I should like to move the amendment as printed in my name—

The hon. the Minister made it perfectly clear on Friday that in making these grants-in-aid to hostels, he was going to follow the same system that had been followed in the provinces previously. It was customary under those circumstances for the authorities to make an over-all payment which was commonly known as rental, which covered the interest on the bond; it covered redemption and it covered maintenance and then, of course, there was the question of the payment of capitation fees for boarding purposes; very often there was a cost of living allowance as well and a percentage of staff salaries was defrayed by the Department. If we are going to adhere to that system, which I understand is going to be the case, it means that any private body or church concerned can often run these establishments, as in fact they did in the past, at a profit, not necessarily a large profit, but nevertheless at a profit. When I use the word “profit”, let me make it quite clear that in a sense perhaps it was a mistake on my part to have used the word “profit”. I am not referring to it in the sense of capital payments for the redemption of a bond. When I use the word “profits” I am referring essentially to excess of income over expenditure in the administration of these hostels. Nobody wants any private body, least of all the churches, to be out of pocket in running such establishments. That is not my point. The point is that these hostels may well be attached to State schools, and they will be subject, as the hon. the Minister said, to regular inspection. They will have to submit proper profit and loss accounts, because this is always done where these hostels are concerned, and we are dealing here, I submit, with public money, with money appropriated by Parliament in terms of the Bill. My amendment clearly states that any profit shown be repaid to the Department, provided always that the inspectors are satisfied that they have inspected these establishments, that they are being adequately run, that the proper amount of money is being spent and that the children in the hostels are being adequately cared for. All we aim at, in the public interest, in moving this amendment is to see that the Department itself has adequate control. My last point is that it should not be forgotten that whereas the authorities are paying this rental, as it is called, which in itself will redeem the bond in due course, when the bond is fully redeemed the hostel will then belong, not to the Department, but to the church or private body concerned, and it will then be up to them, unless there is some stipulation to some other effect, to sell or offer such building for sale. So it seems to me that on the face of it this is a very fair amendment in view of the fact that these are moneys appropriated by Parliament and that therefore there should be adequate control over those moneys.

During the second reading hon. members on this side of the House explained that we wished to assist the Minister in providing hostel accommodation for these pupils in the Coloured schools. Now the question which the Minister himself has to decide is what body should be recognized to administer these funds which will be made available. Those of us who know the Transvaal organization know that the great bulk of the work fell upon the churches there, or on other private bodies. May I suggest to the hon. the Minister that the ideal body would be a non-profit-making company. I am sure that the church itself could form such a company, or in association with the Department. I think the amendment moved by the hon. member for Wynberg does explain what we have in mind. We do not wish to have the type of hostel that one found many years ago and which almost amounted to child farming. I do not think there is any danger of that in the Cape Province, but that did happen in the old days. I have known cases of it myself. In this case I would make that suggestion to the hon. the Minister that he should consider a non-profit-making company. I should like him to give an assurance on that if possible.

The fears of the two hon. members regarding the financial aspect, that it may result in excessive profits, may be allayed if I explain to them the procedure followed in connection with this matter. Briefly, what it amounts to is that the Department renders assistance in the establishment of hostels by means of rentals or loans. Whereas previously these loans were free of interest, Treasury has now determined that no interest-free loans shall be granted in future, but that interest will be charged at State rates. But as regards the actual concern of the hon. members, it is met by the control which is exercised in this regard. What the control amounts to is that the pupils are granted board allowances, and these amounts are usually paid directly to the hostel. But the control which is exercised is exercised by the Department by checking the financial statements which are regularly submitted to them. The payment of these rentals takes place after submission of the financial statements. The hostels have to submit financial statements annually to show how much they received by way of grants and loans and what their expenditure was, and from that it is apparent whether there have been losses or profits. If losses are incurred, the position is rectified by way of increased grants, and if it appears that large profits are made, it is also set right departmentally by way of reductions in the grants. There is therefore no ground for the hon. members’ fears that out of the grants hostels will be able to hoard a large amount of money which they will not know what to do with, at the expense of the students. The Department exercises thorough supervision over the utilization of funds, and this really means sound control, and it means that there is sound supervision over the matter. I therefore fear I cannot accept the amendment.

I move the amendment standing in my name—

It provides that no hostel to which a grant-in-aid or a loan has been made shall refuse accommodation to any such Coloured person, that is, a Coloured person to whom education is provided, on the ground of his religious denomination. The position is that the vast majority of the hostels which will cater for the Coloured pupils attending the schools referred to in the Bill are run and will continue to be run by The churches of the various denominations. This is a function which is welcomed because it would otherwise cost the State a great deal of money, and at present the Department of Coloured Education does not have the funds to establish its own hostels. So that we do not object—that is what I wish to make clear—to the fact that these hostels should be run by the churches of the various denominations. But we do feel on this side of the House that if grants-in-aid or loans are made to hostels by the State, and these hostels are in a position where they function largely as the result of the moneys forthcoming from the State, they ought to receive pupils of all religious denominations, i.e. the pupils that happen to be a [tending the schools which are attached to the hostels. It does happen in practice in the case of some of these hostels that pupils of other religious denominations are excluded and the reason given is not usually religious prejudice; in fact, that happens very seldom, and we do not suggest that this comes about as the result of religious prejudice. It is simply that the staff is not enough to accompany the pupils to the different churches on Sundays. So, in order to overcome this difficulty, some of these hostels accept only the children belonging to the religious denomination concerned. If that institution is an entirely private one, what rules they make, particularly along these lines, would be their own business. But we feel that if they accept grants-in-aid and loans, they should be compelled to accept pupils of all religious denominations who happen to be attending the school to which the hostel is attached. If they do have difficulties in regard to supervising a group of pupils going to another church, then it seems to us that they ought to be prepared to make special provision for these cases if they wish to enjoy the benefits of grants-in-aid or loans from the State.

Furthermore, I should like to point out that the Education Ordinance of the province does protect persons against any form of discrimination on the grounds of religion in so far as schools are concerned. The Government schools are obliged to take in pupils, whatever their religious denomination may be, provided naturally that they live in the area catered for by the particular school and so on. The school itself is therefore protected in this respect as well as the other bodies referred to in the definition of “governing body”. The only one that is not covered by the provision in the Provincial Education Ordinance, is the hostel. It is precisely the hostel which is now being brought in to the definition by this amending Bill. It seems to us on this side of the House that some special provision of this nature must be made in relation to hostels so that hostels will then be brought into line with the other institutions which are governed by the Provincial Ordinance. These are the reasons why we urge the hon. the Minister to accept the amendment which I have moved.

Mr. Chairman, I agree with the hon. member for Musgrave that a hostel should not refuse pupils admission to the hostel in question if it appears that those pupils belong to a church other than the church which has an interest in that hostel. For that reason I fully agree with the hon. member. That an amendment of this nature is necessary, however, is highly doubtful. Perhaps I should just first of all read to you the regulation relating to admission to hostels in terms of the Education Act. Regulation 07.1 reads as follows—

This is where the school committee comes into the matter. Here the school committee has its say. Let us presume the danger arose which the hon. member envisages, namely that such a school committee refuses on unreasonable grounds to admit pupils of some other religious denomination. The applicant may then appeal. In such a case he may appeal to the Secretary of the Department. The fact of the matter is that the question of admission to hostels is handled on the same basis as the question of admission to schools. That is how it functions in practice. In practice we find that admission to schools poses no problems, or rather, none of which I am aware. Just as in the case of the State-aided schools, where it poses no problems, we do not expect any problems in this regard either. To accept an amendment of this nature would actually be a reflection on the sound judgment of the churches. In the Second Reading Debate we were unanimous on the valuable part played by the churches in Coloured education. They make a tremendous contribution, and one appreciates their contribution and respects the interest they take in the matter. So far we have experienced no problems of this nature, and I really feel that the introduction of an amendment of this nature may be interpreted by churches as a kind of motion of no-confidence in their judiciousness and handling of these cases. I am fully confident that they will continue to handle admission to hostels correctly and judiciously. As I have said, pupils have an opportunity to appeal. I want to add, however, that if any complaints did in fact arise with regard to injudicious actions by these church bodies, I would in the first place try to put the matter right administratively by bringing home to the church bodies in question in what spirit we want this Act administered, namely, no discrimination against pupils of other church denominations. If that proved to be of no avail, I would not hesitate to come to this House and to accept an amendment such as that moved by the hon. member for Musgrave to-day. Then I would be quite prepared to do so, because then our hands would be clean in respect of the churches which we appreciate so highly. I therefore want to ask that this amendment should be withdrawn and that the administration of this measure should be allowed to take place in the spirit I have set out here.

Mr. Chairman, we do not wish to quarrel with the hon. the Minister in regard to this amendment. However, his comparison as regards a child coming before a school committee or the provisions for the entrance of a child to a school being the same as that in regard to an entry into a hostel, is not, with due respect, entirely correct. When a child applies for entrance to a school, he may be asked to which religious denomination he belongs, but if it is a State school this does not make any difference, because the scriptural teaching taught in our State schools is such that it is interdenominational, as the hon. the Minister knows. There is no comparison between application for admission to a State school which has interdenominational scriptural teaching and application for admission to a hostel which is run by one or other of the churches themselves. I do not therefore think that that is a valid comparison. I think the application for admission to a hostel run by a specific church is a very different matter. Let me make it quite clear that none of us on this side of the House are anxious to give what the hon. the Minister referred to as a vote of no confidence in the churches concerned. This is the last thing which we intend by moving this amendment. It is not a question of a vote of no confidence. It is very often a question of practical difficulties because I myself have handled cases in this province where a handful of Anglican, Catholic and Presbyterian children in a Dutch Reformed church hostel have found that there are not teachers available on a Sunday to send three Catholics to one church, three Anglicans to another and three Presbyterians to another when the majority of pupils in the hostel belong to one of the Dutch Reformed churches. It is this practical difficulty with which we are concerned because if there is one hostel, especially for Coloureds, serving a particular area, and there are few enough, then obviously as many children as possible must be given the right of entry. If, as the hon. the Minister says, he is prepared to accept our amendment, with which he agrees fundamentally and incorporate it in regulations and thereby to do this administratively, then of course the whole matter is adequately covered. Perhaps the Minister will be able to tell us whether he is able to amend his regulations in this way.

Mr. Chairman, for my part, and I think for each one of us in this House who is interested in Coloured education, the Department of Coloured Education is there to provide education to Coloured children, irrespective of their religious creeds. I feel that I must agree with the hon. the Minister that at this stage it will not be proper to adopt this amendment. We cannot get away from the fact that the churches and mission societies have so far done a tremendous deal for Coloured education. I would almost say that if it had not been for the churches and mission organizations, Coloured education would not have progressed one-tenth as far as it was at the stage when the Department took it over. I therefore feel that the Coloured community and we as Whites—the white community did not give the necessary attention to this when George Smit, the pioneer in this field, was doing his work—have a debt of gratitude to the churches and the mission societies. At the same time I feel that the stage has been reached where, as the funds become available, the Department should take over the education facilities which are provided by churches and mission societies at the moment. I feel that at this stage this amendment may perhaps be seen as a reprimand to the churches. For that reason I feel that it should not be adopted. At the same time I want to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister and his Department to give attention to this aspect. It has been my experience on several occasions that although there was no discrimination against the religious denomination of a child when it was admitted to a church school, there was nevertheless such a tendency. It happened in some cases I encountered, not in all cases. Preference is then given to a child who belongs to the church which runs that school. That was the tendency, particularly in the appointment of teachers. I do not want to diverge from what is provided in the Bill. I just want to repeat that in my opinion this injunction would be superfluous at this stage. Nevertheless, if there are tendencies, it will be the task of the Department to give full attention to them and to prevent them. If this amendment is included in the Bill, it is my sincere opinion that an injunction will be laid upon church bodies or church denominations with regard to something which should be self-evident in view of the existing legislation and the fact that the existing legislation is concerned with the education and the instruction of Coloured children, irrespective of their religious beliefs.

Mr. Chairman, we do not wish to prolong this debate. We have confidence in the Minister’s administration in this regard. Will he give us an assurance that he will carry out our wish by means of regulation? That is what we are asking.

I shall gladly give that assurance to the three hon. members who have just spoken. I give the assurance that we shall implement this measure, in its administration by regulation, in such a spirit that there will be no discrimination against other churches. If that occurred it would be incumbent on hon. members who are interested in this matter to bring it to our attention. Hon. members may then rest assured regarding the action we shall take.

Amendments put and negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

Clause 3:

There is one question I should like to ask, arising out of this clause. The new subsection (7) (d) as inserted by clause 3, reads as follows:

I wonder if the hon. the Minister will explain to us why it has to be paid from a revenue fund and not from a pension fund. Does one understand that in the provinces pensions are paid out of revenue? I should like to know why it is paid out of revenue and not out of a fund.

Mr. Chairman, I understand this is an arrangement made with the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions. In terms of this mutual arrangement this conclusion was arrived at.

I want to explain that I do not object to it being paid from revenue. As I have often said in this House, I think all pensions of this kind should be paid from revenue, instead of the system we have at the moment, namely contributory pensions. This is a change from the other provinces. A man comes from another province and the pension rights he takes over from the other province are supported by the revenue of that province. In other words, it is paid to the hon. the Minister’s Department to run the scheme. Is that the position?

Clause put and agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment.

Mr. Chairman, we would be glad to have some clarification from the hon. the Minister in regard to the proposed amendment. As the clause will read, after amendment, it seems to us that the inspector will have a complete discretion in regard to the cancellation of the permit, subject of course to the provisions in regard to appeal, which appear in other sections of the Act. If the inspector exercises his discretion and decides to cancel, that cancellation, as we see it, will immediately have effect, despite any appeal which may be lodged. In other words, pending the appeal, the factory would be closed down. If we are right in this interpretation, we feel that this is too far-reaching and too drastic. We would then propose an amendment, which I shall move if our interpretation is correct. My amendment provides that if an appeal is lodged against the decision of the inspector to cancel such permit, the permit will continue in operation until the appeal has been finally disposed of. I do not wish to waste a lot of the time of the House in moving this amendment if the hon. the Minister is able to satisfy us that the cancellation of the permit will not have immediate effect and that, pending the appeal, the factory may continue to operate.

We should also like clarification of another aspect of this clause which arises from the White Paper. The White Paper says this about clause 5—

As we read this proposed amendment, the power to cancel which is given by this amendment relates only to the provisional factory permit. It does not relate in this clause to the registration certificate. In other words, the inspector will not by the proposed amendment have the power under this clause—although he may have it under another clause—to cancel the registration certificate. If we are correct in our interpretation, our proposed amendment need only refer to the provisional factory permit. If we are not correct then we would wish it to refer to both the registration certificate and the provisional factory permit. I do not wish at this stage to move this amendment until we have heard from the Minister in order not to waste the time of the House.

Mr. Chairman, as regards the final request made by the hon. member, I may refer him to section 13 (5) which duly provides for the registration certificate referred to by him. As regards the question of a factory being closed down, I may set the hon. member’s mind at ease by telling him that the very thing which he would like to see happening does in fact happen in practice. If any decision has been taken which may affect a factory adversely and it is possible for the factory to exercise the right of appeal, that factory is not simply closed down pending the result of the appeal. That simply does not happen in practice. Indeed, that would be a completely inhuman and unreasonable manner of administering an Act. We did not do so in the past—why then should we want to do so in the future? The hon. member need have no fears in that regard and consequently I am afraid that I will not be able to accept such an amendment. Surely one cannot provide in legislation for any danger which may arise. If that were the case our Acts would have been very voluminous. Consequently I cannot accept the amendment because it simply is not required in practice.

Mr. Chairman, does it follow then from what the hon. the Minister said that there is no danger of any group of employees being left without work because of an action of an inspector? The way the clause is worded here, surely it means that an inspector, using his own discretion, can close a factory down?

Technically I suppose it can happen, but in practice that is not the way we administer the Act.

Dr. E. L. FISHER: The Minister says by way of interjection that that does not happen in practice. But surely, by virtue of this cancellation phrase, it is possible for an inspector to close a factory down? We on this side are really perturbed that that may in fact happen. What other assurance can the Minister give us other than to tell us that it does not happen in practice?

