Mr. Chairman, at the outset I should like to raise a point of order and submit it to you for your further consideration and ruling. Standing Order No. 57 provides that the principles of a Bill shall not be discussed in Committee. This necessarily implies that no amendment may be moved or debated to delete a principle which has been accepted at the Second Reading. In this way it frequently happens that amendments which we on this side of the House seek to move are ruled out of order on the grounds specifically that such amendments are destructive of principles which have been accepted at the Second Reading.

I now come to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Transkei, i.e. to omit all the words after “of” in line 2 up to and including “independence” and the substitution therefor of certain other words. This amendment was accepted by you, Mr. Chairman, and rightly so, I submit. The implication of the acceptance of that amendment as being in order and capable of being debated is that that amendment was in no way destructive of any principle which was accepted at Second Reading. This implies further that the question of independence is not a principle which was accepted at Second Reading, otherwise you would have had to rule the amendment out of order, and this you did not do.

I should now like to come to a further ruling you gave subsequently in the debate, a ruling to the effect that the question of independence is in fact a principle which had been accepted at Second Reading.

I submit to you, Sir, that these two rulings are inconsistent one with the other and, in fact, mutually destructive of each other. They cannot both be right. One or other must inevitably be wrong and cannot be allowed to stand. Consequently I should like to ask you with respect to reconsider these rulings.

I submit that your ruling to the effect that the amendment of the hon. member for Transkei was in order and could be debated is perfectly correct because the issue of independence does not arise at all in the Bill. The word appears only in the Preamble. Hence your ruling that the amendment was in order and could be debated is perfectly correct. That necessarily implies that the question of independence was not a matter of principle decided at the Second Reading. Therefore I submit to you, with respect, that your subsequent ruling that the question of independence was a principle which had been decided at the Second Reading is wrong. I ask you to reconsider this ruling and instead to rule that the matter of independence is not a principle which was accepted at the Second Reading and hence that it is proper to move the deletion of the word and to replace it by other words and, secondly, that it is a matter that can be debated—in other words, it is not a matter falling within the scope of Standing Order 57, which excludes from discussion in Committee the principles of a Bill.

I would therefore urge you to reconsider your ruling and to rule that the matter of independence can be discussed not only in detail but also as a matter of principle, a principle which was not decided at the Second Reading.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to address you on the same point of order as was raised by the hon. member who has just sat down, because I cannot agree with him that the two rulings you gave are in conflict with each other. If we look at the Preamble of this Bill, we read that—

And then two things are mentioned, in the first place, “the development of Bantu nations to self-government” and, in the second place, “independence”. The Bill then goes on to deal only with the development of Bantu nations to self-government, and this Bill in fact has nothing to do with independence.

Why is it described like that in the Preamble then?

What the Preamble does here, as it does in the case of all solemn Acts, also in the case of the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act, is to indicate the direction followed, in this case in the development of the Bantu nations. But this Bill itself contains no provision with regard to independence, and my submission to you is the following: Since no discussion of principle may be allowed in terms of the Rules of this House, the only question is whether a discussion in detail may be allowed in regard to independence. But as there is no provision in the Bill which establishes independence, my respectful submission to you is that there are no details which may be discussed in regard to independence. In the circumstances. Sir, I respectfully want to recommend to you to rule that independence is not a detail which may be discussed at this stage. When we come to deal with independence, a new Act will indeed have to be submitted to this Parliament.

Is provision being made for independence in the Bill?

Sir, I want to react to that interjection made by the hon. member for Orange Grove. He asked whether the question of independence is dealt with in the Bill. The point is that it is not in the Bill, and this is why it cannot be discussed. The Preamble, as in the case of all solemn legislation, indicates the direction and the intention of the legislation; it indicates the course we want to take as far as the Bantu nations are concerned. But there are no details to discuss in this regard, and my submission is that the Opposition should vote against this if they do not like the course, but that there is nothing to discuss in regard to independence.

Mr. Chairman, I wish merely to deal with the points which the hon. member for Pretoria Central has raised. His argument is that the preamble has two parts, one dealing with development and self-government in the Republic and the second part dealing with independence. His argument then follows that the Bill itself proceeds to deal only with the first part, i.e. self-government within the Republic, and that consequently there should be no discussion on the second. Sir, an acceptance of his argument necessarily means that you must rule out of order the amendment of the hon. member for Transkei which you have already accepted as being valid. The argument of the hon. member cannot be accepted without the necessary result that the amendment of the hon. member for Transkei is ruled out of order. I do not wish to repeat the points which have been made by the hon. member for Musgrave to the effect that the amendment which you have already accepted was correctly accepted. But it necessarily follows on what the hon. member for Pretoria Central has said, if his argument is accepted, that the amendment moved by the hon. member for Transkei must be ruled out of order.

Order! I think I have now heard enough from hon. members on this point of order and that I am now able to give my ruling. The hon. members for Durban Musgrave and Pretoria Central raised points of order which are essentially similar to the points which, to my mind, were raised in a more telling way yesterday evening than today. I have no intention of setting aside my rulings of yesterday evening, and consequently I reject the points of order and the Committee will proceed with the discussion of this clause.

Mr. Chairman, after the debate last night, I gave a considerable amount of thought to what could be interpreted as details of independence. Your ruling yesterday evening, Sir, as you will remember, was that one could not discuss the principle of independence, which had been decided at the second reading, but that one was entitled to discuss in this committee stage the details of independence. I hope I interpret that correctly. It occurred to me that among the details of independence would be the practical steps which would have to be taken as a result of the legislation, the second reading of which has been accepted in this House and which is now being debated in the committee stage. The necessary steps would have to be taken to implement the legislation and I submit that these details would cover, for instance, the time-table whereby the hon. the Minister, his party and his Government would seek to implement in the Bantu homelands the decision which has been taken in this legislation. I base this on a statement made by the hon. the Minister in replying to the debate last night where he said that he could think of no case where independence had come about except by negotiation and after treaty. The point was immediately raised about Rhodesia, which has in fact today de facto independence, although it is not recognized by the metropolitan power. Great Britain. There is, of course, a very close parallel with what is happening today in our country, where the stage is being set and the foundations are being laid for that kind of independence, where countries can become independent as Rhodesia is independent. There are other cases in history and the classic case, I think, which defeats the hon. the Minister’s argument is the state of Israel, because as you will remember, Sir, the state of Israel was brought into being as an independent state in accordance with the concept of this legislation.

