Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Chairman, I rise to move the following amendment which stands in my name on the Order Paper—

The object is to attempt to provide a definition of the expression which appears throughout the Bill, namely the “culture of the white population of the Republic”. The definition which, with apologies to Matthew Arnold, I have thought might best describe what the “culture of the white population of the Republic” is as set out in my amendment. You see, Sir, I think it is very important that we attempt, and this is no more than an attempt, to define what it is that we mean by the “culture of the white population of the Republic”. The reason why I think this is important is that the hon. the Minister of National Education will in terms of the Bill have the power to do certain things of his own accord, in consultation in one instance only with the hon. the Minister of Finance. He will have the power to “acquire, develop and maintain movable and immovable property” in the first place, and in the second place to “award bursaries and make grants for the undertaking of educational tours to foreign countries”. That is one aspect. He does that in order to foster the culture of the white population of the Republic. I do not think one can assess what the Minister does when he spends our money unless we can determine here what sort of thing he should foster, so that we can later measure what the Minister and his successors do with our money in fostering that culture.

He has also the power, without consultation with anyone but the Minister of Finance, to do certain other things. He does not have to consult the National Advisory Cultural Council. He has the further power to “award bursaries to persons in other countries for the purposes of study or research in the Republic”, to “arrange for visits by persons from other countries to the Republic, and from the Republic to other countries”, and to “arrange for the exhibition of art”, etc., and he may also “subsidize or finance a chair in a university … in any other country”. He may also “donate books and periodicals to libraries and similar institutions … in other countries”. These are events which are going to cause the Minister to exercise his mind, in the first place, and then to spend our money, in the second place. Nowhere in the Bill does there appear to be any sort of attempt to define what “the culture of the white population of the Republic” is. I think that after the Minister embarks upon this programme, where he has absolute power to spend this money out of moneys appropriated by Parliament, when we as Parliament assess how he has spent that money, we should be able to determine some sort of standard to assess what the Minister does against a standard which we here set. It is true that in clause 3 of the Bill the National Advisory Cultural Council may “make recommendations to the Minister, of its own accord or at the request of the Minister” as to certain matters which are there defined, namely “the plastic arts, music, the literary arts, out-of-school education of adults and youthful persons, the acquisition, in popular fashion, …"—we shall come to that later—“… of knowledge of the applied, natural and human sciences, and the utilization of leisure, including physical recreative activities which are of such a nature as not to be courses of training with a view to participating in competitions…”. Now, that is not a definition of culture, because this is unrelated to the powers which the Minister will have in terms of clause 2. The Minister there spends the money appropriated by Parliament without reference to anybody.

I propose this amendment as an attempt to define what that culture is, and it has a reference to our country and to the world. It is certainly wide, but it is at any rate an attempt to define what sort of things the hon. the Minister should spend our money on. He should spend our money on “pursuing the total perfection of” the white population of the Republic by means of acquainting the members of that population with the best which has been thought, said and done in South Africa, and indeed in the world, in respect of those matters which most concern this population.

I have looked around in an attempt to find some sort of definition, and I think these words of Matthew Arnold come closest to it. This definition does not come from my own mind and from my own thoughts, nor is the language entirely mine—it comes mostly from Matthew Arnold. I think we should at least attempt to place some background in the Bill against which we can measure what the Minister does when he tries to administer the Act.

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to doubt the good intentions of the hon. member for Durban (North) at all. I think his intentions are very good, but I doubt whether he has really considered in depth, or perhaps he did not know, what the implications of his definition will be. We have inserted clause 3 in this Bill with the very object of restricting and defining the sphere of cultural activity, because if this is not done and we accept this definition of culture by the hon. member, it will mean that we will have to bring a great many cultural activities which at present fall under other Government Departments, under the education departments of the various provinces, and under private organizations. There is a vast number of private organizations which perform certain cultural activities. We will have to bring all those activities together under this umbrella. If, notwithstanding all these problems, I should still consider accepting the definition, it would mean that I would also have to amend clause 3, because that clause restricts the activities upon which this council advises the Minister. I would have to amend clause 3. For example, I would have to take into account the education departments I mentioned, the Department of Social Welfare, which performs certain of these cultural functions, the Department of Agricultural Technical Services, etc., and incorporate all the functions performed by them into the Department of Cultural Affairs. I cannot simply act upon a definition, and then allow those other separate departments to continue with those activities. I believe in co-ordination too, but the hon. member will recall how in 1967, in order to bring about a little co-ordination in the most important matters in education we had to struggle, in the case of the National Education Policy Act, to do this without interfering with established rights, without laying down immediate provisions and without wanting to bring everything under one umbrella. I foresee that, in spite of the hon. member’s good intentions, we shall only incur the ill-will of other bodies. Therefore I want to suggest that we should not attempt to define a delicate matter such as cultural activity in such a way that it will fit into a certain framework, but that we should rather start off from an existing practice. In my Second Reading speech I said that all the things mentioned by the hon. member were being done at present. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout summed the matter up correctly. There can be no objection to it. These things are only being put into statutory form now. Instead of Parliament having full authority over this appropriated money as before, they only received a general amount that was voted for these cultural activities. The Minister, in co-operation with his standing committees, distributed this money. But under this legislation Parliament is now obtaining a far greater measure of control, because these amounts are being specified and will appear in a specified form in the annual report. Therefore I want to suggest that we do not at this stage attempt to insert any definition. Time will tell whether, in the course of the development, it will became possible later on. So let us keep to the provisions of clause 3. Let us continue along the old beaten track and let us not object to doing so. Let us rather promote a good cause and let us not differ on it. I am sorry, therefore, that I cannot accept this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister used a fine expression, namely “ ’n mooi saak uitbou”. I am with him. I appreciate that this is what one should try and do. My proposed definition attempts to make this, in fact, a “mooi saak”, which we can build on and build out. But I think the hon. the Minister misses my point.

I did not miss one point you made.

Well, the hon. the Minister indicated by his reply, perhaps, that he did not appreciate my point. The hon. the Minister says that clause 3 (3) defines really what this Bill is about. I think that is a fair statement of what the hon. the Minister has said. He then said that, if this amendment is to be accepted, he would have to do all sorts of things affecting other departments. His powers, in terms of clause 2, are not at all confined by the definition, inasmuch as it is a definition, of the functions of the council in clause 3 (3). That is the Minister’s case. He says that it is intended to deal with those matters set out in clause 3 (3). Where does the hon. the Minister see that? There is no suggestion that the Minister, in exercising his powers under clause 2, namely with regard to the endowment of chairs at universities, the provision of bursaries, the provision of travel fellowships and all the matters that are set out there, has to do that in respect of those matters dealt with in clause 3 (3). That is not so. There is no restriction on the hon. the Minister’s powers to those matters in the relevant clause. Clause 3 (3) stipulates that the council may advise the Minister to do various things in relation to those matters I have read out, for example the plastic arts, out-of-school education, and so on. But the hon. the Minister may, without consultation, without reference to the advisory council, do what he is entitled to do in terms of clause 2 (1) (a) and (b). That is my point.

What difference will it make if we have a definition of “culture”?

The difference lies in the extent to which the hon. the Minister may implement what the advisory committee suggests in terms of clause 3 (3). There we have defined what the matters are the hon. the Minister may implement and on what he may spend money. The difference is that, in clause 2 where the Minister has the power to acquire property, for example, to award bursaries and make grants for the undertaking of educational tours to foreign countries, he is not confined to what the council advises him. He has a free hand, as it says here, “to foster the culture of the white population of the Republic”. That has no relation whatsoever to the plastic arts and all the other matters set out in clause 3 (3). It is a different power. He has this power unrestricted.

Very clever.

It is no good the hon. the Minister saying “He is very clever”. It is not a question of being “clever”. It is a question of looking at this Bill. In respect of what matters does the hon. the Minister want to do this? This is what I want to know. All I want to know, is, if we are going to give him this power firstly, and in the second place, appropriate money, so that the Minister can exercise his powers, is he going to restrict it? Will he perhaps answer this question? Is he going to restrict it to those matters stipulated in clause 3 (3), namely the plastic arts, etc.? If he is, why does he then not put it in the Bill? If he is not, how is the hon. the Minister going to define to himself the expression “the culture of the white population of the Republic”? Because he is here given the power to spend money in order to foster that concept. That is what I want to know. I think we are entitled to know. I hope that the difference between clause 3 (3) and the powers contained in clause 2 are now clear. That is why, in answer to the hon. the Minister’s question, I think we should have a definition. Because when he exercises those powers, we can assess what he has done in accordance with what we think he should spend that money on. I hope that now that I have perhaps explained the misunderstanding between the hon. the Minister and myself in relation to clause 3 (3) and clause 2, the hon. the Minister will indicate whether he is prepared to confine his powers in clause 2 to deal only with those matters set out in clause 3 (3).

Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member for Durban (North) has rendered a very valuable service in introducing this amendment. This is a Bill to provide for the preservation, development, fostering and extension of the culture of the white population of the Republic. During our Second-Reading discussion there was a divergence of opinion. There were hon. members who confused two cultures with this culture of the white population. They were not quite sure what it meant. There were speeches from hon. members which made it quite clear that they were confused about it. Now it seems to me the hon. the Minister is also a bit confused, if I may anticipate our discussion of clause 3, to which the hon. the Minister has referred. In his amendment to clause 3, he says that these people, who are going to be the important people on the council, must have adequate knowledge of the two official languages and the two cultures of the two white population groups of the Republic. I think I am justified in referring to this, because it reveals what the hon. the Minister has in mind. So, when we come to the definition of the “culture of the white population”, I think this definition is an exceedingly good one. I would ask the hon. the Minister to accept it. I cannot think of a better one. I think it is an excellent one. It is one that would apply to all people in this country.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to put a question to the hon. member for Durban (North). Does he really think that if this amendment is accepted, he can ensure how the money is going to be spent, and what the money is going to be spent on? I fail to see that. I listened very carefully to what he had to say, but the position will remain unaltered. If the Minister wants to spend the money in a certain way, he can do so at his pleasure.

Mr. Chairman. I am glad that the hon. the Minister has asked that question. I agree that with this definition we would not be able to stop the Minister spending the money in any way he chooses.

But you suggested that.

No, Sir. [Interjections.] The hon. members who make noises on the other side must appreciate that one of the functions they have as members of this House is to vote their people’s money towards the various causes of administration. One of the things which distinguishes this side from that side of the House, is that we like to examine how that money is spent.

Order! Will the hon. member confine himself to the amendment and the question before the House?

Mr. Chairman, this is my whole point, and my answer to the hon. the Minister’s question. The Minister asked what difference the amendment would make to the manner in which he spends the money. I say that it will make no difference to what he spends, but it will give us here, the custodians of the people’s money, an assurance. This is our main function as a House of Assembly.

But I gave very sound reasons why I cannot accept your amendment.

Yes, Sir, but surely we are entitled to examine the way in which the Minister spends our money in furthering the culture of the white people of South Africa? We are entitled to examine it, using a certain test. What is that test? Surely there should be some test, so that when this Minister or his successor, whoever he may be, spends that money, or asks for more money, we can examine the spending of that money in the light of a definition of culture? But with no definition whatsoever, it means that the hon. the Minister may buy movable and immovable property. He may award bursaries and make grants for the undertaking of educational tours to foreign countries.

That has been the practice for many years.

Yes, the Minister can do so, but now this provision is being placed on the Statute Book. He may do this in order to foster the culture of the white population of the Republic. Now, what does that mean? It is as simple as that. That is the whole purpose of this amendment. When the Minister exercises that power without reference to anyone else except the man who is going to give him the money, namely the Minister of Finance, what is he going to foster? Is it going to be anything the Minister thinks will affect the culture of the white population of South Africa, or is it going to be something which we can define? Is there anything wrong with the definition which I have proposed?

That is what I told you in my first remarks.

Yes, I know. The Minister said that I had moved this amendment in all good faith. I accept that, but if there is nothing wrong with the definition, and if it is broad enough, why does the Minister not want to accept it? The Minister also has the power—and this has nothing to do with the plastic arts, etc.—to award bursaries and to endow a Chair without reference to the advisory council. If the Minister is to endow a Chair at a university in another country, surely we are entitled to prescribe what the hon. the Minister shall spend that money on? This is now left entirely to the discretion of the Minister.

I am very indebted to the hon. member for Kensington for indicating that he thought that this was a fair definition of the culture of the white population. As I have said, I have moved this amendment in an attempt to define it, because I think it ought to be defined. If there is something wrong with it, perhaps the hon. the Minister will indicate what is wrong with it. If there is a better suggestion, I do not mind. I am not wedded to this definition. It is the best that I could find, but someone else might find a better definition. If someone will suggest a better definition, I am sure that we shall all be delighted to discuss it. I am not wedded to this definition. I just say that we must have some definition so that we, the people’s representatives, can then better judge how this Minister, without consultation with anyone else except the man who gives him the money, is spending our money to achieve the object at which this Bill is aimed.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Durban (North) is playing with words in his arguments now. Moreover, he keeps on repeating the same argument. I should like to point out that clause 3 is the very clause that contains everything that is stated by the hon. member in his definition. It is stated clearly enough there. The amendment moved by the hon. member reads as follows:

Here, therefore, we are dealing not only with the culture in South Africa, but also with hat of the outside world. Apart from what the Minister said so clearly, it would require a tremendous amount of work and a large staff to cover that field, i.e. the world, as well. I therefore want to ask the Minister to retain the definition in clause 1 as it stands at present. It is unnecessary to add this definition that is proposed by the hon. member.

Amendment put and negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

Clause 2:

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

The first part of the amendment seeks to insert the words “after consultation with the council and” after the word “may” in line 18. The clause will then read as follows:

The clause then goes on to detail the actual powers which the Minister will have in terms of this clause. He will, inter alia, have the power to acquire and develop property, and to award bursaries and grants to people to encourage educational tours to foreign countries. He will also have the power to award bursaries to persons in other countries and to do various other things which, I believe should be carried out after consultation with this particular council which the Bill will bring into being. If one considers the composition of this particular council, it is quite clear that the members will be appointed by the Minister himself. I am quite satisfied that the hon. the Minister will only appoint the members on the basis that he has full confidence in them and that he feels that they are adequately qualified to carry out the duties which he has in mind for them and for which this Bill makes provision. I believe, therefore, that it will further the intentions of this Bill that the Minister should consult with this particular council. In clause 2 (3) (b), in line 23, we notice that the Minister has accepted in this particular instance, that consultation with the council has certain merit, because this particular subsection reads, inter alia, as follows:

So, with that in mind, I believe that it would be to the benefit of the working of the council if the Minister will accept this particular amendment. Referring to the second part of the amendment, i.e. in line 31 on page 4 after “Minister” to insert “after consultation with the council” subsection (5) of clause 2 will then read as follows “a bursary or a grant or a subsidy or the financing of a service in terms of subsection (1) or (3) shall be subject to such conditions as the Minister after consultation with the council determines …” In subsection (3) of clause 3 the functions of the council are laid down and the subsection reads as follows: “The functions of the council shall be to make recommendations to the Minister, of its own accord or at the request of the Minister, as to how the culture of the white population of the Republic may be best preserved, developed, fostered or extended …” I have indicated that the hon. the Minister should have confidence in his appointees and I believe that this will be a tangible way to show to the people appointed to this council, that the Minister has full confidence in them and that he intends, wherever possible, to consult with them and to consider the advice which they are prepared to offer. I believe that if it is put forward as amended there is no doubt as to the extent to which the consultation will take place.

Mr. Chairman, clause 2 only deals with the acquisition of funds, and surely the hon. member will accept that this is so. To me it is unthinkable that a Minister who appoints councils and commissions will not ask these bodies for their advice and will not use their advice as a basis in calculating what the cost is going to be. Surely it is quite unnecessary to propose this amendment. After all, a Minister will not simply think up some fictitious amount and then go to the Minister of Finance and tell him that this is the amount he needs. This procedure is followed every year by every department in respect of every amount appearing on the Estimates. All the divisions of a department follow exactly the same procedure and prepare draft estimates first. The Minister considers these draft estimates and indicates which items should be increased or reduced and in this way the final and complete Estimates are prepared. For example, how would the Minister be able to say that a certain amount should be provided for bursaries and that a certain amount should be allocated to something else if he did not first consult these advisory bodies he had appointed? I submitted the amendment moved by the hon. member to the law advisers, who regarded it as unnecessary. This is such an unnecessary amendment to a Bill that anyone who has any legal knowledge would ask why we were so foolish as to insert it in the Bill. I have no legal knowledge myself, but I feel that I cannot expose myself to this. As I have said, I submitted the amendment to the law advisers, who said it was ridiculous. Under these circumstances I cannot dream of accepting it.

Mr. Chairman, I have listened to the hon. the Minister’s explanation and I also am not a legal expert, but from a purely practical point of view I believe that the amendment has certain merits. I believe that any body concerned with culture and appointed by people of the stature the hon. the Minister envisages will have experience which will be of value to the Minister and his department. I see no great practical difficulty when it comes to the question of acquiring property and awarding bursaries, whether they be for people coming from overseas or for people leaving South Africa, or to arrange for visits or official exhibitions, that these people will be able at a suitable time when the Minister is discussing the Budget with his financial advisers to put forward what they consider would be a reasonable programme to be carried out if and when the funds become available. It was on that basis that the amendment was put forward, because I believe that the hon. the Minister, with due respect to his ability, is not able to devote detail and his full attention to a council of this nature with the multifarious duties and responsibilities which he as Minister has to perform. Here is a case where it is possible under those circumstances to give the council which is being created in terms of this Bill the opportunity to place these facts before the hon. the Minister. I believe that these facts can only be of use to the hon. the Minister if he chose to accept this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, do I understand that the hon. the Minister will in any case consult the council?

Yes, certainly.

Why not insert the amendment then? We have this phrase in many of our other laws. [Interjections.]

Order! I only called on the hon. member for Kensington to make a speech and not on any other member. We are now having four or five speeches at the same time and we cannot listen to them all. Will the hon. member for Kensington please proceed?

My point is, Sir, that this amendment only brings this Bill in line with many others we have had where this question of consultation comes up. I think the amendment will improve the clause.

Mr. Chairman, I cannot understand the arguments advanced by the two hon. members. The essence of this Bill is the establishment of a national cultural council, which has to be consulted by the Minister. The hon. member now wants the words “after consultation with the council” inserted after the word “Minister” wherever it occurs. The Bill provides for an advisory body, and now the hon. member expects those words to be inserted every time the Minister is mentioned in the Bill. If the hon. member wants to be consistent: there are a few other instances, which I can point out to him, where the word “Minister” occurs and in respect of which he does not propose the insertion of these words. The hon. member should be consistent and insert the words there as well. I think it is quite unnecessary and superfluous to insert those words, because the entire Bill implies that the Minister has to consult the board every time.

Mr. Chairman, surely the hon. member for Berea has suggested a very reasonable amendment. The hon. the Minister has himself said that he is going to consult them anyway and, therefore, why not have it in the Bill. The hon. the Minister has already said that in relation to these powers he has in clause 2 that they really were confined to those matters set out in clause 3, subsection (3). They are clearly not confined to those matters and I think the hon. the Minister appreciates this. The powers he has under clause 2 are not confined to the matters referred to in clause 3 (3). If it was his first thought that they might have been confined to those matters he should consult with the advisory board who deals with those matters. The hon. the Minister has to deal with a matter which concerns the white population of the Republic. I am wondering whether the hon. the Minister is listening to me or to the hon. the Minister of Transport. [Interjections.] Can the hon. the Minister speak with two cultures at the same time? Surely the hon. the Minister appreciates that something should be done here. He talks about the culture of the English-speaking people and the culture of the Afrikaans-speaking people. I grant him all this, but what I want to say is that here this hon. Minister is going to create, for example, a Chair in the university for the furtherance of the culture of the white population of the Republic. The hon. the Minister is an Afrikaans-speaking Minister and his culture is within that group, is that of an Afrikaans-speaking member of the Republic. Why, then, does he not consult with a board so that any views he might have which do not coincide with the culture of the whole of the population can be tested? Because, surely, he should test his views against that. To endow a Chair is very important. But it is also important to know what sort of Chair he is going to endow. What sort of Chair will he endow? Remember, he will do it on his own, i.e. without consulting anyone. I hope, therefore, the Minister can give us some indication of the type of Chair he has in mind. It is this sort of thing which requires that one should consult with members of the other language group of the white population of the Republic. Because we are dealing with the entire white population; that is why I want a definition. We are dealing with the white population of the Republic and their culture.

Order! Is the hon. member now coming back to the definitions?