Mr. Chairman, the assurance which the hon. member has is that all Acts are in fact applied in a reasonable and humane way—that is the assurance which the hon. member has. There have been similar restrictions in the past but they have never given rise to a factory being closed down. Why then should that happen in the future? Consequently hon. members should have faith that we shall continue to administer measures such as this in a reasonable way.

Mr. Chairman, I want to refer the Minister to the subsection which he has just mentioned, that is subsection (5). It provides that if after the registration of any premises as a factory under this Act any person makes, or permits to be made (a) any structural alterations or additions … in contravention of the provisions of section 12 or (b) any other alterations to such premises without the prior approval of an inspector … any inspector may, by notice in writing to the occupier, cancel the registration certificate issued in respect of such premises, which shall thereupon cease to be registered as a factory under this Act.”

Would you mind reading also section 15 (1)—that also refers to this measure.

Section 15 (1) reads as follows—

1. (a) by notice in writing, setting forth in what respect … require the occupier to take the steps and make the structural alterations mentioned in such notice …

This subsection also requires him to submit a statement, etc. The point which I want to make is this. These are related to the state of the premises and to the structure, whereas the cancellation of the provisional factory permit need not be only on the ground that the factory does not comply structurally with the plans which have been approved and passed. As the proposed subsection (4) is worded now, the inspector has a very wide discretion to cancel the provisional factory permit on whatever grounds he in his discretion considers to be justified, which is very much wider than the provisions to which the Minister has now referred me in relation to the registration certificate. I would point out also that subsection (5) specifically says that upon the giving of the notice relating to the registration certificate the factory thereupon ceases to be registered as a factory under the Act.

It may be that, in the way in which this measure is administered in practice, the factory is not immediately closed down, and a man is given a chance to take the matter on appeal and have it disposed of. But the Bill does not read that way, and it certainly does not read that way in regard to the proposed cancellation of the provisional factory permit. We do think that this is of such importance, not only to the factory owner but also to the persons employed in the factory, that there should be specific provision made in the legislation in terms of which, pending an appeal, the factory may continue in existence. We think this is only reasonable, and it certainly cannot prejudice the working of the Act in any way. It does, however, provide a very real protection to the workers and to the owner, and for that reason I propose at this stage to move the amendment which I suggested, namely—

I am truly sorry that I cannot accept this amendment because it serves no purpose. Surely one cannot accept amendments which, although they may be descriptive, are not necessary. Factories will not be closed down if complaints of this nature are made. A person is given the opportunity to lodge an appeal. Indeed, if a complaint of this nature is received, no reasonable person will close down a factory until such time as the appeal has been finally disposed of, because that would mean that hundreds of people would lose their jobs whereas the appeal might subsequently be upheld. Surely we cannot make provision in the Act for all kinds of figments of the imagination.

The hon. member raised the question of provisional permits. The provisional permit is of course subject to a number of conditions that will be imposed by the chief inspector and if it appears that those conditions cannot be complied with, the permit will not be issued. If the conditions imposed are not complied with the permit will, of course, be cancelled. That indeed is the strength of an administrative measure such as this; consequently that too need not be defined in any more detail and I am truly sorry that I cannot accept the amendment of the hon. member.

Amendment put and negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

Clause 7:

There is one matter here which I would like to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister. Section 21A (1) (b) (ii) requires the employee to produce a certificate signed by a registered medical practitioner stating the nature and duration of the employee’s incapacity. I feel that this Committee ought to consider whether the word “nature” should be included here. I would like to know whether the Minister feels it is absolutely essential to have the nature of the illness or incapacity shown on a medical certificate. I agree with the Minister that it is becoming the custom for doctors to indicate the nature of a disease or incapacity on the certificate but that is done with the consent of the patient. I would like to know how the Minister feels about it if the patient should object to the nature of his illness being stated on his medical certificate. It happens very often, especially in the case of women, that people do not want the nature of their illness mentioned on the certificate. I would urge the hon. the Minister to delete the words “nature and”. It will then be left to the discretion of the doctor who issues the certificate as to whether he should indicate the nature of the illness on the certificate. I think this suggestion is worthy of consideration. If the nature of the illness is always shown I feel that it would cause a great deal of embarrassment in many instances.

I can understand that ladies may be somewhat sensitive as far as this matter is concerned. They are, of course, also sensitive as far as other things are concerned, such as their age, for example, but we cannot take that sensitivity into account in framing legislation. The nature of the disease is shown on all medical certificates and I really cannot understand why we should make an exception in this case. If one were to make an exception in this case, it could lead to all kinds of malpractices. I think in this regimented life we all have to adapt ourselves to certain orderly regulations, irrespective of the sex we belong to.

If a person who is suffering from a disease which he wants to keep confidential, does not want to have that disease disclosed on the medical certificate, surely he should have the right to ask his doctor not to disclose it and the doctor should have the right to respect the confidence of the patient. I think some sort of latitude should be allowed in these cases. I think the hon. the Minister should re-consider his attitude in this matter; he cannot be adamant and insist that the nature of the illness must in all cases be disclosed. I think most doctors will ask the patient whether he or she minds having the nature of their illness disclosed on the certificate. In certain cases, as the hon. the Minister knows, it is inadvisable even to let the patient know the nature of his disease, even in these enlightened days. I am not going to move an amendment but I do hope that if certificates reach the inspector they will be accepted even if the nature of the illness is not disclosed on them.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 10:

Sir, I have difficulty with section 39A. It provides, amongst other things—

Sir, in the Second Reading debate I mentioned the difficulties which I had in this matter, and the hon. the Minister said that “persons other than registered medical practitioners” referred to those persons who were associated with certifying the hearing capacity of persons. But of course here the field is wide open. It does not only relate to people who have difficulty in hearing receiving certificates from doctors, but also from people who are not doctors. I do not know what guarantee we have in this clause as it stands that this practice of including other people will not be extended to many other fields of activity. Would the Minister, for instance, agree to accept a certificate from an optician who is only qualified to test errors of refraction? Could he give a certificate that a man was suffering from failing eyesight? I would like to hear from the Minister how he feels in regard to this matter, because right from here onwards in several places this question crops up. Now and again the question of dentists also has to be dealt with. Does the Minister include the dentist in “medical practitioners”, because as the Minister knows in many cases short absenteeism from work is caused by dental trouble. Would the Minister be prepared to accept a certificate from a dentist who has treated a man for an abscess which may require his staving out of work for a day or two? The Minister knows that probably there is nothing so painful as a bad abscess on a tooth. Would he then be prepared to accept a dentist’s certificate, or must it come from a doctor, meaning that the patient must first go to the dentist to have his tooth fixed up and after that, having spent his money with the dentist, he must then go to a doctor to get a medical certificate. It seems ridiculous to me that two medical people should both attend the patient, one giving the treatment and the other giving the certificate only. Will the Minister include dentists in the term “medical practitioner”, or will he make special provision for the dentist here?

I should not like to lay down new definitions for the medical profession. They are capable enough to evolve their own definitions. As far as I am concerned, this measure deals with industrial diseases and now it is not clear to me to what extent toothache falls within the ambit of an industrial disease. In any event, if the assistance of a dentist is required, that can duly be provided for within the terms of section 39 (c), which refers to a medical practitioner or other person. That can then fall under “other person”. The hon. member need not be concerned that the “other person” will just be anybody taken from the street. He will have to be a person who complies with the qualifications prescribed by regulation and strict requirements will be imposed for the very purpose of maintaining these high standards envisaged by us.

Since the Second Reading I have had the opportunity of going deeper into the other aspect raised by the hon. member, and I want to give the assurance that there is no reason for effecting an amendment in this regard, because section 39 (a) and (c) makes provision for a medical examination by a registered medical practitioner or other person who must have the prescribed qualifications. As I said in my Second Reading speech, it is now the intention to treat occupational deafness as an industrial disease. As far as occupational deafness is concerned, it is sometimes referred to by using the scientific expression “logopedics”. It is a subject which is recognized by the S.A. National Council for the Deaf and consequently it is regarded as being unjustified that only medical practitioners should do the prescribed tests for occupational deafness and not also other persons who comply with the requirements recognized by that Council. However, apart from the availability of qualified persons who have to carry out the tests, the cost factor will be of considerable importance to the factory owner. An examination by an audiologist will undoubtedly cost much less than a similar examination by an ear, nose and throat specialist. Furthermore, the S.A. National Council for the Deaf is already engaged in carrying out audiometric tests at factory sites in their mobile units. That already is a further economic advantage to the factory owners, seeing that that eliminates absence from work for medical examinations.

The conclusion simply is that these “other persons” will be people who will comply with the prescribed qualifications. They will be people who know their work and we shall see to it that the high standards aimed at by this measure will be met.

I accept the Minister’s explanation. I think it is quite clear what his intentions are and I shall not move any amendment. However, I want to point to another small omission which was made in section 39 (c), in line 6. It just refers there to a “medical practitioner” and does not use the word “registered”. I take it that the Minister means that in all cases the medical practitioner will be registered.

That is accepted.

Clause put and agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment.

I move the amendment standing in my name—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to. Clause 2:

I move—

Is there any special reason for this?

There is an amendment I want to move, but it is still being drafted by the legal advisers.

Agreed to.

Clause 5:

I move the amendment standing in my name—

1. (4) Before appointing any member of the council the Minister shall have due regard to written representations (if any) made to him by any person or body which in the opinion of the Minister is representative of the particular scheme or service from which such member is in terms of paragraph (a) required to be selected or, if the member to be appointed is not required to be so selected, to written representations (if any) made to him by any person or body which in the opinion of the Minister has knowledge or experience of medical schemes.

Mr. Chairman, this follows on the suggestion we made both in this House and during the deliberations of the select committee and of the commission where we suggested that a panel of names should be sent to the Minister from which he will choose representatives to sit on this council. We do not insist that he take members from this list of names, but we do ask him to have due regard to the list that would be forwarded to him. I think that there can be no objection to a list coming to him from any recognized body. I do not say in this amendment that he must choose from the list of names but it will at least draw his attention to people who are considered capable by various groups or bodies whom these groups or bodies may think should sit on this council. It can do no harm. The Minister still has full control over the appointments. I would therefore ask him to give this favourable consideration and I know that he will satisfy a very large number of organizations who feel, as I do, that they should at least have the right to forward a panel of names to him for consideration.

Mr. Chairman, what the hon. member is proposing here, implies to me that the Minister will, with due regard to the names submitted—as he puts it—be obliged to take into account one of the persons recommended on this particular panel in appointing members of this council. Nobody in this House can object to names being sent to the Minister. Any group or person may do so, and the Minister may consider any person whose name appears on such panels. However, I feel that the Minister should not be obliged to appoint one of those persons, because as I see it, it may amount to this, namely that the person representing the medical practitioners or the dentists or the chemists may feel that it is his specific duty to serve the interests of either the chemists, the medical practitioners or the dentists. The Commission of Enquiry was of the opinion—and I think this appears on page 31 of its report—that the persons who will be appointed to the Central Council should not make a point of promoting the interests of specific or various groups. I see the hon. member for Rosettenville nodding assent. The commission stated that the groups which were in fact seeking representation on this Council, had their own organizations which could serve and promote their interests effectively. I agree whole heartedly with the finding or the views of the commission in this regard.

I want to mention another aspect in connection with this clause. The importance of the professions which will be represented, is being recognized, but by virtue of their training and experience it is possible that their representatives will not always be able to realize or deal with the financial implications of the regulations this council has to promulgate. Therefore I ask, in view of the fact that the Minister has the right to appoint two additional members to this council, whether he will not consider the additional appointment to this council of a person with actuarial knowledge. I should like to tell the hon. the Minister at once that I want to emphasize the fact that in making this request, I do not want the Minister to feel himself committed. If additional persons can nevertheless be appointed, as the Act does in fact permit, I want to ask whether he will not consider this, since so many financial implications will be involved in this whole matter.

Mr. Chairman, I have listened with interest to what the hon. member for Koedoespoort has said in regard to the composition of the council, but I wish to associate myself with the remarks of the hon. member for Rosettenville and endorse his plea, which I believe was made quite specifically in the report of the commission and which was actually embodied in an amendment which the commission put forward in its draft Bill. It stipulated that provision should be made, and the wording is quite clear, “that in appointing any member of the council, the Minister shall give due regard to any written representations made to him by any person or organization which in his opinion is representative of a particular profession”. I believe that with the amendments which the hon. the Minister has put forward whereby he gives recognition to various organizations such as the Medical Association and the Dental Association and in the light of the recognition and creation of bodies known as the National Association for Medical Aid and the National Association of Medical Benefit Schemes, it becomes more desirable that the Minister should make provision in this Bill, to take cognisance of representations made to him by these organizations. I realize that the Minister has means whereby he can examine the credentials of people who he may feel are suitable to be nominated for this post. I submit with respect that any professional association would be very well equipped to decide which member from amongst its ranks would best serve the whole interests of the association by virtue of the specific experience which that member may have. I feel on that basis that the hon. the Minister would be wise, in the interests of the smooth working of this council, to accept the suggestion put forward by the hon. member for Rosettenville and endorsed by the commission.

Mr. Chairman, I asked the hon. the Minister during the Second Reading whether he would consider the appointment of members who are recommended to him. I do so again because we find that in all other boards, such as the Mealie Board, the Potato Board, and so forth, the farmers themselves appoint a certain number of the members and the rest are appointed by the Minister. There they have direct representation. Maize farmers do not appoint potato farmers to look after the interests of maize farmers, and vice versa. That is why I feel that in view of the fact that we have such a council here—a council that has to represent the medical profession as well as the dentists, chemists, benefit funds, aid funds and the other industrial schemes—those people will serve on that council for the very purpose of looking after the interests of the association they represent. During the Second Reading I said that with the three additional members who are appointed by the Minister—the chairman, the vice-chairman and an additional member—one group will not predominate over the other, but there will always be a balance. I do feel that these people will feel much happier if there will, to a certain extent, be recognition of their own members; they may send the names of those members to the Minister and he may then, should he deem it fit, appoint them to that council.

Mr. Chairman, I cannot identify myself with the thoughts expressed by the previous two speakers. I think we should abide by the starting-point that the members who are to serve on this Central Council, should not do so in order to represent certain interested parties. Those persons should serve on that council by virtue of their knowledge and experience of medical schemes or for the purpose of promoting and controlling medical schemes. In the first place, I believe that it would be wrong if a medical practitioner or any other person who serves on that board, wanted to represent a certain group. This council must be an impartial council. The object of this Bill is to promote and control medical shemes and to establish such schemes where they do not exist. This council is not being established for the specific purpose of serving the interests of those who provide these services or the interests of those to whom these services are being rendered. If that is the case, we shall defeat the whole purpose of this Bill.

Mr. Chairman, I hope that the hon. the Minister will give serious thought to this matter because it will leave him a very wide choice and will not in any way tie him down. On the other hand I feel that he himself would like this scheme to be as great a success as possible. If he wants that he would be wise to select representatives of the various bodies whom those bodies may put forward. He does not have to select any particular one; he could ask for ten. They should at least be known to be people representing certain points of view and he needs that in his council. Every point of view must be able to be put forward by someone who knows something about it. The people who know something about it are either the people who run the schemes or the people, like doctors and dentists, who carry out this work in practice. It does not matter if there are 10 or 20 names, it does not matter how many there are, as long as they are put forward by someone who is interested in the working of the whole scheme.

Mr. Chairman, I am very appreciative of what was said here by hon. members. I just want to point out to hon. members the difficulty in which we shall find ourselves. Here we have a problem which is in many respects the same as the one we dealt with last year or the year before in respect of the Drugs Control Council. There are two ways in which the members of a council may be appointed. In the first place, we may appoint the members of a council so that all parties may be represented. Then it is really a partial council. Then every member feels obliged to represent his specific interests. Experience has shown that councils of that sort never function very well. On such councils interests are grouped together. There is always manipulation. Everyone feels that he has to carry out the instructions of the people he represents. That is one way of appointing members.