Order! The hon. member is going too far now.

I am attempting to illustrate how the details of independence will have to be worked out by the Minister.

I am not going to allow a general discussion of the principles of independence.

I am trying to establish the point that the time-table is one of the details. It is not the principle. The principle we accept, subject to your ruling. What has got to happen now is that steps have to be taken. There must be a time-table which will give effect to the legislation now before the House. I am giving the illustration that exactly the same thing happened in the case of Israel, where the Balfour Declaration said as a concept that there should be independence for the homeland of the Jewish people in 1917, but it was not until after a considerable campaign had taken place in that state that Great Britain was virtually forced to hand over. The point I want to make to the hon. the Minister is that independence does not come in most cases by negotiation. Independence historically has come as the result of force majeure being exercised by the subject power as against the metropolitan power. I believe that in this country we are implementing and taking exactly the same steps to put into motion an historical process which might well bring us to the same kind of state that Great Britain found herself in in that particular case where she was the occupying power. The reason why we are opposed to the word “independence” in this Preamble and why we are moving for its deletion is that this party of ours believes that the hand of the White man should remain upon the whole of South Africa as it has done in the past. We reiterate by moving this deletion the conviction we have that it was not until the hand of the White man rested upon the whole of South Africa that there was peace and progress.

On a point of order, Sir, with respect, while the hon. member for Mooi River is discussing that the hand of the White man should be over the Blacks, is this a detail of the clause that is being discussed?

Order! The hon. member may proceed.

If I may continue, and I thank you for the opportunity, Sir, the reason why we wish to see those words deleted—and the amendment has been ruled by you to be in order—is that we believe that until the hand of the White man rested on the whole of South Africa there was no peace and no progress and no prosperity.

Order! That argument has been advanced over and over. The hon. member must advance new arguments.

The motive behind the hon. member for Transkei moving that deletion is because we are convinced that only control of the White man can safeguard White South Africa as we see it.

I want to make a completely different point. I quite agree with your ruling, Mr. Chairman. I have no fault to find with that. Could the Leader of the House tell us why we have discussed this Preamble for all this time, when it means nothing?

That is being contemptuous.

It is not being contemptuous. The hon. the Minister does not know what I am talking about. Why is it made necessary for us in this House…

Order! The hon. member is out of order now. He is not discussing the Preamble.

I want to discuss the Preamble now, Mr. Chairman. Here we have a Preamble against which I am going to vote, and I want to give the reasons why I am going to vote against it. I am entitled to do so. I am going to vote against it because it has no legal validity and because it is absolutely unnecessary. This whole business blew over here from the U.N. [Interjections.] Yes, they and the Progressive Party Congress do this type of thing: “Whereas so and so, whereas so and so, now therefore.” Will the hon. the Minister blame me for voting against this when he comes forward with such a rigmarole here? It means nothing. It means nothing to the Bantu and it means nothing to the Whites. It means nothing to this House. It has no legal validity. It is unnecessary and misleading. Can I be blamed for now asking for the opportunity to say that this kind of unnecessary business, which means nothing to any living creature, is wasting our time? Let us proceed with the business of the House. Who is there on the Government side of the House who is going to vote for this, something which wastes our money and time with points of order? What does this mean? What is this window-dressing for? [Interjections.] The hon. Whip opposite ought to know that I am speaking the truth. All I am asking is that we should be afforded the opportunity of protesting against things which mean nothing and only waste time and are misleading.

The hon. member who has just sat down, said that the preamble or preface to a Bill is something which has blown over from the U.N. With all respect, this is the biggest nonsense which I have heard today. I want to quote here from the book by L. C. Steyn, “Die Uitleg van Wette”. Dr. L. C. Steyn is the retired Chief Justice of the Republic of South Africa. On page 137 of the book he says (translation)—

Question put: That all the words after “of” in line 2 up to and including “independence” in line 3, stand part of the Preamble.

Upon which the Committee divided:

Tellers: G. P. C. Bezuidenhout, P. C. Roux, G. P. van den Berg and M. J. de la R. Venter.

Tellers: R. M. Cadman and J. O. N. Thompson.

Question affirmed and amendment dropped.

Preamble, as printed, put and agreed to (Official Opposition dissenting).

Title of the Bill put and the Committee divided:

Tellers: G. P. C. Bezuidenhout, P. C. Roux, G. P. van den Berg and M. J. de la R. Venter.

Tellers: R. M, Cadman and J. O. N. Thompson.

Title of the Bill accordingly agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Representations have been received from the Marburg Immigration Settlement Board requesting legislation which will provide for—

1. (a) the division and allocation of the commonage land within the Marburg Immigration Settlement, situate in the County of Alfred, Natal, as well as the other assets of the board to the advantage of the registered owners of lots in the settlement; and
2. (b) the disestablishment of the board after the division and allocation have been concluded.

The history of this settlement is briefly as follows:

