear. But we are doing our best and we hope that we will in due course be able to make a breakthrough. I am referring here particularly to “dikkop”. But as I said the other day diseases which are caused by plants are a great challenge to the Department. But research is being continued. The problem of “dikkop” is aggravated by the fact that this disease does not occur with regularity. In my district, for example, the last outbreak of “dikkop” was when I was a young man, and that was quite a Iona time ago. That makes research more difficult.

The hon. member for Gardens also asked whether we could not make more use of films. I have not yet gone into this matter, but I shall do so, and if this debate is still in progress on Monday, then I hope to furnish more information in that regard.

I want to thank the hon. the Minister for the information which he has just given us. However, I must differ with him somewhat in regard to the comparison he made between conditions here and those in the U.S.A. in regard to the position of soil conservation. Hon. members know that the position on the continent of Africa, and more specifically South Africa, differs from that in the U.S.A. because our soil was subjected in the far distant past to a form of wasteful exploitation, and still is, owing to the fact that we had, and still have, a large Native population. I am thinking in particular now of the land along the Sundays River for example where the white civilization came into contact with the Bantu. They were practising a form of wasteful exploitation of the land. Of course this wasteful exploitation was also to be found further north in Africa, and is still to be found to-day. Now it is a fact that we are facing a population explosion and a large food shortage in the world. That is generally known. If this is to be counteracted it can only be done by means of a technological explosion. One can only succeed in doing so by means of research in a technical field. How are we going to achieve this, particularly where we now have to give or offer assistance, advice and guidance to the rest of Africa? For example, we have Onderstepoort which is actually the pride of Africa. Nobody can deny that. It is a fact that we would like to give guidance on an international level, but simply do not have the staff. In regard to Onderstepoort and with a view to the question of combating cattle diseases in both our country and elsewhere on the continent of Africa which makes heavy demands on Onderstepoort the following question has occurred to me: Should we not, in view of the red tape associated with the public service and for many other reasons, convert Onderstepoort into a research institute, which would be free from Public Service red tape? Independence allows more scope and enables one to offer increased salaries, better privileges and improvements, which could bear comparison with the rest of the world. One finds for example that countries such as the U.S.A. and Russia were able to provide guidance to the rest of the world in various scientific directions. That was only due to the fact that they were able to draw scientists from Central Europe. As far as scientists are concerned we are in a similar position. This does not only apply to scientists in the field of agriculture or veterinary services. We also have scientists who are doing valuable work in other fields of the political economy. I am raising these points because in this atomic age in which we are living scientific research is extremely important and we will most certainly lag behind if we do not give attention to the maintenance and the development of scientific knowledge in regard to our problems here at the southernmost point of Africa, as well as further to the north.

I was sorry to hear the hon. the Minister say that he is rather frightened to take on part-time veterinary surgeons. He voices the fear that, if he takes on these part-time veterinary surgeons, he would lose a great number of the full-time men already in his employ. No, I do not think it is undesirable. The matter of the supply of veterinary surgeons, like the supply of nurses and doctors, should be viewed from the wide outlook of the whole country. There must be many thinly populated areas some distance from large towns where the Minister is able to give a very poor service, and that with difficulty. He has shortages. If he would accept the idea, not necessarily quite on the same lines as the Health Department, of taking on part-time workers, he will find that, with the assistance of their part-time pay, there will be veterinary surgeons who will be able to make a living in the areas where he is unable to supply a full-time veterinary surgeon. In any event, the whole of the veterinary services of the country are too concentrated in one snot and under one control. It is as if we had one university trying to train engineers, or one university trying to train doctors. What would happen to our service if that happened? I think we have been very fortunate so far in our veterinary service and in what Onderstepoort can do, but it is asking too much to expect that one institution can supply the veterinary surgeons and the research workers, who are required for millions of animals, domestic and otherwise. I have said it before in this House that the sooner there is a spread of veterinary education, the better it would be for this country. The more we encourage men to go out into private practice, the higher the standard, which is high already, will rise. I do think that, if the hon. the Minister would just not be led by the official outlook that this system has been good up to now and still is good, it would be much better. I hope the Minister will give it further consideration.