There is another way of appointing the members of a council, namely appointing members quite independently so that they feel that they do not represent a profession or a party. They are there as people who are knowledgeable and who must be impartial. It has always been our experience that such councils are successful in South Africa—councillors who are appointed not to represent interests, but virtually to act as independent judges. That is not to say that these people should not be chosen from those professions. The very fact that the Act provides that there has to be a chemist, a medical practitioner, and so forth, shows how the Act emphasizes the fact that we should appoint people who are knowledgeable. You may rest assured that in appointing these people, very close attention will be paid to the qualifications of such persons. Let me mention an example. Suppose, for instance, that the Government were to appoint a medical practitioner to represent the medical profession. The Government may then in all probability appoint the very same man whose name will also appear on the panel submitted by the Medical association. That can happen. As a matter of fact, that will probably happen all the time. The mere fact that that medical practitioner, a man of high standing, does not feel that he is being appointed by the Medical Association so as to look after their interests, will place him in a quite different position to judge. He will serve on that council as a person who can judge matters impartially. At times he may also decide against the Medical Association. We cannot help that, not so? Sometimes we differ with one another. Sometimes we go against our own professions, when we feel that something is not altogether correct. Therefore I hope that hon. members will acknowledge that I am right in this regard, and that they will not insist on this. I am convinced that the actual effectiveness of the organization will be promoted by that. I just want to remind hon. members that we also did that in the case of the Drugs Control Council. So far I cannot say that this matter was discussed there, but there is a spirit of independence which can only augur well for the future.

The hon. member for Koedoespoort raised another point, namely that we shall probably need the assistance of an actuary for our financial regulations. Provision has not been made for that. It may perhaps be very desirable to appoint an actuary As the hon. member will remember, we are in the position that, in terms of clause 17, a body may in fact be registered twofold. For medical purposes it is being registered in terms of this Bill, but for financial purposes it has to be registered, in terms of clause 17, as a friendly society or a pension fund. On those bodies, which exercise supervision in that respect, there is in fact actuarial representation. As a matter of fact, they have experts on actuarial matters. Fortunately we already have provision for the Central Council to have the advice and the assistance of people who can examine the financial aspects thoroughly. Therefore it does not seem necessary to me to insert that here. But I should like to tell the hon. member for Koedoespoort that we shall from time to time have to consider very carefully what persons are to be appointed. It is possible that an actuary will be appointed from time to time. It is possible that other people, who are more important, will be appointed, but the possibility of an actuary being nominated sooner or later, is nevertheless not ruled out.

I am sorry, but I cannot altogether accept the explanation of the hon. the Minister, or his reasons, or his comparisons with the Drugs Control Committee. In regard to drug control he is dealing with inanimate objects. It is true that they are objects capable of doing great harm, but they are inanimate. They do not have to be satisfied. But under this Bill he is dealing with human beings. The Minister says that if for instance he selects a pharmacist, the pharmacist will feel, if he has been nominated by the pharmacists, that he represents the pharmaceutical profession. Ten or 15 men may be nominated by the Pharmaceutical Society, and the Minister must select one of them. I do not agree with that point of view of the Minister, because this committee consists of so few individual representatives. For instance, there will not be a group of pharmacists. The Drug Control Committee consists of pharmacists, I agree, but he only has one in something like 11 people on this committee. No man in such a body would necessarily feel that he represents that body. But if by chance the hon. the Minister were to select a man from his own department as a physician on this committee, I feel that he would be choosing wrongly, unless he were to choose one of his clinical workers. His men are environmental doctors, quite unaccustomed to private practice. They have a very small knowledge of private practice. What we are anxious to get here is, for instance in pharmacy, some man who is a pharmacist selling his drugs over the counter, and a dentist who is in practice as a general practitioner dentist. In the same way we hope that the bulk of the work on the medical side will be done by general practitioners. The various professional bodies would like to nominate people of that character, not to represent the medical, the dental or the pharmaceutical professions, but to be able to show the various other members of the council where the difficulties will arise in that particular profession. They will be able to do so because of their wide knowledge if the actual working of that profession. That is the point of view I hope the hon. the Minister will take. Lie must have men who will know something of the actual working of that profession. Anybody who has worked in that profession will be able to say to his colleagues on that council: If you do that, this is likely to happen. That is the way I regard this council.

Mr. Chairman, I seek your assistance in connection with a problem I have with this clause, and that is with regard to paragraph (a) (vi) of subsection (2). This particular paragraph (a) (vi) refers to matters which are of considerable significance in clause 2, which has been deferred until the end of the Bill. I wish to raise this matter in regard to the necessity for para. (vi). I find myself in some difficulty now.

What is the hon. member’s difficulty?

My difficulty is this: The amendment which the Minister put forward in regard to clause 2, which has been postponed until the end of the Bill, deals with medical benefit funds under the Industrial Conciliation legislation. This clause deals with representation for those particular bodies on the Council. Now, as I see it, if the amendment to clause 2 is passed then I believe that para, (vi) becomes unnecessary—it is not necessary for a representative of this body to serve on the Council.

That is not for me to decide.

At which stage may I raise this matter then, Mr. Chairman?

Under clause 2, when the Committee reverts to that clause.

But it will already have been disposed of.

As far as I understand paragraph (a) (vi), it does not state there that there should be special representation of a group of people—it talks about people who have special knowledge of these things. They may not be attached to a scheme at all.

I appreciate that, but I wonder if that special knowledge will be necessary in the light of the possible decision regarding the amendment to clause 2.

It is quite in order to have this provision in the Bill, in clause 5, in any case.

I move that this part of the clause stand over then, Mr. Chairman.

The hon. member can not move that part of a clause stand over; the hon. member will have to move that the whole clause stand over.

Well, Sir, may I move then that clause 5 stand over?

Mr. Chairman, I do not really see any reason for doing that. In any case, irrespective of what happens to clause 2, we deem it desirable that people who are concerned with industrial agreements should also have representation on this council. As clause 2 reads at present, it does not mean that that possibility is being ruled out. They may be included in the future. Perhaps I should explain it in the following way: Amongst certain people and certain groups of people here there are still misgivings about this measure. They do not understand this Bill yet. I think that this is also the position with industry at present. This also applies to certain Railway officials—they do not understand it yet. However, I am convinced that once this Act comes into operation, they will see the value of that. Then they will probably ask to be included, too. It is for that very period that we particularly want them to have representation. It cannot do any harm if they serve on such a council; it can only be a good thing.

Mr. Chairman, I see the Minister’s point of view. I am quite prepared to accept his explanation on that basis. I want to raise another matter. I want to move the following amendments—

1. (d) If a member of the council advises the Minister in writing that for good and sufficient reasons he will be unable to carry out his duties as a member of the council for a period of not less than three months, the Minister may, subject to the provisions of paragraph (a) appoint some other person to act in the place of such member during such inability and any person so appointed shall while so acting be deemed for all purposes to be a member of the council having the same powers and functions as the member in whose place he was appointed.

Here again this was a recommendation by the commission. Having considered carefully the oral evidence and the memoranda placed before it, the commission felt that it might be difficult to make provision for full-time alternates, but it put forward this suggestion. If you refer to the Bill put forward by the commission, Sir, you will see that the wording is similar, with a view, I believe, to maintaining some sense of continuity. I know that the council may meet not less than twice a year. I believe that it is very important indeed that there should be continuity. If it should be found that at a meeting of the council, a member appointed in terms of this particular clause is not able to be present, I think it is in the interests of the organization or body which he represents that there should be somebody there to take his place and to get first-hand knowledge of the deliberations of the council, even if that member is not in a position to make a positive contribution to the council. That is the one reason. The other reason why I feel that the hon. the Minister could quite easily accept this amendment is that, apart from the chairman and vice-chairman, it is not the intention that members of the council will receive payment. They will have certain travelling expenses, and so forth. It will not involve a great deal of expense if these temporary alternates—if I may call them that—are appointed. It is on these grounds that I move this amendment and I trust that the Minister will accept it.

Mr. Chairman, the problem we have to contend with in this case, is the following: I heard about the hon. member’s suggestion and I have paid a great deal of attention to it. I just want to tell the hon. member that a case is not necessarily disposed of at one meeting. Many cases have a history, they extend over a period of time, and things happen from time to time. If a certain person cannot be present, then his absence is less harmful than having a substitute who is unfamiliar with everything that happened there before. How can such a person suddenly take the place of an absent member and give a ruling? It is not a good thing to bring in people who have to make decisions on matters in respect of which they are not sufficiently well-informed. That is the great problem we have here. I should very much like to accommodate the hon. member, but I must also be careful and make sure that this council will function very well. Unfortunately I am obliged to be careful with anything that may look like a danger point. I hope the hon. member will not take it amiss of me if I do not accept his suggestion.

I just want to come back to the hon. member for Durban (Central). He asked that we should appoint persons nominated by the various associations. I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. member that it is very important that we should get persons here who have practical knowledge. General practitioners are perhaps the best of them all. Therefore I do not think for a moment that we differ with each other in that respect. We only differ on one point, namely that we do not want to see those persons nominated by a specific body or person or group. When we grant that to medical practitioners, we must also grant it to the chemists, the dentists, and so forth, and the immediate effect is that there are three people, of whom two are virtually brothers because they fall under the same council—they are “brothers” in the professions—and of whom the other one is a chemist, who is very closely associated with the other two. All of a sudden there is a group that may possibly be guided by the association instead of being guided by what they regard as fair. I hope the hon. member will not take it amiss of me, but unfortunately I cannot accept his amendment.

Amendments put and negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

Clause 7:

It is not my intention to move the amendment standing in my name as I understand that its acceptance would involve additional expenditure and it would therefore be out of order, but I want to put a point to the hon. the Minister which I believe could be taken into consideration in this particular matter. I am referring particularly to lines 24 and 25 of sub clause (3) of clause 7 where it says that “an ordinary member … shall in respect of travelling and subsistence expenses incurred by him in connection with the business of the council, be paid such allowance as the Minister, in consultation with the Minister of Finance, may determine.” Sir, the hon. the Minister is well aware of the composition of the Council. The clause which we have passed this afternoon provides that there shall be a medical practitioner, a dentist, a chemist and druggist and representatives from other bodies. I want to put it to the hon. the Minister, as we seem to be agreed that these people who serve on the council, apart from the chairman and vice-chairman, shall give their services free in the sense that they do not receive a direct fee or salary, that they should be assured that they will never be out of pocket when they give the State and the council for medical schemes the benefit of their experience and advice. Sir, I look at it in this way. Assuming that the hon. the Minister decides in his wisdom that the best man to represent the Medical Association will be a general practitioner in private practice. This man will be called upon to attend meetings of the council and in order to do so he would have to leave his practice and attend the meeting of the council wherever it may be held. That will involve this man in the difficulty of obtaining a locum tenens to carry on his practice while he is away. He cannot just leave his patients without any attention and obviously he will have to pay the locum tenens. As the clause reads at present, it is difficult to lay down a subsistence allowance, because, I want to submit to the hon. the Minister, that the fee payable to a locum tenens may differ from that payable to a dentist and that again may differ from that payable to a chemist and druggist. Then you have the position that the fees of these people vary in different parts of the country according to supply and demand. If a fixed amount were laid down by way of an allowance for these particular people, which I take it, would apply to all ordinary members of the council, you might find that a member is seriously out of pocket as a result of his willingness to serve on the Medical Scheme Council. I do not believe that it is the hon. the Minister’s intention that anyone should be out of pocket, and I want to ask him whether he will be prepared to give some thought to overcoming, what to my mind, is a very real problem in order to ensure that these people are at least recompensed …

Order! The hon. member is now advocating something which he is not allowed to advocate.

I submit that it could be included in the subsistence allowance if the Minister could find an equitable formula. I merely ask the hon. the Minister to give his careful consideration to this.

Order! I have allowed the hon. member to state his case, but this matter should not be discussed in detail.

I just want to say that I am, of course, very sympathetic to the idea expressed by the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, but unfortunately we are dealing here with an extensive system in South Africa. This council is not the only council in the country; there are numerous councils, and all of them must be treated alike, and they are indeed being treated on the same basis. When a person has to give up a great deal of his time, a special allowance is paid to him, but in the normal course of events ordinary members only receive those allowances which are provided for in the Act, and as this applies throughout South Africa, it would be virtually impossible to effect a change here unless the Government were to change all legislation relating to this matter.

May I just ask the hon. the Minister whether there are many of these bodies on which professional men serve where they are not paid some allowance or fee. I am thinking of statutory bodies where members receive a fee and where they can at least recoup their out-of-pocket expenses I am thinking, for example, of the Drugs Control Council, to which the hon. the Minister referred here this afternoon by way of illustration. In the case of that council the members have a great deal more work to do but they receive a set salary.

The chairman and vice-chairman are the only people who receive a special allowance in that case. No, I beg your pardon, I am mistaken there. In the case of most of the other councils the chairman is the only person who receives a special allowance. I am speaking under correction, but I should like to mention the Hotel Board in this regard. If my memory serves me correctly, there is an auditor who serves on the Hotel Board, a man of the highest standing in that profession. Even he does not receive a special allowance; he receives the ordinary allowance which is paid to ordinary members.

And that is R10 a day.

That is R10 a day. This is the system which already obtains throughout South Africa.

May I suggest that the hon. the Minister give special consideration to this, particularly as far as pharmacists are concerned, because the law prevents a pharmacist from leaving his pharmacy for more than an hour unless there is a qualified, registered pharmacist in attendance. A doctor can perhaps leave his patients and attend them the following day, but a pharmacist may not leave his premises for more than an hour unless he leaves a qualified chemist in attendance. It would be too dangerous for a pharmacist to leave his premises unattended because there are poisons and things of that kind on the premises. The law provides that he must be in attendance. He is therefore in a different position from other people.

I think that I am right in saying that the majority of the chemists who will be taken into account for appointment to this council, are senior members of their profession, and senior members usually have either partners or trained persons in their employ.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 8:

I want to move—

We regard this amendment as very important because we feel that the council must control its registrar. It must be able to consider what he does and he should act under their control and advice. If this clause is left as it now reads, then this council will be very little more than a rubber stamp. The members of the council will be carefully selected by the hon. the Minister from very learned groups and experienced groups and yet the council will not control its own registrar. In other words, instead of being a controlling council it will be an advisory council. If the Minister feels that he wants an advisory council he should have said so. The control must vest either in the council or in the registrar. We would like the control to vest in the council and we would like it to be absolutely clear that the control vests in the council. I want to point out that the commission left no room for doubt. It stated quite clearly that the registrar “shall act” under the control of the council.

There is just one point I wish to add. By introducing this amendment, we want to make it quite clear that the registrar shall not control the council, but that the control shall be in the hands of the council, and that at the same time the individual benefit society or medical aid society will not be interfered with as far as their domestic matters are concerned. We had a little trouble in regard to the word “control”, but I want to make it quite clear to the Minister that we do not want the council to interfere in domestic matters of medical schemes, but we do feel that the registrar will virtually become the controlling officer of the council, if the clause is left as it is at present.

I agree that this will be a good amendment, and I am prepared to accept the amendment.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Clause 9:

I wish to move the amendment standing in my name—

It seems to me that it is necessary to have this provision, because the normal meetings of the council will take place as laid down in subsection (1), but when it comes to the calling of a special meeting it can be held at the written request of the majority of the members of the council setting forth clearly the purpose for which the meeting should be held. But the situation might arise where the majority of the members of the council are not at one with the chairman himself They may move that the chairman call a meeting, and the chairman could deliberately delay the calling of the meeting. I believe that is not desirable or in the interest of the efficient functioning of the council. I believe that if we have the provision in the clause that the chairman shall within 30 days call a meeting as requested, we will improve this clause.

I cannot agree with the hon. member for Berea. If one reads the clause one finds that meetings may be convened in two ways, namely by the chairman or at the written request of the majority of the members of the council. It may now happen that the majority of the members feel that a special meeting should be convened, but a date has to be fixed for that meeting and it may not suit the majority of the members to hold the meeting within 30 days after notice has been given. If we write it into the Bill that the meeting has to be held within 30 days, we shall have the position that those members who have asked for the meeting to be held but for whom it will be inconvenient if it is held within 30 days, will in fact be committing an offence. I do not think the chairman of an important body such as this will deliberately shelve a very reasonable request by the majority of the members and not hold that meeting as soon as is convenient for all of them. Of what use would it be to hold the meeting within 30 days while those very members who had asked for it would be unable to attend? In that case it would be useless to hold the meeting. For that reason I do not believe that the chairman should be tied down through this provision of 30 days being inserted.