1. (a) In 1882 50 Norwegian families were each settled on a lot of 40.4686 hectares (100 acres) at Marburg, with grazing rights on three portions of commonage land with a combined area of approximately 810 hectares (approximately 2,000 acres). The original purpose of the settlement was to establish a fishing industry at Port Shepstone. This purpose was never achieved, with the result that some of the settlers went elsewhere in search of a livelihood.
2. (b) In the course of years the original lots were subdivided and/or sold. Disputes arose in connection with the joint use of the commonage, which led to the Marburg Immigration Settlement (Local Board of Management) Act, 1927, being passed, mainly with the object of providing for the establishment of the Settlement Board, which was empowered, inter alia—
   1. (i) to control the commonages allocated and to regulate their use by the registered owners of lots in the settlement; and
   2. (ii) to purchase and hold land and to sell, exchange, donate, lease or hypothecate any land so purchased or any land acquired by exchange or any land forming part of the commonage, but subject to the condition that such action be sanctioned at a meeting by at least two-thirds of the lot owners concerned and that it also be authorized by the State President.
3. (c) However, the Act stipulates that the proceeds of the sale or lease of land by the Settlement Board shall be devoted to the acquisition of other land for the purposes of the settlement or to some other purpose for the benefit or enjoyment of the registered owners of lots on the settlement. This particular provision, which is aimed at joint use, prevents the board from dividing the commonage and other assets or the proceeds thereof among the owners concerned. The Government law advisers agree that the Act should be amended or substantive legislation passed to authorize the separate division and allocation of the assets concerned and to provide for the disestablishment of the board after completion of the division and allocation.
4. (d) The board from time to time sold several portions of the commonage (inter alia that portion upon which Oslo Beach township was established), and also bought other land. In terms of the provisions of the Act, the land bought now also forms part of the commonage in question and the total area of the commonage is at present still approximately 810 hectares. Furthermore, the Board holds assets to the value of R105,000, consisting of buildings and equipment (R30,000), shares in building societies and other shares and investments (R60,000), and sales of land in process of being concluded (R15,000).
5. (e) In recent years, especially after the Marburg area was declared a border industry area, the demand for land has increased tremendously and the area is rapidly becoming a new point of growth. However, the Settlement Board is experiencing problems in making land available for essential development, as the lot owners are understandably reluctant to surrender their grazing rights.
6. (f) The situation is becoming increasingly complicated on account of the fact that in the course of years a number of Indians became owners of the original lots or portions thereof and accordingly also obtained grazing rights on the commonage. In terms of the Group Areas Act a portion of the settlement on the northern boundary has already been proclaimed an Indian area, but there are also a number of Indians who own land within the other portion of the settlement.
7. (g) The Settlement Board, in consultation with the Department of Community Development, is developing 18 hectares of the commonage to the north of the Harding road as an industrial and a residential area for Indians. This portion adjoins the proclaimed Indian area and the intention is that the Indians who are at present living in the White area of Marburg will be granted preference in obtaining lots in the area which is being developed for them.
8. (h) There is at present a total number of more than 900 owners in respect of the original 50 plots within the settlement, of whom approximately 330—one-third—are Whites, who own a total of 1229 hectares of the land, while the rest are Indians and Coloured persons, owning a total of 512 hectares. The owners concerned are now beginning to fear that the ever-increasing demand for land for industrial development will increasingly result in the alienation of the commonage and that they will receive no compensation for the loss of the valuable grazing rights.

In the light of the above-mentioned circumstances, the Settlement Board, at the request of the lot owners concerned, investigated methods of disposing of the commonage and other assets of the board in a way which would be to the best advantage of each of the owners concerned. After careful consideration the board devised a scheme which was properly advertised and accepted at a general meeting by an overwhelming majority of the lot owners. The principle of the scheme is now contained in the Bill before the House and is briefly that the Settlement Board be empowered to divide the commonage and other assets of the board and to allocate these to lot owners, after costs have been defrayed, as the board deems fit and on the fairest and most equitable basis, taking into consideration the size of any particular owner’s land in proportion to the total area of the land of all the owners concerned.

As far as the allocation of land is concerned, it is provided, inter alia, that—

1. (a) where any portion of the commonages is situated within a White group area, a portion may be allocated only to a member of the White group, and where a portion of the commonages is situated within an area proclaimed for another race group, a portion may be allocated only to a member of the group concerned;
2. (b) no owner of a lot shall, as a result of the pro rata share which he is to receive, qualify for a portion of land smaller than 4 hectares; in other words, in such a case that owner shall receive his share in cash;
3. (c) the transfer of a particular portion may be subject to a right of way as defined by the board;
4. (d) the board shall bear all costs in connection with the transfer of an allocated portion to the registered owner and the transfer shall be free of transfer and stamp duties.

On account of the private rights involved, the Bill was treated as a hybrid measure, i.e. the intention of introducing the Bill was published beforehand and all interested parties were informed of the intention by means of the Government Gazette and local newspapers. All owners of lots whose addresses could be obtained were also informed by registered post. No objections were received by the department. Both the Settlement Board and the provincial authorities, are in agreement with the measure as proposed.

This matter really concerns the hon. member for South Coast, but unfortunately he cannot be here today. This Bill is the climax of over 30 years’ of negotiations mainly on his part. The Deputy Minister has given us a full historical background. Originally it was a settlement of Norwegian people who came here to establish a small fishing industry on the south coast of Natal. Over the years the original object of this settlement disappeared and this Bill now provides for the disposal and division of the ground and assets and the disestablishment of the board. As the Deputy Minister explained, there was this board and also the Marburg Township Board. Hence the anomolous position where part of this township was controlled by the Central Government and part by the local authority.

As I have said, this Bill is the climax of years and years of negotiations, and on behalf of the hon. member for South Coast we should like to record our appreciation to the department concerned for bringing these negotiations to a successful conclusion. This Bill represents the unanimous consent of all parties concerned. To get all groups—Whites, Coloureds and Asiatics— in the area to agree to a stage where the hon. the Deputy Minister could introduce a Bill into this House is an achievement for all parties concerned. In the circumstances we support the Second Reading of this Bill.

I thank the hon. member as well as the hon. member for South Coast for their co-operation.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

When the debate on this Bill was adjourned the other evening I was discussing clause 14, which proposes to amend section 76bis of the Act. I mentioned that I felt it would be a great pity if the intention of this amendment were hindered in any way, by virtue of the fact that a pharmaceutical firm with an international name and which now wished to register this international name in terms of this new amendment, should be precluded from so doing because of the use of the word “solely” in the amendment. I mentioned that there were many pharmaceutical firms with international names who had diversified and whose business consequently no longer consisted “solely” of the manufacture of medicine and drugs but also included in their activities the manufacture and marketing of cosmetics. I should like the hon. the Minister to offer some comment on this situation.

In the brief time at my disposal I should like to come back to clause 2, which deals with the establishment of professional boards and lays down the conditions under which regulations may be promulgated detailing the constitution of a particular professional board. The Bill provides for one member of the council, i.e. the Medical Council, on that board, plus elected members of the profession or professions concerned, plus the inclusion of at least one medical practitioner or dentist with a special knowledge of the profession concerned. I would like to suggest to the hon. the Minister that he give consideration to broadening the scope of this amendment just by the addition of one further portion, and that is to include, after “medical practitioner or dentist” the words “or chemist and druggist who has a specialized knowledge of the profession concerned”. I do this because one of the groups of the profession who may form a professional board could be and, I believe, will be the pharmaceutical technicians, and I believe that any chemist and druggist who has a special knowledge of that particular facet of pharmaceutical manufacture, would be able to play a very important part on the board. I believe that since provision has been made for an expert from the medical profession or the dental profession, there should be a representative from the pharmaceutical profession when it is appropriate. Another point that comes to mind is this: If homeopaths were included within the ambit of this Act—they deal with the provision of medicine under certain circumstances—I believe it would be desirable to have a chemist and druggist who has a special knowledge of homeopathy, so I ask the hon. the Minister if he would give favourable consideration to that particular suggestion.