No, Sir. We have already decided that we are not going to have a definition. That is all the more reason why there should be consultation with a committee which should be representative, and presumably is going to be representative, of all groups constituting the white population. The hon. the Minister has an amendment on the Order Paper on another clause. He talks about “bilingual” people who are aware of the culture of the groups.

Order! The hon. member is now, apparently, dealing with an amendment in another clause. He seems to be dealing with all the clauses at the same time, and he should come back to the clause under discussion.

Surely, Mr. Chairman, I am entitled to refer to something else with the object of producing an example which has relevance to my argument? That is all I am doing. There is the example. Well, the hon. the Minister may regard himself as being such a person, i.e. as one having knowledge of the cultures of the two white population groups. On the other hand, he may not be such a person. But if he proposes to appoint a committee consisting of members who do have knowledge of all the cultures, then he should be obliged to consult that committee. As I have said, the hon. the Minister may regard himself as being such a person. On the other hand, I may not regard him as being such a person. What is more, the hon. the Minister will have a successor one day and that person may not have the same views as this hon. Minister. My point is that the Minister has absolute power under this clause. It is not necessary for him to consult with anybody whatever, except with the Minister of Finance. But what grounds can there possibly be for the Minister not consulting with the Advisory Board which he proposes to set up and which is to be representative of all the various aspects of the culture of the white groups in South Africa?

Sir, this amendment is not only reasonable but on the Minister’s own utterances, one which he ought to accept.

Mr. Chairman, allow me to say the following. I want to repeat what I said in the first place, i.e. that any body which is created for the purpose of advising, will be consulted in connection with every relevant matter. In the second place, if the hon. member for Berea had proposed that it should take place “in” consultation with the council, the argument advanced by the hon. member for Durban (North) would have made some sense. However, as long as one talks of “after consultation”, the Minister may approach the council, consult it and thereafter simply ignore its advice. As I have said, if the amendment of the hon. member read “in consultation with”, it would have made some sense because the Minister would then have been obliged to accept the advice.

If the hon. member for Berea alters his amendment accordingly, will you accept it?

No. Even then I would not be prepared to accept it. The reason why I raised this was merely to show that if the hon. member for Berea had proposed it in the first place, the argument advanced by the hon. member for Durban (North) would at least have made some sense. However, as the amendment reads now, the hon. member is talking nonsense. By way of summary, I therefore want to say that I regard this amendment as quite unnecessary. It has neither value nor significance, because the advisory body will be consulted as a matter of course in any case. After all, this is the reason for its existence.

Amendments put and negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

Clause 3:

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper. It reads—

Before saying anything further about this amendment, there are one or two questions I should like to put to the Minister. In clause 3 (3) it is stated that the functions of the council will be to make recommendations to the Minister as to how the culture of the white population of the Republic may best be preserved, developed, fostered or extended. Then four fields (a), (b), (c) and (d) are demarcated, and then these words follow, “and such other fields as the Minister from time to time determines on the recommendation of the Public Service Commission”. Why should the Public Service Commission be brought into the picture here at all? That is my first question. My second question is what the “other fields” actually are. Could the hon. the Minister perhaps give us an indication of what fields he has in mind in this regard?

It is a matter which the advisory council will discuss—that which the hon. member for Durban (North) wanted to do just now already in anticipation.

Very well, then there is still subsection (4) in which it is provided that the Minister may appoint one or more permanent commissions to make recommendations to the council as to the particular facets of the work of the council. It has never been clear to me why the hon. the Minister wants to appoint such commissions himself to make recommendations to the council as to particular facets of the work of that council.

For example, the music people may be completely organized; the plastic arts people may be completely organized. Their councils can advise these people very easily.

Nevertheless I should like to learn what the hon. the Minister has in mind here. Can he give me an example of the kind of commission he has in mind? I take it that when the hon. Minister drafted this Bill he did have certain ideas as to why he included these specific points in the Bill.

What do you want to do with my secret thoughts now? What do you want to do with the dreams I dream?

It is difficult for us to decide whether we should approve of something if we do not know what the Minister is up to. In any case, I have already moved the amendment to this clause which I wanted to move. The Minister himself has an amendment on the Order Paper, and when he moves it, we will give our opinion on it. Nobody will object to it being prescribed that a member of the cultural council should have a knowledge of the two official languages and the cultures of the two white population groups. To my mind that is self-evident.

Order! The Minister has not yet moved his amendment. For that reason the hon. member cannot discuss it now.

Very well, Mr. Chairman. I would then like to refer to the hon. the Minister’s Second Reading speech, and I just want to say that nobody has the least objection to the members of this cultural council being bilingual. In the second reading the hon. Minister stated it to be his view that we were clearly dealing with two groups in South Africa, with two languages and two cultures. I notice a contradiction in the hon. Minister’s attitude, because as soon as we insist that the hon. the Minister should recognize the duality of South Africa in this respect in the appointment of public councils, then the Minister states, as he did in his Second Reading speech, that the time is past when one should still ask what a person’s home language is.

I did not use the word that the time was past when one should still see what a man’s home language is. I said it was time we asked ourselves whether the man understood both languages.

Yes, but the Minister also stated clearly that we had reached a stage of national unity where one no longer had to make appointments on the basis of a person’s home language. That, at any rate, is how I understand the Minister, but if I am wrong, I will be pleased, because I then take it that the Minister will support this amendment. What is at issue here is the question that when it comes to appointments to a council, and we are dealing here with two distinct groups, then it is not merely a question of bilingualism. It is a question of different interests. After all, we must accept the fact that an Afrikaans speaking and an English-speaking person displays a measure of partiality for what is his own. The Minister, who is sitting there as an Afrikaans speaking person, is after all partial to that which belongs to the Afrikaans culture, or is he not? I am prepared to state that as far as I am concerned, without my doing an injustice to the other man, I as Afrikaans speaking person am partial to what is Afrikaans. Now, the point is that when the hon. the Minister appoints members to a council, the entire council can, as this clause is phrased at present, consist of Afrikaans speaking people only. The Minister must remember that what is concerned here is a cultural council, in regard to which people from the two language groups are sensitive. One would not like to have the idea take root that one was being favoured above the other. Since one is dealing with the two groups and since one would like to see that justice is done to both, it is obvious that the Afrikaans speaking persons on that council will be partial to what is their own. In order to eliminate any difficulty in future, we should like to see the Minister recognize the fact that one has these two groups and that in the constitution of that council one has members who are Afrikaans as well as English speaking; in other words, as I put it there, that full regard should be had to the bilingual character of South Africa.

I will just have to make use of the same method as that used by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, i.e. to say something more about clause 3 before I come to the amendment. The hon. member asked why one should appoint more people from outside if one has a council and bring in even more people from outside as committees. It would be quite impossible for members of this Cultural Council, who will be appointed, to be experts in every sphere. There will be a commission on youth work, a commission on the art of writing, on poetry, on prose, on drama, and on music, on opera and on ballet. How is one going to have all these facets represented in the Council if one does not bring in the experts from outside? That is the intention, and nothing more. It will not be such a big council. These people will have to be advised. Even if I were, for example, to appoint one person for each of these facets to such a council, one would still be unable to accept the one person’s opinion as the authoritative opinion. By this time I have seen, working only with the plastic arts, what tremendous differences of opinion can exist among artists in only one group. The same applies to any category of one’s arts and one’s culture. There are no two people who have the same opinion on painting, for example. The one says this is excellent, and the other says that is excellent; this matter is unsatisfactory, and that is better. That is the reason for this.

I am sorry, but you misunderstood me. I should like to know from the hon. the Minister why he cannot simply issue an instruction to the Cultural Council in regard to what he wants. Why must the Minister appoint the commissions instead of instructing the council as to what he wants and leaving the appointment of the various commissions to them?

But the commissions must make recommendations to the council. How can the council appoint that commission to make a recommendation to it? [Interjection.] That is something else again. After all, somebody must do it. But one cannot establish an advisory board and then instruct the advisory board to constitute a commission. You would be surprised if you worked with this kind of thing in practice. The best thing to do is to struggle hard to get into power and to get into a ministerial position where you have to do administrative work and then obtain various opinions, particularly from artists. You would be surprised to know what goes on, and that is a good thing too. You do not only want one opinion. The Minister can never pretend to be an expert in that field, but he does have the power of judgment to be able to say: Here is a direction and that person represents this direction, and the other one represents that direction, and that is why it would be best to establish a permanent commission so as to get the best advice with the expert assistance of those people. I am very sorry, but I think that in practice these things work quite differently. It is precisely eight years now that I have been dealing with these matters and I know what the problems are. This is not merely being inserted here in order to give the Minister power; what happens in practice has proved it to be necessary.

The other question which the hon. member asked is what the Public Service Commission was doing there. The Public Service Commission is absolutely necessary when the functions of a Department have to be determined. It must go through to them and they must state that this function can now be expanded, because this council still remains part of the Department.

Now, as far as the amendment is concerned, I wonder whether the hon. member for Bezuidenhout knows and realizes what the result would be if I accept his amendment? His amendment reads as follows “In the appointment of the members of the council referred to in subsection (2) and of the commission referred to in subsection (4) the Minister shall have regard to the bilingual character of the country”. I wonder whether the hon. member for Bezuidenhout would accept that if it is stated like that, then I have the right to appoint unilingual Afrikaans-speaking and unilingual English-speaking persons to that council. Nowhere in the Bill will he be able to prevent me from doing so if I want to interpret that amendment of his in that way. Now I am asking him if that is the way he wants it?

Certainly not.

That is why I say it is now time I moved my amendment. It is with pleasure that I move my amendment, as printed, and I just want to add this. I did not say what the hon. member for Bezuidenhout claimed I had said in my Second Reading speech. I must repeat those words I used. As I have already indicated during the Second Reading debate, I do not regard it to be in the national interest, and persons who are appointed ought to be thoroughly bilingual and ought to have a proper understanding of both national cultures. I elaborated on this by saying that only if this was the case and there was mutual understanding, a mutual appreciation and a mutual ability and urge to foster both cultures in every sphere, then only can we ask that we establish a joint cultural council, under one umbrella body, although two cultures, with two languages, which will gradually grow closer towards one another, are concerned in this. But sit down with a few unilingual Afrikaans-speaking persons and an equal number of English-speaking persons who, as far as I am concerned, are also unilingual, unilingual in this sense that they do perhaps have a working knowledge of either one or the other of the two languages, but they cannot sit on a cultural council if they are not properly grounded in both cultures, if they do not have an understanding and an appreciation and sympathy for these. One would then be looking for trouble, and there are going to be outbursts. That is why I say I cannot accept the hon. member for Bezuidenhout’s amendment, and I think mine is the solution. Let me admit now that many of these councils are being appointed, and there is a certain tradition which is taking shape in these councils. I shall, to the utmost of my ability, look for these people to find these people in both language groups, and not only in one language group. That will be my endeavour. In fact, we have at present on these councils which are functioning without this Act, excellent persons, who are marvellously bilingual, doing the work, either from the English language group or the Afrikaans language group. Jointly, they are co-operating extremely well together. Therefore I want to state now that if we want to take a step forward, there should also be trust. Without trust we cannot progress at all, that is if we do not believe one another. This side of the House, with our true striving after national unity would be the greatest fools under the sun not to do so; we would be bringing about our own downfall. But that side of the House is sabotaging this because they have no faith in the Afrikaans-speaking or in the English-speaking people, and they have no faith in this Government.

Nonsense. Up to now you have made quite a reasonable speech.

I now want them to produce the proof. The hon. member for Durban (North) must not think that I am afraid of him. He can shout as much as he likes. It has never made me feel afraid. I am asking that we should not be suspicious in these cultural matters. I only said that if it would satisfy hon. members I would introduce this subsection. There was nothing in my original Bill. But it began during the Second Reading debate; then that suspicion began to crop up. What is one going to do now? The hon. member for Kensington was the first to be a party to this, and he reproached me. He said that on the Education Council I had not maintained the ratio between Afrikaans- and English-speaking persons. I told him what my problems were, and he knows it very well. This was elaborated on and then I said that to state it so that there could be no possible doubt, I was willing to come forward with an amendment. And now I am adding something to the amendment. If I am spared, I will appoint this first council; and with this amendment I will see to it that qualified Afrikaans-speaking and qualified English-speaking persons will be appointed to this council. I move my amendment, as follows—

Mr. Chairman, I am afraid we are quarrelling here about something in regard to which no quarrel exists. I was eager to have the hon. the Minister move his amendment first because there can be no possible objection to it. The Minister’s amendment deals with the question of the bilingual requirement for members of the Council; that we accept; we accepted it as being self-evident that a member on such a council should be bilingual. [Interjections.] No, these are two quite separate matters. The Minister is trying to create a contrast between things which are not in contrast to one another. These are two entirely different matters. We are entirely in favour of the provision that the members of the council should be bilingual. The hon. the Minister is a bilingual person; I am reasonably bilingual; but we are Afrikaans-speaking Afrikaners in the first place, part of the Afrikaans cultural group. I am now coming forward with a supplementary motion. We have no objection to the Minister’s amendment. We thought it was self-evident that he would appoint bilingual persons, and since he has now incorporated it in the Act, we accept it. Thank you very much; we have no objection to it. But I am now dealing with another point, and my point is that we would like to make certain that this Council will be representative of the two cultural groups. Both must be bilingual. Sir, let me say this to the hon. the Minister, and he must not be perturbed at my having to say this to him: If there is suspicion then the hon. the Minister is to blame. One does not want to deal with this kind of matter all day. We insist that justice should be done to both groups, and as Afrikaans-speaking person I should particularly like to see that when Afrikaans-speaking persons are in power, they must see to it that justice is done towards the English-speaking persons. [Interjections.] I think it can be proved, in regard to the councils which the hon. the Minister appoints, that very little attention is being paid there to English-speaking groups. I am saying this in a friendly sense to the hon. the Minister, but what do we find if we examine the list of appointments which he makes to public councils?

That is not relevant now.

It is certainly relevant, because that is the problem. If the Minister denies it, then we can consider it when his Vote is being discussed. We are two groups in the country, and one would prefer, in public bodies, to have an equitable balance between the two groups. The one is 60 per cent and the other approximately 38 per cent.

Bilingualism is certainly a determining factor but merit comes first.

Of course merit comes first. But what I find so strange is the inconsistency in the Minister’s attitude. When it comes to recognition of the two groups he states that we are two distinct groups; we have a certain measure of separation in South Africa; there are English and Afrikaans schools. The language groups are divided into separate schools. Even in business undertakings one has the two language groups in separate organizations. It is no use denying it therefore. But what happens in regard to the appointment of councils? I do not want to do the hon. Minister an injustice in regard to what he said in the Second Reading debate, but it has happened repeatedly, when we raise this matter, that the Minister states: “But we are all South Africans”; then he does not want to know anything about the groups when he appoints people, and that is why I am just emphasizing in conclusion that we accept the Ministers amendment one hundred per cent. It does not clash with ours at all. We have another amendment. In our amendment we request that when he appoints people he must see to it that there is maintained a proper balance between people from the Afrikaans cultural group and people from the English cultural group, and this is particularly important when one is dealing here with a cultural Bill, in regard to which one is going to find a measure of partiality. The Afrikaans-speaking bilingual member will be partial towards his group, and the English-speaking bilingual member shall be partial to his group.

But will your amendment ensure this?

To a certain extent one must of course always rely on the good judgment of the Minister. When one makes an amendment, it must have a degree of latitude. We do not want to lay down that it should be one of this and two of another; we simply want the Bill to contain this principle, so that one can then, with justification, criticize the Minister on the grounds if he does not treat any of the groups fairly. As it stands at present, the Minister can appoint the entire council, either from the English language group only, which he as an Afrikaans-speaking person will not do, or from the Afrikaans language group only. Is that true or is it not true? It is.

He will not do it.

He can do it. As it stands at present he can appoint bilingual Afrikaans-speaking persons only, or vice versa. We just want to ensure that he gives recognition to both when he appoints the council.

Sir, I cannot quite understand the hon. the Minister’s difficulty. He became quite emotional about this. I think he is shadow-boxing. He is seeing some difficulty that is not there. Why cannot he accept the amendment of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout? In his own amendment he refers to the cultures of the two white population groups. What the hon. member for Bezuidenhout is asking is that he should recognize that representation should be given to these two groups, and therefore the hon. member for Bezuidenhout says that he should have regard to the bilingual character of the country. I hope the hon. the Minister will do that.

But I recognize it in my amendment.

Is there any objection to including that? I cannot see any objection. It does not oppose the amendment of the hon. the Minister. I think both of the amendments could be accepted.

But I recognize it in my amendment more clearly than it is recognized in the hon. member’s amendment.

I do not think they are rival amendments. I think the hon. member for Bezuidenhout is quite right. We have discussed this question on many occasions, as the hon. the Minister knows. When we got the Minister’s first advisory board, I made an analysis of it and I exposed the imbalance of that board, although the members were all bilingual. Everybody on the board was bilingual but still you had that imbalance, and we exposed it. It was accepted throughout the country that there was that imbalance. We still have it to a great extent, but that is by the way. We want to avoid that. We can appoint the people the Minister has in mind. We can appoint bilingual people and we can appoint people from both culture groups. Therefore I ask him to accept this amendment.

Amendments proposed by the Minister of National Education put and agreed to.

Amendment proposed by Mr. J. D. du P. Basson put and the Committee divided:

AYES—32: Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Connan, J. M.; Eden, G. S.; Emdin, S.; Fisher, E. L.; Graaff, De V.; Higgerty, J. W.; Jacobs, G. F.; Kingwill, W. G.; Marais, D. J.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moore, P. A.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Radford, A.; Raw, M. V.; Smith, W. J. B.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D M.; Sutton, W. M.; Suzman, H.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Waterson, S. F.; Webber, W. T.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Winchester, L. E. D.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: A. Hopewell and T. G. Hughes.

NOES—86: Bodenstein, P.; Botha, H. J.; Botha. M. C.; Botha, M. W.; Botha, P. W.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, B.; Cruywagen, W. A.; De Jager, P. R.; Delport, W. H.; De Wet, C.; De Wet. J. M.; De Wet, M. W.; Diederichs, N.; Engelbrecht, J. J.; Erasmus, A. S. D.; Erasmus, J. J. P.; Froneman, G. F. van L; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Haak, J. F. W; Havemann. W W. B.; Henning, J. M.; Herman. F.; Hertzog, A.; Heystek, J.; Horn, J. W. L.; Jurgens, J. C.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kruger, J. T.; Le Grange, L; Le Roux, F. J.; Le Roux, J. P. C.; Lewis, H. M; Loots, J J.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, P. S.; Marais, W. T.; Maree, G. de K.; Maxtins, H. E.; McLachlan, R.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mulder, C. P.; Otto, J. C.; Pansegrouw, J. S.; Pienaar, B.; Potgieter, S. P.; Rall, J. W.; Raubenheimer, A. L.; Reinecke, C. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W J. C.; Sadie, N C. van R.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, H.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Smit, H. H.; Smith, J. D.; Stofberg, L. F.; Swiegers, J. G.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Van Breda, A.; Van den Heever, D. J. G.; Van der Merwe, C. V.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Merwe, W. L.; Van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Visser, A. J.; Volker, V. A.; Vorster, L. P. J.; Vosloo, A. H.; Vosloo, W. L.; Waring, F. W.; Wentzel, J. J.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: P. H. Torlage, G P. van den Berg, P. S. van der Merwe and H. J. van Wyk.

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Title of the Bill:

Mr. Chairman, I move the following amendment—

Agreed to.

Title of the Bill, as amended, put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments.

Mr. Chairman, I move the following amendment as printed in my name—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with an amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to delay the proceedings, but I think it is necessary to say a word about certain remarks that were made by the hon. member for Paarl during the Second Reading debate. He said that I had been placed in an embarrassing position during the introduction of the Decimalization of Coinage Bill. I want to be quite clear about how that Bill was introduced.

Order! Is that necessary? Is it relevant to this Bill?

The hon. member for Paarl said certain things, Sir.

Order! The hon. member need not repeat the arguments used during the Second Reading Debate.

This is the only opportunity I have, Sir.

Order! The hon. member must seek another opportunity.

Do you rule that I may not do so now, Sir? Is that the position?

Order! I should like to hear what the hon. member has to say, but I should not like him to cover the Second Reading debate again.