I do not find the argument of the hon. member for Germiston a very satisfactory one, from this point of view, that I do not think any member or group of members would lightly address a request for a meeting to the chairman and then find that they are not able to attend the meeting within a whole month. I think this will probably be something which is of an urgent nature. It may be one of the exceptions. We may generally have a chairman who works in close harmony with the members, but there might be an occasion when he does not and therefore I believe it is essential to lay down some period, not necessarily 30 days, but at least that there should be some minimum period when a meeting has to be called.

I support the hon. member for Berea, because I think that before calling a special meeting the members who called for it will have a very sound reason for doing so. It may be that the committee is at variance with the chairman, and as it stands now, it leaves it open to the chairman to delay or not to call the meeting until it suits him, or he might call it at a time when the majority who want to hold the meeting are not able to attend. The chairman may call the meeting at a time when he knows that many members cannot be there. Generally it is a good thing to specify a time limit for any special meeting beyond which it may not be delayed, and 30 days is a generous allowance. I do not mind if it is made 35 or 40 days, but the point is that the chairman must be compelled to call it within a certain definite period of time.

I just want to point out to the hon. members that since this is to be a learned and very important council which will be constituted on a country-wide basis, the members will have to come from practically all over the country. In view of the fact that we only provide here that the board shall meet at least twice a year, the hon. members now want a special meeting, at the request of the members of the board, to be disposed of within 30 days. The hon. members for Durban (Central) and Berea know from their own experience how difficult it sometimes is to attend a meeting within 30 days. Sometimes it is impossible. Do they not think that 30 days is too short a period? Rather make it longer If hon. members look at their pocket books they may see that they would not be able to attend a meeting within 30 days because of the many other commitments they have, and these people are busy people who have to attend many other meetings as well. Do not let us tie them down to a certain number of days, which may perhaps result in their making a failure of the meeting. I think 30 days is definitely too short a period.

I cannot think that the hon. member for Brakpan really believes what he says. The members of this council are responsible people who are carefully selected; they are nominated by the Minister himself. They are not going to call a special meeting without an extremely good reason. We do not expect a special meeting ever to be called, but we must make provision for it in a body like this which deals with practically every white inhabitant of the country. We must make provision that under special circumstances the council which controls these schemes can be brought together within a reasonable period. If something goes wrong the day after the six-monthly meeting, there cannot be another meeting for six months. What is more, if some item is nut off at a meeting, it takes another six months before it can be discussed. It seems to me that provision should be made that if the majority of the members are so anxious that they feel a thing should not wait, they will know, when they ask for that special meeting, that it will be held within 30 days. That is all, and I hope the Minister will accept this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, it is quite obvious that a meeting such as this will be present. That is the important point. I do not think that a special meeting will be called for a frivolous matter; it is going to be one of urgency. I want to support the hon. member for Berea in his plea to have a time limit specified for calling a special meeting. It will obviate any unnecessary delay and the objection put forward by the hon. member for Brakpan when he said that it may be difficult for people to come together within a month to attend such a meeting, does not hold water. In the next paragraph provision is made for a quorum. The quorum shall be the majority of members on the council. That is sufficient because the person or the people who call this special meeting will do their level best to see that there is a quorum present. That is the important point. He will himself go out of his way to ensure that there is a quorum or the group of people who have called the special meeting will go out of their way to ensure that they have a quorum. I really do think that we should not allow a special meeting to be delayed unnecessarily, and it can quite often happen that it is put off because the people cannot get together because one is going overseas and another may have another meeting. But if it is emphasized that it is a matter of urgency and that there is to be a meeting if a quorum can be obtained, I think that the person will be successful in having that meeting. I think that 30 days is a reasonable period to ask people to prepare for one meeting even if it may last only for one day.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to state the problem. Hon. members opposite proceed from the assumption that the chairman will not act quite correctly. I think that is really the assumption. In other words, the chairman may possibly not want the majority to come together, because they may decide something he may not want. Hon. members opposite say that the chairman should give 30 days’ notice when he wants a meeting to be held.

It could be a little longer.

Yes. The chairman may calculate which day is not convenient and then he can still convene the meeting for a day on which the majority of members cannot attend it. Once one proceeds from the assumption that one will be dealing with a chairman whose actions are not quite above-board, one is left at his mercy in any case. Then the question still is whether we are not in fact going to play into his hands. Would it not be wiser to lay down that three meetings shall be held every year instead of two? It means a meeting every six months. Would hon. members not rather want them to meet three times a year? If we make it three times a year we shall be faced with the problem mentioned by the hon. member for Berea a moment ago. We should bear in mind that we are dealing with people who have reached the top in their profession. They do not want too many meetings. That is my problem. It seems to me the solution is to have more meetings. However, if we make it compulsory to have more meetings, many of the outstanding men may say that they do not have the time to do this kind of work. For that reason it does seem to me that it is best to leave the position as it is.

Amendment put and negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

Clause 11:

Mr. Chairman, as far as clause 11 is concerned, the hon. the Minister gave an indication of his feelings in regard to a State contribution to this Medical Schemes Council in the Second Reading debate. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he will be good enough to give me further clarity on this particular subject and also whether he would not reconsider his attitude that for the time being at least it is not necessary for the State to contribute, but that it may become necessary in a year or two. In order to make my own feelings in this regard quite clear I want the hon. the Minister to understand that I am not suggesting any form of national health insurance. That is far from my mind. I do feel that if this Medical Schemes Council is going to function efficiently, it will need some sort of assistance and some sort of generous provision from the State. I want to give the Minister some examples which I believe justify my reasons in this regard. In the Minister’s Health Vote, and believe me I am not against it, we voted over R13 million for the treatment of those poor people who suffer from tuberculosis. We voted R200,000 for people who are treated for venereal disease. We vote money each year for people who are alcoholics. There are many people who may be covered at present within the ambit of the Medical Schemes Bill but who might find that because they are bad risks, they are limited in the amount of benefit which they may receive from their particular medical aid schemes. It could well be that they could be assisted considerably if some money were made available by the State to this Medical Schemes Council which could in cases of hardship or under exceptional circumstances be made available to help just those people. Take for example a diabetic. At the moment he may enjoy certain privileges under a provincial administration. Here is a man who suffers year after year, who is called upon to undergo treatment and who requires medicine year after year and who may find as a result of complications which set in that his medical aid scheme says to him, “I am sorry but you have used up your benefits for the year”. He then finds himself unable to get the necessary help from his own scheme to which he has contributed for a number of years. I believe that the people who will suffer most under these difficulties will be the middle income group. The lower income group always have some facilities whereby they can be assisted either by the State or the province. It is the middle income group that finds a sickness of that nature to be a very serious embarrassment at times. I feel that the hon. the Minister should not be parsimonious about this but should accept the principle and start off by indicating to the schemes that they can expect some sort of assistance in this way.

The other point that worries me is this. I believe that both of these aims can be achieved in terms of subsection (3) (b) which states: “for such other purposes as may be prescribed”. I believe and I am sure that my fellow members on the commission on the other side of the House will endorse this, that when it comes to the administrative costs which will be incurred in the operation of this council, all members who gave evidence to this commission were of the opinion that it was not fair that the various medical aid schemes themselves should be levied to pay for the administrative costs. They felt that it was a cost which should be borne at least in part by the State. That was made quite clear in the report. When he spoke in the Second Reading debate and indicated that he was not prepared to have the State donate an amount for other purposes, the Minister did not say whether he was prepared to have the State subscribe the administrative cost or part of it. I believe that this is an important matter and I trust that the hon. the Minister will make this position clear.

Mr. Chairman, I want to move the amendment standing in my name:

My reason for moving this amendment is that the council is going to take money from three sources only, namely from medical aid societies, medical benefit societies and individuals outside the medical aid or benefit societies. It is possible, as was pointed out by the hon. member for Durban (Berea), that considerable amounts may be contributed by private individuals and the private sector towards this fund. We hope that it is going to be used for special purposes. These purposes would include special treatment for those persons who cannot obtain the required help from an ordinary medical aid fund or an ordinary benefit society.

I now come to the next point, namely who is going to administer this fund. The money is going to come virtually from the private sector. It is going to come from the benefit societies, from the medical aid schemes and from individuals or groups of individuals who decide to contribute towards this fund. Yet the Minister has seen fit, in subsection (2) to say:

I do not see for what reason the Secretary for Health has been brought into this fund. The council is properly constituted It has a registrar. Surely the council itself should be able to conduct the affairs of this fund. It is quite true that the members of the fund will only meet twice a year, as laid down by law. There are three people however who are going to be virtually full-time. One of them is the registrar. Then there is the chairman, and the vice-chairman, who will keep a watchful eye on this fund. The council is going to decide how the fund is to be utilized. Surely they are going to make the recommendations, for instance that X rand should be used for a special heart operation, or for a brain operation. They now find that they have the Secretary for Health to contend with. The Secretary for Health may say: I do not want this money to be spent by the council for this particular purpose. Surely the council itself, which has gone to the trouble to administer the working of the Act, should be entitled to have some say in the expenditure of the money which will accrue to the fund with which the State has nothing to do. They are not going to contribute a cent to the Fund, according to the Bill as it now stands. They are not going to have any say whatsoever in the administration of the Act, except in regard to this fund, to which they do not contribute. I say it is grossly unfair to expect a council to run the affairs of this fund and yet not to have a say in the administration of how the money is to be spent. There may be some reason for this Maybe the Treasury wants the Secretary for Health to look after the Fund. Will the Minister give us the reasons?

Mr. Chairman, I think in this regard the hon. member for Rosettenville and we are at cross-purposes. In subsection (3) it is stated quite explicitly that the moneys in the fund shall be utilized—

1. (a) For the rendering of assistance to a member, to the extent recommended by the council, to cover expenses in respect of the defrayal of which such member would have been entitled to receive assistance from the scheme of which he is a member, if the maximum assistance to which he is entitled in terms of the rules of the said scheme had not already been granted to him;

The hon. member for Rosettenville said that we could perhaps encounter a patient whose medical scheme did not give him the necessary cover if he perhaps had to undergo a major heart operation. He can in fact still apply to this fund. The council has to recommend it. The actual decisions on the expenditure of that fund will still be under the jurisdiction of the council. But what is explicitly stated is that the fund shall be administered only by the Secretary for Health. I think it is correct, because the State will contribute the administrative share of this central fund. We cannot allow the council to handle the administrative aspect of the matter. Only the Secretary for Health should do that. The council still has full power to vote money for expenditure when assistance can be rendered to a patient, and where the funds of the benefit funds and aid funds will be paid into the central fund I therefore think that we are perhaps not quite seeing eye to eye in this regard.

Mr. Chairman, if I understand the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark correctly the reference to the Secretary for Health in subsection (2) had been made so that the State shall bear the cost of the administration of the fund. But I cannot see that that is the case. I cannot see why the administration of this fund still cannot be undertaken by the State, or a contribution given to the fund, equal to the cost of administration of the fund. It is going to be an estimate, but in the Budget all amounts are estimates when they are voted. Unless the Minister can give me the assurance that the State is going to contribute an amount equivalent to that which is necessary to administer the fund, I cannot agree that the Secretary for Health should have control of this money.

If the hon. member for Rosettenville would look at clause 13, he would see that the registrar shall be appointed by the Public Service Commission. It is the implication that the State will be responsible for the remuneration of the registrar. But in clause 11 it is provided that the fund shall be administered by the Secretary for Health In my opinion he will administer it purely by virtue of his position as the chief accounting officer in the Department of Health. He will not administer the fund. He will administer and be responsible only for the accounting section of the fund. For that reason I do not think the hon. member need have any fears.

Will the State pay for the administration?

In my opinion that is provided for in clause 13. We shall come to clause 13. The hon. member will then see that the registrar will be appointed by the Public Service Commission. Clause 13 reads as follows—

As I see the matter, he is appointed and remunerated by the State. I do not think the hon. member need fear that the Secretary for Health will take over the administration of the fund. He will merely accept the accounting responsibility for the fund.

The hon. members for Geduld and Vanderbijlpark have set out the position correctly, but perhaps I should just remind hon. members of the background to this matter. The Select Committee suggested that this council should be an independent body. But there are no funds to administer the council. The council has no income. As a result we were faced with the problem of asking the Government to vote an amount—it may be R10 or R1,000—in advance for a council which is still on probation. We do not yet know what it will cost. We do not yet know what its scope will be. It would have been very difficult to convince Treasury that anything of this nature was tenable. They also objected to it. Then we changed the position. During this initial period we are letting the Government, as in the case of other bodies, defray all the costs. That means that the Department of Health will provide the administration. If some day in the future the council perhaps decided that it might be desirable that it should be independent, we could go into the matter anew. It is therefore the easiest solution to have the State defray all the costs. Then nothing would be defrayed from the funds of the central council. For that reason it is so difficult for me to accept this proposal by the hon. member.

Mr. Chairman, I am satisfied with the explanation given by the hon. the Minister and with the leave of the Committee I should like to withdraw my amendment.

With leave, amendment withdrawn.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

Clause 12:

Mr. Chairman, in terms of this clause “there shall be established in the prescribed manner—a body to be known as the National Association of Medical Schemes which shall be representative of registered medical aid schemes”. We do not know how that council is to be constituted. It is clearly stated here that it will be established “in the prescribed manner”. All I should like to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister is this: Not only the employees contribute to the medical aid fund, but also the employers. Will it then be provided that both the employees and the employers who contribute to the fund shall have representation on this medical aid scheme? To my knowledge, as regards the National Association of Medical Benefit Schemes, which is to be established in terms of the provisions of paragraph (d), the employers do not contribute to the benefit funds. If they are to contribute to them, I should like to have the assurance that they will also have representation on this body as contributors, together with the contributors on the side of the employees. It would be only fair that both parties which contribute money should have a say in the amounts to be paid in and the way in which it is to be spent. I hope the Minister will be able to reassure me in this regard.

Mr. Chairman, let me just remind the hon. member of the constitution of these councils. Each one of these councils has a committee. On the committee we frequently find the employers or their representatives. In other words, many of these schemes have committee members who represent the members and also the employers. The schemes as such are now joining the National Association as separate bodies. They have to send representatives and it is by no means excluded that they will send an ordinary member or an employer as their representative to the National Association. That all depends on their choice.

A Council for Medical Schemes is to be established. It will be a large body. Will there be representatives of both employees and employers on that council?

Yes, the National Association is actually a representative of the bodies—it is not a representative of individuals. On the bodies (medical schemes) there are employees and employers. It follows automatically that the man who goes to the Association represents employees and employers, and he may be either an employer or an employee. It all depends on the decision of the body

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 13:

Mr. Chairman, I wish to move the following amendment standing in my name—

My reasons for moving this amendment are the same as those given by the hon. member for Durban (Central) earlier on. I hope that the hon. the Minister will accept this amendment. It is to clarify the position of the council in relation to the registrar and to make it quite clear that the registrar shall come under the control and direction of the council, and that he will carry out his duties in accordance with the directives of the council.

At the same time, I should like the Minister to give some clarification of the second part of clause 13, where it says—

Does that mean that the registrar will not be doing the work of the council full-time but will be able to undertake other work for the Minister? I am not sure whether this second part of the clause relates to the first part, or whether it is a part of the clause relating only to the functions of the Department of Health

Mr. Chairman, perhaps I might just remind the hon. member once again that I gave a similar explanation with regard to clause 11. I explained that the registrar was actually an official of the State. A man cannot be under the direction of the State, which pays his salary, and be under the direction of the council at the same time. For technical reasons it must therefore be provided that he is subject to the authority of the Secretary. In actual fact it does not interfere with his real functions. He actually has two masters. One master is higher than the other. Because the State pays his salary, the State is his master in the final instance, but in actual fact his immediate master, where the Act provides accordingly, is the council.

Who is the supreme master?