Which clause is that?

Clause 2 dealing with the establishment of boards. Then. Sir, I want to come to clause 4. Just for the purpose of tightening up the wording, I wonder if the hon. the Minister would agree to a separation? I am not being disparaging about the work of persons who have passed examinations in sanitation, meat and food inspection etc., but I believe that if there were a separation between those people who have always been entrenched in the Act and the new type, namely, those practising any other profession which has as its object “the treatment, prevention or relief of physical defects or disease in man,” it would make for better reading and greater clarity and it would keep the two separate.

Then I would like to deal with a question arising in clause 18. The Minister gave details of the intention underlying clause 18. We know that this clause is the regulations clause and that the Minister is asking for the power, in consultation with the Medical Council or the Pharmacy Board, to promulgate regulations, in this case, in regard to various appliances etc. In this particular clause mention is made of the public interest. I know it is very difficult to decide what is in the public interest and what is not in the public interest. But I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether consideration has been given to this particular aspect, namely whether he feels that hypodermic syringes should be freely available on sale to anybody, and also whether he feels that this particular clause could be used in such a way as to limit their sale. Sir, may I make myself quite clear? I have no desire to place any further restrictions on my professional colleagues unless it is in the public interest, but I ask myself whether the free access over the counter, to anybody, of hypodermic syringes is really desirable. I concede readily that there are certain people such as diabetics who need these instruments and should be able to get them with the minimum of red tape, but I believe that many drug addicts who go on to hard-line drugs use hypodermic syringes and needles. It seems to be quite a common practice in other parts of the world, for these young people, misguided as they are, to buy a tablet—I could mention some of the reducing tablets as examples—and to dissolve it under the most unhygienic conditions in a teaspoonful of water and then to inject it into the arm with a hypodermic syringe. The effect, of course, is much, much more powerful than it would be if the person swallowed the tablet. I believe that some consideration should be given to the question as to whether it is desirable that hypodermic syringes should be freely sold and also whether this particular regulation, when it is promulgated, could effect some degree of control.

Finally I would like to say that I welcome personally the relaxation in regard to the conditions laid down for the registration of medical practitioners. This is something which I believe most of us agree is a little overdue and from my own information, I believe that the country has lost the services of some very valuable medical practitioners because they found that there was a delay in the acceptance of their registration and that in other countries of the world they were acceptable. I therefore feel that this is a step in the right direction and that basically many aspects of the Bill deserve the wholehearted support of this House.

I should like to confine myself to the words used by the hon. member for Berea in the first part of his speech a few days ago. As we all know, most of this legislation is the result of either the co-operation or the considered opinion of the Medical Council which acts as the statutory body in the interests of national health and medical services. Before I express any criticism of the hon. member for Berea, I do think it would be fitting if we in this House pay tribute to one of the persons who contributed a great deal towards placing the medical profession, the medical training and the national health of this country very high on a pedestal. That is why I also want to pay tribute to the late Prof. Fransie du Toit van Zyl. As we knew him he also had a specific share in the educational aspect of our medical profession. His clearsightedness contributed much to the fact that we could introduce legislation from time to time and also pluck the fruits of that legislation, so that South Africa can be regarded as one of the highly developed countries as far as health services are concerned.

Having dealt with that, I want to come back to something in the first part of the hon. member for Berea’s speech of a few days ago, where he left us with this suggestion when he said the following—

The suggestion is there that the Medical Council, which is a statutory body, is not able, as far as this legislation is concerned, to judge whether these para-medical services must organize themselves and appoint their own council—that they cannot judge altogether objectively. Allow me to clarify a few aspects of the Medical Council for this House in connection with its composition alone, and then we must judge again. The Medical Council consists chiefly of the deacons of the medical faculties of every university engaged in medical training, people who must, as a result of their experience and their local knowledge, give guidance for the training of medical practitioners. At present there are six. The Medical Council is further composed of ten elected members from the medical profession, and from amongst 11,000 registered medical practitioners they do not choose people for some or other political reason, but people who can give the best service to the profession as such and whose objectivity is an outstanding characteristic of those persons as such. In addition the Medical Council is represented by the two most senior officers of the Department of Health the Secretary for Health and the Commissioner of Mental Health. The public as such is also represented by two persons of high repute, appointed by the Minister as laymen to consolidate the public’s interest. This Council has been established since the commencement of the 1928 legislation. After all these years the hon. member comes along and says that he doubts the objectivity of this Medical Council, and he doubts whether they know what is in the public interest.

The hon. member had something more to say. This concerned clause 2 in which the para-medical services get a chance to organize themselves. I should like to know very clearly what the position is in connection with the Opposition’s attitude in terms of this clause. Incidentally, I am very sorry that he also brought chiropractors into this legislation, because it bears no relation to them. The hon. member said—

The hon. member went so far as to go back to 1962. He also accused the hon. the Minister of having spoken at the time against the recognition of this group of persons in this legislation. The hon. member, who has a scientific background himself, also set very high standards in 1962 during the discussion of an amending Act in which reciprocity of recognition of pharmacists of other countries was suggested. In his speech, in column 1592 of Hansard, 1962, he also referred here to, inter alia, and I quote—

Now, the hon. member specially wants to single out a certain group in this legislation, because according to the instructions, which I am going to quote here, of the Medical Council to the Medical Association of South Africa, on 26th August, 1967, no medical practitioner may, in terms of the code of ethics of the Medical Council, refer a patient to a chiropractor. The hon. member, who is himself an advocate of higher qualifications, wants a certain group with doubtful qualifications excluded from this legislation. As far as that is concerned, I want to know whether the Opposition, or as he says “we on this side” is going to support his amendment, because in 1962 even the medical practitioners on his side of the House did not support his private motion. After speaking previously, the hon. member had another chance to speak. Before we go any further, I should like to know whether he is going to move an amendment on behalf of the Opposition or on his own behalf. I am convinced that the members of the House who are medical practitioners, and who fall under the authority of the code of ethics of the Medical Council, will vote against the inclusion of this group of people. The next speaker on the opposition side must please put this matter to us very clearly.

The hon. member also referred to the exclusion of a certain group. In this connection I should like to quote from an article, appearing in The Argus in 1967, in which the American Medical Association said the following about this same matter of chiropractors—

I quote this for the information of the hon. member for Berea who expressed himself on the high standard of educational training. I leave this matter in the hands of the hon. member for Berea.