No, Sir, I do not intend to do that; I only want to refer to the remarks that were made by the hon. member for Paarl. He spoke, first of all, about the introduction of these Bills. When I introduced my Bill I introduced it as a private member, and on the Government side they tried to have the Bill ruled out of order. Because in drafting the Bill I had been very careful to make no reference to any expenditure, it was not necessary to obtain a Governor-General’s warrant, and therefore the Speaker ruled in my favour. I want to make it clear there was general opposition to my Bill. The opposition did not only come from one section of the House. When we came to the Government Bill, I had had the good fortune, with the hon. the Minister sitting opposite me, to serve on the commission. It is one of the finest experiences I have had since I have been in this House. We had certain information which was not available to all hon. members in the House. The public did not have all the statistics, as we had, and therefore people felt it was necessary to have another investigation into the probable cost. Therefore the Bill was not accepted as I was prepared to accept it at the time. That is all I have to say. I am sorry the hon. member for Paarl is not here.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, when we adjourned I was dealing with certain aspects of the Bill. I pointed out that the hon. the Deputy Minister had not given us sufficient information which would have made it possible for us to form a proper judgment of the merits of this Bill.

Before I return to clause 6 I want to refer to clause 7 where it is intended to ratify certain changes in the conditions of service of railway staff with retrospective effect. We get a clause like this almost every year, and the standpoint of the Opposition is known. Provided such legislation in respect of altered conditions of service benefit the staff we have no objections. But we have the strongest objection if we are asked to ratify irregular changes in conditions of service which are to the detriment of the staff. The Minister really should give us an idea of what this is all about and how it affects the staff. It appears from the research which we have undertaken that these four cases will benefit the staff, or are at least neutral. I shall be very pleased if the Minister confirms this when he replies.

I am returning now to clause 6, which is to my mind a very strange and remarkable clause. Here the House is being asked, by way of an amendment in a clause of a Bill, to increase the amount which was voted for the construction of a new railway line, which is intended to link up with the main line between Vryheid and Empangeni, from R40 million to R74,759,000. Why? What is wrong? In the Bill dealing with the Additional Estimates of 1965-’66 we were informed that this railway line was going to cost R40 million. We were prepared to accept that this was a provisional figure and that it would probably be amended after further investigation. In the Brown Book of 1967-’68 we were informed that a further R3,375,000 would be required. When we are asked to vote again for such a precise amount as R3,375,000, Parliament is inclined to accept that it is a scientifically determined figure and that we can accept that that is the basis of the Railway Administration’s planning of that railway line, that their estimates in regard to whether it will be a paying proposition or not, and its economic value for the land is based on a capital investment of R4,375,000. But the next year we were requested in the Brown Book to vote a further, please note, R2,270,314. This is apparently a very accurate calculation, i.e. up to R314 on this amount of R40 million. We were probably entitled then to accept that it was an accurate, careful calculation of the capital cost of this new railway line. And now, can you believe it, we are being asked this year to appropriate an additional R29,114,046. First of all the R40 million jumped to R43 million then to R45 million and now to R74,759,360. Now I want to know from the hon. Deputy Minister, what was the value of the information which we received from the Railways and Harbours Board when we originally considered this railway line? What opinion must one have in respect of that? We are being told that this railway line will be used mainly for the transportation of ore and coal, mostly low tariff goods, where the profit margin is very slight. If the Railways and Harbours Board have erred virtually 100 per cent in their calculations, in their facts with which they came along to Parliament and asked for the matter to be approved, what do those estimates of theirs mean? Those estimates were not submitted casually to Parliament; they were submitted after what appeared to be a thorough investigation. The territory was visited by the Railways and Harbours Board. They flew over the territory in a helicopter. They scrutinized it thoroughly. They spend hundreds, thousands of rand on the investigation, and stated that the costs would amount to R40 million, R43 million or R45 million. In the report of the Railways and Harbours Board this year, we learn that they have wasted their time and the country’s money, as well as the Railway’s money. I want to read to hon. members from the report—

Why did they then come to Parliament with the accurate figures, accurate up to R314, if it was an estimate and not based on thorough investigation? The report reads further—

The shorter the railway line, the more expensive. For every mile the railway line becomes shorter, the amount becomes a few million rand more. What kind of calculations and way of running things is this? Here follows the most priceless sentence in the report of the Railways and Harbours Board—

In other words, they are asking Parliament to appropriate millions of rand, they tell us that they made such an accurate estimate that they could estimate it to the last three figures, and now we learn that they were not even able to determine the distances with any degree of accuracy. What is the Railways and Harbours Board doing? What services is the Railways and Harbours Board rendering to the Railways and to Parliament? By now we have not learnt to live with the idea that politicians are appointed to the Railways and Harbours Board, who do not necessarily possess the ability to undertake this extremely technical and complicated financial and exacting work. Is it not possible to have at least one of the three members of that Railways and Harbours Board, who is a financial expert, to assist the politicians?

What is the case here?

No, Mr. Speaker, there are two politicians and one academician. There is not one man with practical experience of financial management and the operation of the South African Railways. [Interjections.] I have respect of these men. I have nothing against them personally. I may not do so to-day, but the time will come when I shall quote further examples of where the information, on the basis of which Parliament is being asked to appropriate millions and millions of rand for the construction of railway lines, is totally worthless, meaningless and entirely removed from reality and the facts. After all one cannot have such little regard for Parliament. One cannot act so irresponsibly by asking the public to appropriate money for certain objectives without having knowledge of these things. After all it indicates inefficiency if one has to admit every year that one made an incorrect calculation of not one or two per cent, but almost 100 per cent. Any private undertaking which is assisted by advisors who made such a hash of their work would fire them immediately. The Minister must remember—I am now speaking to the hon. the Minister himself—that according to the Railways Act and the Constitution of South Africa, it is expected of him to manage the Railways on business principles. But where do business principles come in when one misleads one’s board of Directors in this way? I am not saying that the hon. the Minister is doing this deliberately, but out of ignorance, incompetence and inability. The hon. the Minister does not have the ability to see that he is being misled. He submits those figures to Parliament in good faith, but time after time he sees that he has been misled and nevertheless he does nothing about it. What must one think of that?

The United Party does not want to oppose this Bill in principle, because the work must be done. However, we want to ask the Minister to talk to the Administration, and particularly the Railways and Harbours Board and ask them to do their work thoroughly and properly. The hon. Minister must ask them to furnish facts and information to Parliament on the basis of which we can form a judgment and not to furnish information of that nature, which is not even worth the paper it is printed on. I hope that we will in future receive better and more scientific information from the bodies concerned.

Mr. Speaker, I want to support the hon. member who has just spoken in regard to the Richard’s Bay-Vryheid line. But before doing so I want to refer to clause 4 of this Bill. Clause 4 provides for an increase in the surcharge to be payable in respect of persons travelling without tickets. When the hon. the Minister was speaking, the hon. member for Yeoville interjected to ask whether this could be applied. The hon. the Minister then said that the surcharge was being applied and administered and that there was no problem. I do not think that the hon. the Minister knows what the situation is. The hon. the Minister travels down in his coach, air conditioned and with canaries, but I suggest that the hon. the Deputy Minister who introduced this Bill should go and have a look at a certain train which travels from Durban to Johannesubrg on Sundays. I have looked at it because I was asked by conductors who said that it was a disgrace that they should be asked to man that train. The corridors and the coaches of that train are so jammed with people that it is physically impossible for any official to go through that train without virtually standing on bodies. It is jammed particularly in the night when it traverses the Newcastle section, so much so that it is called by a name that would shock this House if I should use it, and I will use the euphemistic name. It is known as the African Mail or Bantu Mail except that the railwaymen do not call it that. They call it another sort of mail. I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister how he is going to impose this surcharge when trains are run so overpacked with people that it is impossible for a ticket examiner to get to the people and check whether they have tickets? It is dangerous for ticket examiners to try it on many occasions and they are not prepared to risk their lives for it. I suggest that the hon. the Minister asks some of the ticket examiners and instead of flying over he must get down to the rails and have a look at what is going on sometimes.

Let him go and collect tickets for a while himself.

That would be a wonderful idea. I was wondering the other day what sort of job we could get for some of the Deputy Ministers. Let the hon. the Deputy Minister of Transport try collecting tickets. [Interjection.] I would have an even greater problem than he would have and I am sure I would not be as suited for the task as the hon. the Deputy Minister would be.

We are being asked to vote a provision which the hon. the Minister blithely says is being carried out without any difficulty. I want to question that statement. Could the hon. the Minister tell me in what percentage of cases this is being carried out? The hon. the Deputy Minister just says that it is being carried out. What evidence has he to support that statement? I have taken the trouble to have a look at one of these overcrowded trains and I think that a great deal more must be done in regard to providing barriers and automatic ticket machines, in other words, payment before getting onto the train. One can control people getting onto the train and also getting off through barriers on the stations, but this sort of surcharge is not going to solve the problem. To ask ticket examiners to apply this control in practice is not going to work in hundreds of cases.

I think we should go further. Where there are cases such as this Kaffir Mail as it is known, extra trains should be put into use in order to get some of the load off the train. Such overcrowding is unhygienic. Passengers literally sleep in the corridors and I am told that they even sleep in the toilets although I have not seen that myself because I did not go into the toilets.

You could not get into it.

One could not get into it because of the people lying in the passages. They jammed into the compartments and corridors. Surely the Railways could do something about that sort of situation. The problem will not be solved by pushing up the surcharge by two cents or even 50 cents. I also suggest that the hon. the Deputy Minister should do more homework and not come with theoretical solutions to problems when he suggests measures in this House.

I also want to refer to the question of pipelines which is referred to in clauses 1, 2 and 3. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether it is the intention of the Administration in view of the expanded power, to build pipelines for solids, liquids or gases and whether it is the intention of the Administration to build pipeline terminals at sea? I would not be allowed by you, Mr. Speaker, to deal with the controversy which is taking place at the moment in Durban in regard to the potential danger from pollution and the discussions between the Durban City Council and certain oil companies in regard to a pipeline terminal at sea but I would like to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether it is the intention of the Government either to build or operate any such terminals, other than that at Mossel Bay, themselves, or whether it is their intention to link up the pipeline at Richard’s Bay with a terminal at sea pending the deep water berths for large tankers which will be coming there?

Finally I want to return to clause 6 with which the hon. member for Yeoville dealt. I want to ask, now that the Railways and Harbours Board has been able to measure the route, whether the hon. the Deputy Minister is satisfied that this strange sort of line which gets more expensive as it shortens—it is eight miles shorter and R37 million more expensive—has now been determined finally? I accept the statement of the board that there may be revisions. I am talking about the alignment and the location of the line and not about the detailed surveys which will still have to take place. Like the hon. member for Yeoville I think it is a disgrace that we should have to face this sort of request from the hon. the Minister. But how far have we got certainty in regard to this matter? There is the question of the terminal, for instance, the terminal point is now no longer to be at the originally planned terminal but is to have its own marshalling yards, etc. How much is this linked up with the planning of Richard’s Bay itself? To what extent has the hon. the Minister of Planning’s department and the hon. Minister of Transport consulted in regard to the layout of the new city of Richard’s Bay, the location of the various industrial areas, etc., and to what extent does this new planned terminal point fit in with that plan? To what extent has consideration been given to the control of this line over the hundred miles or so where it passes through Bantu areas? These are the aspects on which I feel that the hon. the Deputy Minister should give us some information before coming to ask us for this tremendous increase of nearly 100 per cent for a line about which they told us, when they originally asked for R40 million, that they knew exactly what they were going to do about it. We support the building of this line and therefore we will support the voting of the money, but we do not support the inefficiency with which it is accompanied.

Mr. Speaker, I listened to what the hon. member for Durban (Point) said and I think that in actual fact he was misleading the House. He said that he went to look at the trains running from Durban to the Rand how full they were …

On a Sunday.

You said nothing about a Sunday.

I said on a Sunday evening.

The problem that arises there, is caused by the fact that Bantu who come from the Rand for week-ends and then return on Sundays, do not book their seats. I should like to know how any Minister or any Department can do any planning in this case.

But it is the case every Sunday evening.

It is true that these trains are very full, and the measure for which the hon. the Deputy Minister is asking at the moment, is in fact to prevent these Bantu—I have seen it with my own eyes and the hon. member is not the only one who has seen it—from getting onto the train without having tickets even though the train is in motion already, with the result that the calculations of the running staff and the schedule of the train are upset completely. This measure, which provides for an increase in the amount to be paid by persons who travel without tickets, is in fact designed to prevent these people from simply getting onto that train without having made reservations and then simply overloading the train.

The hon. member for Durban (Point) mentioned a second point as well, i.e. the question of the Richard’s Bay railway line. If the hon. member had taken the trouble to go and inspect that terrain, he would not have raised any objection, because he would have realized that any advance calculation could only be more or less correct.

Has the terrain changed in the last three years?

Yes. [Laughter.] Hon. members may laugh, but that just shows me how ignorant United Party people can be. Where there used to be no dongas, there are now dongas over which bridges have to be built. The cost of building these bridges was calculated in advance, but after the washa-wavs in the area between Vryheid and the 45-mile point more bridges had to be built, and the cost will therefore be much greater. What I really want to say is that it is no use attacking the Government or the planners while they cannot defend themselves.

The hon. the Deputy Minister can defend them.

It would perhaps have been a good thing if hon. members had gone to take a look themselves, as the hon. member for Durban (Point) claimed he did in the case of the over-crowded trains, because then they would have had a better idea of the problems which crop up there. It has been suggested that there ought to be better planning and that there ought to be more trains running. Before sitting down I want to repeat that if the Railway authorities and the planners of that section are not aware of the number of passengers who are going to make use of the train service, it is an absolutely impossible task for any Minister or department to determine how many trains should be provided to convey the stream of Bantu passengers. I should like to congratulate the hon. the Minister and his staff, in spite of the fact that the hon. member for Durban (Point) objects, because if he looks at the statements and the legislation, he ought to be extremely grateful for all the money which is being pumped into Natal by the Railways Administration to make a decent province of Natal as well. Then he should not make a fuss at all, but should only say in gratitude, “Thank you for all your trouble and for the communications which you are providing for us.” Instead of doing that, he complains and quarrels over petty matters when he has not even checked them.

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the few remarks made by the hon. member for Vryheid, and I will come back to those remarks presently. I want to deal with clauses 1, 2, 3 and 5 which refer to the pipeline. While we agree to support the Bill it does leave me puzzled as to which pipeline is being discussed in the Bill; in which direction will it flow, in other words where will it lead to and from what point?

What pipeline are you referring to?

This is the point. I would like to know what pipeline is referred to in the Bill, and I would like the hon. the Minister to tell us what pipeline the Bill refers to? We know that due to circumstances which could not be foreseen at the time the Act was passed, for petroleum liquids and other liquids to flow through the pipeline, the hon. the Deputy Minister now has seen fit to ask Parliament to amend it to allow solids to flow through the pipeline. He does not mention which pipeline nor the kind of solids. The Bill gives no description, however. Representing an area which has been discussed so often recently, namely the Border area I naturally think in terms of border industries and in particular the third Iscor. I am beginning to wonder whether the reply the hon. the Deputy Minister will give us is not in fact that the third Iscor will be situated in the Border area, on the Berlin Flats. We want the hon. the Deputy Minister to explain to us what solids will flow through the pipeline in question. It is no use saying that he wants an amendment to the Act, allowing pipelines to convey solids. Yesterday one of our Opposition speakers, who was wondering how and what fluids will be used to force the solids through the pipeline, mentioned water as a possibility. I myself have seen brine water being pumped through pipelines where we have large salt pans. When one thinks in terms of brine water being pumped from one pan to another to produce salt, I see no reason why we cannot use sea water to force solids through pipelines. I am looking forward to the reply of the hon. the Deputy Minister in this regard.

Clause 4, deals with excess charges on railway fares for passengers, the hon. member for Vryheid endeavoured to reply to my colleague, the hon. member for Durban (Point). He in fact insinuated that there was no discord or disorganization or disorganized traffic on that particular line, the “African Mail”, running from Vryheid to the coast. Now, I happen to know of another train too which is called the “Milk Train”. This train runs from Johannesburg to the Transkeian territories and East London. There, too, I know because I speak from personal experience as I have moved through those corridors with some of our conductors, I can assure you I do not envy them their difficult task. I also know that many Bantu jump the train after it has left the station. I also know that some Bantu are transported by these trains to the Transkei and East London without paying a cent—let alone excess charges on their rail fare—by virtue of the fact that it is very difficult for any ticket examiner to enter a coach while it is in motion, trying to find out who does not hold a ticket. I have been with some of them and I know that it is an unenviable task. This is a very difficult problem, but I would follow the suggestion made by my colleague, the hon. member for Durban (Point), i.e. that we should have “access points” and in this way we should be able to prevent many of these people from having access to the trains. As the hon. member for Vryheid has said, many of them board the train at a stage when there is no reserve accommodation. I know that this has been done, it has even been done by Whites. But we must find ways and means of circumventing it. Just by passing an amendment to a clause on excess charges, is certainly not going to solve the real problem at all. I can assure the House that we will come back next year and that we will have to pass more amendments in this regard. We still will not have solved the problem, unless you listen to suggestions made by us, from this side. [Interjections.]

In regard to clause 6, the new railway line has already been mentioned here in detail and I do not want to repeat what has already been said. Concerning the construction of the new railway line between Vryheid and Empangeni, i.e. to the Richard’s Bay area, I heard the hon. Minister mention last year that he was very impressed with the layout at Richard’s Bay; in fact, he said he knew of no better natural harbour on our South African coast. Well, Mr. Speaker, it may be a natural harbour, but we will have to spend vast sums of money before Richard’s Bay harbour can be usable to any extent. What worries me is that we have already well-developed harbours on our coasts, which are not operating to the extent that one would like to see them operate. I mention East London in particular. East London harbour seldom operates to full capacity.

Order! That is not under discussion.

Then I come back to Richard’s Bay, Mr. Speaker, which obviously is the point in mind, because it so happens to be closer to Johannesburg than any other harbour. But it does surprise me that this large sum of money should be spent on the Richard’s Bay-Vryheid line, or the Empangeni-Vryheid line, an amount of R74,759,360, where originally the estimate was R39,809,400. Now we see the estimate is double that amount, and it has already been said that the line has been found to be eight miles shorter. Originally it was 135 miles, it is now 127 miles.

Order! That point has been made repeatedly.

I realize that the terrain, as was mentioned in the report, makes this railway line very difficult and costly, but it surprises me that only now, in 1969, should the surveyors discover that the terrain is difficult. I cannot accept this reasoning.

This is all I want to discuss now, but I appeal to the hon. the Deputy Minister, who has had so much to say about the pipe-line, to give us more information about it.

My remarks will be brief and to the point. I do not wish to labour the points that have already been made, but I would say that the Minister has been at fault, when 12 months ago he asked for R39 million to build a railway line and now he comes forward with a revised Estimate of R74 million. I am quite sure that before it is finished it will cost nearer R100 million. I wonder what would have happened had he come to Parliament last year and asked for R100 million. I believe the great shortcoming of the Government is that the planning and the estimating are not anywhere near as close and as fine as they should be. It is all very well for us to sit here and vote away millions and say, as the hon. member for Vryheid said: “Die brug is weggespoel”. [Interjection.] The point I am trying to establish is that all these factors must have been known. The Railway staff, the officials and the engineers, know their business very well indeed. I cannot for a moment believe that a specification which must have been drawn up for the construction of this line could have been so faulty as to be only half of what the costs were going to be only 12 months later.

Order! That point has been made already.

But I want to emphasize it because we are dealing with public money.

Order! Yes, I know that, but it is not necessary to repeat the same point over and over again.

I accept your ruling, Sir. I should like to touch on this question of the surcharges. I think the psychology of imposing surcharges in this way is at fault and I want to suggest a solution which I think will be a happier one for all concerned. Overseas, especially in Britain and on the Continent, when there are periods of high traffic, efforts are made to accommodate all passengers who wish to travel by a particular train, or other transport. I know that the Minister has difficulties with staff and personnel, but why does he not consider giving a discount, a reduction, to the man who buys his ticket at the station, instead of surcharging the man who gets on and who, through no fault of his own, has got to board the train because he has to get to work. I put it to the Minister that the correct approach to matters of this kind would be better handled psychologically, by offering discounts to do the correct thing, and not by imposing penalties when people get into a train if they simply have to do so. If these people do not get to Johannesburg on time they lose their jobs, and I believe that the Railways has had sufficient experience on this particular route, and others, where the traffic could be more accurately assessed. I think the time is long overdue where, at these stations where this traffic is expected, the installation of ticket machines should be considered and introduced. It is a common custom everywhere else. I often wonder when we are going to arrive at the point in this country when access to railway stations shall be only by way of the purchase of a ticket. Then half the problems with which the Minister is faced will be removed.

I want to emphasize one final point. The conditions under which these third-class passengers travel are such that I firmly believe that the Minister is aggravating and upsetting people who honestly and genuinely want to travel on the railways. It has been said that it is difficult to collect these small amounts, and it is a nuisance. I feel the Minister should realize that third-class passengers, Bantu passengers, are really customers. I think the time is overdue when he should look at it from the angle of doing the job for these people in a way which will make them happy, instead of them being frustrated and annoyed.