The supreme master is the State. The supreme master is always the State—in other words, the Serretary for Health. That is the reason why the Act should read as it reads at present. Let us presume the registrar has no work which comes under the ambit of this measure, then the Secretary may tell him to do this or that. He may tell him: “I think you should now go and visit your people or your schemes,” or, “I think there is a difficulty and you should go and try to solve it.” In other words, his functions will not always be strictly in accordance with this measure, and there may be a task which the secretary will assign to him.

Will the hon. the Minister agree to have the words “under the direction and control of the council” inserted in clause 13?

That is my difficulty— the insertion of those words will mean that he will be serving two masters. That will be conflicting.

Mr. Chairman, I feel that as the measure reads at present, conflicts may arise, for example if the council gives him a certain instruction while the Secretary may, give him an order which is in conflict with the wishes of the council. What will the position then be? I should like to hear from the hon. the Minister whether it is the implication that the registrar and his office staff shall be paid by the State and that the State shall also pay as regards the premises used by them for the purposes of this measure?

Mr. Chairman, we are here dealing with exactly the same problem as that in respect of the Drug Control Board. There the official is an official of the Board, and yet he is under the ultimate control of the Department. That provides the Department with all the services required by the Board. There the position is exactly the same. As regards the question by the hon. member for Geduld, just the following: The Secretary for Health cannot act in conflict with the Act. In other words, if the Act provides that the council shall issue certain orders or that it shall issue certain regulations and directives, the Secretary has nothing to say about the matter, because then he would be acting in conflict with the Act. In other words, the Act now lays down the functions and rights of the Council, but for administrative purposes the Secretary of the Department retains control.

Can the hon. the Minister give the House an assurance that the registrar will come under the control of the council, and that the Bill’s wording is as it is for administrative purposes?

There is no need for me to give such an undertaking, because that is provided in the Bill. The hon. member will see everywhere that “the council resolves this” or “the council lays down the regulations”, or “the council does this or that”

Amendment put and negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

Clause 20:

On this clause I should like to raise a matter to which I referred during the Second Reading debate. This clause provides, inter alia, that no medical scheme shall be registered unless provision is made in the rules—

1. (d) 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;
2. (e) 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.

That means that the scheme now has to cover a member who terminates his employment on account of age or on account of ill-health, or that it has to cover the widow of a deceased member. Previously the industry or the employer concerned paid a portion of the member’s contribution to the scheme. Now the employer no longer has the services of the retired or pensioned member, nor is the widow of that person in his employment. Where will that portion of the contribution which was previously paid by the employer now come from? Must the aid scheme contribute the full amount, or must the member pay the full amount, or only the amount which was previously his share of the contribution?

One should bear in mind that this system is virtually an insurance scheme. In other words, the member now pays a certain premium and his premium is calculated on the present expenditure and on the expenditure in future. At present the member may be in good health, but the premium he pays at present also has regard to the fact that in six or ten years’ time he may perhaps fall ill. In other words, if a member falls ill he does not pay an increased premium because everything is included in the premium he is paying at present. The healthy members who join actually support the ones who are ill at present, the healthy ones of tomorrow support the ill ones of to-morrow and the healthy ones of the day after support the ill ones of the day after. The widows will therefore still be covered because they are covered by the premiums paid in by the husbands.

It will therefore not be required from the employer?

No.

Paragraph (e) reads—

During the Second Reading Debate I said that it struck me that this clause lacked any provision for the children of that widow. The father dies and the widow is left behind, quite frequently with quite a few small children. She is entitled to benefits from the particular aid scheme to which she belongs, but her children are not. I feel that this is a deficiency which should certainly be rectified, because quite frequently it is the children who need medical attention and who cannot get it. In view of the fact that provision is made here for the widow, I think it will also be fair to provide for the children of that widow.

This clause provides that the widow of a member is entitled to membership. In other words, as soon ad the husband dies, the widow becomes a member. If the hon. member looks at paragraph (c) he will see that provision is made there for the dependants of a member, in other words, the children are covered automatically.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 21:

I move the amendment as printed in my name—

This particular clause deals with the amendment of rules and it provides that where an amendment put forward by a medical scheme meets with the approval of the registrar, in terms of the conditions under which the registrar functions, he shall accept that amendment and notify the scheme of the acceptance. But if the registrar is not satisfied then in terms of sub-clause (2) (b), he shall in writing advise the scheme accordingly and indicate the reasons for his rejection of the alteration, rescission or addition. Sir, I feel that what is good for the goose is good for the gander. We find lower down in clause 24 that where the registrar addresses inquiries to any registered medical scheme, he lays down that the scheme must furnish the information within 30 days. I do not believe that it is unreasonable to ask in this instance that the registrar himself should advise a scheme, if he is not satisfied with their application in terms of this particular clause, within a period of 30 days. This would make for efficiency and eliminate unnecessary delay.

I cannot see why the hon. member for Berea raises this point under paragraph (b) and not also under paragraph (a), but be that as it may. The registrar shall register a scheme in accordance with all the directives laid down in the regulations. Those regulations are drawn up by the council and he will accept or reject the registration or amendment of rules, which may be applied for at a later stage, within the framework of the regulations, but it may happen, as I see it, that on occasion the registrar may also want to consult the council on a particular aspect. He does not want to take the full responsibility for accepting or rejecting a certain amendment, and he wishes to consult the council, the people who drew up the regulations. in respect of certain amendments. If we now compel him to advise the scheme concerned within 30 days, he will have no time to consult the council, not even in a delicate matter with regard to which he is not prepared to bear the responsibility. I believe that here we place the registrar in a very difficult position. Sometimes he has to take decisions in delicate matters. We should therefore not bind him and we believe that if the hon. member’s amendment is accepted it will in fact have an adverse effect on the activities of the registrar.

I just want to point out that when a duty is imposed on a man by law, he has to fulfil that duty within a reasonable period. The hon. member for Berea wants the insertion of the words “within 30 days”. As the hon. member for Germiston said, it may perhaps be contrary to the interests of the members concerned or of the scheme concerned or of the council, if these words are inserted, because then one would force them to take action, not within a reasonable period but within 30 days. I think it will be much safer to leave this paragraph unchanged, because then it means that the registrar will inform the scheme in writing, within a reasonable period.

Amendment put and negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

Clause 28:

I move—

1. (i) the Medical Association of South Africa, if the amount is claimed by a medical practitioner; or
2. (ii) the Dental Association of South Africa, if the amount is claimed by a dentist,

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Clause 30:

I move—

1. (a) the Medical Association of South Africa, if the proposed amendment relates to a tariff in respect of the rendering of any service by a medical practitioner; or
2. (b) the Dental Association of South Africa, if the proposed amendment relates to a tariff in respect of the rendering of any service by a dentist; or

in lines 74 and 75, to omit “association of medical practitioners” and to substitute “Medical Association”; in lines 1 and 2, page 20, to omit “association of dentists” and to substitute “Dental Association”; in line 12, to omit “association of medical practitioners” and to substitute “Medical Association” and in lines 12 and 13, to omit “association of dentists” and to substitute “Dental Association”.

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Clause 31:

I move the following amendments—

1. (3) If a dispute is under subsection (2) deemed to exist, the registrar shall as soon as possible make it known by notice in the Gazette;

to insert the following subsection to follow on subsection (7):

1. (8) If a dispute referred to in subsection (2) has been settled, the registrar shall as soon as possible make it known by notice in the Gazette;

in line 54, page 22, after “section” to add “and no medical practitioner (if the dispute relates to an alteration of the remuneration payable to a medical practitioner) or dentist (if the dispute relates to an alteration of the remuneration payable to a dentist) shall during the period between the dates on which the respective notices in respect of such dispute have in terms of subsections (3) and (8) been published and the period of 12 months immediately after the expiration of such first-mentioned period, in any manner whatsoever discourage any medical practitioner or dentist, as the case may be, or perform any act calculated to discourage any medical practitioner or dentist, as the case may be, from rendering any services to a member or a dependant of a member of the scheme in question, or from agreeing to render services to such a member or such a dependant”; and to omit subsection (9).

Subsection (8) of this clause reads—

I do not feel very happy about the words “nothwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the agreement in question”, because as soon as a dentist or doctor or whatever is dissatisfied with his conditions of service and complains about them, a dispute is deemed to exist. The inclusion of the words “notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the agreement in question” means that under no circumstances may one withhold one’s services from the members of the scheme concerned. I may perhaps win the Irish Sweepstake and not want to continue my practice, but I may not stop rendering services to the members of that association. I simply have to continue until the dispute has been settled. I may not sell my practice and go and practice elsewhere while the dispute is still being settled. I am compelled, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in my agreement, to continue rendering services to the members of the scheme. My agreement may provide that upon 90 days notice I may cease rendering services to the scheme, but now I may not do that because there is a dispute. I wonder whether it is essential to retain this phrase in the subsection. I feel that there will be adequate protection for the members or their dependants if the subsection simply provided—

If the contract of service of the medical practitioner or dentist provides that he may resign after giving notice or withdraw from the service of the scheme, I think he should be at liberty to do so. I really feel that it will do no harm to delete that phrase. I should like to hear whether the hon. the Minister is not prepared to consider deleting these words.

Perhaps I should just explain once again exactly what happens: A medical practitioner comes along and objects! to the fees that he receives; he feels that he should be better remunerated. This is what will probably happen in practice. Under such circumstances he can simply resign. He need not lodge a dispute; he can simply say: “I have had enough of you; I am going farming,” or perhaps he wants to resign because he has had a windfall. He may want to retire because he is a rich man. But if he does not do so and instead takes the scheme to court—because arbitration is just like a court action—he cannot resign if he perceives that the court action is taking an unfavourable turn as far as he is concerned. That would be so contemptuous towards the arbitration court: he does not even have the decency to see the matter through; he wants to resign immediately. All that this clause provides is that he must continue rendering his services until such time as the dispute is settled, because he himself has instituted the action. It may take a week or a month to settle the dispute; surely it does not take all that long. Therefore no great sacrifices are demanded of doctors or dentists. All that is provided here is that he has to continue rendering services until such time as the dispute is settled.

On that point I cannot quite agree with the hon. the Minister. It is provided here that if a dispute arises the medical practitioner may not withhold his services, and in terms of the amendment of the hon. the Minister it is also provided that the medical practitioner cannot withdraw deliberately. But there are the bona fide cases of a man who wants to retire on account of age or for other reasons, and according to this clause he may not do so, and I do not think this is fair.

The hon. member for Geduld is afraid that if he wants to retire or to go farming he will not be able to do so, but he may in fact do so. Clause 31 (2) provides that if any party referred to in subsection (1) refuses to consent to any alteration of the said remuneration proposed by the other party, a dispute shall be deemed to exist. A dispute is deemed to exist only if the medical practitioner wants his fees increased and the other party refuses to consent to that. Then the doctor cannot simply pack up and go farming. But we cannot allow it that if there is a dispute as far as the fees are concerned, the doctor could simply pack up and go.

I should just like to put it to the hon. member that I may perhaps be one of the members who are quite satisfied with the fees, but the other members of the group are dissatisfied, and now I am compelled to stay there, not because I am dissatisfied with the fees, but because other circumstances have arisen, and I therefore feel that an innocent person may be prejudiced.

Amendments put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Clause 32 put and negatived.

New Clause 37:

I move—

1. 37. (1) The Minister shall establish a board, to be known as the Medical Schemes Appeal Board, to hear and determine appeals from decisions of the registrar in terms of sections 3, 15, 16; 18, 21 and 36 (3).
   1. (2) The said Appeal Board shall consist of three members who shall be appointed by the Minister and shall be persons who in the opinion of the Minister are suitably Qualified to perform the functions devolving upon them under this Act.
   2. (3) The Minister may, at the request of the said Appeal Board or any person who lodges an appeal with the said board, appoint not more than two persons who in the opinion of the Minister have expert knowledge of any matter to which any appeal relates, to serve as assessors on the said board in connection with such appeal.
   3. (4) A member of the said Appeal Board shall be appointed on such conditions and for such period not exceeding five years as the Minister may determine.
   4. (5) Any person whose period of office as a member of the said Appeal Board has expired, shall be eligible for reappointment.
   5. (6) The Minister shall cause the name of every person appointed as a member of the said Appeal Board and the period for which he has been appointed to be published in the Gazette.
   6. (7) A member of the said Appeal Board and any person serving as assessor on such board (other than a person who is in the full-time employment of the State) shall be paid such remuneration and allowances as the Minister in consultation with the Minister of Finance may determine.

Agreed to.

New clause 38:

I move—

1. 38. (1) Any person who is aggrieved by any decision of the registrar in terms of sections 3, 15, 16, 18, 21 or 36 (3) may within one month after the date on which such decision was given, appeal against such decision to the Appeal Board referred to in section 37, and the said board may make such order on the appeal as it may consider equitable, and its decision shall be final.
   1. (2) The operation of any decision which is the subject of an appeal under subsection (1) shall be suspended pending the decision of the said board on such appeal.
   2. (3) Any person who lodges an appeal under subsection (1) shall submit with his appeal written arguments or explanations of the grounds of his appeal, and may further in person or through a representative appear before the said Appeal Board and tender any evidence or submit any argument or explanation to the said board in support of the written arguments or explanations of his grounds of appeal.

Agreed to.

Clause 40:

I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Clause 43:

I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Remaining Clauses having been agreed to,

The Committee reverted to Clause 2 standing over, which was put and negatived.

New Clause 2:

I move—

1. 2. (1) The provisions of this Act—
   1. (a) shall, subject to the provisions of paragraphs (b), (c), (d) and (e), also apply with reference to a medical scheme established by the State or the Administration of the territory of South-West Africa;
   2. (b) shall apply with reference to the South African Railways and Harbours’ Sick Fund established in terms of section 32 of the Railways and Harbours Service Act, 1960 (Act No. 22 of 1960), only if the Minister has at the request of the Minister of Transport and by notice in the Gazette declared the said provisions to be so applicable;
   3. (c) shall apply with reference to any fund established in terms of any regulation made under section 33 (1) (b)bis of the Police Act, 1958 (Act No. 7 of 1958), only if the Minister has at the request of the Minister of Police and by notice in the Gazette declared the said provisions to be so applicable;
   4. (d) shall apply with reference to fund established in terms of any regulation made under section 87 (1) (i)bis of the Defence Act, 1957 (Act No. 44 of 1957), only if the Minister has at the request of the Minister of Defence and by notice in the Gazette declared the said provisions to be so applicable;
   5. (e) shall apply with reference to any fund established in terms of any regulation made under section 94 (1) (b)bis of the Prisons Act, 1959 (Act No. 8 of 1959), only if the Minister has at the request of the Minister of Prisons and by notice in the Gazette declared the said provisions to be so applicable;
   6. (f) shall apply with reference to a particular medical scheme established under an agreement published or deemed to have been published in terms of section 48 of the Industrial Conciliation Act, 1956 (Act No. 28 of 1956), only if the Minister has at the request of the Minister of Labour and by notice in the Gazette declared the said provisions to be applicable with reference to that medical scheme;
   7. (g) shall apply with reference to a medical scheme in respect of which a notice has been issued in terms of paragraph (b), (c), (d), (e) or (f), as from the date fixed in such notice.
2. (2) A medical scheme referred to in paragraph (f) of subsection (1) shall furnish such statistical information in respect of that scheme at such times and in such manner as may be prescribed in the case of a registered scheme, irrespective of whether or not a notice as provided in that paragraph has been issued in respect thereof.
3. (3) In the application of the provisions of this Act with reference to a medical scheme referred to in subsection (1) (b), (c), (d), (e) or (f) of this section, the reference in sections 16 (1), 19 and 34 to the commencement of this Act, shall be construed as a reference to the relevant date referred to in subsection (1) (g) of this section.

Agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments.

As the Minister is not here I move—

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and A. Hopewell.

Tellers: P. S. van der Merwe and H. J. van Wyk.

Motion accordingly negatived.

Clause 1 put and agreed to.

Remaining Clauses and Title of the Bill put and agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I replied to the debate during the previous discussion. From now on the Deputy Minister of Agricultural and Water Affairs will reply on my behalf.

Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister what research, if any, is being done by his department in regard to a fairly new system of grazing and, if research is being done, what steps are being taken to disseminate the results of that research. The system of grazing I refer to is known by various names, sometimes the system of non-selective grazing, and sometimes the system of mob grazing. But it is more generally known after the person on whose ideas is it based, although he did not institute it. I am Speaking of Mr. John Acocks, who is a botanical survey officer in the hon. the Deputy Minister’s department. I do not wish to express an opinion about the virtues or the disadvantages of this system because the farming public as such do not, I feel, know enough about it. That is why I am putting these questions to the Deputy Minister, as to what research his department is doing in this regard and what his views are as regards this system. Very wide publicity indeed is being given to this new grazing practice, particularly in farming periodicals, such as The Farmer’s Weekly. I have here the latest, the sixth of a series of articles by Mrs. Denise Howell. These articles have dealt exhaustively with the various aspects of the system. Mr. and Mrs. Howell, who farm in the Springfontein district in the Southern Free State, say they have been applying the principles of this system since 1961. They have also been applied by various other farmers, including a Mr. Trollip from Middelburg, Cape. As a result of these articles and the publicity given to this system, very high hopes are being aroused in the minds of other farmers, for example that they might be able to double their stocking rate or increase it even more. I want to quote from the last of these articles in that regard to show what hopes some farmers are entertaining in respect of this system. It reads:

Then he goes into the matter of costs and he concludes:

Basically, the system involves, instead of the normally accepted two, three or four camp systems, the dividing up of the farm and the farming of it on a basis of fourteen and sixteen camp systems.

Secondly, it involves the clean grazing off of the camps in a period of not more than 14 days, and that they should be rested for a period of net less than six weeks, preferably for an even longer period. It involves very intensive grazing indeed. In fact, it could be summed up by the words: Intensive grazing at a grazing pressure of one sheep per inch of rainfall per morgen. This is a most intense grazing pressure. Furthermore, because there are so many camps, it involves a very large expenditure on fences and on the provision of stock water. For example, I know of one farmer in my area who is investing, (and he has borrowed the money), some R25,000 in water and fencing materials alone. That is only the cost of the materials, not of the labour. He has done this in the belief that this system will materially enable him to increase the number of stock he is carrying. Also in some instances, it has involved the abandonment by farmers of their established farming systems. Here again, I know of one of the best fine wool merino flocks in the country, where the farmer has sold all his breeding stock and has to-day swung over entirely to “hamel” farming. The protagonists of this system admit that there are some weaknesses in it. They say for example that in the first couple of years, the wool may be dustier than it otherwise was. They also admit that they may have to finish off their stock for sale in feed lots or on the lands. But they claim very big advantages indeed. They claim that it cuts production costs and that the concentration of stock requires less labour. They also claim that it reduces internal parasite infestation, because of the long rest periods involved and the frequent changes of grazing when sheep are moved from one camp to another. They claim further it improves their total veld cover and also the composition of the veld, because under this system the stock are forced to graze anything that is there including the less palatable feeding. But above all, they claim that it increases the stocking rate without damage to the veld as such. For example, they claim in this article in The Farmer’s Weekly:

To-day we estimate that on our farms four 100-morgen paddocks rested for a year, or even for a full growing season, are sufficient to carry a flock in droughty times at a grazing pressure of one sheep per inch of rainfall per morgen. That is 1,700 sheep for from four to six months depending on the state of the veld.

I would like the Deputy Minister to listen to the conservation rate—

The point is, that it is not only individual farmers, but also soil conservation committees, who are beginning to be interested in this system. There are people who have misgivings as to the long-term effect of such an intensive grazing system over a period of years. Some people say too that although this may work in open country, it may not be the case in other types of country, other types of terrain, for example steep bushveld country, where the livestock are principally cattle and where it is difficult and very expensive to provide water on top of the mountains, because of the lift involved. Therefore the available water supplies will always be towards the bottom of the mountains. If there is a very high concentration of stock, particularly cattle, walking down through the bush, then the ground between the trees is going to be denuded and it will cause gully erosion. I feel that this Acocks grazing system is enjoying such publicity and such increasing popularity that the Department should give our farmers a lead, to give us some indication of what their views are, whether they feel that this is a system which can do what is claimed for it, namely substantially increase the amount of stock that can be carried and at the same time improve both the total cover on the veld and the type of veld cover that is under grazing.

I want to deal with one other matter. The hon. member for Vryburg mentioned here the difficulties that they have in that area due to bush encroachment. This is cattle country and these difficulties are not peculiar to that area although that particular type of encroachment, the particular type of tree that is encroaching, might be limited to those areas. It occurs throughout our country where cattle are run, particularly when small stock are not run in conjunction with it. The hon. the Minister gave various figures to show that it could be economic to eradicate the encroaching bush by mechanical means. The point I want to make to the hon. the Deputy Minister is that, although that may be economic, it will be even more economic if that is allied with the following. [Time expired.]

The hon. member who has just resumed his seat will pardon me if I do not follow up on his argument since he has raised a very specific matter with the hon. the Deputy Minister. We hope he will receive a reply in this connection. But I am rising in order to broach another subject, Mr. Chairman, which is that we are under the impression that our country’s economy is at this stage somewhat unbalanced to the detriment of agriculture as such, I want to remind you of the fact that approximately 20 years ago the Republic of South Africa was pre-eminently an agricultural country. Since then the industrial sector has gradually begun to compete with agriculture, and it is for that reason that a situation has arisen where we find symposiums being held on a very high level on different occasions. Discussions are held and speakers of international reputation come here to promote the industrial sector. We feel that in this respect agriculture is lagging behind. It is not being done deliberately but we must take cognizance of the fact that agriculture is gradually losing ground to the industrial sector. When we talk about a manpower shortage, of commerce and allied matters, emphasis is placed mainly on the industrial development of the country. It must be freely admitted that it was the industrial development of the country which contributed mainly to the economic progress which we have experienced in recent times But we cannot get away from the fact that it is agriculture as such which provides the basic raw materials for many of these industries. No industrial burgeoning can take place on this scale if the agricultural sector is not accorded its rightful place. In the second place—and perhaps this is the most important aspect—it is essential that the nation be fed. Agriculture is and remains primarily responsible for that. Since we are living in difficult times it cannot be denied that we may perhaps not always be able to import those basic foodstuffs for the nation. We do not know whether those foodstuffs will always be available, or whether we will always be able to import it. For that reason, even though it may perhaps be less economic, it is essential for the preservation of our people to continue being self-sufficient in respect of the provision of foodstuffs.

Let us consider the important role which agriculture has played in recent years. According to the latest data from the Office of Census and Statistics the contribution of the agricultural sector to the gross domestic product increased from R294 million in 1947-’48 to R600 million in 1956. In 1963 this figure was R645 million, and in 1964 it was R687 million. In 1965-’66 it was R704 million. That was the contribution of agriculture to our gross’ national income. For that reason we want to emphasize that it is absolutely essential to pay more attention to agricultural production and the feeding of the nation. If we were to approach this matter from another angle and consider what demands are being made on agriculture to-day we find that our population has increased from 11.4 million in 1946 to 18.3 million last year. There was an increase of approximately 65 per cent in our population therefore.

Let us now consider our food consumption. We see that since 1946 this figure increased from 5.5 million tons to 9.5 million tons, in other words, an average increase of 55 per cent in our food consumption. That is why we feel some concern when we see that our consumption has exceeded our production by approximately 10 per cent over the past ten years. The result of this is that we feel concerned and must therefore make an attempt to increase our agricultural production. What has agriculture achieved in regard to this matter? I should be glad to tell you. During the past year the Republic has increased its agricultural production by 29 per cent. This was the third highest in the world. Leading the field was Canada with 44 per cent, and then came Russia with 30 per cent. The Republic was in third place with, as I have said, 29 per cent, which was truly a fine achievement for the South African farmer. This is all the more the case if we take into consideration the fact that, according to international standards, South Africa is no agricultural country! There is also another significant figure. There has been an average increase of only 36 per cent in the world production of certain basic foodstuffs. That confirms the fact that we in the Republic are lagging only slightly behind the best countries in the world as far as those basic products are concerned. According to what the vice-president of the U.S.A. had to say recently, 140 million people were born during the past year. There is not enough food for them. It is being alleged that a high birth rate is to be found in those very countries which are not self-sufficient in respect of their own food requirements.

In regard to this entire matter it is our duty to increase the productivity of our agriculture. One way in which this can be done is to expand the knowledge of the agriculturist. He too must be afforded the opportunity of doing so by means of technological development, instruction, and so on. A third factor which in my opinion is of very great importance is the following. A more favourable approach to agriculture amongst all the sectors of the population of our country must be cultivated. We are well aware of the fact that voices are being raised in certain sectors which allege that more is being done for agriculture than is its fair due. From time to time it is being alleged in articles that the taxpayer in fact subsidizes agriculture in South Africa. It is being alleged in certain circles that it would pay us better to eliminate many of these production sectors and import those commodities. But that is a totally distorted picture. We cannot measure all those so-called accommodations in terms of rands and cents only, particularly not in the difficult times in which we are living at present. We cannot always lay one-sided emphasis on purely economic aspects. There are other factors as well which we have to take into consideration.

That brings us now to the basic idea, i.e. our soil conservation. The hon. member who spoke immediately prior to me pleaded for certain changes and adjustments to be made in respect of soil conservation. When we consider that the Soil Conservation Act was placed on the Statute Book in 1946, and when we consider the difficult times which that Act has had, then we can only, when we consider this matter realistically and completely objectively, congratulate the Department and the agricultural sector as such on the achievements which they have attained over the past 21 years. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, in the first place I should like to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister, if he has finished his conversation … [Interjection.] There is no sense in talking if the hon. the Minister does not listen—and I am dealing with a very serious matter. I have been asked by a number of farmers in the Karoo area to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to the fact that an operation is at present being carried out there in which locusts are being sprayed from the air. A spray is being used which I assume is D.D.T. or perhaps one of the Bennex preparations, which is mixed with oil. I learn from the farmers there that large portions of the veld are at present dying. The bushes are also dying as a result of the spraying. I have been told that some of the farmers have sought advice in regard to the recovery of their damages from the Department. I do not know whether the Minister had been notified about this. In any case I have been requested to ask the Minister whether he will not seriously consider using another spray since that sort of spraying can cause irreparable damage to the veld for many years. I shall leave the matter at that. I have nothing further to say about it. I thought it my duty to bring it to the Minister’s attention. I hope the Minister will give it his attention. I see the former Minister of Agricultural Technical Services who is now Minister of the Interior, is giving some advice to a Deputy Minister whom I know does not need advice—at any rate I hope not. In any case, if he does need advice, I advise the hon. the Deputy Minister not to accept the advice of the present hon. the Minister of the Interior. He will only find himself in difficulties.

He needs a lot of advice.

Mr. Chairman, I brought this matter to the attention of the Minister in all sincerity. I do not know whether he was aware of the matter, but that is what was reported to me.

Then I want to raise a second matter, i.e. the question of mountain fires here in the Western Province. I think that any person who burns veld in the Karoo areas, in the low rainfall areas, must be insane because the damage can be tremendous. As a person who has had years of experience here in the Western Province I can tell the hon. the Minister that we have always been taught that mountain fires destroy everything, that they are very harmful. My experience has been precisely the opposite. My experience has been that we are destroying large parts of the Western Province as a result of the fact that we do not or may not burn the veld. It is as criminal to set fire to your veld in the Karoo, as it is to refrain from doing so here in the Western Province. I want to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister to the fact that there are great fires here in the Western Province in the mountains each year. Usually those areas are so thickly overgrown that when a fire starts the damage is absolutely irreparable as a result of the mass of material which is destroyed there. I believe that a controlled fire does more good than harm. As matters stand at present, nobody can put out those fires once they have started. With what we describe as conservation we are destroying our natural flowers in the Western Province completely. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to come and visit me sometime; I will take him round and about in the Western Province and show him that in those parts of the Boland where the veld is not being burned our veld flowers are disappearing altogether. I remember that when Mr. Paul Sauer was still Minister he said in this House that in those parts where one has fires this year one finds the prettiest flowers the next. Oh well, we can sacrifice our flowers if we achieve something else by not burning the veld. Then we can allow our flowers to be suffocated by the weeds which are growing there at the moment, but the intention of this prohibition on mountain fires was presumably to promote water conservation, but I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether research has ever been done in order to find out whether veld fires did not perhaps produce more rather than less water. You can ask any practical farmer in this House and he will tell you that the easiest and the best way of drying up the land is to plant eucalyptus trees near the fountains [Interjection.] I am talking now about farmers who farm. Plant eucalyptus trees and you will see how soon your lands are dry. If there is enough rhinoceros bush growing on a certain section of your farm you will find that that is the driest part of your farm. I have read and ascertained that the evaporation which is caused by a eucalyptus tree and a rhinoceros bush per month is practically twice the weight of the tree or the bush. Before we accept this idea that fires conserve, or do not conserve, water I hope that we will first do a little research into the matter.

On my farm there is a certain area where I simply cannot set fire to the veld—it is too dangerous because it too close to my house—and the fountains there are drying up. They have become weaker. Over the last 25 years no animal has gone near them. The fountains there have become weaker as a result of the fact, so I believe, that there are bushes there to-day which were not there before. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister would not have investigations made in regard to this theory which we have had in the past and which in my opinion is an incorrect one. Just go and look at a piece of land which belongs to the Government itself and which has not been burnt for years, here at the Voëlvlei Dam; go and look at how the rhinoceros bush is growing there at the moment. That is the first part of the Boland which becomes bone dry and there is not enough grass for a tortoise growing under those bushes. There is no grass, there are no more flowers. I hope the Minister will have an investigation made to find out what the effect of controlled mountain fires are. The hon. the Minister will tell me that one can burn veld in the Boland on condition that you do it this time of the year, but I want humbly to suggest that that is a stupid policy, and I shall tell you why. In the old days people burnt the dry bushes before New Year and Christmas. Under the new policy which has been in vogue during the past few years one burns the veld just when the regrowth begins to show and the result is that one burns the seed which has just germinated with the result that there are no grass-seeds left in the soil. The hon. the Minister can come and discuss this with the farmers in my neighbourhood and they will all tell him the same thing. However, the difficulty is that the members of the local soil conservation committees are not all people who have practical experience of that sort of area. They have, just as in our case, heard that it is a crime to burn, with the result that they draw up regulations which do more harm than good. I should like to ascertain from the hon. the Minister whether research has been done, and if research has been done, what the results are. As I have already said, the easiest way of drying up a farm is to plant eucalyptus trees.

That is the exception.

No, it is not the exception. I agree that a person who burns the veld in the dry parts of South-West Africa …

You are on the wrong track.

In the dry parts of South-West Africa one must not burn the veld but I know for a fact that the veld is being burnt in the north of South-West Africa, to great advantage. The hon. member is aware that the veld in certain parts of South-West Africa has to be burnt. [Interjection.] Mr. Chairman, this is not a political matter. I should like some scientific research to be done in regard to this matter.

Quite a considerable amount of research has been done in this regard. The Department of Forestry has a great deal of data on this matter.

Then there is a second matter which I should like to bring to the attention of the Minister, and that is the question of weed control. As you know, Mr. Chairman, tremendous progress has been made abroad with the control of weeds by chemicals. There are quite a few farmers in this House who are using a certain type of weed killer to great advantage in our citrus orchards. I am thinking for example of Hyvar. I have discussed this with a few farmers who are also using it and I know that they are using it here in the Western Province with the same beneficial results as we have had. But so little research has been done into the use of weed killers that we have up to now not had any authoritative statement from the State in regard to what kind of weed killers we may use and what kind we may not use. On a previous occasion I mentioned in this House the case of a certain weed killer which had been used with excellent results in America for killing grass but here in South Africa, for some or other inexplicable reason it destroys the vines and makes the grass grow better. Of course I am not blaming the Government for that; they have nothing to do with it. But what I do blame the Government for is the fact there are only one or two trained scientists who are able to undertake research into the efficiency and the effect of weed killers, and for the fact that almost no training is being given at our universities in regard to the application and the effect of weed killers, and those are matters which do in fact fall under the hon. the Minister. In addition to that we are in the unfortunate position that the weed killers which are being manufactured are so expensive that nobody can afford them. [Time expired.]