I should also like to refer to another aspect of this legislation. It is of great importance as far as public opinion is concerned. It concerns the aspects of the action in terms of this legislation against cancer quacks. The biggest problem in respect of cancer, and particularly in respect of cancer quacks, is twofold. Firstly, there are the persons who try to cure certain malignancies in an unscientific way. Afterwards we find that they have not cured the malignancy, but rather that it has spread, and that the medical practitioners are then saddled with the misery. But the other aspect is just as important. This concerns the fact that certain of these persons present benign growths or sores to the public as being malignant. This is where we get the dual meaning of the word “cancer”. Such a person then obtains his results by treating a benign tumour or sore by means of severe extraction with the aid of plaster or what-have-you. He then achieves so-called success, but in the meantime it was nothing but a benign growth, although he presented it to the patient as cancer. It is our duty, wherever we get the opportunity, to explain the concept “cancer” to the public. Cancer is something strange that lives and thrives on a healthy body. There is yet another aspect of cancer, i.e. the cancer in our national life and our social life. In this process this monster—let us call it by this name because no one yet knows what the actual cause is—thrives not only on the healthy body, but also infiltrates the healthy body for its own gain without itself producing anything that is beneficial. We thus speak of cancer in all spheres. But in medicine it is understood altogether differently. We must not neglect our duty and fail to present this idea clearly to the lay public as well, i.e. that cancer in terms of popular usage is not the same as the term used in medicine. In medicine one has a tumour, a growth or a sore, which either has non-malignant characteristics and is harmless, and which we then call a benign growth, sore or protuberance. Or it can be a tumour or growth with malignant characteristics although it may appear to be the same as a benign growth. The malignant tumour or sore is the one we really want to include in this legislation. The malignant tumour or sore is the one that spreads throughout the body. Sometimes the primary sore or growths have spread their cells throughout the body to places where they cannot be seen with the naked eye. Then they break out on any part of the body. This is what in medical terms is equal to the word “cancer” of common usage. That is why I am glad that in sub-section (3) of section 34 the hon. the Minister has inserted, and I quote—

This is the usage in common speech—

From this and from other parts of the legislation it follows that we have a twofold problem.

I should like to state that as a result of the tremendous development of medicine we have found that these para-medical or aid services are developing to an increasing extent and that we need them. As a result of agitation, and as a result of all the newspaper reports to the effect that certain people are performing certain services that are not recognized, we must come to the realization that the medical profession is still far from having developed fully. It is far from full development in this respect. The fact that so much agitation takes place, and that telegrams are sent in connection with this matter, is proof that there are certain shortcomings in even the training of those medical services of ours that are recognized, and in the training of the medical practitioner. It is very clear that manipulative training, i.e. training in respect of the manipulation of vertebrae and limbs, still lags far behind, and this is one of the reasons why there is so much of this agitation against certain legislation and against this specific legislation. We also learn something else from this. We learn that the public must know more about their conditions. The public must have more knowledge of the exact processes involved. I do believe that the medical profession and the Medical Council in their wisdom should give more attention to this training, so that when a medical practitioner is dealing with someone he will make sure that the patient understands what his condition is. We get this particularly in the diagnosis of conditions such as backache by the layman and the public because they are not fully informed of what the real condition is. Because the layman does not know what the actual condition is he makes up and creates a diagnosis for himself. Because the patient is not well-informed the cancer quack creates the suggestion that an ordinary innocent sore is malignant, and by the removal of that sore he causes disability.

This legislation embraces various other facets of the medical profession. I therefore lastly want to mention the fact that certain toothpaste can contain a certain minimum quantity of fluorine. There was the Commission of Inquiry into Fluoridation, which chiefly investigated the effects of the addition of fluorine to water. We are all aware of the tremendous agitation emanating from certain sectors of the public who alleged that we were compelling people to take medical preparations. I therefore feel that it is my duty to also put the matter in respect of fluorine straight. Fluorine is one of the trace elements in our body tissue, and a lack of it prevents our teeth from hardening. Tooth decay then takes place. There are also other trace elements in our body. One of them, for example, is copper. Fluoride is not a medical preparation, it is a normal element in the human body. For purposes of the record I should therefore like to quote from a report in order to bring this matter pointedly to the public’s attention, i.e. that the addition of fluorine to toothpaste is not a deliberate attempt to poison them. A large amount of fluorine is poisonous, but I can give the assurance that if a person were to consume a few pounds of copper wire he could also be poisoned although copper is an essential element. I quote from a report of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Ireland who gave a decision in connection with fluoride. He said—

It is for this reason that I recommend that we also support this legislation as far as the fluoride content of toothpaste is concerned. In a survey of the national servicemen in the Defence Force in one year it was found that about 15 per cent of them ought to have had dentures. Even in these young men tooth decay had reached such an advanced stage that 15 per cent of them should have been wearing dentures.

I want to conclude with the hope that clarity will be forthcoming from the side of the hon. Opposition about whether, as the hon. member for Berea said, they are going to move this amendment in the Committee Stage or not.

Mr. Speaker, I want to deal with the position of chiropractors in this country this afternoon and in particular their position in relation to this Bill. I am aware that the hon. the Minister has introduced a Bill today dealing specifically with chiropractors. At this stage we do not know the contents of the Bill but from the notice of motion we see that it will be a Bill to prohibit any person whose name does not appear on a list kept by an officer designated by the Minister of Health from practising for gain as a chiropractor and to provide for incidental matters. In other words, presumably the Bill will ensure that those whose names are placed on the list will be able to practise possibly under certain conditions. What concerns us is that the provisions of the present Bill that the House is considering are such as to make it possible for chiropractors to be curbed and even to be prevented from continuing to practise in terms of and under the provision of the present Bill. So, Mr. Speaker, it is for this reason that I wish to raise this matter under the present Bill. I shall explain at a later stage why I say that this result could be achieved under the present Bill.

At the outset I would like to say that we on this side of the House believe that chiropractors—I am now speaking generally obviously there may be incidental exceptions—have in this country over the years performed a useful service to the public.

May I ask the hon. member a question? Are you moving an amendment to this Bill officially as an Opposition? Do you intend opposing this Bill by way of an amendment? I wonder whether the hon. member would like to give us an indication at this stage.