I rather want to talk about rabies to-day, a disease from which humans suffer, but which, because it is carried by the animals under the care of the hon. the Minister, is really more a responsibility for him than for the Minister of Health. There has always been a certain amount of rabies in the country, but in the last ten years there have been grave outbreaks. It has been endemic in this country but there has been, as I said, a grave spread into areas where it has not existed before. Since the Flury strain came down the East Coast tropical corridor from Egypt, we have seen it appear in Zululand, Natal, and down into East Griqualand. I understand it has also spread to the southern Transvaal. The epidemics which broke out were, I think, reasonably cared for and were brought under control after the initial delay, which took place because of the absence of sufficient vaccine. But, after that had been accomplished, there were adequate campaigns for the moment to bring these epidemics under control. I feel, however, that not enough is being done to wipe out the disease as far as it is possible to do so. It must be possible in the end, I hope, but there are very grave problems, because the smaller wild game, like meerkats and similar animals, carry it and it is doubtful if it would be wise to exterminate these animals. That is a question which only a great deal of study can answer. But I feel that there is not a continuous and concentrated effort to keep this disease under control. It seems to me that the Department rather waits until a case occurs and then institutes control measures, as happened recently at Kwambonambi. I feel that as in Durban where there is a certain amount of continuous effort—I am not sure that it is sufficient-control measures should be going on all over the endemic areas, even if it might be necessary for part-time veterinary surgeons to do some of the injections. There should be a constant effort. A country like Malaya has a more difficult problem than we have. They have much more dense bush. Many of the small animals there are a worse type of population than our animals. If a country like Malaya can practically eradicate rabies from its borders then I think that we should be able to do the same. Israel has very limited resources compared with what we have, and yet it has succeeded in eliminating rabies. Therefore, Sir. I say that we too should be able to do so. In the result I ask the hon. the Minister to give serious consideration to instituting throughout the endemic area a constant effort until we arrive at the point where we can say that the disease, while not absolutely absent, is nonetheless completely under control.

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to react to any great extent to what the hon. member for Durban (Central) had to say here. It seems to me that this is the general state of affairs in the United Party— they get hold of an idea and never inquire properly into what steps should actually be taken in that direction. I think that if the hon. member were to investigate and find out what steps were being taken by the Department to combat rabies, he would realize what a tremendous amount of work has already been done in this respect by the Department.

I should like to refer to the United Party’s attacks on this occasion. I want to admit candidly that as a result of the very moderate and human way in which the hon. the Minister has dealt with these matters, it is difficult to return to those attacks. I can understand that although the Minister has been so moderate, so sympathetic and so human in regard to this matter, the United Party on the other hand is so tremendously pleased about these conditions. That is probably the reason why that Party finds itself in its present position. Let us consider for a moment the attacks which have up to now been made by the United Party in this debate. Sir, there was nothing really new in what they had to say.

The hon. member for Newton Park spoke about the efficiency of the farmers. According to the hon. member only 20 per cent of our farmers have been trained, because, as he put it 80 per cent of the farmers—those are his words—have not been trained. In addition he elaborated on his three main points in particular, i.e. instruction, soil conservation and research, which according to him, was hopelessly inadequate. I am glad that the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens admitted the other day that a tremendous amount of progress had been made in this field. Let us now return to the efficiency which the hon. member also spoke about. If the hon. member was correct when he stated that 80 per cent of our farmers were not farming efficiently, then he must admit that that 80 per cent of untrained farmers, as the hon. member put it, has accomplished a tremendous task in South Africa.