I do not want to react to the speech made by the former speaker because he said quite a few sensible things on this occasion. I want to return to the combating of finches in the Marico constituency and add my thanks to those of the hon. member for Waterberg. It was not necessary for me to wear through the carpet in the hon. Minister’s office. It was only necessary for me to keep the telephone wires red hot, with fatal results for the finches. However, I should also like to avail myself of the opportunity of expressing a special word of gratitude and appreciation to the hon. the Prime Minister for having, during the floods in the Marico and Rustenburg constituencies, so expeditiously sent a commission to institute an on-the-spot investigation into the extent of the flood damages. The commission consisted of the hon. the Deputy Minister, Mr. Martins, Dr. Bodenstein and myself. The hon. the Prime Minister has in this way shown proof of his intense interest in the vicissitudes of our farmers when they are struck by disasters. We want to assure him of our sincere gratitude and appreciation. The flood damages there assumed serious proportions, particularly for the smaller farmers along the banks of the Crocodile and the Groot Marico Rivers. Even in the High veld regions of the Koster district the water reached the doorsteps and hundreds of morgen of promising mealie crops were destroyed. According to the report of the Thabazimbi Agricultural Union, 2,100 morgen out of 4,000 morgen of cultivated land along the Crocodile was destroyed, of which 799 out of 1,375 morgen was under tobacco, and 755 out of 1,344 morgen was under mealies. That proves that more than 50 per cent of the lands were destroyed. The seriousness of the disaster can be appreciated even more if we take into consideration that many of the smaller riparian farmers would have had their first crops after a long period of drought, and some of their crops were destroyed 75 per cent up to a 100 per cent. However, the farmers are full of courage after the rains. They only hope that the emergency assistance which the Government has envisaged for the flood-stricken farmers will soon be made available. They are in dire need of it. I am curious to learn from the hon. the Minister whether the report of the inquiry which was instituted is available so that one may look forward to the assistance which the State may make available.

But I also want to avail myself of the opportunity of re-emphasizing the importance of the task of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services, particularly in these times after the abundant rains which have fallen over extensive parts of the country. In my opinion the task of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services is in the first instance to support the farmer of South Africa with expert instruction and practical demonstration in order to develop the production potential of our soil to its most profitable peak, and to do so without coming into conflict with the relentless laws of nature and by wasteful exploitation letting it degenerate into barren and useless desert land. That may sound like a mouthful, Sir, but it condenses in a nutshell the extremely important task of the officials of the Department. It also suggests the increased expert demands which are being made on its officials in respect of the large variety of facets where instruction and specialized services have to be made available to the agricultural sector. Scientists state that the earth has a diameter of 8,000 miles, but they say that the crust which covers it is approximately 25 miles deep at its thickest point. Over the centuries man and all living things have existed on the potential of this thin crust, but because man was fewer in numbers in previous centuries and his requirements were fewer, the soil could feed him without the application of all kinds of strict scientific instruction and planning. But the picture has changed entirely now. The twentieth century with its multiplying human masses and concomitant higher civilization and needs is inevitably making tremendous demands on the soil. That is why it is appropriate, during the discussion of a vote such as this one, to bring agricultural technical services, hand in hand with the farmer, into perspective with the exceptionally responsible place which they have within the structure of our political economy. In fact, upon their success, or lack of it, in conserving and protecting our portion of that 25 mile thick earth crust as the most valuable heritage, and upon their ability to develop its rich potential judiciously, will depend how long it will still be able to meet the growing requirements of the population of South Africa.

We have just experienced the worst drought for 60 years. Our hills and our mountain slopes looked like barren mine dumps. Our expansive grass lands looked like desert regions. Our wooded bushveld looked like valleys littered with bones because of all the leafless trees and animal skeletons to be seen there. Our valleys and fountains were nothing more than dust bowls and dry dongas. Fortunately rains have fallen over the entire country. From the bottom of our believing hearts we thank the Giver of all good things. Nature has transformed us in a single miraculous day. The rivers and the dams are full. From many a dry fountain head crystal-clear water is flowing to convert our valleys to what they were years ago, each one a paradise of bulrushes and reeds where the water birds disport themselves. The scarcity of the drought has been converted in a single rain season to a plentitude, and that applies equally to grazing, harvests, and the opportunities which the rains have now afforded the farmers again. But what one is most concerned about after the rains is this question which suggests itself to the mind: How can this generous abundance best be protected and preserved to the advantage of the soil and the farmer for the longest possible period of time? Protected grass-lands are the chief requirement for water and moisture conservation. Nothing on earth is more conducive to the introduction of moisture content than veld grass and valley undergrowth of bulrushes and reeds. There is an unprecedented opportunity to save and preserve, through judiciously planned soil protection, the present abundance for the longest period of time possible. It is up to the Department of Agricultural Technical Services, the farmer and, yes, every nature lover. [Time expired.]

I do not want to follow up on the argument made by the hon. member for Marico, but I see the iron, member for Waterberg now has a rival who waxes even more lyrical than he himself does. In any case, since he dealt with flood damages, I want to return to the damage being done to our soil. During the course of the debate we have been furnished with the figures in regard to the amount of land which has already been proclaimed, and of course it is very impressive. But as impressive as those figures are, so disquieting is the progress which is being made in connection with planning. The hon. the Minister himself said that only 33 per cent of the farms have so far been planned. What is even worse, is that of the farms which have already been planned essential work has only been done on 8 per cent of them; and what is worst of all is that of the farms which have been planned only 4 per cent have so far completed their plans. If we accept therefore that the present tempo can be maintained, and that is doubtful, then we see that it would take at least another 23 years before all the farms have been planned. To that must be added the years taken to carry out the improvements as envisaged in the plans. I am mentioning these facts to show how serious is the problem which we are dealing with and how much the farmers still have to face. The changeability of our weather conditions does not in any way contribute towards the planning. In the same way the example which the Government sets does not help the farmers at all and does much to discourage them in the implementation of their plans. Mention has been made of soil conservation districts which have been proclaimed, farming units which are being planned, farmers are admonished and yet the Government is allowing the most flagrant disregard of approved plans, of soil conservation principles and even of principles of the Act to take place. The authorities as well as other approved bodies are allowing this to happen.

I refer in the first instance to the question of the search for oil which is at present being carried out in the border area, i should very much like the hon. the Deputy Minister to have a few words with the Minister of Mines because we know that according to the Act farmers must receive 14 days notice before anyone may set foot on their farms and that tney must also be compensated for any damage which may be done. We know that the search is an expensive process and we also know that time is an important factor, but we find that farms are entered without the farmers’ permission, that fences, even jackal-proof fencing is being cut—and you know what it means to have to repair jackal-proof fencing. We understand that there is a cleaning up team which does the repair work but it is so far behind that we have a suspicion that they have lost themselves somewhere in the gorges. Of course we would all like to see South Africa find oil and the farmers themselves would welcome it, but this kind of behaviour is not an encouragement to the farmer as far as their plans on which they have spent so much time and attention are concerned. I want to go further. I come now to the question of road building. We all realize the need for roads, but roads are not all that count. It seems to me that the engineers have developed a phobia and insist that a road must run straight at all costs. We see this throughout our country, but to-day I want to give special attention to the road between King William’s Town and Komga which is now under construction and has almost been completed, where, without doubt, every soil conservation principle has been violated. In regard to the planning the matter was referred to the conservation committee. Little attention was given or heed paid to their recommendations. The result is that the road has been laid out so that farms, lands, camps and even irrigation lands are divided up in an undesirable way. In addition we find that where they cut that road they do not allow sufficient access to the farmer to allow him to pass either under or over the road from the one side to the other of his farm. There is even an example where one farmer was told that an ordinary culvert bridge was his access for his sheep from one side to the other. There is a lucern field which was cut through the middle and the farmer was not even provided with a small culvert to enable him to get his pipes from one side of the road to the other. We then come to the construction of the road itself. Cuttings are made and the surplus material is thrown into gulleys. This is done in undesirable places—just as the ground which is taken to fill up the gulleys is taken from the most undesirable places on the farm. Of course we all understand that in order to obtain the necessary density it is not always possible to use the material excavated from the cuttings in order to fill the gulleys, but I nevertheless think that with a little co-operation and consultation with the farmers the construction of a road, quite apart from the road itself, could be of great benefit to the farmer. Surely, when removing material and excavating land on his farm they can do it in such a way that it will suit him. I can see no reason why a small dam should not be built for a farmer even if he has to make a small contribution to it himself. I think any farmer would welcome it. We have a further example in this case where the material used to fill up a gorge was dumped without any precautionary measures. This lead to a farmer’s entire water scheme being ruined because it was situated a little lower down. His retaining dam, which was situated a little down the gorge, was silted up by the eroding of the filling material after the first rains. The entire operation of his water scheme was, as I have said, ruined

We come then to the damage which is being done by the search for gravel and the gravel holes. Do you know, Sir, that it is not only the size of the hole. There is one strip which is four or five hundred yards long where a bulldozer was used to remove a few feet of the top soil in order to expose the gravel underneath. None of the gravel was used. It was only used towards the end. Now we are told that that soil will be replaced. You know, Sir, and so do we all, that that will not serve to replace the crops. I can continue in this vain. I know that the hon. the Deputy Minister held discussions with the Administrators some time ago. I should like to ascertain what they decided and whether the necessary steps will be taken to see to it that farmers are not treated in this way, and also to see to it that the authorities set an example which will encourage and inspire farmers rather than discourage them.

In the first place I should just like to say a few words to the hon. member for King William’s Town about the complaints he raised in regard to the search for oil, the fact that people enter farms without notifying the farmers in advance, as well as in regard to the breaking of fences. But surely it is a matter which can be solved very easily if only those specific farmers will pick up the telephone and bring the matter to our attention. However, I shall have that aspect investigated. In regard to his representations on the construction of roads, that is of course a matter which falls under the Provincial Administration, as he quite rightly stated. I can just tell him that we have made quite a lot of progress. We have had interviews with the Administrators. In this regard we have soil conservation committees which can and should be consulted in regard to the alignment of roads and the excavation of gravel quarries. The hon. member pointed out various aspects of the matter. He mentioned the case of small dams. The Free State has already accepted as a policy that where they excavate gravel quarries for roads they ask the farmer whether they can turn the quarry into a dam in order to retain the water. In other words, we have already made quite a lot of progress in this regard. The hon. member said that the planning in respect of soil conservation is being totally disregarded, or has been executed very poorly. He also said that we were not seeing to it that those plans were carried out. I shall return to that in a moment. I shall then discuss the entire matter with him.

I just want to refer briefly to the hon. member for Sea Point. In the first instance he spoke about bush fires and fires as such. I just want to tell him that in collaboration with the Department of Forestry we have a project for the purpose of investigating this question of controlled fires properly. Surely he himself knows that there are certain areas where fires are essential and that there are other areas where they are prejudicial, that is why investigation is being made. It is a long-term project requiring long-term research. The investigation is not only being carried out by the Department of Forestry and my Department, it has also been brought to the attention of the Soil Conservation Council. We have a special member on the Soil Conservation Council in order to make further investigations into fire fighting and fire control.

Are there any results as yet which you can recommend?

In certain areas, yes.

In the Western Province?

That I do not have yet. In regard to weed control the hon. member said that sprays were destroying the vines but not the grass. I want to tell him that we have sent special officers overseas in order to make further studies in regard to weed control and the spray used for that purpose. At Stellenbosch there is an officer with a doctor’s degree who is engaged on work in the field of There is also Dr. De Wit. The reason why weed control. I am talking about Dr. Jooste. most of these agents are so expensive is because the economy of the matter is the decisive factor in this connection. Inquiries are therefore being made into the matter. Then the hon. member also spoke about the use of sprays for locusts. I want to tell him that what is being used is the B.H.C. emulsion. We have already received complaints that this emulsion is destroying the veld. However, investigations are at present being made. We have a certain Mr. Lourens who is head of the Locust and Finch Control Section. He is at present in that vicinity to inquire into these complaints. I also want to tell the hon. member that this emulsion is being used because in the wet weather the powder had a detrimental effect on the operation of the machinery with which this spraying has to be done. Later on in this debate I shall also reply to the matter which the hon. member for Albany raised in regard to the Howell Research which is being carried out.

In the first place I want to refer to this aspect. The hon. members of the Opposition tried to make out a case by saying that we did not have the necessary efficient farming as a result of the fact our service was inadequate. Now I want to refer at once to a few aspects. Our information service is no longer a service which merely extends from the technician to the individual. Our information service now culminates in the planning committees or in the study committees. The hon. the Minister told you that we already have 240 committees and that the membership of these committees numbers 3,000. In this way, for example, the case of the Howell research which the hon. member mentioned, can be discussed. In the same way as happened the other day at Queenstown that entire matter can be discussed with the farmers there in committees. They can debate this matter in a specific way in a specific region, and from one region to another, and the farmers can voluntarily apply what they think is worthwhile, or they can put further questions there. But these study committees have not been established with a view to efficiency only. If hon. members want to allege that our farming is inefficient because the service is inadequate, a norm has to be established. As far as this norm is concerned, I want to mention in the first instance the services which we have. The hon. the Minister mentioned to you certain research projects of which there are already 2,050. He mentioned to you our vaccine provision service which totalled 85 million issued doses in 1966. He also mentioned the study committees. But I want to deal with a different aspect in this connection. During this short period of time we have given South Africa six research institutes, 23 research stations, 37 experimental farms, eight experimental premises, and five experimental farming establishments. In addition we have three botanical veld reserves, a quarantine station and a conservation area. In other words, in the field of research only and in order to rectify this matter, we have already occupied 158,833 morgen in South Africa. That has been done with a view to research. But we have also obtained results. I come now to the results. In order to bring knowledge to the farmer we publish agricultural, domestic and dietary pamphlets. In this year 518,000 have been issued. Republications from Farming in South Africa, totalled 612,000: regional institute reports over 10,000; library lists over 20,000: and agricultural newsletters more than 435,000. To this must still be added the publications which we sell, such as for example the Hulpboek vir Boere. In addition there were the farmers’ days which we organized. I would just like to tell you how many farmers’ days we organized. In 1965-’66 we organized 180 of these, which were attended by 13,000 farmers. In this way we are trying to establish efficiency. Now, what results have we obtained? I can measure the results against the gross value of our agricultural production and its increase. I can tell you that in 1948 the gross value of agricultural production in South Africa was R376,200,000. In 1965-’66 it was as much as R1,044 million. There has therefore been a systematic increase over the past few years. I shall not go further back than that.

What was the volume increase?

The volume increase I can also give you. I am first going to give you the increase in value. Subsequently I shall give you the full analysis of the volume increase. It indicates that there has been an increase in agricultural production here and that that can only be attributable to efficiency. It is in other words efficiency which has been acquired as a result of the results of research, which have been applied, efficiency which has been acquired as a result of the information services which have been supplied and put into practice. If one realizes all this one cannot come here and tell the House that our agriculture is inefficient as a result of inadequate services. I also want to furnish another form of analysis. Let us for a moment consider our mealie production. In 1947-’48 our mealie production was 7.6 bags per morgen. Here too, production has systematically increased. We may as well eliminate the drought. In 1960-’61 the production was 11.3 bags per morgen, and in respect of 1966-’67 it is being estimated at 14.3 bags per morgen. That is once more a criterion of efficiency, which indicates how, on the same morgen of land, we are able to increase our production ability as a result of mechanization, enterprise and the results of research and information which are being applied. Let us take the Swartland with its wheat industry. In 1948 the production was 7.2 bags per morgen. In 1964-’65 it was 12.1 bags per morgen. And what is the position in regard to dried fruit and vineyards? The total production of our vineyards and the fruit industry was altogether 25,661,000 tons in 1965-’66. It is now 32,164,000 tons. That again indicates an increase. I do not think it was fair to the Department of Agriculture to have stated the matter in the way it was stated. I want to mention a last example. It is an important example. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I want to speak in connection with water, but not in so far as it affects the Department of Water Affairs. I want to speak on the problems which arise from it as far as the Department of Agricultural Technical Services is concerned. In the past few decades our irrigation farming in South Africa, as in the rest of the world, has changed considerably. The entire method of irrigation has changed radically. This change is understandable in South Africa, firstly because water is scarce and secondly because the effectiveness of irrigation by means of sprinkler systems is considerably higher than in the case of our old orthodox methods. Moreover, labour is not available to such an extent that irrigation work can be done with a spade. As a result of this the position in South Africa has changed completely. Tens of thousands of morgen which have to be irrigated at present, are irrigated by the modern method of sprinkler or overhead irrigation.