The position is that we will be introducing an amendment to one of the clauses of this Bill, which I shall mention in a moment, to ensure that the practice of chiropractors is protected from the operation of this Bill. Whether or not we will vote against the Bill, will depend upon the attitude of the hon. the Minister and the House towards our amendments. We will have to consider our position when we know what the attitude is. I would like to state quite clearly, however, that we do not intend to oppose the Second Reading. This was made clear by the hon. member for Rosettenville. This is the situation in regard to this side of the House.

I should like at the outset to make our position regarding chiropractors perfectly clear, both for the benefit of this House and for the benefit of the public at large. We believe, as I was saying, that through the years they have performed a valuable service and that they have performed it satisfactorily.

Order! Yes, but cannot that be discussed when the Bill covering the chiropractors is discussed in the House? That would be the proper time.

Mr. Speaker, with respect to you, as I shall show in a moment if you will allow me …

Well, do so now.

All right, Mr. Speaker, then I will come back to the question. Let me start by saying a few introductory things. In introducing the Second Reading of the Bill, the hon. the Minister told the House that one of the primary objects of the Bill is to provide statutory recognition and control for various health service professions, supplementary to medicine, such as optometry, physiotherapy, radiography, and so forth, that is to say services commonly referred to as para-medical services. We on this side of the House support this object of the Bill, as has been mentioned by previous sneakers. We are satisfied that the advances in medical science, which are continually taking place, make it desirable that provision be made for statutory recognition and control over para-medical services. Furthermore, we are satisfied that the members of the para-medical bodies to which I have just referred, wish to be subject to the control of the Medical Council and wish to obtain statutory recognition, not through an independent controlling body, but under and in terms of the Medical, Dental and Pharmacy Act. I want to make that position very clear, so that the House is under no doubt that this object of the Bill has our full support, as do most of the other objects of the Bill dealt with in greater detail by the hon. members for Rosettenville and Berea.

I now come to my contention that in terms of the provisions of this Bill bodies such a chiropractors, bodies that do not fall within the category of para-medical services could be curbed and in fact prevented from continuing to practise. The Minister when introducing the Second Reading of this Bill referred to certain provisions and in particular to the fact that the Bill was intended to define the scope of any profession by specifying acts which shall be deemed to be acts pertaining to that profession only. He went on to say that whilst registration in terms of section 32 of the Act remained voluntary, a contention I do not dispute, the Bill however envisages the eventual prohibition of the practice of any particular profession by persons whose names do not appear on the register kept by the council in respect of such profession. It is perfectly clear, and I think the hon. Minister will concede it, that persons such as chiropractors could not obtain registration under section 32 unless they choose to qualify themselves further than the majority of them are qualified at the moment.

In other words, chiropractors as such could not become registered under the Act. In any event, they do not wish to become registered under this Act. Here I should like to refer you, Mr. Speaker, to clause 7 of the Bill especially in view of the fact that you queried my right to raise this at this stage. Clause 7 introduces three new sections into the existing Act. the proposed new section 39 (A) 1 reads—

Other provisions provide that acts pertaining to a profession may not be performed by other professions. It is of course possible that certain acts could be defined as being capable of being performed by a different profession, but these are all professions registered under the Medical, Dental and Pharmacy Act and not professions outside the scope of that Act.

The effect of this is that in terms of the new section 39 (A) it would be possible for the Medical Council, after receiving the recommendations of the various bodies—I accept that they could not do it of their own accord; it has to go through a certain process—to specify that acts which are today performed by chiropractors may from a particular date be performed only by some profession registered under the Medical, Dental and Pharmacy Act. Once that is done it becomes illegal for chiropractors to continue to perform those acts. I think the hon. the Minister will concede that this is undoubtedly possible in terms of this Bill. He may say that it is not intended, but I think the hon. the Minister must concede that that is possible, particularly in the light of the passage to which I referred from his Second Reading speech, and in the light of a subsequent passage to the same effect. Sir, may I repeat briefly the first passage from his speech—

I have read, Sir, that that can be done by specifying acts which can be done by a particular profession and therefore cannot be done by other professions. Then there is the second passage from the speech of the hon. the Minister in the Second Reading debate where he said—

Then he goes on to explain this; he says—

Mr. Speaker, I submit that from the wording of the Bill itself and also from the Minister’s explanation when he introduced the Second Reading debate, there is no doubt that in terms of the proposed new section 39 (A) it would be possible to curb the acts which are presently performed by chiropractors and in fact so to curb them that they can no longer continue to perform those acts; in other words, they can no longer continue to practise. It is for this reason that I should like to discuss this matter of chiropractors in this Bill. I shall not be lengthy in view of the Chiropractors Bill which is to be introduced, but I do wish to make it clear that we will endeavour to move an amendment in the Committee Stage to protect chiropractors from the operation of this section.

As I have said, Sir, we on this side of the House believe that they have performed a useful and necessary function over many years and that they should be protected in practice. It may be that it would be desirable to introduce some form of control over their practice—some form of controlling body—and it may be that the Bill which is to follow has that in mind. I will leave that aspect therefore for the moment. I would point out, however, that they are recognized as a profession and have been granted autonomous recognition in countries such as the United States, Canada, Switzerland, Australia and New Zealand, and I suggest that we should do likewise in respect of that profession.

The House will know that since there was some suggestion that chiropractors may be curbed, there has been a flood of telegrams to most members of this House, and not an agitation as was suggested by the hon. member for Brentwood. This is a perfectly legitimate approach.

Order! This is not the time to discuss that point. I will allow the hon. member to make all his other points, but this is a matter which should be discussed at the appropriate moment.

I do not wish to do it at great length.

I have allowed the hon. member to do it at great length. The hon. member always says he does not want to go to great lengths, but then he does so.

Sir, I was endeavouring to show you how they could be curbed in terms of this legislation.

Yes, the hon. member has succeeded in that, but now he is going beyond it.

I accept your ruling, Sir. I would merely say to the House that we will be moving this amendment and that we trust that it will have the support of the Government benches as well.

Before I sit down I should like the hon. the Minister, when he replies, to tell us what his views are in regard to these other bodies, other than chiropractors, which have approached him to establish some controlling body for their callings. I refer now to naturopaths, homeopaths, masseurs, herbalists, osteopaths, and so on. The matter was first raised by the hon. member for Berea and therefore I do not wish to go into it at any length, but I hope that the hon. the Minister in his reply will deal with these categories of practitioners and will tell the House what his intentions are in regard to them.