Finally, I hope the Minister will give us some indication in regard to the pipe-lines. There is mention of pipe-lines for solids and gases, and I am very interested to know what type of pipe-line will be constructed for the conveyance of solids. If the Minister will satisfy us on these few points, we will be happy to give our approval.

At the end of his speech the hon. member for Yeoville said that the Railways must be conducted as a business undertaking by the Minister, but now the hon. member for Karoo comes along and suggests that an article which one sells, i.e. a ticket for which a price is fixed, must be sold at a discount. Is this the kind of business which those hon. members want? [Interjections.] Nowhere in any transport system is business conducted in that way. But the hon. members are so unpractical in coming forward, like the hon. member for Durban (Point), and saying that we must have a system of gates where people can obtain their tickets before boarding the train. Surely they know that we have such a system on the large stations. But this excess charge is not something new that is being asked for. This excess charge is in force in terms of section 10 of the Consolidation Act, Act No. 70 of 1957. It has been there all these years, but when the fares were increased, we had to make a new adjustment in respect of what the excess charge should be, and that adjustment has already been made in the tariff book. All that is being asked here is that that adjustment in the tariff book be sanctioned. Do the hon. members want to debate that now? Do they not want the Railways to ask a man who boards the train without a ticket to pay an excess charge? It is a kind of fine for having done so. And now they read into the Bill that it will only apply to Bantu passengers and third class passengers, but it applies to any passenger, except the hon. members sitting here who have free passes. It also applies to a passenger who purchased a ticket up to a certain place and then wants to travel further than that place. Then he must also pay an excess charge, because he purchased the wrong ticket and as a result is burdening the ticket examiner with the extra work of filling in forms, etc. Now the hon. members read into this that it only applies to third class passengers, Bantu. We know that some Bantu adopt this method of waiting until the train is full and then jumping on, and we know what a difficult task the ticket examiners have. But it is not only the Bantu who do so; Whites also do so at times. Do the hon. members now want to debate about that, and do they want to make it more difficult for the ticket examiners to collect this additional excess charge? No, that is not the way to talk about a matter of business.

The hon. members asked certain questions and now I first want to deal with the other matter. Under clause 7 the hon. member for Yeoville said that he would like to know whether these conditions of employment which we now have to sanction were an improvement, because if they were to the detriment of the staff he would not agree to them.

I merely wanted confirmation.

I shall give the confirmation. They are, for example, in respect of payment to people who work on public holidays. They are, for example, in respect of people going on special leave for defence purposes, so that they may still receive the necessary payment, etc; it is to make provision for “special leave on defensive duties”. All these conditions of employment which we are asking the House to sanction are for the benefit of the staff. I hope this satisfies hon. members.

Then I want to deal with the pipeline story. The hon. members spoke about doing one’s homework, but if there are people who did not do their homework, they are all those who spoke about this pipeline. No mention is made in this Bill of a pipeline which is going to be built. The Bill only provides that if the S.A. Railways should find it necessary to construct a pipeline to convey solids, gases or liquids, it may be constructed, as you already have in the Act in respect of the pipeline for the conveyance of oil. Nowhere in the Bill is reference made to specific pipelines or to places where we are going to construct pipelines, and nothing of the kind is being planned at the moment either. Preliminary steps are merely being taken so that we may do so if it should become necessary in the future. I think I have clarified this matter now. Other private bodies can also construct pipelines to convey artificial fertilizers, etc., but one must ensure that the S.A. Railways has the legal authority to do that kind of thing if it wants to. We have no planning up our sleeves at the moment. There is no secret or concealed planning here that we do not want to disclose.

The hon. members all tried to make out a very strong case in respect of the increased cost in respect of the Vryheid-Empangeni line, and then the hon. member for Yeoville almost overstepped the mark in attacking the members of the Railways and Harbours Board by accusing them of incompetence and of inefficient action, etc. He asked what kind of people we appointed. Let us look at the work these people do. In conjunction with the Minister they handle the entire economic structure of the Railways in all its aspects. They handle the problems of the entire staff. In other words, one must have people who are conversant with economics. Dr. Botha has a doctor’s degree in economics. I want to ask hon. members on that side who made this accusation so blatantly whether one of them knows more about economics than Dr. Botha does? The other two members of the Railways Board are practical men who were initially elected to this House and were subsequently appointed to the Railways Board because of their knowledge of Railway affairs, staff matters and human relationships. They gave clear evidence of being the proper persons for appointment to the Railways Board. Sir, the hundred thousand Railway workers that we have in the country trust these three members of the Railways and Harbours Board. They are doing excellent work in the interests of the Railways, in the interests of South Africa and in the interests of the staff, and therefore I find it reprehensible that hon. members should question the competence and the integrity of those Board members across the floor of this House.

Who did so?

Hon. members on that side said that they had not done their work, that they had merely engaged in guesswork, and if one does not do one’s work, there is something wrong with one’s integrity.

Mr. Speaker, when this railway was planned initially, it was only intended as an auxiliary service for the overloaded railway line to Durban. When the initial line was planned and submitted to the Railway Board, Richard’s Bay had not yet come into prominence as a proposed harbour, and the foundry, which is going to lead to the establishment of a new urban complex there, had not yet come to the attention of the members of the Railway Board and the engineers who planned the initial line. But that is not all. Let us analyse the figures. In regard to the large increase in the number of bridges, which is responsible for an additional amount of about R14 million, I want to inform the House that at the time the original estimate of the cost was made, survey plans were available for only 40 miles (on the scale 3½ inches = 1 mile) and the rest of the route was uncharted terrain for which use could only be made of photographs (on the scale 1½ inches = 1 mile). In other words, when the Railway Commissioners went to the area by helicopter it was still uncharted.

But then they should not come to Parliament before they have the facts.

They had to come to Parliament, because Parliament had to vote their money so that we could continue with the planning and Parliament had to approve the planning. When that amount was submitted to Parliament, it was expressly stated that it was an estimate. I go further. Normally for projects of this nature plans on the scale 12 inches = 1 mile are necessary, and here they had to work out a plan on the scale 1½ inches = 1 mile. This gives a totally new picture.

But they should not have done so.

They had to make a submission to Parliament in order to obtain Parliament’s approval for the construction of the railway line. In the circumstances the need for the large number of bridges and tunnels could not be determined. I want to point out that eight of the 70 large bridges which are necessary, are situated on the portion between point A on the route map and the junction on the Empangeni-Richard’s Bay line, while 30 would have been necessary on the portion between A and Lokoza, i.e. the portion of the line which will no longer be constructed. In other words, here one now has 40 bridges as against 30, and eight bridges over that tremendously large water region. The lack of adequate survey plans which I mentioned here, is also largely responsible for the increase in the cost of earth-works and tunnels, and here one must therefore again add R4 million. In addition the terrain through which the route goes proved to be exceptionally rough, so much so that there is twice as much earth-work and three times as much bridge-work on this line as on the line from Metzi to Kaapmuiden, which also runs through rough terrain. Hon. members themselves know that if one flies over a region to draw up one’s provisional route—and the members of the Railways Board are not engineers; they are not expected to be engineers—one cannot determine all these facts immediately.

Additional important increases that I want to mention are R3¼ million for additional work on the permanent way which resulted from trade and industry requirements for which provision had not been made initially, i.e. 24 miles longer loops, one additional station and one extra large yard; R2 million and R1.75 million, respectively, for improved signalling and communications contemplated as a result of the findings of the technical mission which we sent overseas in 1966, which equipment will result in trains being carried through more quickly; and a further R5½ million in respect of contingencies and interest which automatically arise from the increase in the cost of the railway line.

But you are proving now that the Board was at fault; you are on my side now.

Order!

The statement that the figure of R74.8 million is still an approximation is correct. Until such time as detailed surveys and investigations into foundations have been completed and contracts awarded, the exact costs unfortunately cannot be determined. As a result of the remoteness of the area through which the new line passes and the abundance of work for contractors elsewhere in the country, contract prices tend to be higher than would otherwise have been the case.

The hon. member asked whether this was the final route. Initially the line was to have gone through from Lokoza to Empangeni. Now, as a result of the new development with the foundry and the larger area of Richard’s Bay, there is an altogether larger shunting yard and an additional small shunting yard at the foundry, and one must take the line a little more to the north in order to run through the shunting yard. A planning committee, on which the Departments of Planning, Defence and other Departments are represented, made a thorough survey of the entire future development at Richard’s Bay. I repeat that when the initial amount was submitted to Parliament by the Railways and Harbours Board, it was an estimated amount, based on the original idea that the line would be an auxiliary one for the overloaded Durban line. No decision had then been taken about the rest of the development. Mr. Speaker, we are not a static Government. If we start off by planning a certain railway line and new developments arise, we do not hide our heads in the sand like an ostrich. We do not continue with the construction of the line as originally planned. We must adjust the planning to the new developments, taking into account the new information which has come to our disposal. This is the reason for this increased amount. I cannot see how hon. members opposite can blame the Railways Board and the Minister. If one considers the work that has been done, it is clear that the Minister, with the valuable assistance of the members of the Railways and Harbours Board and of his staff, is running the Railways purely on business principles. The great problem with hon. members opposite is that they are only sad and jealous that we do not have a greater deficit so that they can make a fuss about it here, and that is why they come forward with statements such as they did.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

I move—

The Sea-shore Act, 1935, empowers the Minister of Agriculture to make regulations for specific purposes in connection with the sea-shore and the sea and also to authorize any local authority to issue such regulations, subject to his approval, in respect of any portion of the sea-shore and the sea within the area of jurisdiction of such a local authority. This includes, inter alia, the use of the sea-shore and of the sea and the prescribing of fees for the doing of any act upon or in or in relation to the sea-shore or the sea.

Existing regulations provide, inter alia, that a local authority may set aside a place or places for the exclusive use of various kinds of boats or for the sole use of boats belonging to members of boat clubs; may prohibit the use or operation of any boat or kind of boat from certain portions of the sea-shore, and may differentiate between boats which belong to or are used by members of boat clubs and those which belong to or are used by persons other than members of such clubs. However, the legal advisors came to the conclusion that the provision in question is invalid in view of the fact that it conflicts with the legal principle that subordinate legislation cannot result in unequal treatment without specific authority.

The Provincial Administrations and local authorities concerned which were consulted in this connection were all agreed that differentiation should be made between (a) boats of different classes, (b) boats used for different purposes, and (c) boats falling under the control of boat clubs and those belonging to outsiders. The object of clause 1 of the Bill is to authorize such differentiation. The second clause provides for the delegation of the Minister’s powers in respect of short-term control over the sea-shore, to officers in the service of the State.

The Act also empowers the Minister to let any portion of the sea-shore and the sea for specific purposes and subject to specific conditions, or to permit that any material be removed from or out of the sea or the seashore. Thus, for example, permission is granted under certain circumstances for letting for the purposes of the erection of beach facilities for the public, the construction of quays and landing stages, etc., the erection of buildings or structures and the execution of useful or essential works as well as for the removal of, for example, sea-weed shingle, etc. For the efficient execution of functions of this nature it is necessary that the Minister be empowered to delegate his authority in connection with short-term control over the sea and the seashore to officers of the State. The object of clause 2 of the Bill is therefore to provide for such powers.

The hon. the Deputy Minister did not give us a very detailed explanation of the Bill. The Bill very clearly provides that distinctions can be made between the different classes, etc, but “different classes” is a very wide term, and one does not know how widely it may be interpreted. What I have in mind is this: We have apartheid on beaches. Can provision be made under the clause for the admission to beaches of members of another race group? One thinks, for example, of families visiting the beach area and who perhaps need a servant to look after the children. Can provision be made under this clause for such cases or not? It is not clear to me what is meant here by “different classes”. This term is too wide as it stands here and I hope that the hon. the Minister will enlighten us further in this connection.

The hon. member for Gardens has made a point which I think requires to be cleared up. In the first place the Minister says that the provisions of this Bill apply to classes or kinds of users of the seashore and the sea, including tidal rivers and lagoons, etc., as provided for in the Sea-shore Act itself. I mave made inquiries from the Minister’s Department and it seems that there is definitely some confusion as to whether kinds and classes also apply to races. I would like to emphasize the point made by the hon. member for Gardens, and that is that as things are at present, with the reservation of separate amenities on the beaches, there is a considerable amount of confusion as to whether the servants of users of the beaches are entitled to be present on beaches which have been demarcated, for example, for the use of the white race. I think if the Minister can clear this matter up, he will be doing us a service. On the other hand, I personally believe that under section 26 of the Group Areas Act and under the provisions of the Separate Amenities Act, that particular situation is in fact satisfactorily covered, but I would like to get clarity from the Minister on this matter.

Sir, on the question of classes and kinds of users of the beach, I should like to say a few words about the various uses to which our beaches are put at the moment. For the purpose of my discussion I want to divide the users of beaches into two categories. I would give as my first category those whose use is potentially a dangerous use with the possibility of their causing a nuisance to other users of the beach. In this category one thinks of speed-boaters, spear fishermen, surfers, ski-boaters, and yachtsmen, to say nothing of small boat users, catamaran and trimaran users, as well as those who have dinghies with outboard motors. There are obvious dangers attached to the use of a beach by any one of these potentially dangerous users. But I should like to express the hope to-day that the local authorities who are being given extended powers under the new sub-section (8) of section 10 of the Act, will not abuse the powers that are being given to them. It seems to me that many of the local authorities in South Africa are fast asleep when it comes to the potential of our natural amenities and our beaches in particular. They do not appreciate fully the natural assets which have been entrusted to their charge. When given the power to regulate conditions in areas under their control, their first reaction is to ban, and then they think. They seem to me to lack appreciation and imagination. In fact, many of our local authorities are still living in the Victorian age.

Our beaches to-day are used for many purposes, purposes which were not envisaged when local authorities were given control over them by the State. We have launching sites for small boats and ski-boats, etc., on most of our beaches in these parts, and the same applies to Natal and the Eastern Province. There is however a complete absence of small-boat harbours along our coast line, and small boat and ski-boat enthusiasts are forced to launch their craft from our beaches. In particular there seems to be an absence of appreciation at Government level as well as at provincial level, quite apart from local authority level, of the potential of our wonderful coast line and the useful purposes to which it can be put for the recreation of our people. Therefore I make a plea to the Government and to the provinces to appreciate what they administer and to develop their areas in accordance with the requirements of our people.

I think there is another category of users of our beaches, one which is not dangerous, but which can also cause a nuisance. In this respect I refer particularly to the trek netters along our coast line. We have also the perlemoen divers who frequently dump perlemoen when they have taken them out of the water. Then there are the rock lobster catchers with small boats operating from our beaches. The situation at Kommetjie, for instance, is one that is causing concern. There are also the seaweed collectors, to whom the Minister has already referred, as well as bait collectors, not only on the coast but also in the tidal rivers and the lagoons where they collect prawns, worms and other bait.

In so far as this proposed new subsection (8) gives local authorities the power to control unrestricted use of those areas, I think it deserves our support. In so far as it reinforces what I regard as our completely inadequate sea fisheries regulations concerning the collecting of bait, and the preservation of our marine flora and fauna, I think it too deserves our support. I believe that the people of this country have not so far appreciated what riches we have in the form of our long coast line from South-West Africa right around to Moçambique. I believe that as a nation we are in our infancy as regards appreciating this heritage. I refer the Minister to a recently published book called “Farming the Edge of the Sea". I think that as Deputy Minister of Agriculture he will be quite surprised to see what methods have been employed overseas in exploiting the natural resources which we also have on our coast. With these few words I should like to bless this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. members for Cape Town Gardens and Simonstown touched upon a matter which I previously discussed with the hon. member for South Coast, who has a similar problem in his constituency. I said that we would very much like to help him solve his problems there at Margate, so that there would be certainty as to who was allowed to swim where. Powers have already been granted to the provinces in this regard, and I think the hon. member for Simonstown also mentioned it. There is the Separate Amenities Act of 1953, which grants the local authority or the province authority to determine who may swim where. I concede that there are certain matters which must still be cleared up, and we shall presently give attention to them. Let me assure the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens of that. This measure refers to “classes or kinds of users of the sea-shore or the sea …”, and it might create confusion because hon. members might think that it also has to do with races. However, it has nothing to do with races. I think it was the hon. member for Simonstown who initially asked for this legislation because he had difficulties in his constituency as to who was allowed to surf where, etc.

Black nannies.

No, that is not what this measure is dealing with. I think the hon. member ought to give us full marks for introducing this legislation. To tell the truth, I think he can show his gratitude by giving me a copy of that book which he mentioned. He knows that this legislation provides that the local authorities can now say to people, “Here you may race in a speed-boat, here you may surf”, etc., and in this way injuries to people on the beach can be eliminated.

I just want to emphasize that this legislation has nothing to do with races. It is merely concerned with the different classes which we want to have sorted out.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The purpose of this amendment, which is actually a very minor one, is to amend section 5 (1) of the Wool Act of 1967 so that the names of the bodies who may nominate persons for appointment on the Wool Board are not specifically prescribed in the Act. At present section 5 (1) provides, inter alia, that, firstly, persons dealing in the course of trade with wool products will be represented on the board by one member and that the Associated Chambers of Commerce of South Africa and the Afrikaanse Handelsinstituut will nominate that member after mutual consultation, and secondly, that the National Textile Manufacturers’ Association and The South African Worsted Manufacturers’ Trade Association will be represented on the board by one person and that the person concerned will also be nominated by the associations concerned after mutual consultation. Because the provisions of section 5 (1) are in this respect restrictive in nature, it means that the Act has to be amended whenever additional organizations demand recognition, as is the case at present, or even when one of the recognized organizations dissolves or changes its name. Therefore, in order to obviate the necessity of amending the Act in the future each time that changes occur, this amendment, as I have said, does away with the recognition given to specific organizations and the section is set out in more general terms.

However, it is not proposed to do away altogether with the existing recognition granted to the organizations concerned, but the Wool Act is merely being brought into line with the Marketing Act, where the discretion to recognize specific bodies as being representative of an industry is left to the Minister. As hon. members can see, this is only a minor amendment.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House would like to support this measure. However, there is certain information which I should like to have from the hon. the Minister. I cannot imagine that there could ever be organizations other than the Associated Chambers of Commerce of South Africa and the Afrikaanse Handelsinstituut to represent business interests. I should now like to know from the Minister whether this amendment was introduced merely to make provision for anyone to serve on the board. Does the Minister think that any other body, other than these two bodies, can represent trade? What I have just said is in connection with the first amendment in this Bill.

In connection with the second amendment, i.e. that contained in the new subsection (1) (d), I want to draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that washers and decarbonizers of wool have always been or ought to be members of the National Textile Manufacturers’ Association. In the regulations in respect of the processing of wool these processes are all defined. If these people want to dissolve their associations every day, to establish a new association, for example an association of washers or combers, the legislation will have to be made so broad that they will all have to be co-ordinated. They will then only be able to nominate one person on the board. One of two things will then happen. Either they will not do so, or the Minister will have the power to consult with whomever he wishes. The hon. the Deputy Minister has not yet given us the assurance that, if the legislation is broadened in this connection, as contemplated, the Minister will consult with all the bodies defined as a result of this amendment. I should like to know from the hon. the Deputy Minister if it is the intention with this legislation that all bodies dealing with the manufacturing of wool will be united, so that there will be one joint nomination. In this legislation two bodies are mentioned, but there is a third which has already applied for inclusion. Is the Deputy Minister going to make provision for all other bodies that may be added to be included, so that only one nomination will be made in respect of all those bodies? I have already mentioned other bodies which may still be added. What is the intention with this legislation, because here it is stated that the Minister can ask bodies, which he regards as representative, for nominations.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for East London (City) must not, as a result of this amendment, think that we want to deprive groups that are interested in this wool representation, of any privileges. This proposal actually comes from the Wool Board itself, for purposes of streamlining. The legal draftsmen also say that we should not mention the names of any specific organizations. There are so many bodies that would have to be mentioned. There are so many people who are interested in this that it would be much easier not to mention any names. I want to assure the hon. member for East London (City) that the Minister only acts in these matters as a result of recommendations and representations which he received from the interested groups concerned. No privileges are being taken away. The hon. member’s last point was: Suppose another such association is added; must it then also be consulted? In such a case the Minister will be guided by recommendations of recognized organizations in the interest group concerned. If the organization which may originate in this way is so strong and operates so successfully that it deserves recognition, I believe that the Minister will recognize that body after consultation. We do not foresee that something like that will in fact happen, but I am merely mentioning it in case it does. The Minister’s standpoint is to make this matter more streamlined. These bodies must still be recognized, but it is not necessary to mention all of them specifically in this Bill.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

This Bill seeks to effect certain important changes in the Medical, Dental and Pharmacy Act, (Act No. 13 of 1928). Amongst other things it relates to, firstly, the recognition of foreign pharmaceutical qualifications for registration purposes, and, secondly, the training of chemists and druggists in South Africa. Thirdly, it is aimed at transferring from the Medical Council and Pharmacy Board any responsibility in respect of the scheduling of drugs which are poisons, habit-forming drugs and potentially harmful drugs. Fourthly, it seeks to intensify the control of potentially harmful drugs, such as sleeping draughts, sedatives and stimulants. Fifthly, it relates to the supply of certain drugs to midwives. Sixthly, it is aimed at simplifying the procedure relating to the lodging and consideration of complaints in respect of accounts of medical practitioners and dentists. In addition to that provision is being made in the Bill for amendments in respect of several other matters, which, from experience, appear to be advisable as far as the implementation of the Act is concerned.