This gives rise to a special problem for the Department of Agricultural Technical Services, because we are now discovering, after years of applying both flow irrigation and sprinkler irrigation in South Africa, that the structure of our soil is changing. Without being aware of it, we have in point of fact been doing great harm to our soil through irrigation, in that we actually act in conflict with nature when we do irrigation work. Nature provides its rain and its water in such a way that the vegetation and the soil can absorb it, but if man puts water on soil, whether by flow irrigation or by sprinkler irrigation, he does so in a way which is sometimes most unwise. That is why we find that in recent times certain problems have come to the fore. In areas where irrigation is applied there are problems which are assuming such grave proportions that the Department now has to spend millions of rands to cone with these problems. There are two problems in particular, namely compacting of soil and salination of soil. These are problems which man creates because he does not always know what he is doing when he applies irrigation.

Now you will appreciate that if in this country we are changing from flow irrigation to sprinkler irrigation, millions of rands are involved. Actually there are three branches of science of which we should know more if we apply irrigation. One is a pure knowledge of engineering. This is very important. Many of the companies which sell sprinkler irrigation apparatus nowadays are actually pipe-salesmen. They come to the farm and do no more than to consult a table and make certain calculations which the farmer could have looked up for himself in any event. This is very important, but it is not the most important. The second important branch of knowledge which we need if we apply irrigation is knowledge of soil hydrology. Of this we know very little. It relates to the movement of water in the soil if it is applied either from overhead or by means of flow irrigation. This lack of knowledge of soil hydrology causes us many great problems. Knowledge of the flow of water in the soil itself, the reaction of soil when it is irrigated, is a special branch of knowledge which we need to a much larger extent in South Africa.

Another important branch of science of which we should have more knowledge if we apply irrigation is the knowledge of plant physiology. This relates to the reaction of vegetation to excessive or inadequate water. All vegetation does not show the same reaction to irrigation. In the light of what I have now said, I want to emphasize that our basic problem is the plant-soil-water relationship. There is the relationship between the plant and the ground water itself. This concerns knowledge of the plant and its reaction and ground-water, etc. This problem of irrigation is one which has come to the fore in recent years, and the reason why I mention it now is that I think that in future we shall need considerably more knowledge of this problem and its various facets. Now it so happens that we are training some of our students as engineers, some as plant physiologists and some as soil hydrologists. There is not one university, however, which offers a complete course, including all three of these subjects, of which the hon. the Minister and his Department can make use. There is not one university which trains a man and equips him to combine these needs in such a way that the Department, and also concerns outside the Department, can make use of it. I mention this to the Minister, because I think that if anyone can draw attention to his need it is the hon. the Minister of Agricultural Technical Services, because his Department has to cope with this problem. It is the Minister’s need and problem to be able to give this guidance. We have engineers, we have soil hydrologists and we have plant physiologists. There is not one university, however, which presents a course combining these branches of science and which can produce people who are capable of doing the extension work and also the research in South Africa.

We are now engaged in a project near Pienaars River to establish a research station in respect of water affairs and hydrological problems. But this is not good enough. Research will in fact be undertaken, but there is not one university which will be able to take the knowledge which will become available, and also the knowledge which is already available throughout the world, and to make it available in the form of a complete course which can be of service to South Africa with regard to this ever-increasing problem. It is of no use that we build dams, it is of no use that we build great irrigation projects, if in the process of irrigation we salinize large tracts of our soil and create problems of compacting and saturation in other parts. These are things which will later have to be put right at an even higher cost than that of constructing the projects. For this reason I put it to the hon. the Minister as a suggestion that he should take the initiative to persuade our universities to meet this need and. in the words of the hon. the Minister some days ago, also with regard to this problem, to be purposeful in training and research. It would be pointless unless we combined these three separate problems in agriculture—separate as regards training—in a complete course which can be to our benefit in coping with this great problem which is threatening us in South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, I first of all should like to mention a few points which have been raised here by hon. members during this debate. It is quite obvious that the agriculturist to-day is faced with many problems, and so is the Government. The first one I should like to mention is the matter of the Karoo caterpillar which was discussed here the other day. The hon. the Minister said that it would be impracticable to find ways and means of poisoning the caterpillar. Now, I think we all agree on that point. I, too, do not think that it would be practical. The locust invasions that we have had in the past have proved that only too well. But I wonder whether it would not be worthwhile considering destroying the Karoo caterpillar—or the “rusper”, as it is generally known—by means of light. You know, Sir, that in many of our cities and villages we have yellow lights, which keep moths away. Surely, if we have lights that keep moths away, we can find a light which will attract moths? I believe that if we did this as an experiment it would not be costly either. I was thinking that we could put up lights in an infested area of the Karoo. They could be placed over large, flat containers containing a mixture of paraffin and water. The light could attract the moth before the laying stage and in that way we could kill them by the million without any undue cost or any unnecessary cost to the State. I believe that this is something which we should investigate.

Another point mentioned by my colleague, the hon. member for King William’s Town, is the expropriation of agricultural land for road construction purposes. I do not want to repeat what the hon. member has already said, but it brings me back to my hardy annual, and that is that, apart from large tracts of land being expropriated and fenced off for road construction, and apart from quarries being made, there is another matter requiring attention. When roads have been fenced off and quarries have been dug, the Cape farmer—and that means all agriculturalists in the Cape Province—still have to pay tax on that land as well. We have to pay Divisional Council taxes. I know that I will not receive much sympathy from hon. members in this House representing constituencies in other provinces, but this is a fact, and it is something that we in the Cape Province oppose almost 100 per cent. I have found very few people who do not agree with me on the abolition of Divisional Council road tax. I am pleased to hear the hon. the Deputy Minister has mentioned that in the Orange Free State the position is somewhat different. There the position obtains that when a quarry is being made the Administration sees to it, as does the National Transport Commission, that after the earth and gravel have been removed from the quarry, the land is returned to productivity once more. In other words, the quarry is either filled with storm water or it is fenced off and good soil put into it to cover up the “scar”. That, unfortunately, is not done to any great extent in this province, and I think it it something which we should seriously consider.

Now, we have been discussing throughout this debate the productivity of our soil, of the veld and land under cultivation. We realize— but unfortunately there are too few who so realize—the importance which attaches to the productivity of our soil. It has already been mentioned that only 34 per cent of our farms in South Africa have been planned. Only a small number of farms so planned have had their planning executed. Now it is so that during the life-time of an ordinary person, a person reaching, say, the age of 70 years, that person consumes 1,400 times his or her weight in food. In other words, that person’s life-time menu is made up of the following: 11 tons of meat, 18 tons of vegetables, four tons of sugar, two tons of cheese and milk, two tons of fruit and half a ton of salt. Now, that does not sound too much. But it is rather a long menu, I think. But if one realizes that in the year 2,000 our food production will have to be more than doubled, one realizes that long term planning for the future is called for. I believe that to increase our productivity so that we can produce double the present quantity of food by the year 2,000 we will have to start moving, and moving as quickly as we possibly can. I believe that one way in which we can do that is to develop the high rainfall areas, the areas which get the high rainfall and which lend themselves to pastures and have a high carrying capacity. I would say that those areas would include the whole of the Eastern Cape, the Eastern Free State, the Eastern Transvaal, and parts of Natal as well. Those are in the main the high rainfall areas of our country. We should now consider converting much of that land to perennial pastures and fodder. We should also pay attention to producing adapted legumes in those areas as well as fertilizer to further the growth. We should also in those areas concentrate on the difficult terrain as well, namely the mountainous country. I agree that veld-burning can be advantageous—I practise it quite a lot on my own property—provided one does it in the form of controlled veld-burning. It must be remembered that by lighting a single match one can quite effectively destroy much bush that has sprung up as a result of over-grazing. It can be destroyed quite easily by veld-burning. To rest that veld at the right time and to stock it at the right time, and to burn it again three or four years later—after having rested it over a good season—could be very advantageous. In that way we in the Eastern Cape at least are eradicating vast traces of bush, and in that way, too, we are not only destroying the bush but the grass structure is very rapidly being re-established. [Time limit.]

Mr. Chairman. I do not want to follow up what the hon. member for East London (North) said. However, I want to tell him that what he referred to is not applied in the Free State only. For example, the Cape Province last year amended the relevant ordinance so that farmers may now be paid out in full for land used for road building In other words, progress has now been made in this respect. I shall not say anything further about this enormous “menu” the hon. member quoted here. I want to come back to the matter I discussed just now. I want to indicate further what efficient service the Department of Agricultural Technical Services is rendering. We are rendering such efficient service that it is of value not only to the farmers in South Africa but also to farmers elsewhere. In this connection I want to quote from a letter received from the Director of Veterinary and Research Laboratory in Cairo, in the United Arab Republic. Just listen to what service we are rendering these people. I quote—

I just want to indicate what the Department is doing. In view of the fact that some hon. members want to suggest here that this is a weak department and that the services rendered by it are poor, I want to say here now that we could be the leader in Africa with these fine services already being rendered by this Department. This is a break-through of which all of us should be proud.

The other matter I want to deal with briefly is the following. Hon. members opposite complained that so little had been done as far as soil conservation was concerned. They suggested that there was a backlog and that the farmers could not afford the soil conservation works. The difficulty with the United Party and hon. members opposite is that their whole philosophy as regards soil conservation is wrong. I now want to tell them what is the correct philosophy in respect of soil conservation. I refer them to Genesis 2, vs. 15, where it is said, “Thou shalt dress the soil and keep it”. This forms the basis of the extension services rendered by this Department in respect of soil conservation. This is not the position only as far as we are concerned. The other day the hon. the Minister indicated the progress that had been made in South Africa, compared with that made in America. Let us see what attitude is adopted in America as regards this matter. That is the attitude we must adopt as well. The following appeared in an American magazine—

1. (a) putting the land into the use within its capability that will most nearly meet the needs of the land-owner, the community and the nation;
2. (b) preventing all forms of soil deterioration;
3. (c) restoring eroded and depleted soil;
4. (d) conserving moisture for crops, livestock and many other rural and urban uses;
5. (e) proper drainage and irrigation;
6. (f) water-shed protection and flood prevention; and
7. (g) whatever else is needed.

The purpose of all this is—

1. 1. To protect and improve the productive capacity of our land;
2. 2. to protect and improve the economic wellbeing of the family farmer; and
3. 3. to provide for food, fibre, water and space for relaxation for our nation’s growing population.

If this is the philosophy as regards soil conservation I am again going to weigh it up against the results we have already achieved in South Africa. In this short space of time— I furnished the figures just now—agricultural products have shown such an increase both as regards volume and value that we may rightly feel proud. That we could do only because we developed and are still developing the productivity of that soil as well. This is being done thanks to the extension service which is being rendered. I want to go further. Hon. members opposite are so fond of mentioning the backlog we have in South Africa as far as our soil conservation work is concerned. American soil conservation work was started in 1937. They state quite specifically that “about one-third of all crop land had been adequately treated by 1958: one-quarter of the ranch land and nearly one-half of the forest land …” What is the position in South Africa? We only got under way in 1948 under the 1946 Act. and yet we have already planned 34 per cent of the farms in the Republic fully. In America this figure is less. 98 Per cent of our districts have already been declared. In America, where they have been doing this kind of work for a much longer period, 97 per cent has been declared.

Those are only paper figures.

They may only be paper figures but they are correct— it is not guesswork, of which the hon. member opposite was guilty when he simply fabricated figures. That is the difference. No, Sir. When hon. member opposite want to run down this Department they must cite concrete facts here. I want to say very emphatically that the Americans are also not satisfied with what they have achieved up till now. I quote further from the report to which I referred earlier—

In other words, they are not satisfied either.

What figures did we simply fabricate?

You suggested that there was such a backlog as far as our soil conservation work was concerned that we ought to be ashamed of it.

That was what the Director of Soil Conservation said.

Yes, quite correct; the Director must issue warnings from time to time in the same way as the hon. the Minister and I have to issue warnings, because when we issue warnings we activate the farmers. Let the hon. member listen to this. In February, 1965, when I made a survey of the condition of the soil in South Africa and drew attention to this problem by means of film slides, that hon. member was one of the first who, together with other the hon. members over there, accused me of saying that the farmers were guilty of wasteful exploitation. It was suggested that I criticized the farmers because they were allegedly indulging in wasteful exploitation. But now we hear a totally different story. And why is it a different story? It is a different story because that side now realizes that organized agriculture, including the S.A.A.U., has finally come forward with recommendations as a result of the soil conservation consciousness we have cultivated. We have reached this stage thanks to the constant warnings and exhortations issued by the Minister and the Director of Soil Conservation in respect of soil erosion. For example, financial assistance was rendered under certain conditions to farmers according to the extent of their soil conservation works. We have successfully completed the task of convincing the farmers and the agricultural sector realizes that soil conservation is essential. Now hon. members opposite no longer level the charge that no soil conservation work is being done —they now come with the accusation that not enough has been done. No, Sir, it is a question here of that hon. member trimming his sails to the wind, the wind of opportunism prevailing at that moment.

I want to go further as regards this aspect. I want to put it to you this way, Sir. If we look at the U.S.A. again, we shall see that they adopt the attitude that soil conservation must be regarded as something which consists simultaneously of preparatory work and production. That is how we do it in South Africa. Soil conservation does not only mean the building of dams. Soil conservation does not stop at the erection of fences, nor at the construction of contours, which one can see so clearly from the air when flying over the Swartland. It must also offer an opportunity for biological recovery. Let us now analyse what this Government has done in that connection. I want to quote the example of the veld recovery scheme, of which the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens spoke so sceptically here the other day. The Government has made a survey and it is prepared to pay the necessary subsidies to the farmers under this scheme to compensate them for the loss of income they would suffer if they applied this scheme. In other words, if the farmer fixes this income per head of cattle at R8 per head and if he and other farmers cooperate and withdraw a certain number of stock or a certain number of morgen of land, calculated on the basis of such stock, the State will subsidize the farmer to the extent of R8 per head for the loss of income he will suffer as a result of such withdrawal. That is to say, if he proceeds further with his soil conservation and farm planning work. How can the hon. member for Newton Park and that hon. member behind him say that the farmer cannot afford it? This is not being forced on the farmer. The farmer is actually being subsidized to carry out this work. The hon. member says it will cost R600 million to complete our soil conservation works and they are prepared to vote this amount.

Those are Mr. Van der Merwe’s figures as well.

I want to say to the hon. member that it is going to cost much more. Look what is happening in America at the “dust bowl”. American technicians tell us that for every rand that is spent to build a dam, it pays the State to spend R1.50 to protect that dam from silting up. In South Africa we have varying topography; we have high mountain regions. We know that if the dam breaks the veld downstream will be smothered. It cannot be said that the reason for this is the incompetence of the Government or the laxity of the Department. We are waging a continual struggle against natural conditions against storms and wind, in an attempt to save and conserve the soil. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, hon. members on the Opposition side spoke with a certain measure of contempt of the work being done under the Soil Conservation Act. I should like to say a few words about this matter, particularly in view of what has already been done in this connection.

We know that since 1946 the idea of soil conservation and veld control has become current in the country and every farmer has come to realize that the soil belongs to posterity. Our task then is to conserve that soil and not to exploit it wastefully. Since then 815 soil conservation districts, covering a total area of more than 13 million morgen, have been declared.

That is not correct.

No, the figures are correct.

It is 115 million morgen.

The figure is more than 13 million. The work done over the past years has enabled us farmers to look back and view the fruits of our labour with pride. Soil conservation measures and camp systems have been applied and the veld has been improved generally. We realize that as a result of the serious drought these betterment works that were undertaken suffered a very severe setback. Our grazing projects were disrupted; vegetation was destroyed to a very large extent; dust storms occurred; desert conditions developed in many parts of the country and threatened us. The hon. the Deputy M mister described the situation in a certain province very well when he said the following—

Progress reported.