Other than this, as I said initially, we are satisfied that the provisions of this Bill are sound and are desirable in so far as the para-medical services are concerned, and subject to the reservation in regard to the protection of the rights of chiropractors, this Bill has our entire support.

I do not want to reply to all the arguments the hon. member for Durban Musgrave mentioned here in respect of chiropractors. I just want to say, however, that I regret the fact that the Opposition dragged this matter of chiropractors into this debate—and I take it this carries the full sanction of the Opposition. I can only come to one conclusion and that is that they now want to fish here in troubled waters for a few votes. When the Second Reading of this Bill was conducted there was a Bill on the Order Paper dealing with chiropractors. One would have thought that the opportunity for discussing this matter of chiropractors would specifically have been when that Bill came up for discussion. Sir, they made all kinds of insinuations and veiled accusations, but they still do not know what the Minister’s attitude is in respect of chiropractors. I think that the Opposition acted improperly as far as this matter of chiropractors is concerned.

Any group of professional persons desires to have order and discipline within their ranks. That order and discipline not only results in that group of persons or that profession safeguarding themselves against exploitation, but what is actually more important, it protects the public against forms of exploitation by members of that group or profession. This discipline and order that is so desirable in any group of professional people must, of course, be established and maintained by those people themselves in the first place. It is, however, the states duty to create the instrument for enforcing and maintaining that order and discipline. Such an instrument is contained in the measure now before this House. For many years now order and discipline have prevailed within the medical profession, thanks to the Medical, Dental and Pharmacy Act of 1928. During this period there has also been tremendous development in the field of medicine. This development has resulted in the fact that today it is hardly possible for one person to carry around with him all the knowledge that medical science offers. This has, of course, given rise to inevitable specialization and diversification of the medical profession as such. In this way it was also inevitable that the para-medical services, as we know them today, have developed with people possessing specialized knowledge in that field and applying their knowledge for the benefit of man.

The existence of these para-medical services incorporated the specific danger that the order, discipline and high ethical norms and standards of the medical profession could be disrupted. This is so because so many people entered this field and committed infringements. In addition the development of the para-medical services also incorporated the danger of the exploitation of the public and members of the medical profession. Reckless and careless exploiters, with the minimum of training, tried to exploit the situation. They tried to get a foothold in a profitable field. A serious danger now exists that the established order can be disrupted and that the higher ethical norms and educational standards exercised and maintained by the various branches of medicine can also be seriously disrupted. The legislation we are now engaged with is therefore very timely and highly necessary.

The time has come for councils to be created in order to exercise control over the various branches of the para-medical services, as envisaged by this Bill. Because the existing Medical Council is a body that has proved itself throughout the years, the ideal would be, of course, for the control of all these services and medical disciplines, and the determination of their ethical and educational norms and standards, to be vested in that Council. As a result of practical and many other considerations it is clear, however, that this ideal could not be realized. This would, as I said, have been the ideal because medicine basically forms one organic whole. It deals with the human body. Medicine does not lend itself to fragmentation. The various organs and parts of the body are inter-dependent, and damage to or illness in one part of the body of necessity has its effect on another part. It is therefore of vital importance that the closest co-ordination should exist between the various disciplines that concern them selves with the alleviation of human suffering. This Bill ensures that the Medical Council will have effective authority in the control and maintenance of high ethical norms and educational standards. Even more important is the fact that the Medical Council can now act as a co-ordinating body between the various disciplines and professional councils. This is a function which, in my opinion, is of the very greatest importance in the maintenance and development of the necessary singleness of purpose and unanimity in all these disciplines.

I now want to go on to a second matter, i.e. the clause that has a bearing on the cancer quacks. It is virtually unthinkable that in this age of science we have only now come round to placing a ban on the quacks who so generally pretend that they can cure cancer. It is probably with great delight that this measure is welcomed, not only by the medical practitioner, but also by a very large portion of the general public. As medical practitioners we realize that medicine does not have an answer for all the problems pertaining to cancer. But we claim that our science is a hundred and a thousand times better at doing what the cancer quack pretends he can do. The surgeon’s knife is very much more effective than the quack’s plaster.

As long as he does not reach us too late.

Yes, as long as he does not reach us too late, as the hon. the Minister says.

In the past decade or two there has been tremendous development in the field of cancer. It is even possible for cancer to be treated with a large measure of success by chemical preparations administered orally or by means of an injection. There is, however, some unrest among the public about the fact that certain preparations will no longer come to notice, preparations that did, in fact, come to notice before, because of their use by quacks. I am referring to a specific case we read about in the newspapers recently. This is a point to which I want to come back at a later stage. We read of a certain preparation which, it was claimed, could cure cancer. We must not close our eyes to the possibility that a particular tree or plant root could contain a certain element that could, in fact, be anti-carcinogenic. We must bear in mind that 20 years ago it was virtually unthinkable that an illness such as diabetes could be treated by an oral preparation. Today the most general method of treatment for diabetes is the use of oral chemical preparations. It is, therefore, just possible that there are elements in nature that will have an effect on cancer. That is why we welcome the fact that in this legislation provision is being made for such preparations still to be used and tested under specific control and scientific supervision. It ought to be stated that the Cancer Association of South Africa welcomes the fact that people who think they have possible cancer prevention preparations can link up with the association. The association encourages those people to send them the elements so that they can be subjected to the proper chemical and scientific tests. However, it has come to my attention—perhaps the hon. the Minister can give his attention to the matter—that some of the people are concerned that when they make the preparation available to the Cancer Association or to some or other accredited institution, for tests, the so-called secret of the preparation will pass out of their hands. I cannot imagine anyone wanting to exploit an anti-cancer preparation for personal gain. But I do think that those people do have a case, i.e. when the preparation is placed on the market, they should also have a share in its exploitation. I think that the hon. the Minister can enlighten us on this matter. Just to ensure that these people do come forward with the preparation which they think can cure cancer.

There is another matter that bothers me and which is not covered by the Act. I wonder whether the Minister could also give attention to that. I am speaking of the question of publicizing certain lay preparations in our newspapers and our magazines.

Order! The hon. member now wants to discuss a matter that is not covered by the Bill.

No, it is covered in the Act, but I do not think that the Act goes far enough. A few years ago a very long article was published in our newspapers, particularly in one of our very popular magazines, about the success achieved by cancer sufferers who had drunk petrol. It struck me very forcibly because I personally encountered a very tragic case as a result of that. At that time a patient came to me with a very early form of cancer which, if it could have been given surgical treatment at the time, could have been cured. At this time that article appeared in one of our popular magazines in which it was professed that petrol was supposedly a very good anti-cancer preparation. The lady then began to drink petrol.