In all there are 11 aspects which are being covered by this Bill. I shall deal first with the six most important aspects. Firstly, as regards the question of the recognition of foreign pharmaceutical qualifications, section 22 of the Act stipulates that pharmaceutical qualifications obtained in foreign countries may only be recognized for registration purposes in the Republic if persons who are in possession of South African qualifications are allowed to practice in those countries—i.e. in countries abroad—without any further examinations. In other words, there must be reciprocity between the Republic and such countries in regard to these qualifications. Since the introduction of this Act the Pharmacy Board has never had any success in entering into reciprocal agreements with other countries, except the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. The reason for this is not that South African qualifications are considered to be of a lower standard than those of foreign countries, but that those countries already have a sufficient number of qualified chemists and druggists. It is a protective measure for the sake of their own chemists and druggists. Consequently they are not anxious to encourage South African chemists and druggists to emigrate there.

As regards South Africa, the position is the exact opposite. Because of the rapid development and expansion of the pharmaceutical manufacturing industry in the Republic, there is a considerable shortage of qualified chemists and druggists who are experienced in the field of the manufacturing industry. Owing to the existing reciprocal provisions of the Act, it is not possible to eliminate this shortage by registering immigrants who are highly qualified but obtained their qualifications in countries with which the Republic has not entered into agreements of reciprocity. Owing to the shortage of qualified staff it is at present very difficult to fill vacancies for chemists and druggists at State and provincial hospitals.

The position in regard to the recruitment of foreign chemists and druggists has been aggravated owing to the fact that a year or so ago the British authorities decided to increase the requirements in respect of the academic training of chemists and druggists from three to four years, with a corresponding decrease in the practical aspects of training from two years to one year. In addition to that they decided that chemists and druggists who qualified in other countries, would have to sit for an examination in forensic pharmacy before they would be allowed to register in the United Kingdom. As a result of this the reciprocal agreement between the Republic and the United Kingdom lapsed. Therefore, it is no longer possible to register in this country chemists and druggists who are in possession of British qualifications. In the light of all these circumstances the Pharmacy Board as well as the Department of Immigration have made strong representations to the effect that the provision relating to reciprocity be deleted. To make sure that chemists and druggists who qualified in countries abroad, are conversant with the way this profession is practised in South Africa, the Pharmacy Board has proposed that such persons should pass an additional test before being registered in the Republic. This test will concentrate on forensic pharmacy and the practice of this profession in South Africa. In this regard it is the intention to introduce arrangements whereby prospective immigrant chemists and druggists will be able to sit for these tests at South African embassies abroad. The acceptance of this proposal, for which provision is being made in clauses 3 and 4 of the Bill, will have the effect that the recognition in South Africa of foreign qualifications for registration purposes, will be done purely on merit. However, the Pharmacy Board will not have absolute latitude in this respect, since the present provision, in terms of which no foreign qualification may be prescribed which is not at least equal in standard to recognized South African qualifications, will still apply. In addition to that the regulations in which foreign qualifications are laid down, must be approved by the Minister beforehend. So much as far as the question of reciprocity is concerned.

Now I come to the question of the training of chemists and druggists. There are two alternatives for persons who wish to qualify as chemists and druggists in South Africa. Firstly, they may study for a degree in pharmacy—which has been recognized for registration purposes in terms of section 22 of the Act—at a university where a pharmacy faculty has been established. This is the first method. In terms of section 25 the duration and minimum requirements of the curriculum, the standard of education and examinations, as well as the nature and duration of the practical training (apprenticeship) are being prescribed by the State President upon the recommendation of the Pharmacy Board. Secondly, a person in South Africa may study for the Pharmacy Board’s diploma in pharmacy at a technical college. In terms of section 27 the Pharmacy Board prescribes the curriculum, etc., for this course. It also appoints the examiners. In addition the board may grant exemption from examination in any particular subject to the holder of a degree, diploma or certificate of an examining authority recognized by the board, which, in the opinion of the board, indicates a standing of training and knowledge in that specific subject not less than that required by the board.

The prescribed duration of academic study in regard to both the university degree and the diploma of the board, is three years. In both cases students must apprentice themselves to a chemist and druggist for two years before they will have completed their academic course. With a view to ensuring that the standard of training of chemists and druggists in the Republic is maintained at a level in keeping with modern practice and the requirements of pharmaceutical promotion, the Pharmacy Board, as well as the universities, strongly urged that the academic course be extended from three to four years and that the practical training be reduced from two years to one year. In addition the board wants the practical training to be undertaken after and not before, as is the case at present, the completion of the academic course. I think hon. members will agree with me that this is a sensible step. In this regard the board proposes that apprenticeship as a part of training be deleted and that instead of that, those who have obtained their degree or diploma should work as trainees for a period of 12 months before being registered as chemists and druggists. In order to afford apprentices the opportunity of gaining experience in regard to the responsibilities of a chemist and druggist, the board also proposes that during the last month of their practical training, trainees should be allowed to act as a chemist and druggist in charge of the pharmacy in question. The acceptance of these proposals would bring the training of chemists and druggists in the Republic into line with that which is generally applied in other developed countries. I think hon. members will appreciate that to agree to these amendments, is highly desirable and in the public interest. Provision for the purpose of giving effect to this, is being made in clauses 5, 6 and 7 of the Bill. Consequential amendments are being effected in clauses 2, 8, 11, 12, 24, 25 and 26. These are the most important aspects of the Bill as far as the pharmaceutical profession is concerned.

Now I come to two matters which are related to a certain extent, i.e. the scheduling of certain drugs and the intensification of the control of the sale or supply of potentially harmful drugs. As far as the former matter is concerned, the position is that the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Schedules to the Act contain particulars in regard to preparations which, for the purposes of the Act, are regarded as poisons, habit-forming drugs and potentially harmful drugs, respectively. The sale of these preparations is subject to strict control in terms of the Act. That is the present position.

In terms of the relevant provisions of the Act these schedules may only be amended upon the recommendation of the Medical Council supported by the Pharmacy Board, of upon the recommendation of the latter body supported by the Medical Council. As a result of this cumbrous procedure there was considerable delay in the past in amending the schedules. Hon. members can appreciate how serious this is, seen in the light of the large quantities of these drugs on the market nowadays. In view of the spate of new preparations and especially potentially harmful drugs, such as sedatives, which are continuously appearing on the market nowadays, it has become essential in the public interest for arrangements to be introduced whereby new preparations of this nature may be placed on the relevant schedule without delay.

After careful consideration of the matter and in consultation with the Medical Council, the Pharmacy Board and the Drugs Control Council, it was decided to amend the Act in order to exempt the Medical Council and the Pharmacy Board from their functions in respect of the scheduling of drugs, and to transfer the functions in question to the Drugs Control Council.

Apart from the fact that the acceptance of this proposal would eliminate any delay in regard to the scheduling of new preparations, the Drugs Control Council, which was established in terms of the Drugs Control Act, has amongst its members experts who have special knowledge of the action and administration of drugs for human use. As hon. members know, this is a very recent development. This is a more suitable body for making recommendations on new preparations which ought to be included in the relevant schedules, more suitable than the Medical Council or the Pharmacy Board, whose main function is to exercise control over the professional activities of medical practitioners and chemists and druggists, respectively. Provision in this regard is being made in clauses 10, 15 and 18 of the Bill.

As regards the question of the control of potentially harmful drugs, i.e. drugs which, although they are not necessarily poisonous or habit-forming, may nevertheless have dangerous effects if used wrongly or injudiciously, the position is that in terms of section 65bis of the Act no person may sell or supply such drugs unless a prescription of a medical practitioner, dentist or authorized veterinarian is produced. However, the Act does not prohibit, and this is important, the possession of potentially harmful drugs which have not been obtained on such a prescription. The result of this is that a person who has obtained such drugs in an unlawful manner, through theft or the black market for instance, cannot be prosecuted on the strength of his being in possession of those drugs. This state of affairs makes it difficult to exercise effective control over the black market in preparations such as stimulants and sedatives.

Regard having been had to all these things, it was decided, upon the recommendation of the Pharmacy Board and the Department of Health, to fill this gap in the Act. Provision in this regard is being made in clause 17. Amendments which are connected with this matter and which seek to bring the measures in respect of the control of potentially harmful drugs into line with those which are applicable to habit-forming drugs, where it appears to be practicable and advisable, are as follows: Firstly, provision for the inspection of prescription books and prescriptions (clauses 13 and 16); secondly, provision for the imposition of penalties for the unlawful possession of potentially harmful drugs and for the confiscation of the drugs in question (clause 19); thirdly, provision for authorized persons to search any person suspected on reasonable grounds of being in unlawful possession of a potentially harmful drug (clause 20); fourthly, provision for the seizure and disposal of unlawful stocks of potentially harmful drugs, as well as for inspections of the records and stocks of such drugs (clause 21), and, fifthly, provision for also making the provisions of section 87 of the Act—i.e. in regard to the liability of those who are authorized to sell poisons and habit-forming drugs for unlawful acts on the part of their partners, agents, employees, etc.—applicable to those who are authorized to sell potentially harmful drugs (clause 24). The requirement that potentially harmful drugs may only be sold or supplied on prescription, is not applicable to a medical practitioner, a dentist, an authorized veterinarian or a chemist and druggist, or a responsible officer of a hospital or a person or organization authorized in writing by the Secretary for Health to obtain it for scientific research or educational purposes. However, as a result of the proposal to make it an offence to be in possession of potentially harmful drugs which were not obtained in terms of the provisions of the Act, it will be necessary to extend the said exemption in regard to obtaining such drugs without a prescription, with a view to covering organizations such as Bantu authorities which maintain district nursing services and the National Council for the Blind which uses ointments containing potentially harmful drugs for the treatment of trachoma. Consequently provision has been made in the Bill in terms of which these drugs may be supplied, without a prescription being produced, to any person or organization performing a health service who or which has been authorized in writing by the Secretary for Health to acquire such drugs for the performance of such service. This is a practical arrangement which cannot lead to any abuses, and provision is being made for this in clause 16.

Another matter in regard to the acquisition of scheduled drugs, is the supply of certain such drugs to midwives. There are often cases where it is necessary for midwives, in emergency cases where a medical practitioner is not available, to administer to their patients certain drugs, for instance habit-forming drugs or potentially harmful drugs, the acquisition and use of which are not permitted freely. Consequently provision was made, during 1961, in section 72 (f)quat of the Act, in terms of which midwives could obtain and use morphine and pethidine subject to the conditions determined by the Minister by regulation. These are two substances which are being used by midwives to combat pain. The Nursing Council requested that similar provision be made in respect of oxytocin and stilbestrol, which are potentially harmful drugs. Consequent upon this request, which, incidentally, was strongly supported by the Department of Health, it was decided to amend section 72 (f)quat in such a manner that the drugs bought and used by midwives may be determined by regulation. In this manner the necessity of amending the Act every time the inclusion of a new drug is necessitated, will be eliminated. I think hon. members will also agree in this respect that this is merely a practical arrangement and that it will prevent a great number of unnecessary amendments to the Act. Provision is being made for this in clause 21 of the Bill.

The last of the more important provisions of the Bill is the question of complaints in respect of the accounts of medical practitioners and dentists. This matter is being dealt with in section 80bis of the Act, which lays down the procedure to be followed by persons wishing to lodge complaints in the said connection with the Medical Council. Experience has shown that the prescribed procedure is so complicated and cumbrous that as a rule patients decide to pay the account rather than obtaining the assistance of an attorney. In these circumstances it was decided, with the consent of the Medical Council, to amend section 80bis so as to simplify this procedure. In addition to that a proposal of the Medical Council was approved, i.e. that in the said section provision should also be made in terms of which medical practitioners and dentists must in future furnish their patients with specified accounts. According to legal advice taken by the Medical Council, the council does not have the authority, i.e. in terms of section 80bis of the Act, to consider and decide on complaints in regard to accounts in respect of the supply by medical practitioners and dentists of artificial substitutes, such as artificial eyes or artificial teeth, since the supply thereof constitutes a purchase contract and is therefore not a professional service for the purposes of section 80bis. Consequently the council requested that this gap be filled in the Act by providing that the expression “professional services” in section 80bis shall include the construction or supply of any artificial part for the human body. Provision in regard to the said matters is being made in clause 22 of the Bill.

I have now dealt with the more important provisions. The remaining provisions are connected with a few other matters which I want to mention now. So far I have dealt with six and I shall now deal with another four or five provisions. The first is in regard to the amendment of the Second Schedule to the Act. The Second Schedule to the Act lays down the fees which the Medical Council and the Pharmacy Board may demand in respect of certain matters, such as registration with that body, and various other matters in respect of which provision has been made in the Act. Upon the recommendation of the Medical Council the Second Schedule was amended by proclamation during 1963, i.e. by the insertion of fees in respect of the restoration of the name of a medical practitioner to the register. Subsequent to that it came to light that this step was ultra vires, in view of the fact that specific provision for it had not been made in the Act. The object of clause 9 of the Bill is to put this matter right.

A further matter is the sale of poisonous preparations. Section 82 of the Act makes provision for the way in which poisonous preparations—i.e. preparations which, although they do not constitute poisons for the purposes of section 48, are nevertheless dangerous—are to be labelled and packed when sold by retail (sulphuric acid, absolute alcohol and disinfectants containing phenols are examples of poisonous preparations). Since the said provisions do not apply to wholesale sales, cases are found where retailers, i.e. chemists and druggists, have to re-label and repack poisonous preparations, which they obtain from manufacturers or other wholesalers, in order to meet the requirements of the Act before such preparations are sold by them. With a view to eliminating unnecessary work, the Pharmacy Board requested that section 82 of the Act be amended so as to make the provisions thereof applicable to the sale of poisonous preparations, irrespective of whether they are sold by retail or otherwise. The Pharmacy Board’s request was considered to be a reasonable one. The matter was discussed with a representative of the Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Association, who indicated that his association would have no objection to that. Provision is being made accordingly in clause 23 of the Bill.

Another matter is the correction of error in section 96. In incorporating, during 1954, provision in Act No. 13 of 1928 for the exercise of control over potentially harmful drugs, a list of such drugs was inserted as the Sixth Schedule and the existing Sixth Schedule, which specified the Acts originally repealed, became the Seventh Schedule. Owing to an oversight a consequential amendment in the definition of the expression “scheduled law” was not effected.

The next matter which is dealt with in this Bill, is the designation “the mandated territory of South-West Africa”. While we are amending the Act, we should also like to avail ourselves of the opportunity to substitute the expression “the territory of South-West Africa” which is being used in our laws at present, for the obsolete expression in regard to this Bill, i.e. “the mandated territory of South-West Africa”. Clauses 26, 27 and 28 are connected with this matter.

The last matter I wish to mention, is the control over unqualified assistants. In terms of section 37 of the Act, an unqualified assistant—i.e. a person who, although he has not been registered as a chemist and druggist, has nevertheless completed the prescribed period of apprenticeship referred to in section 27—may, under the supervision of a chemist and druggist, perform certain specified actions, such as the compounding and dispensing of drugs, which are specifically connected with the profession of a chemist and druggist. With a view to the nature of their work, the Pharmacy Board considers it to be advisable and in the public interest that the performance of the actions in question by unqualified assistants be prohibited, unless they have been registered with the board and thus comes under its control. The Department of Health supports the board’s views and feels that this is a valid amendment. Provision to give effect to this proposal is being made in section 26 of the Bill.

With the measures incorporated in this Bill, a serious attempt is being made at raising the status of the chemist and druggist and at strengthening the hands of the police as regards the combating of the abuse of dangerous drugs. It is high time that we took these steps, and I believe that they will meet with the approval of every member of this House and that they will be accepted with great joy by the public in general, because the fact remains that in regard to the abuse of dangerous drugs there is a great deal of concern in the hearts of many persons and particularly parents in South Africa. Since the measures embodied in this Bill are in the public interest, I have no doubt that they will enjoy the unanimous support of hon. members.

Business suspended at 6.30 p.m. and resumed at 8.05 p.m.

Evening Sitting

This Bill is one which has been requested largely by the people most concerned in the carrying out of the Act on which medicine is based, Act No. 13 of 1928, the Medical, Dental and Pharmacy Act, and most of what the hon. the Minister has brought forward has been done at the request of these two institutions, namely the Medical and Dental Council and the Pharmacy Board. I may say that we are very glad that the Minister has brought these provisions forward. They have been hanging fire in the hands of his predecessors for a long time.

That is understandable.

Surely you did not expect Albert to do it.

Well, it was not good for the country that they should have been hanging fire. [Interjections.]

Order!

The first thing is the improvement in the educational and the professional status of pharmacists. Up to now it has been almost impossible for a pharmacist to have anything but a diploma. He could not in the course of his training take a university degree. Now it has become possible for him to take a degree in his profession and then to do his actual practical training either in the laboratory of a technical college, or as an apprentice to another pharmacist. This will give to the pharmacist a much higher standing. He will have had the benefit of living for three years on the university campus; he will get a better training than he could ever get before merely living in isolation and working in the back of a chemist’s shop. It is like David Copperfield. If you think back to the days of Dickens, the training of a pharmacist was something along those lines. The pharmacists are now pleased indeed that they can attain this higher standing which they richly deserve. We in the medical profession have always regarded the apothecary as our colleague who would help us when we were in difficulties, who would provide drugs night or day and who, when we wanted special information which only he could supply, would supply it to us with all the goodwill in the world. We welcome him to this higher status which, as I say, he richly deserves.

The Bill also introduces the trainee pharmacist. This is the man who has done his university training and is now doing his practical training. He will take up a position similar to that of the intern in medicine. The intern in medicine has passed his examinations and he is gradually taken from the irresponsible, carefree life of the student into the hard and worrying life of the doctor. He does this gradually over his first year, and in his last month he is given a great deal of responsibility, so that the break between the irresponsible student and the anxious doctor is gradually brought to his attention. The same thing will happen to the trainee pharmacist. The pharmacist has heavy responsibilities. The ordinary public think he is just a doler out of pills and patent medicine. This is sheer nonsense. The pharmacist is a responsible individual. He has in his charge the handling and the care of poisonous drugs and of habit-forming drugs and he is responsible to the State for every drop and every grain of these habit-forming drugs. People should recognize this fact and appreciate what an important person he is. They should not regard him, as so many people do, as the doler-out of embrocations and similar things.

As the Minister has said, there is still the question of reciprocity. One of our difficulties in pharmacy, with the change-over, was that there was a possibility that some of the overseas countries, who were prepared to accept our pharmacists on an equal basis with their own, might have changed their attitude if we had not adopted this newer method. I am pleased to hear from the hon. the Minister that reciprocity is in no danger whatsoever. Sir, reciprocity is the lifeblood of our knowledge of the medical profession; it is the only standard we have. If we do not have reciprocity we do not know whether we are any good or whether we are average or whether we are very bad. Because of reciprocity we are able to get comparisons with other countries; we are able to know whether other countries think that we are as good as they are; we are able to find out, by comparison with them, by arrangements with them, what standards we work to. It is the only standard we have. We cannot sit here in isolation and work out our own standards. We must have something against which we can measure our standards, and the measure in the health profession is based entirely on the comparison with other countries, and that measure is reciprocity. It is absolutely essential to these professions that they should have that standard of measurement. This new training for the pharmacists will make their training even better than it has been in the past, and on that account I value it.