What is more, those farmers who are carrying out farming operations in South Africa to-day have accepted and made full use of the results of research undertaken by our scientists. As far as information services are concerned, I just want to say that they have not, as was alleged, been neglected, but information has in fact been made available to the farmers. That information has also been accepted by the farmers. If the hon. member is correct when he alleges that there is a shortage, then the Department as well has in the present circumstances performed a tremendous task in regard to soil conservation. That is why one can only express one’s grateful appreciation to the Department for having, despite their shortage of staff, performed this major task so well. Never before in South Africa have we had such good harvests. It was not only the mealie harvest, but others as well. We have had good rains before. We have also had successful years before. In those years there were early rains, followed by moderate rains, which were just sufficient to create good conditions.

This year, also as owing to the results of research which have been accepted and used by the farmers, as well as the information which they have utilized, we have been able to obtain these good results. In other words, the efficiency of our farmers to-day is greater than it has ever been before in South Africa. I do not think we can get away from the results which have been achieved, inter alia, by the alleged untrained and inefficient farmers of South Africa. We have achieved something here which has never before existed in South Africa. That is why we want to congratulate our farmers, those people who as the hon. member said, had been confronted with a tremendous task, people who have had to cope with tremendous problems, people who have to deal with a very uncertain occupation, and the tremendous task which they have performed this year. We also want to congratulate the Departments. On a former occasion the hon. member said that this Government had no sympathy with the farmer. But proof has never been adduced to support that allegation. That is the problem of the Opposition.

The other day the hon. member for Albany said that losses to the amount of R20 million were being suffered as a result of cattle diseases. I should very much like to know where the hon. member got that figure from. The latest census figures which we have, are for the year 1959-’60. I now want to say something in regard to this matter. I want to ask the Department to make the census statistics available to us much sooner. I think it is imperative that they be made available sooner. The hon. member did not tell us where he got those figures from. We have doubts about the accuracy of that figure. My time has almost expired, but I should like to refer to another serious matter. Over the years the United Party has quoted things here without any proof. That also applies in regard to their argument in respect of soil conservation and the washing away of soil. The hon. member for Cape Town Gardens spoke about so many tons of soil which were supposed to have been washed away, words which Dr. Ross used at that time. The only change the hon. member made when he referred to those figures the other day was to talk about cubic metres. He spoke about a figure of 240 cubic metres. I think it is a serious matter to which we should give our attention.

I wonder how many letters I have recently received? We are spending millions of rand on soil conservation. We only have 16 million morgen of agricultural land, and we may be able to increase it to a small extent. If we want to supply the population of South Africa with the necessary food, then we will have to preserve those 16 million morgen as if it were a priceless treasure. That is why we must at this stage give specific attention to the urgent need to protect that soil. This soil is being damaged and destroyed by roads departments and other bodies. I think that if there were ever a task which should at this stage receive attention from us then it is this task of conserving our soil. I do not want to belittle soil conservation; it is essential, it is absolutely essential. But it is of no avail oyr protecting the soil if the road department and other bodies come along and cut roads 220 feet wide through those farms when they are quite capable of making them somewhere else. The roads cut straight through land which is to-day being sold for R240 and R250 per morgen. That ground is highly productive. The roads are simply being cut through that expensive land. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I want to begin by referring to the plea by the hon. member for Durban (Central) for more veterinary training facilities at our universities and for the dissemination of the research which is already beng undertaken. In my speech I wanted to refer, in fact, to the reason why Onderstepoort is so successful, namely that its activities are centralized. Apart from that I want to point out to the hon. member that the acual number of veterinary surgeons needed is not so large that it actually justifies more than one faculty. The result of the expansion of the existing faculty at Pretoria in recent years is not yet noticeable in practice. For that reason it is not really necessary to split the concentrated effort of Onderstepoort. I think that at this stage such a step would have an adverse effect. The hon. member will agree with me jf I say that the institute at Onderstepoort has become known and famous all over the world. The faculty providing the training there has also set a remarkable standard. For that reason I feel that it is not really desirable to bring about a separation of forces at this stage. The fact that a climate for intensive research has been created there, coupled with the training of students, is certainly a combination which is to the benefit of the country and not to its disadvantage. I think the hon. the Minister has also replied in part by demonstrating that there is not actually such a large shortage of veterinary surgeons in the country at the moment. In actual fact the shortage is quite small.