We then move on to the question of drugs. Last session, or recently at any rate, we passed a Bill in this House called the Drugs Control Bill. Formerly all drugs were controlled either by the Pharmacy Board or by the Medical Council or by the two working together. The control of drugs has now been taken out of the hands of these two bodies—and they are glad to be rid of it—and handed over entirely to the Drugs Control Council, which is a specialized council. Unfortunately it is a new council. It has a tremendous amount of work to do. Thousands of drugs have to be classified and new classifications have to be created. When I tell you, Sir, that the American Drugs Control Board employs 3,000 people and that it is three years behind with its work, you will understand the problem that faces our Drugs Control Board here. It has the same amount of work to do as the American Drugs Control Board. We are all the same people; there are fewer of us here, but nevertheless the work is the same, and I can assure you, Sir, that this Drugs Control Council is going to be very hard pressed and will need all the assistance that the hon. the Minister can give it, but for years they will have to rely on such information as they can obtain through other countries. I do not think we can expect them to be fitted with the laboratories which the older countries have. Sir, it was pure chance that saved the United States from using thalidomide. Thalidomide is a drug which was invented in Germany. It was boosted and it came into use in Great Britain after about two years. The Germans, who were making a fortune out of this drug, pushed it as hard as they could and they did not listen to any complaints. It was then taken over to America and by pure chance there was a fault in a letter which the Germans had written to the American Drugs Control Council. The Americans said, “We will not accept it; we want this error in the letter corrected”, so they sent it back to the Germans for correction. In that period, before the letter had been answered, the thalidomide scandal broke; yet two years before the scandal broke a German had pointed out to the Germans themselves the fact that he had noted several deformed children being born in his village. The drug people, however, would not listen, and that is why so many children were born deformed, because the Drugs Control Council in Germany, if they had one, or whoever controls drugs, did not take notice of what they were told. I am sure the House will appreciate that the responsibility which rests on the Drugs Control Council of this country is a very serious one, and with the backlog which they had to overtake in regard to the classification of drugs, which had not been classified before, we should give them every possible assistance. They have a heavy responsibility.

The question of potentially harmful drugs is also dealt with in this Bill. This country has had a very good history in regard to the use of habit-forming drugs. There has not been a great deal of misuse of habit-forming drugs. The pharmacists and the doctors between them have kept control over the so-called H.F.D.’s (habit-forming drugs). There have been abuses. Most of these abuses have taken place in hospitals. There have been very few outside the hospitals. A great deal of publicity has been given to the misuse of the “purple hearts” and such other drugs which can really be classified as potentially harmful drugs. It has always been possible for a pharmacist to give people potentially harmful drugs if he knew them and if he was satisfied that there would be no abuse. But that control has broken down. The hon. the Minister now brings in a form of control which is almost as strong as the control over habit-forming drugs. This means that before a potentially harmful drug can be dispensed by a pharmacist he must have a doctor’s prescription. This will bear heavily on the public because they will have to see their doctor every time they want a “repeat”, unless he gives them a prescription on which he endorses the word “repeat”. A few doctors will “repeat” indefinitely; in fact, they should not do so. If the doctor has to be consulted, he has to give a prescription; the patient has to go to the pharmacist to get the prescription and he is going to be put to a lot of extra trouble. I would suggest to the hon. the Minister that he should look carefully into the question whether he should not ask the Drugs Control Council very carefully to check potentially harmful drugs, and to cut down as much as possible the number of potentially harmful drugs so as to ease the burden on the patient and on the pharmacist. There are many drugs on the P.H.D. list which are not harmful but which are merely included for the sake of safety to warn the chemist to be careful. If the hon. the Minister does not do what I have just suggested, then I think the load on the pharmacists, on the doctors and on the patients is going to be intolerable. What was formerly put in sometimes merely on a formula but was not really investigated should now be thoroughly investigated so that no drug which is not really potentially harmful can be included on that list. We do not have the same problem with habit-forming drugs for those are world-wide known. It is really a question which is settled by the U.N.; they tell us what they regard as habit-forming drugs and we follow their advice.

Lastly, I want to come to the question of the proposed new section 80bis which affects the doctors. In its wisdom this hon. House in 1928 included a section in the Medical, Dental and Pharmacy Act which exists in no other country in the world. It put upon the Medical Council the burden of deciding whether or not a doctor’s fees were excessive. Nowhere else is this done by this method. The Medical Council has the greatest difficulty in carrying out this duty, and they have tried in many ways to lighten the burden, both for themselves and for the aggrieved patient. Finally they have evolved a system which they hope will work. Originally we had a system which was cluttered up with legal phrases and it involved summonses and subpoenas and many other things, which for the ordinary humble people of the country are frightening. We have at last narrowed it down so that all that was needed was an affidavit. But it was found that even the fact that they have to go to a lawyer or to a police station to swear an affidavit was inclined to deter the humble people of the country who felt that, after all, they had to pay the bill sooner or later, and why should they go and add a lawyer’s bill.

The change which is brought about now is a change at the request of the Medical Council itself. An affidavit is now no longer required, in other words, it is enough for the complaining patient to write a letter to the Council. This will help the patient who has complaints and it will not increase to any extent the number of complaints which reach the Council. We see occasionally that the Council holds an inquiry into the conduct of a doctor, but if we add it up these inquiries do not amount to more than eight or ten in a year. We in the Medical Council receive 200 to 300 complaints in a month, but most of them are frivolous in that the patients generally have misunderstood something, they had not completely understood what had been done for them, and when the doctor’s side is heard, as is always the case, by the Medical Council, and an explanation is given to these people most of them are satisfied. When it is explained to them what has happened, they are perfectly satisfied and they know they have not had to quarrel with their doctor in order to have justice done.

We in the Medical Council have asked for this and we look forward now to an easier way of handling these complaints. We hope there will be fewer of them, but we do feel we should like the patients to know that they can, without any expense other than the cost of a postage stamp, obtain an explanation or redress. As I say, this side of the House welcomes this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House naturally welcome the unanimity with which this measure is being accepted by this House. This only goes to prove to us that on that side of the House a measure of good judgment and good sense can still prevail when that is required by circumstances. This measure, as the hon. the Minister rightly remarked, deals with numerous aspects of the practice of pharmacy and medicine. Personally I feel that the extension of the period of the academic training of chemists and druggists most definitely is, as the hon. member for Durban (Central) also remarked, a step in the right direction, and that this once again places the emphasis on the academic training of the chemist and druggist and not so much on his business training. Under the previous system of training chemists and druggists a trainee was required to undergo academic training for one year followed by practical training with an approved chemist and druggist for two years, again followed by academic training for two years. This process interfered with the continuity of the studies of such a trainee, and I believe it also had a detrimental effect on his studies. What is more, this also created the impression that a greater interest was taken in the business aspect of pharmacy than in the academic aspect of the work of a chemist and druggist. Now this new dispensation is once again putting the entire matter in its right perspective and, as regards the training of a chemist and druggist, it is once again placing the emphasis where it ought to be placed.

In the era in which we are living and in which there has been rapid development in the field of chemotherapy, it is being expected more and more of chemists and druggists to have a good academic grounding. More and more demands are being made on a chemist and druggist in respect of his knowledge of his subjects. This statement may sound like an anachronism in view of the fact that at present the preparation of medicines is the full-time occupation of very few chemists and druggists. But with the numerous chemotherapeutic preparations we have on the market to-day, it is absolutely essential for the chemist and druggist to keep himself fully acquainted with what is happening in the field of his profession. In these times the medical practitioner too has to rely more and more on the knowledge of the chemist and druggist as the medical practitioner simply no longer has the time at his disposal for keeping himself well informed on the properties, the contra-indications, the chemical properties, etc., of certain preparations. Consequently he has to depend on the knowledge of the chemist and druggist in this connection. For this reason a sound relationship between the medical practitioner and the chemist and druggist is very essential.

In recent times a development has been taking place in the field of pharmacy which is a source of concern to one, and that is that at present the chemist and druggist is concentrating more and more on the business aspect of his undertaking. We no longer find the old traditional chemist and druggist of earlier days who occupied himself with the preparation of medicines, of different kinds of ointments, etc. To-day one can enter many a pharmacy which looks like a toy shop or a furniture store or a radio shop, because all kinds of commodities are on sale in pharmacies at present. I accept unconditionally that this tendency has been forced by necessity in view of the fact that the supermarkets and the ordinary commercial shops are now entering the field of the chemist and druggist. Whereas the chemist and druggist used to be the sole supplier of toiletries, ordinary household medicines, cough remedies, aspirins, etc., we now find that these commodities can also be obtained from ordinary dealers. I feel the chemist and druggist may claim some protection in this field as well, and probably it will become necessary at some time to give consideration on a high level to these phenomena in the field of pharmacy in order to protect the chemist and druggist against the unfair competition he has to endure from supermarkets, shops, etc. I feel that with this Bill we are restoring the status of the chemist and druggist and that he may also claim protection from this House in this other respect.

In this era in which we are living, the conservative element of our society is seriously concerned about the direction in which the Western civilization is moving at the moment. We have the phenomenon that existing and accepted norms and principles of morality are not being queried but are also being rejected summarily; that those things which have been serving as the cornerstones of our form of civilization and way of life are being rejected summarily. We are living in a time in which an entity such as a permissive community has become a tangible entity, which we must duly take into account. This permissive community is part of our community and it allows the development of cults, including the so-called hippie cult, which claim not only a right of existence but also recognition by society, and last but not least, acceptance by society as normal and as part of a normal pattern and way of life. I am referring to these so-called cults as these people admit flagrantly and without any sense of shame that they do not regard themselves as being bound to social norms and accepted principles and consequently abandon themselves to concepts such as, inter alia, free love and the free use of narcotics, habit-forming drugs, stimulants, etc. It is hardly necessary for me to point out the dangers these things hold for our Western way of life and pattern of civilization. Our children are being undermined spiritually; their disciplinary links to the community are being broken and a community which wants to regard itself as being absolutely free in everything it does, free from any norms or any specific pattern of life, is coming into existence. In other words, we are getting a condition of anarchy and chaos in the place of sound social order.

Already there are unmistakable signs that this tendency towards the uncontrolled use of drugs and the like is taking root more and more every day also in our South African way of life. The tragic aspect is that even public opinion, which always used to be a factor which counteracted these tendencies and one which had to be taken into account, is changing. We are coming to regard these people and these concepts of loose living and free love with more and more sympathy. This can only have the effect that in the end this conservative factor which could still have served as a counter-measure to the uncontrolled use of habit-forming drugs in particular will also disappear. If this factor were to disappear completely, it would be a disastrous day for us. We read even now that even parents supply their children with these drugs. Every day we read in the newspaper about cases of people who are addicted to drugs or narcotics. During the past week-end I read articles on this evil in our society in three Sunday newspapers. I want to read out a few headings of these articles: “Drugs: Hundreds of schoolchildren the victims”; “Take care, your child may already be addicted and you may not be aware of the fact”. Every now and then articles like this appear in the newspapers. We must not have any illusions about this evil. It is taking root very rapidly in our South African way of life, and the consequences can only be disastrous to this nation. Day after day we read of minors, even 12-year-olds and 13-year-olds, being caught in youth clubs where they had not only been drinking excessively but had also been taking these drugs with which they had been supplied at these clubs. No so long ago we had the tragic case of a young woman who escaped from an institution. She used to be at university where she had learned to take drugs. She was being treated in the institution. She escaped from the institution and roamed the country for ten days until she was eventually found in a sorry and half-starved state on the beach in Port Elizabeth. The fact that this young woman used to be at university, indicates that she had character and had the drive and will to get somewhere in life, but she had acquired the habit of taking these drugs, most probably through no fault of her own. That undermined her to such an extent spiritually that at the moment she really is a burden to herself and to the community. This, and not so much the habit-forming effect, is the real danger of taking these drugs. Many of these potentially harmful drugs are not habit-forming in their effect but when the individual is under the influence of such drugs, there is virtually no telling what such an individual will do.

In view of the alarming situation which is developing in this country, we welcome this measure with open arms. However, we should not allow this to create illusions for us, because legislation alone will not solve this problem. The education of our youth in particular is of the utmost importance. Some of the measures in this Bill seem to be of a very radical nature, but we are dealing with an evil which demands radical measures. Therefore it is particularly gladdening that the possession of drugs is now also being declared an offence. For bona fide patients there are in fact ways and means of obtaining these drugs in the correct and ethical way. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister, however, whether he cannot give consideration to differentiating in clause 9, the penalty clause, between the pedlar, the man who supplies the drugs to our youth and to people who do not need them, and the person who most probably is addicted to drugs. I feel that the pedlar, the person who is responsible for another person taking these drugs, deserves much more severe punishment than the person who has unfortunately become addicted and who in point of fact is the victim of the pedlar’s diabolical plans.

Mr. Speaker, then I also want to suggest whether the hon. the Minister will not consider adding a further provision to these penalty provisions to the effect that if a person is caught in possession of these drugs and it is found that such a person is addicted to these drugs, a condition may be imposed along with his punishment that he is to undergo proper psychiatric treatment as well. I should not like to cloud the unanimity with which this measure has been welcomed by this House, but I should like to refer to clause 22, which substitutes a new section for section 80bis of the principal Act. I have no objections to subsection (1), but I do have some misgivings about the effect of subsection (2), which provides that in future all accounts which medical practitioners and dentists will send to their patients have to be detailed accounts. I accept unconditionally that the principle is a sound one. The hon. member for Durban (Central) pointed out the difficulties which the Medical Council is experiencing in this connection. My objection is not one of principle, but a practical one, especially as far as medical practitioners, and especially one-man practices, are concerned. Sir, we find that these medical practitioners, particularly in our smaller towns, do their own books and send out their own accounts, that as a rule they cannot obtain outside help as this type of help is not readily available in our smaller communities. Now we find that if a medical practitioner is to detail every account he sends out, this will mean an enormous amount of work for him. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he cannot consider making this compulsory only in cases when patients request detailed accounts and not in all cases; because as this clause reads at present, this is compulsory in respect of all accounts. I feel that this is going to hit many of our rural medical practitioners very hard indeed. We should not forget that the mutual confidence between the patient and his medical practitioner is something very precious which serves as the cornerstone in practising this profession in a meaningful manner. This confidence applies not only in respect of the treatment of the patient, but also in respect of the fees the patient expects to pay to his medical practitioner. In the majority of cases the account of the medical practitioner is paid by a happy and satisfied patient without any enquiries or doubt arising about the composition of the account. I feel that if it is going to be expected of the medical practitioner to detail his accounts in every case, this important element of confidence which assists in the relationship between medical practitioner and patient may suffer and may be destroyed.

I am also concerned about the fact that this clause may cause the spotlight to fall on the financial aspect of practising this profession. I am concerned about the fact that lately too much emphasis has been placed on the financial side of the medical profession and too little emphasis on what a medical practitioner has to occupy himself with, namely practising sound medicine. Therefore I want to address a friendly appeal to the hon. the Minister to reconsider this clause and possibly to move an amendment in this regard during the Committee Stage.

Sir, we welcome this measure as it is affecting important aspects of our society, not only as far as medical practitioners, dentists and chemists and druggists are concerned, but also the public in general. I believe that the clauses contained in this Bill are to the benefit of society and this country.

Mr. Speaker, I very seldom find myself in a position where I can say a sincere ‘thank you’ and express my appreciation to a member on the opposite side of the House. The hon. the Minister indicated in his Second Reading speech that this was a matter which concerned people as a whole, that it was not being dealt with on a party basis, and that it was in the interests of the public. I believe that that is the approach which is being adopted by both sides of this House.

I want to thank the hon. member for Cradock for his remarks. I am grateful to him for appreciating the position of the chemists and druggists, and for indicating that the time for protection of chemists and druggists in their professional sphere, is long overdue. He has referred to the competition offered by supermarkets, discount houses and others. He also referred to the fact that it is regrettable that a chemist and druggist is not always able to occupy himself fully with his professional duties. These matters have occupied the minds of chemists and druggists for some time. I know that the plea which the hon. member for Cradock has made, is on the lips and in the hearts of many chemists and druggists in South Africa. But I also feel that in this seeking for the protection which we believe is necessary, in the interests of the public as well, there has not always been the understanding by the department and the hon. the Minister that there should have been.

I want to say to the hon. the Minister that he gave a clear, concise and detailed exposition of his Bill. But it is not the Bill itself and what it contains that is notable; it is what is omitted from this Bill, because it disregards the major requests which pharmacy, through the voice of the South African Pharmacy Board, has expressed to the Minister’s predecessor, mainly, for many years. I would like to refer briefly to the Pharmacy Board report, circulated to all registered chemists and druggists, for the period from May to October, 1967. It says:

Many of these amendments do not see the light of day in this Bill. Now I want to be perfectly fair. I am aware of the Minister’s position; that he has taken over relatively recently. I know that he has indicated to organized pharmacy that it is his intention to undertake a complete investigation and examination of the difficulties. I know that he has said that he will consult with the profession. My object in raising this matter is to indicate that there is a growing frustration amid the ranks of chemists and druggists, and I ask the Minister in all seriousness to see that this consideration is given priority.

There has been general praise in respect of this Bill. I must record one discordant note in expressing my sincere disappointment of the fact that this Bill was not proceeded with during the last session of Parliament. I believe that in the interests of the public, primarily, and also in the interests of the profession, it would have been a wise procedure. A great deal has been said both by the hon. the Minister and by the hon. member for Durban (Central) in regard to reciprocity. I realize that this Bill will renew the continuity which existed before the arrangement came to an end, on the 31st March of last year, as a result of a communication from the Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain. But during this period, which was longer than it need have been by virtue of the delay in the introduction of this Bill, there have been chemists and druggists, who qualified in Great Britain, practised in the countries to the north of us, and decided that South Africa was a better country in which to live. They came down here, expecting to receive recognition of their qualifications. Unfortunately, due to this hiatus which existed, there was a period during which they could not receive that recognition. They could not register, and although they were qualified chemists and druggists, they could not practice as such. I know that this Bill will do away with this situation. I am glad and I hope that it will shortly be on the Statute Book. There has been reference to the question of a four-year course. The five year overall course for pharmacy will be altered so that there will now be a four year academic course and a period of one year’s practical training. This is welcomed in certain circles. But it does not solve the problem altogether. It does not solve the problem of a dual qualification, one which organized pharmacy has sought to do away with for many years. This concerns the dual qualification, of a degree and a diploma, which do not receive equal recognition. I believe that if there were one qualification only, pharmacy would be in a better position. In addition to certain universities the bodies which are conducting the training of pharmacy, namely the technical colleges, could be allowed to continue to train chemists and druggists but they should be able to run a degree course through the University of South Africa.

We have a slightly anomalous position at the present moment. We have the position whereby half the chemists and druggists who qualify in the Republic—more than half—qualify under the diploma course. The others qualify under the degree course. We have the position where the non-White chemists and druggists all qualify under the degree course. We have 50 per cent of our White students who qualify as diplomates finding themselves in an academic cul de sac for the simple reason that their diploma qualification is not recognized at its full value by the universities offering the degree course. If there were one qualification, this difficulty would not arise and I believe that many of those people who may wish to continue their studies would be able to do so without being penalized. Though it is apparently the wish of pharmacy that there should be a four year academic course, I am constrained to ask myself at this present juncture, whether this four year course is really necessary under the circumstances which we know exist and to which the hon. member for Cradock has referred. I believe that the four year course would have been necessary had this Government in its wisdom accepted the recommendations of the Bremer Committee appointed by this Government by a predecessor to the hon. the Minister, to investigate pharmaceutical training as far back as 1951. I should now like to quote briefly from this report, because I think what it says has a great significance. I am now quoting from chapter 5 of the Report of the Committee to enquire into the Training of Chemists and Druggists in South Africa. Chapter 5 is headed “Encroachment on the Pharmaceutical Profession”. I read the following passage—

Do you know why it was not done?

No, I do not. I would be interested to hear.

It had not been passed by this House.

I realize that. That is the only reason and I appreciate that. I am hoping that this Minister is going to break this bad record and do something about it. I am glad the hon. the Minister made that interjection, because the department under his control is one of my main problems. I have here a problem in regard to district surgeons who fall under the control of the hon. the Minister. I want to refer the hon. the Minister to an advertisement which appeared in the Government Gazette of the 10th January, 1969. In this gazette there appeared an advertisement in regard to vacant part-time district surgeoncies. I examined the list in the gazette and briefly there were 49 vacancies. It was indicated in the advertisement that in respect of 44 of those vacancies, drug allowances of between R48 and R3,600 per year were allowed to the district surgeons. I would be the first person to say that people are entitled to medicine, and if a chemist or druggist is not available, then they must have their medicine and it should be through the district surgeon if necessary. But I examined this list and I found that of the 12 places listed there was a chemist and druggist in respect of each of these places. In all of the 12 cases there were 23 pharmacies. And yet, in those particular areas where the register of pharmacies indicate pharmacies to be present, amounts from R2,400 to R3,600 were given as drug allowances. There may be some explanation for this.

Are you aware of the reasons?

I hope the hon. the Minister will give me the reasons. I am aware of the Government dispensing contract by which it is possible for all people to receive medicines under that contract, at economic rates to the Government. This is one of the aspects which I believe will require the assistance of the hon. the Minister.