I want to come back to the task of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services in general. I want to state that we live in a time of science and of techniques in particular. If this is true of our life in general, it is particularly true of agriculture. The task of providing scientific knowledge and research rests mainly with the Department of Agricultural Technical Services. It is the Department which has to render a particularly wide service, which has to keep our farmers informed, which has to obtain information by means of research, which in many cases extends over long periods and demands a great deal of intensive study. The Department handles all forms of life in the field of agriculture. Its work extends from animals to plants and to the soil. Here I want to refer specifically to the soil as a form of life. The hon. member for Newton Park said here that we should have the staff to help to build up the soil. Now I want to tell the hon. member that if he studies the soil he will find that the soil is a living organism which responds to treatment. To establish and maintain an organization to build up the soil of this country is neither practicable nor economic. The best we can do in this country is to maintain the fertility of our soil. That is all that is practically feasible. But it is not only the task of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services. As I see it, it is also the task of everybody else in this country—old and young, large and small. All population groups have to cultivate a love of the soil and to make their contributions. To say simply that the Department should be built up in such a way that we shall be able to increase the fertility of our soil is, in my view, quite unrealistic. And there I want to leave soil conservation.

Did you relate that to soil conservation?

Yes, I referred more specifically to your statement that the fertility of our soil should be built up. Soil conservation is related to that, and I think it amounts to the same, namely that it is a task for the entire population. The Department of Agricultural Technical Services can in fact provide the knowledge and the guidance. I want to make a specific analysis of this Department and point out to you that the extensive work undertaken by them is performed by a large number of employees—those people who form the vanguard. Firstly in 1966 there were 1,651 professional posts. There were also 1,228 technical and 265 extension posts. During last year most of these posts were filled. There was therefore no substantial shortage. But these people face a problem, and this is also a problem of erosion— the erosion of our human material. If we examine their establishments, we find that 31.6 per cent of the professional staff resign before they have two years’ service.

In the case of Onderstepoort we find a resignation figure of 50 per cent before they have two years’ service. Although the staff is replaced continually that Department also faces the great problem that they, have a large number of relatively junior and inexperienced people. As soon as they gain the experience, however, they are drawn away and “erosion” is caused there by the private sector, commerce and industry. I think the hon. member for Gordonia has already indicated that the State cannot compete with commerce and industry for the services of those people. Nevertheless, I want to make a specific request, and I want to give some examples. I think that in many cases these people are not fruitfully enough employed. They are employed as sophisticated salesmen. In many cases they are no longer doing the work for which they are trained. I think that the hon. the Minister should consider taking action in this regard. In a moment I want to make certain suggestions in this respect. I shall now refer to certain cases in my constituency.

There are at least six firms selling agricultural requirements, sprays, fertilizer, etc. Each one of them has a technical man in the field who has to tell the farmer how he should set about matters. But in that very region a research institute, an agricultural test farm and an extension service are available, and quite a few of the co-operatives have extension officers in the field. Now we have had the experience that a certain insecticide which is used in combating eelworm is available more cheaply in Rhodesia and can also be imported from there to South Africa more cheaply than it is available here in the Republic, and yet that insecticide is manufactured here! We have made inquiries, and we were told that these companies performed extension and research work here. If that kind of thing is taking place, I feel that the farmer’s production costs are increased as a result. Moreover, our scientific human material is wasted in this way. For that reason I want to suggest that the Minister should call these people together on a high level and should ask them to enter into, shall I call it, a gentleman’s agreement, in order that they may use these people only if they can make a real contribution, and not where they are going to duplicate services.

Progress reported.