There has been a great deal of Press publicity in regard to the growing incidence of the use of potentially harmful drugs, such as the “purple hearts”, the “black bombs” and other drugs which do not fall within the category of habit forming drugs but which are under fairly strict control. There is no doubt about it that the public is deeply concerned. I was very interested in the Press release of a speech the hon. the Minister made when he attended a dinner of the South African Pharmacy Board on the 4th February, 1969. It said this—

I have a copy of the hon. the Minister’s speech here. I was also privileged to attend that function and I do not remember the hon. the Minister saying that. I do, however, recollect that in a news broadcast the following morning on the S.A.B.C. reference was made to this particular aspect. This is something which I should imagine would necessitate an amendment to the existing section 65bis. I do not see it here. I would therefore welcome from the hon. the Minister an explanation as to his reason for not proceeding with the suggestion which was embodied in his draft speech.

May I ask what the suggestion was?

I am referring to the hon. the Minister’s suggestion in his speech when he said, “In the interests of the public it would appear that the time has arrived where the quantity per occasion of potentially harmful drugs should be limited to a dosage basis”. I believe that with this public concern and general anxiety concerning the unauthorized use of potentially harmful drugs, that one has to examine the situation as a whole. And I wish to place on record a report of the South African Pharmacy Board which says unequivocally, that illegal supplies from retail chemists and druggists appear to be negligible. I give this further quotation from the board’s report of 1967—

Now, when it comes to a question of production I believe that the possibility of the release of drugs from production firms of repute, is on a very small scale. It is more likely that the smaller manufacturers could be responsible for the distribution of drugs to unauthorized sources. I believe that we are faced with a threat and if anybody wishes to read the “Black-market in Drugs” by Margaret Kreig, which outlines the dangerous position that exists in America, they will realize that this is a position which could develop in South Africa if the position were left unchecked. The S.A. Pharmacy Board has suggested something which could, I believe, improve this position, and that is that there should be a register of premises where poisons or drugs are sold. Here again, I believe that the hon. the Minister will give this his attention, because his predecessor always indicated that he was not prepared to give a ruling on this matter, until he had received the report of the Committee investigating the effect of poisons on man. Now the Minister has told us that, this report has been tabled and I hope that if it is the intention to introduce a register of premises this will not be longer delayed. I believe sincerely that the Drugs Control Council also will play a part in this aspect.

Then mention was made of distribution through the wholesale trade. There again, I believe that reputable firms act in a responsible manner and that the leakage there is negligible. But I want to point out one possible abuse which I believe could have serious proportions. I regret to say so, but this does concern some members of the medical profession. I am referring to those doctors who in terms of the Act are entitled to and in fact do their own dispensing. Many of them do their own dispensing and have their dispensaries, but I believe that this is a real source of supply to the black market in drugs. Just look at it this way. A dispensing doctor has a receptionist. I know that, regrettably sometimes, they are used illegally to help the doctor in dispensing, but if that man or woman acts as a receptionist and the doctor is out on his rounds, that person has the right to ring up and order, in the doctor’s name, potentially harmful drugs from a wholesaler. I think if the Minister examines section 65bis he will agree with me that there is nothing to stop that from being done. What actually happens is this. Cases are known where the receptionist rings up and orders bennies, etc., from a wholesale chemist, asks for them to be sent down C.O.D.; the drugs are sent and are paid for and they are immediately handed over to some friend or go-between, who puts them on to the black or the grey market, and the receptionist collects commission. I know that this is happening. There have been cases where it has happened and when one bears in mind that it is estimated that there are some 2,000 dispensing doctors, I think one must accept that this could be an avenue for drugs to reach the black market. As far as the chemist and druggist is concerned, section 77 of the Act lays down clearly, that every pharmacy shall be conducted under the continuous supervision of a qualified chemist and druggist. But as far as I know no such similar provision applies to the dispensing doctors, and when they are out on their rounds, it is obvious, and I know that from experience, that dispensary stock is left accessible to people who are legally not entitled to handle such drugs.

Then the Pharmacy Board made reference to the question of bulk stores. I am satisfied that there have been cases where from hospital bulk stores, there have been thefts which have resulted in large quantities of potentially harmful drugs finding their way into undesirable channels. But I have been assured, and I am satisfied in my own mind, that these avenues have been closed to a large extent, by strict security measures and the possibility of leakage is no longer as great as it was.

There is another important avenue of possible leakage and that is in the distribution of medical samples. Many people who purport to be medical representatives are people without any medical or pharmaceutical qualifications. I believe that their handling, their possession and their distribution of drugs, in bona fide cases possibly, to members of the medical profession, can lead to a great deal of abuse. I am satisfied that it is the intention in the amendment to section 65, to render illegal the unlawful possession of potentially harmful drugs. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister in his reply, to say whether it is his intention to invoke the provisions of this new clause to ensure that representatives who work for manufacturing drug houses and who have no pharmaceutical or medical qualifications will in fact be under rigorous control when it comes to the distribution of these medical samples.

I believe that from all appearances we can say that the professions as such have in the main carried out their responsibilities under the Act in regard to potentially harmful drugs. The record shows that, because during the last three years, from 1966 to 1968, the number of contraventions by medical men, dentists, veterinarians and chemists and druggists has been negligible. But I ask myself the question, whether in inspections the main efforts have not been directed purely against one profession, that of the pharmacist. As far as I can see from the Act and the regulations, equal responsibility is placed both on chemists and druggists and on doctors who dispense in terms of the Act. But I want to quote two cases which indicate that there is a great emphasis placed on the inspection of the records of chemists and druggists, which does not seem to apply, when it comes to the general practitioner. I want to quote the case of my own pharmacy. A reference to my habit-forming drug register would show that I have had 11 inspections of my register since 1963. Sir, I have been in practice since 1935, and I have never been before the court or before the Board for doubtful conduct. But nevertheless, my register has been inspected 11 times since 1963. Then there is the case of a chemist and druggist who practises within 50 miles of Durban and who has been established for six or seven years. During 1967 he dispensed 350 prescriptions, less than one prescription per day. During 1968 he dispensed 501 prescriptions, and the number rose to 1½ per day. It is thought that the Medical Schemes Act may have effected this improvement. The interesting thing is that although he is distant from Durban, more than one-third of his prescriptions dispensed were from Durban doctors. In the same village there is a doctor who is entitled by law to dispense and who in fact does not issue prescriptions, but dispenses his own prescriptions. Now this doctor has a White and a non-White practice, and it is estimated that he supplies up to 120 prescriptions a day, but he has never been subjected to the visits of the inspector, who calls on the chemists and druggists in the village. He may be inspected by an official from the department, but I am prepared to vouch that the frequency with which he is inspected is in no way comparable with the inspections carried out on chemists. This particular chemist, whose dispensing practice is almost negligible, found that his register was inspected on 15th January, 1968, the 26th July, 1968, and 16th January, 1969. I believe that this is a case of discrimination which I am sure the Minister will give his attention to.

I want to go further in regard to this question of inspections. It is estimated that there are, roughly, 2,000 doctors who do their own dispensing, while I believe the number of pharmacies is approximately 2,250, but when one analyses the number of inspections which have taken place, we find that the yearly average of the doctors is 133, against the yearly average of inspections of chemists’ registers of 1,372. So, if we assume that all the inspections effected on doctors are in respect of the dispensing doctors only, which is most unlikely, then the percentage inspected is 6½ per cent, whereas the percentage of pharmacies inspected is 56 per cent. Again I ask the hon. the Minister why is there this discrimination?

I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister that clause 13, which amends section 60, and clause 16 which amends section 65bis, to which the Minister has referred already, should be implemented impartially and I hope that this will be done. They both refer to inspections of records and it is my belief that the prescription book of the chemist and druggist is equivalent to the case card of the doctor, because I understand that that is recognized as a prescription book.

I come to another aspect where I must admit the Minister has had the effect of eliminating some of my anxiety, but I am still a little uncertain about this. I want to refer to the broadening of the avenues of supply of potentially harmful drugs and habit-forming drugs. I refer specifically to clause 16 and to clause 21. I know the Minister has said that duly authorized persons or organizations performing a health service, will be able to have access to potentially harmful drugs and I accept the Minister’s undertaking that this will be controlled by the Secretary for Health. But it is a widening of the distribution of potentially harmful drugs. We are faced with a problem in regard to potentially harmful drugs, and I hope that when this system is on the Statute Book it will be carried out with a strict eye to the safety of the public. In the second instance, and the Minister has referred to this, he has put my mind at rest, because the amendment itself was broad. It indicated that permission was sought for midwives to receive habit-forming drugs and potentially harmful drugs and that this concession could be operated by regulation. I felt that this was a very big step to take, for Parliament to agree to this. I accept the Minister’s promise, that in regard to potentially harmful drugs it applies to only two. But I want to sound a note of warning again. We have registered as midwives over 22,000 people in South Africa. I realize this is not the intention that every midwife should have access to these and that it will be limited, but it leads to more avenues. If one looks at the racial composition, we find there are 12,500 White, 1,400 Coloured and Indian, and 7,000 Bantu midwives, who in terms of this Act could find themselves having access to certain habit-forming drugs and potentially harmful drugs.

That can be controlled by the Secretary for Health.

I appreciate that, but what happens when the permit is returned for renewal? This is a problem I see no answer to. When we have this broadening of the aspect of the distribution of potentially harmful drugs and habit-forming drugs, I find a strange situation, when one bears in mind that the request by the S.A. Pharmacy Board in 1961—that is eight years ago, and it stands on record—that there should be a relaxation in the provisions under which prescriptions for potentially harmful drugs could be repeated, has still not been acceded to. I know the hon. member for Durban (Central) has referred to this matter. I believe that the time has come for a serious review of the potentially harmful drugs system and I would like to put one suggestion to the Minister if I may. In many sections of the Medical, Dental and Pharmacy Act, provision is made that after consultation with the council and the Pharmacy Board, the Minister may make regulations, and in certain cases the State President may make regulations. I submit that for administrative reasons the time has come to consider whether it might not be desirable to lay down the conditions under which potentially harmful drugs can be supplied under the Act, and to make provision by regulation to provide for the manner in which these potentially harmful drugs should be supplied. I do not think, with due respect to this House, that this is the place to decide whether the date should be put on a prescription by the doctor or by the chemist. I believe that these are matters which could be considered jointly by the two statutory bodies and finalized and promulgated by regulations, without the necessity of taking up the valuable time of this House.

Sir, the Minister has referred to the transfer of powers to the Drugs Control Council. On principle no one can quarrel with that practice, but I have certain reservations, and I feel it is only fair to place them before the hon. the Minister. The hon. the Minister is aware of it but hon. members may not be aware that although the Medical Council and the Pharmacy Board had the right to classify various drugs into the schedules for poisons, the work was in fact done by a conjoint committee consisting of approximately equal representation of both professions. Sir, I know of the frustrating delay which took place, a delay which was detrimental to the public. Because of this delay, drugs which should have been classified in schedules were not classified. I realize that this had to be overcome. I believe sincerely that the Drugs Control Council will be able to overcome this delay so that in future both fourth, fifth, and sixth schedule poisons will be classified by the Drugs Control Council instead of by this joint body. But I would like some assurance from the hon. the Minister, if he can give it, that on the committee or the body which in fact effects this classification, there will at least be equal representation. I believe that this is important. I realize that when it comes to a decision as to the therapeutic value or the danger of the drug, that falls primarily within the scope of the medical practitioners. But I think in fairness, the Minister must appreciate that when it comes to the administrative problem of the distribution of these drugs, this falls mainly on the chemists and druggists, and it is no use legislating for the impossible; it is no use laying down things which will result in frustration to the public and frustration to the chemists and druggists and also leave avenues for abuse. I ask the hon. the Minister please to lay down some ruling to ensure an equality of representation as between medical men and pharmacists on the committee which decides this. I want to point out that at the moment, according to my analysis of the committees appointed to the Drugs Control Council, 55 members have been appointed, 36 of whom are medical professional men in some avenues, and only 9 are chemists and druggists. There is, therefore, an overwhelming majority of medical men and I would like to think that pharmacy is equally represented in the case of classification of drugs.

Sir, I have put these points before the hon. the Minister; I feel that I have the right to do so. I am no longer a member of a statutory body, but I have been active in my profession for over 30 years. I claim to be aware of the problem; I claim to know the increasing concern that is shared by many of my colleagues, and I ask the Minister seriously and sincerely to take notice of these points and to do his best in this Bill and in subsequent legislation to see that some of these wrongs are righted.

Mr. Speaker, everyone is grateful for the introduction of this Medical, Dental and Pharmacy Amendment Bill. The three aspects dealt with in this Bill are pre-eminently the training of chemists and druggists, the control of drugs and the control of the accounts of medical practitioners. So I first come to the section which deals with the training of chemists and druggists.

To a large extent the retail chemist and druggist merely acts as a distributor, admittedly with certain responsibilities, but in this respect with preciously little use of scientific knowledge. In view of the fact that the preparation of modern medicine is constantly demanding more specialized knowledge, this task has not diminished in importance but has in fact moved away from the retail chemist and druggist to the pharmaceutical industry. What this involves is that the industrial chemist and druggist to-day needs much more knowledge of the preparation of medicines and in reality has to be a specialist in his field. In contrast to this the retail chemist and druggist no longer needs the same amount of knowledge as before of the preparation of the old medicines on the prescription of the medical practitioner. In pharmacy the emphasis has in fact moved to the manufacturing industry. This does not make the training of the chemist and druggist less important; on the contrary, it makes it more important. This Bill does in fact make specific provision for the improvement of the training of the chemist and druggist. We have even been experiencing the problem that England and America have refused to recognize the qualifications of the trained South African chemist and druggist in some cases. I am in favour of the chemist and druggist improving his status by means of better training. Mr. Speaker, any profession progresses only to that extent to which it contributes to its development itself. I do not want to disparage the pharmaceutical profession; far from it, but I am afraid that the pharmaceutical profession in South Africa has really contributed little to the development of medicine in South Africa, to the development and discovery of new drugs. They have not had the opportunity of doing research, and this probably is a result of the fact that their training used to have a fairly old-fashioned basis, i.e. that of apprenticeship in contrast to scientific training. Only in 1957, with the establishment of the first faculty of pharmacy at the Potchefstroom University, have these people been given a real opportunity of continuing their studies, of receiving post-graduate training and of doing research. I think the hon. member for Durban (Berea) made a very good point when he suggested that this dual system of training chemists and druggists should be abandoned. My personal opinion is that this may be one of the biggest problems which has in fact affected the status of the chemist and druggist. If a man wants to raise the status of his profession, he has to see to it that he constantly improves his qualifications. As the profession of the chemist and druggist is really moving in the direction of the pharmaceutical industry in which pharmacology and pharmaceutical chemistry form the basis of a new industry which has also come into existence in South Africa, I personally am in favour of South Africa moving in the direction of training chemists and druggists only at universities. I know that I shall meet with a great deal of opposition in this connection, but I believe that we are doing those young men and young women an injustice in that they are awarded diplomas and are not placed in a position of improving their qualifications to do further research in the field of pharmaceutics. This much, Sir, as regards the training of chemists and druggists. Provision is being made for this in this Bill, and as far as this matter is concerned, we are moving in the right direction.

I also want to make a few remarks on what this Bill is not doing and concerns the constitution of the Medical and Dental Council. At the moment the Medical and Dental Council consists of four medical practitioners, one dentist and two lay members appointed by the hon. the Minister. The medical practitioners are elected by the registered medical practitioners in South Africa and four dentists are elected by the dentists. In addition there are two nurses as well as a representative of each medical faculty and of each faculty of dentistry. To me an obvious shortcoming is the fact that the director-surgeons of the various provinces do not have representation in the council. The hospitals in which all these people work are provided by the provinces. The control, the discipline, of these hospitals falls under the jurisdiction of the provinces, to be specific, under the jurisdiction of the director-surgeon in fact. The interns who have to undergo compulsory medical training at the provincial hospitals for one year, fall directly under the influence and the control of the provincial authorities. To me it seems only logical that the director-surgeons of the various provinces should be members of this council. This much, Sir, as regards the composition of the Medical Council.

I should like to associate myself with my colleague, the hon. member for Cradock, in the plea he delivered in connection with clause 22 of the Bill, which amends section 80bis of the principal Act. I agree with him 100 per cent. In my opinion the proposed new subsection (2) is going to create problems for us. This, i.e. the obligation to send a detailed account to each patient, is going to bring about an enourmous amount of work for a medical practitioner who has a one-man practice. I am not sure either what the position of this medical practitioner is going to be with regard to the ethic code of the Medical Council, i.e. that diagnosis is in fact an intimate matter between the patient and the general practitioner himself. The existing subsection (2) provided that the medical practitioner had to furnish a detailed account to the patient and the further information which the patient might desire with regard to the amount charged, within 14 days of the receipt by him of a written request to that effect. I cannot see how this subsection could have evoked any objections. Therefore I should like to associate myself with the appeal made by the hon. member for Cradock to the hon. the Minister to reconsider this subsection. I cannot quite understand the reason for amending this subsection.

Then, Mr. Speaker, all of us are very pleased about the third aspect with which this Bill deals, i.e. the question of drugs. To me there are two cardinal points in this connection. The first was raised by the hon. member for Durban (Central) and it concerns the classification of these drugs by the Drugs Control Council. I think the hon. member was quite correct when he said that the success of this classification into the various schedules would depend on the extent to which the Drugs Control Council would be able to limit the number of drugs. The more drugs, the more difficult it becomes to exercise control, but the smaller the number of drugs, the easier it can be controlled. This is one aspect I v/ant to mention.

The second aspect is the possession of potentially harmful drugs, and all of us are grateful for the fact that this is now being made a punishable offence. This ought to facilitate the task of the State to obtain a conviction to a large extent. But Mr. Speaker, I want to put it to the hon. the Minister for his consideration that in my opinion this control can be improved. Perhaps one is being naive in that one is concerned about this erosion of human material which is taking place as a result of the terrible danger of drugs. In my own mind I wonder whether we have not reached the stage when it should be made compulsory in terms of the Act to specify the drug content of a prescription when a patient is given a prescription which contains of these drugs. To me it is a source of concern that such a large number of patients become addicted to these drugs accidentally. I feel a patient ought to be given the opportunity of knowing that he is using drugs. Very often a doctor is requested time and again to repeat prescriptions as such prescriptions make the patient feel much better. One asks oneself whether the responsibility for those drugs being taken should not be taken from the shoulders of the doctor and whether the patients should not be made co-responsible as far as the taking of the drugs is concerned. Then I also want to agree with the hon. member for Berea as regards his argument in connection with the inspection of the registers which have to be kept. During the 18 years I have been practising, no-one has ever asked me to see a register of mine. I have even wondered whether the time has not arrived—perhaps I am again being naive—to amend the regulations or the Act in such a way that medical practitioners will be obliged to register with one specific pharmacy from which he will then have to order all drugs used by him. In other words, purchases should not be made at random from just any pharmacy. It is not my intention to sow suspicion, and I am only voicing this opinion because one wants to try to suggest something in order to restrict to an absolute minimum all possible loopholes for acquiring these drugs which can cause such dreadful tragedies. Mr. Speaker, I thank you, and I gladly give my support to the amendments.

Mr. Speaker, I have been interested in what the hon. the Minister and other members of this House have had to say about this Bill and I want to add one or two thoughts about it as well.

My first thought is in regard to the dual methods of qualifications of pharmacists. I feel that those pharmacists who get their diploma should be put into exactly the same position as the doctors who get membership of a college. Those members of the Royal College of Surgeons, and those with a licenciate of the Royal College of Physicians have the right to write an examination with university standards immediately they qualify and I feel that the chemists ought to have the same right. If a chemist has a diploma and he wishes to take a university degree, he should be allowed to do it immediately after attaining that qualification. His thoughts are fresh and he could easily qualify if he put his mind to it. If he has that wish I think the opportunity ought to be given to him.

There are one or two things that have been said here that I am not altogether in agreement with. Firstly, let us talk about the competition that the chemist has with outside interests. The hon. member for Berea expressed his unrest about how difficult it was for a pharmacist to go into competition with the supermarket. I watched what happened recently and I found that the person who goes to a supermarket has not even got the opportunity of asking anybody what he is buying or if it is good for him. These things are displayed on the shelves and the competition that the chemist has is not with the salesman who is unqualified, but with the display counter. There is no go-between in the supermarket, and I think this is a dangerous procedure. There is nobody a customer who goes into a supermarket can ask if something is, for example, good for his stomach or if something else wil relieve his heartburn. He goes up to the shelves and fills up his bag with whatever of these popular remedies are for sale, without any control whatsoever. I am therefore not surprised that the pharmacist must try to go into competition with supermarket type of business and it is for that reason that you find that the dispensing part of a pharmacy to-day is tucked into a corner and that the display counters are in front of the shop with toys, ladies’ stockings and other goods. I do not think that any pharmacist would prefer to do that sort of business to having a regular pharmacy. The time has come, and I am sure that the hon. the Minister agrees with me, that we must have some control over the free sale of medicines. One case in particular has been brought to my notice, namely the sale of chlorodine. Chlorodine is a simple remedy and standby and it is used by many people, especially those living on the platteland, who use it for all sorts of stomach ailments nad as a pain killer. The use of chlorodine can be abused and it is being sold off the shelves and it is quite easily acquired by persons who are chlorodine habituates. They can purchase dozens of bottles of chlorodine if they so wish.

I have got one case of addiction already.

Yes, and I want to bring to the notice of the hon. the Minister that I have received representations on this particular point as well. A professional man has landed in Swartkoppies through addiction to chlorodine. He was buying it in wholesale quantities and drinking down bottles at a time. I feel that this sort of thing should be gone into. The Drug Control Council is there to assist the Minister and I think the time has come for the hon. the Minister to take action in this regard. I do not think for one moment that the supermarket is the place for people to buy medicines. If a person wants to buy medicine he should go to a chemist and get it there.

I also want to say a word or two about the abuse of potentially harmful drugs and habit-forming drugs. The potentially harmful drugs, I think, could be more dangerous than the habit-forming drugs, because they are more easily obtained and their distribution is greater. The hon. member for Berea made the point that on occasions it is the fault of doctors, receptionists, and others, that quantities of these drugs are in free supply. I found that, firstly, the source of potentially harmful drugs on the illicit market is theft from wholesalers. I want to know whether it is the intention of the hon. the Minister to have stricter control over the stocks held by wholesalers and whether it is possible for the hon. the Minister to insist on a register being kept of potentially harmful drugs in stock at wholesalers and whether or not it is possible for the inspection to take place at regular intervals and the stocks compared with the sales. From what I understand, and this may be or may not be a fact, most of the drugs on the illicit market to-day come from wholesalers. Then, in a lesser quantity, we find that the provincial hospitals and, to some extent, nursing homes as well, are sources of supply. It is very difficult to exercise control here, but it must be done. Control of the dispensing and checking of stocks has to be done much more frequently than is being done at the moment. In his speech to the Pharmacy Board the hon. the Minister made reference to the fact that it may become necessary for regulations to be made to see that doctors prescribe reasonable quantities in their prescriptions. I have been practising for many years and if such a regulation came into being, I would welcome it, because I feel that over-prescribing is becoming quite rife and because a pharmaceutical company happens to put out a drug in bottles of 50, 50 tablets of that particular drug are prescribed by the doctor. If the pharmacist has to break the package to give less than the packed quantity, he levies an extra charge. I think that extra charge ought to be done away with. I think that the hon. the Minister is on the right track when he says that doctors should have their prescriptions in quantities regulated. I, for one, want to say to the hon. the Minister that I will welcome an investigation and if it is found to be feasible he should adopt it. Over-prescribing from the hospitals has become so bad that we find patients going out with big paper bags full of drugs every time they visit the hospital. It may be the fault of the young physician or the young surgeon on duty, or it may be because of the rush of work. I think it is a very bad way of prescribing. To give a patient enough drugs to last for a long time, sometimes for as long as three months, is, I think, quite a dangerous practice. I know the difficulties of the indigent and similar patient, who has to go from his home to the hospital to get his supply of medicines. We can work that out. I think we have to stop these mass-prescriptions for patients who should only receive a fixed quantity, if possible.

I want to come back to the hon. member for Cradock and I want to join him in his plea for heavier penalties for drug pedlars. I think that is the person who is at the root of all this evil. If we did not have the pedlar, we would not have thefts from hospitals, from nursing homes, from wholesalers, and from chemists. He is the person that carries the drug from place to place and he is the person that stands on the street corners tempting the youngsters to purchase whatever he has for sale. Some of the drugs he tries to sell may be quite harmless, others may be dangerous. I know of a case where a pedlar was selling, I think they were plain aspirins, and he was telling the youngsters he was selling purple hearts. He was selling these aspirins at 10c a time and these children were buying them. This man cannot be charged under the Act, and he cannot be caught under this Bill either, because he is not in possession of a potentially harmful drug. He is, of course cheating these boys and girls and I think fellows like that ought be be fairly severely punished. When they start selling stolen property, it is a double charge, because not only are they selling stolen property—the man having no right to possess the article—but on top of it they are selling dangerous drugs. I think the hon. the Minister must consult his Cabinet colleagues to see whether we cannot bring in much stricter punishment for these people. They are getting away with too much at the moment.

I want to say just a word or two about the inspection of drug books and the control of medicines. The hon. member who has just sat down suggested that doctors should purchase their drugs from one particular pharmacy or one wholesaler so that a check could be kept, I take it, of their purchases and the amounts used. Well, I do not know if we can go as far as that. I do not think we must limit that because you might have a favourite drug house that you want to deal with, you may have to deal with several different drugs, some of which are sold by one company only and some by another company. But I think perhaps a regulation may be brought in whereby doctors’ registers should be sent in to a central depot, instead of the Minister having to send an inspector to every doctor in the country who does prescribing or who is using dangerous or habit-forming drugs. Would it not be feasible to ask doctors every quarter to forward their registers for examination?

How do you check the contents?

That would be easy, you would see what he had purchased and what he used. There is scarcely a busy doctor in town to-day who is worried about how much he buys and how much he uses, because he knows his practice is clean. He has no fear of any inspection. For instance, he buys a couple of dozen ampules of pethidine, he knows how he uses them up, and anybody with authority can come and have a look at his register. Very rarely, do you find a person in our profession who is a drug addict himself or is selling drugs to patients. I think on the whole you will have no difficulty at all in being able to check up.

Mr. Speaker, I am more concerned about the checks that take place in hospital. Where large quantities of drugs are ordered and the wards have many boxes of different kinds of drugs, it is a simple matter for even an unqualified nurse to lay her hands on drugs and take them out of hospitals. If she is interested, she can have a ready field of purchase. I say that every day the ward sister ought to check on her drug book. It should be done, and the trouble is because it is not done these thefts are taking place.

It is done.

My colleague here tells me that this is done. Well, if it was done the thefts would not take place, but because it is not done, we find quantities are being missed when they are not properly checked. Even when stocks are properly taken we find drugs missing.

A word was said concerning newspaper reports about drugs. I am perturbed by the sensational newspaper reports about prominent persons taking drugs and saying how well they feel on them. That is a problem that I think we have to combat. When I read in the newspapers that actor so and so, or sportsman so and so, has been taking this or that particular drug, it is amazing what effect it has. Immediately many young readers say, “Well, if it is good enough for him, I am going to get hold of some of this as well.” We find that this attitude is spreading to our adults as well. On more than one occasion I have had a mother come to me and say to me “Doctor, will you please prescribe a tranquilliser for my child, he is going to write an examination next week and he is all jittery. Can we have something?”

And what about the father?

I think the father has another remedy for it. This sort of thing is being encouraged, and I think the time has come when we must ask the newspapers to be much more circumspect when they publish news of this kind. It may be popular news, but I say it has a serious effect on our youth and we must try and stop it. Some of us like to joke about these things, but I would be very perturbed if one of my children became a habituee of a den where these things were sold. I would be very perturbed about it because the control over the child which is lost might result in the child being lost permanently. The time to act is right at the beginning when he is starting with this habit. Of course, many of them outgrow the tendency, but, unfortunately, most of them have permanent damage done to their own beings.

With those few remarks I want to say to the Minister we on this side of the House welcome this Bill. There may be one or two matters which we might want to talk about again during the Committee Stage, but I think both sides of the House agree this is a good Bill, it was time that this Bill should come before us, and we wish it a safe passage.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank hon. members on both sides of the House for the support they have given to this measure. It is very clear, that in regard to the combating of the evil with which we are concerned here, there is general agreement as well as a great deal of concern. I think the people who are making these preparations available and supplying them, will benefit by taking cognizance of the atmosphere and the spirit in which this aspect was discussed here to-night.

I shall deal briefly with the points raised here by hon. members who took part in the debate, as the particular contributions that were made by each of them covered a very wide range

†First of all I wish to deal with the hon. member for Durban (Central). I should like to thank him for his support of this Bill. I must say that as a member of the South African Medical and Dental Council for many years he could and did speak with authority. There, is, however, one remark which he made which I cannot leave unchallenged, and that is when he said these amendments were in the hands of my predecessor for quite a long time. That is true. It has been in the hands of the department, and my predecessor, for quite a long time. Certain interjections in this regard also came from the other side, reflecting on my predecessor. May I point out that only to-day we had discussions with the Pharmacy Board in respect of this Bill and the amendments, and they put forward to-day certain thoughts which they had not put forward before. Therefore, in the delay some good has come forward. Also, this Bill was introduced last year and only because of lack of time did it not go through. Therefore I do not think there can be any question of neglect on the part of my predecessor, and I hope hon. members will accept this from me.

The hon. member for Durban (Central) pointed to the status of a pharmacist, and said this was a very necessary step. I may say it is a great pleasure for me to have introduced this Bill which enhances the status of the pharmacist. But, if I may say so in passing, it is not only the status of the pharmacist outside this House which has been enhanced in recent weeks, because by coming over to this side of the House, the hon. member for Umlazi, who is a pharmacist, has also had his status enhanced in the House. So we are having it from both sides. It is for me a source of pleasure to have shared, and to share, in these changes, both inside and outside this hon. House.

The hon. member also referred to the Drug Control Board and the very heavy burden which rests on their shoulders. That is quite true. I am giving attention at the moment, not only to their difficulties but also to the question of staff. Many aspects of the activities of the Drug Control Board do need our attention, and I should like to mention just one, namely the question of the inspection of drug factories. I should like to give the assurance that I am looking into this matter; as a matter of fact, I had discussions only the week before last with the Chairman and a few members of the Board in an effort to see where I can be of assistance to the Board.

The hon. member also pointed out the importance of the control of habit-forming and potentially harmful drugs, and I think he very aptly illustrated the importance of this question by quoting the thalidomide story in the United States. I think South Africa is in a favoured position in that we have a Drug Control Board, and it is a question of helping this Board to the utmost of our ability to fulfil their functions. He also raised the matter of cutting down the number of potentially harmful drugs. I may say that this is a very valuable thought and I will certainly bring this to the notice of the Drug Control Board, for them to see in what manner they can perhaps give effect to the suggestion.

Then, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member stated that the Bill provided for the supply of potentially harmful drugs only on presentation of a doctor’s prescription, which for all practical purposes would mean that a patient would have to visit his doctor to get a new prescription each time he requires such medicine. That, of course, as the hon. member knows, is the position to-day unless a repeat prescription is given. This particular Bill will have the effect that the possession of potentially harmful drugs shall also be an offence—not so much that it must be obtained on a prescription from a doctor, because that is already the case to-day. What the Bill does is to remedy a flaw in the Act by making the possession of potentially harmful drugs which have not been obtained on a doctor’s prescription an offence. I just wanted to make that quite clear.

Then the hon. member referred to doctor’s fees and the very difficult and onerous task of the South African Medical and Dental Council in following up complaints in this regard. These amendments are specific endeavours to ease the burden of the Council and also to simplify the procedure, both for the Council and for the public—we must never forget the public. I think this greatly simplifies the whole procedure as far as the patient is concerned.

*Then, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Cradock quite rightly placed the emphasis on the academic aspect, and not so much the commercial activities, of the pharmaceutical profession, and pointed out that in this legislation, too, we should place greater emphasis on that aspect. Now I just want to say in passing that we are living in an age of specialization. We have few people who can do specialized work. Whereas these qualifications are now being raised, it would perhaps afford us an opportunity of making better use of chemists and druggists and of utilizing their services more effectively. By that I do not mean at all that a chemist and druggist should take the place of a medical practitioner. The fact of the matter is, as the hon. member indicated, that the function of a chemist and druggist has changed to a large extent. In bygone days the function of the chemist and druggist was in actual fact the compounding and dispensing of medicine. To-day this task forms a very minor part of his function. His task has become so much greater in the sense that he has to be conversant with the thousands of drugs at our disposal. With these raised qualifications he may perhaps be able to render a service to the medical practitioner as well. That is why I am so pleased that the hon. member stressed the sound relationship between the medical practitioner and the chemist and druggist, because the chemist and druggist is the expert on drugs. It would relieve medical practitioners of a major burden if that relationship is of such a nature—and in many instances this is in fact the case—that this expert may serve the medical practitioner with advice and possibly also the patient who is referred to him by the doctors.

Then the hon. member referred to the terrible evil of hippie cult and the dangers which the use of narcotics holds. This is an attempt—we shall have to take other steps if these are not sufficient—not only to break down this evil, i.e. narcotics, but also to eradicate it as far as possible in South Africa. Our nation simply cannot afford to allow our people to become addicted to these narcotics. It is true that in this sphere we are granting the police more scope for instituting legal proceedings, but in my opinion, however, this is not enough. I want to make a very serious appeal to-night to all bodies in the Republic which handle narcotics in any form, to exercise extreme caution in doing so in order that not one of those preparations may land in the wrong hands, because it could totally destroy the life of a young man or a young woman. I hope that this discussion which we have had will once again convey this message very clearly, i.e. the danger this matter holds, and that we—my colleagues in the medical profession, my colleagues in the pharmaceutical profession and all the professions which, in this field, deal with the public every day—we shall never tire of carrying on with the process of education in regard to the evils these narctoics hold. The hon. member also referred to the penalties in clause 19. I have sympathy and understanding for his proposal, i.e. that there should be more severe penalties for the smuggler dealing in these narcotics and less severe penalties for the poor addict who is the victim. It is very difficult to draw distinctions as far as this matter is concerned, but I just want to point out to the hon. member that maximum penalties are being prescribed here. I think we may safely leave it to the discretion of the judiciary to impose these maximum penalties according to the circumstances and the person who appears before them.

Then the hon. member referred to clause 22—section 80bis of the principal Act—which relates to the accounts of medical practitioners which, in terms of this legislation, will have to be specified accounts in future. In this regard the hon. member for Fauresmith associated himself with what the hon. member for Cradock had said. To my mind it is a good thing that this matter was put forward here. It may cause more work; but at the same time hon. members rightly pointed out—we should never lose sight of this—that most of the patients who are receiving accounts in South Africa to-day, are satisfied patients. The majority of the patients and everybody sitting here are satisfied with the services and also the accounts they receive.

Who is satisfied with an account which is too large?

Mr. Speaker, I am merely emphasizing that in South Africa at present and all over the world those who appreciate the services obtained in the sphere of medicine outnumber those who do not have appreciation for them. But now I want to set hon. member’s minds at ease by saying that I am convinced that this insertion in regard to specified accounts must remain. Firstly, because this is the current practice in many practises to-day. I have a few examples of this before me—to make use of a printed account form which is not so difficult to fill in. Secondly, in many practices this is already being done in the majority of cases, as provision has already been made for this in the Medical Schemes Act and as most practises, especially in the cities, consist for the most part of patients who belong to medical schemes. In this regard I just want to say that clause 22 is actually a monument to Mr. Willie Roodt, who was a member of this House for many years and a lay member of the Medical Council for about 40 years. In passing I want to record our thanks and our appreciation to-night for the tremendous contribution which Mr. Willie Roodt rendered as a member of the Medical and Dental Council for so many years.

†Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Berea also referred to the very wide effects of the use of potentially harmful drugs. I am indebted to him for labouring this point, because after all this legislation will at some time or another benefit every one of us here and every single individual in South Africa.

The hon. member also went on to point to certain omissions in the Bill. He referred to the position of the chemist and druggist, and especially to certain wishes of the Pharmacy Board and of the profession as a whole. I indicated, at the banquet to which the hon. member referred, that I shall look into this matter. But I want to make it quite clear that I am not going to appoint another commission of inquiry. I do feel that the Pharmacy Board and the Department of Health are, in a joint effort, quite capable of doing the best that can be done for the profession. One must also never forget that the question of the recognition of diplomas, etc., must also be looked into. Other members, for example the hon. member for Rosettenville, also raised this point.

Then the hon. member referred to the Bremmer Report. He made out quite a good case from his point of view.

A very good case.

I am glad the hon. member interrupted me. I shall certainly go a long way in trying to implement all the recommendations contained in the Bremmer report, if the hon. member for Berea will assure me that in this House the hon. member for Transkei will also vote for me.

I shall do my best.

Mr. Speaker, one must be quite realistic about this matter. It is a question of different interests being affected and represented in this House. That has been the bar against putting the recommendations of that report into full operation. After all, we need the sanction of this House in such matters. As I have said, all aspects and all interests are being looked after by the different members of this House.

The question of a quantity per occasion being limited to a dosage basis was also raised by the hon. member for Berea. I think the furthest I can go at this stage is perhaps to indicate specifically to doctors how important it is to give effect to this particular suggestion of the hon. member. I think that this will go a long way towards solving the problem. The hon. member also raised the question of the registering of premises. Let me be quite frank. I have not considered this aspect as yet, but I shall consider it as soon as I have the time.

Then the hon. member referred to the inspection of registers and records. He pointed out how adequate the inspection is, especially in his own case. This is not a case of a big brother watching the hon. member, but I want to give the assurance that there will be no discrimination whatsoever in the inspection of the records and registers of pharmacists on the one hand and those of doctors on the other hand. I think the hon. member will also agree with me that pharmacists are handling many more drugs every day than the doctors. I should like to mention the practice which is followed to a large extent. I do not know whether this is not the reason why hon. members have had so many visits from the inspectors. We usually ascertain from the wholesalers where the large quantities of these drugs are going. The inspections are then carried out more regularly and at more frequent intervals at those particular places to which large quantities of drugs are being sent.

The hon. member also asked for the ratio of pharmacists to medical men on the committee to be made more equal. I shall certainly look into this matter.

That is only in the case of classification.

Yes, but let me just point to this one aspect. To be able to classify, important clinical considerations must be taken into account. Perhaps that is one of the reasons why medical men are represented in larger numbers than the pharmacists.

*Now I come to the hon. member for Fauresmith. I think the hon. member very strikingly pointed out to us the change and shift in accent that had taken place in regard to the function of the pharmaceutical profession. The hon. member pointed out that to a large extent chemists and druggists find themselves in the manufacturing industry at present. I agree wholeheartedly that the work they are doing to-day is perhaps more important than the work they did in the past when they only had to compound and dispense medicines. That is why it is so essential that we should in fact introduce these improved qualifications in South Africa, as we are doing now.

Then the hon. member raised the question of the constitution of the Medical Council. He expressed the thought that the directors of the hospital services of the various provinces should perhaps be included in the Medical and Dental Council. At the moment I do not want to give a decisive answer in this regard, but I want to tell the hon. member that the matter he raised is an important one, because the constitution of this council is to my mind no longer suited to the development that has taken place in recent years. This is particularly true when one has regard to the very extensive representation which the steadily increasing number of medical schools have on this council.

The hon. member also referred to the destructive effects of narcotics and the task of the Drugs Control Board. He raised the point that when a prescription is issued to a patient, the prescription should indicate that the drug concerned is a drug of that nature. I think that what the hon. member had in mind, was that such a notice should not only appear on the prescription, but that it should actually appear on the container itself. I shall have to give more thought to it, because to call, in such a pointed manner, the attention of the public to the fact that such a drug is a narcotic, would also hold certain dangers. This may give certain people an incentive or make them aware that this is an opportunity for abusing such a drug, people who would otherwise not have known this.

†The hon. member for Rosettenville referred to the competition between the pharmacists and the supermarkets. I do not think that he put the case quite correctly, because the difficulty to-day is not so much one of the pharmacist being in competition with a display shelf. That competition we have had over the years. The point is, however, that in the supermarket we find a pharmacy shop with a pharmacist in charge.

Departmental stores have that, not the supermarkets.

Yes, but in the supermarkets we have had that position all along. That is the very question which the hon. member for Berea raised. This question has been dealt with in the Bremmer report.

The hon. member also spoke about stricter control of stocks of wholesalers, hospitals and nursing homes. As far as that is concerned, we have the difficulty of the shortage of staff to carry out these inspections. The hon. member then made the suggestion that the registers should be sent to a central point. I do not think that that will be feasible at all, because after all the inspection has to be made not only of the records, but also of the amounts of stock carried by the doctor, pharmacist, wholesaler or hospital.

*Mr. Speaker, I want to thank hon. members once again for their support and for the constructive debate we have had. I hope that, especially outside this House, the greatest measure of cognizance will be taken of the concern that prevails, particularly in regard to narcotics, and that we shall see the necessary effect, apart from the effect of the implementation of this legislation.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.