Petrol?

Yes, the ordinary petrol you use in your motor car. Within six months, and after the most terrible suffering, that lady died. I think that very serious consideration should be given to prohibit the publication of such articles because they mislead patients and cause desperate people to grasp at straws, and this is in no way beneficial to them.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Cradock will forgive me if I do not follow him in his discussion of the various medical problems which I am not qualified to deal with. But I must say that I am sure that the person who drank all that petrol has not had benzine since.

The aspect which I wish to deal with is the amendment which has been debated, the amendment which we will propose in the Committee Stage. May I say in this regard …

Would the Committee Stage not be the appropriate time to debate this matter? It has been debated at great length already.

With great respect, Sir, I have other observations which I wish to make. May I say that we are in a worse position to discuss this position now. In other words, what I am suggesting is that you might allow me more latitude. I will be brief.

I hope the hon. member will.

Yes, Mr. Speaker. We do not have the new Chiropractors Bill with us. We previously had a Chiropractors Bill and we then saw that it excluded chiropractors from a certain provision of the Medical, Dental and Pharmacy Act. But we do not have the new Bill and therefore we do not know whether it does or not. In my submission therefore, your indulgence would be much appreciated if we could just very briefly refer to the various clauses of this Bill which could—I put it no higher than that—affect chiropractors. The hon. the Minister has already withdrawn one Chiropractors Bill. And he may well withdraw the other. It may not go through. It is on this basis that that Bill is not before us and may not even be passed by this House that I should like to make one or two small observations in regard to this matter.

The hon. member for Musgrave has indicated already the various clauses of this Bill in terms of which, without any doubt in our view, the chiropractors could be dealt with. They are the new section 13 (A), the new section 31 (A) and the new section 39 (A) together with section 39 (C). There is no doubt that they could be dealt with under these proposed new sections. However, the hon. the Minister says it is not his intention to do so. I think the only evidence that we have really needed if there was any doubt about the fact that they could be dealt with under this Bill, is the Bill the hon. the Minister introduced dealing with chiropractors and then withdrew. In that Bill it was provided …

Order! That Bill has been withdrawn. It is not before the House.

Yes, I know that. I am indicating that in the opinion of the hon. the Minister and his department this Bill could deal with chiropractors otherwise he would not have introduced a Bill excluding them from the provisions of this Bill. That is my point. We do not know whether that exclusion will be in the new Bill. We have not seen it.

I want to say that the Bill we are dealing with here today, is exactly the same Bill as was introduced last year. It is in respect of this Bill that we have received all the telegrams and all the objections last year from people who felt they would be affected. These people included patients and chiropractors who felt that they would be affected by these provisions. This year we have had a number of telegrams from people again complaining about this Bill.

I want to mention one other thing. Mention has been made of the fact that when the hon. the Minister proposed his amendment to the Chiropractors Bill in 1962, I seconded it. Quite right, Sir. Unfortunately I did not motivate it, I merely seconded it formally. I want to say that I am very much in favour of chiropractors practising and so I was at that stage. I was also in favour of that Bill going to a Select Committee before the Second Reading. However, the Bill that was produced there purported to give a license in effect to chiropractors to do all the things which medical practitioners do and under statutory protection. I think that was the reason why many of us were not in favour of the Bill as it was. As a Bill, if I may use that expression, it was …

Why discuss it, because it has never been one? The hon. member must not waste the time of the House in discussing something which is not before the House, and is not likely to come before the House.

One does not know what is going to be in the next Bill. One does not know what the hon. the Minister is going to bring before this House.

Then the hon. member can discuss it when it comes before the House. The hon. member must not cross bridges before he gets to them.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the Bill which is before us now can in fact affect chiropractors. It can affect them …

Order! The hon. member has stated that time and again and so has the hon. member for Musgrave. I know that.

Mr. Speaker, I thought that the hon. member was ruled out of order because the Bill he referred to is not before us. The point he is trying to make was that the other Bill …

The hon. member was not listening to the hon. member for Durban North.

I was listening to him, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. member listened very poorly because he was discussing the measure that was before the House in 1962.

Yes Sir, but the hon. member also referred to the Bill which has now been withdrawn by the Minister.

Order! The hon. member must resume his seat. The hon. member for Durban North may continue.

Mr. Speaker, the amendment which we will propose will be an adaptation of clauses 2 and 3 of the Chiropractors Bill which has been withdrawn. I anticipate that we shall have no difficulty at all and the hon. the Minister will accept it. I hope that the hon. the Minister will indicate what his attitude is in this regard because the effect will be to remove the chiropractors from the operation of this Bill we are now discussing, so that they cannot be dealt with in terms of Section 39 (C) which will be the penalty section. I hope the hon. the Minister will in fact accept it and that he will indicate what his attitude is. If the hon. the Minister’s attitude is that he does not intend to deal with chiropractors under this Bill, I am sure he will accept an amendment which provides a new section 39 (D) which will provide that they shall not fall under the provisions of this Bill and that they will not be dealt with under this measure. We do not know whether the next Chiropractors Bill is going to be passed or not and we feel that the necessary protection should therefore be put in here right now. We, as a House, cannot legislate on the basis of some assurance that there might be legislation in this regard later on. I hope the hon. the Minister will react favourably to our suggestions in this regard.

*The MINISTER OF HEALTH: Mr. Speaker, I want to express my gratitude towards hon. members on both sides of this House for the reasonable way in which these matters, which affect various facets and sometimes emotional facets of medicine and other matters, have been discussed. In thanking the hon. members on both sides of this House, I include all of them except one, whom to my regret I cannot include. He is the hon. member for Berea, and I shall deal with him in the course of my speech. Unfortunately I cannot thank him. I always regarded him as a scientist and as someone having a high regard for statutory councils and commissions such as those of his own profession, but unfortunately he has proved in this debate, as a result of the attitudes he adopted and the statements he made here, that he is not worthy of that respect which I as well as others in his profession have always had for him. I hope and trust that he will take the opportunity in subsequent debates to correct certain statements which he made in this debate. I shall come back to the hon. member later.

I want to associate myself with the hon. member for Brentwood. Since we are here dealing with the Medical, Dental and Pharmacy Act, which, inter alia, established and determines the functions of the South African Medical and Dental Council, I think this is an appropriate moment to associate myself with my hon. colleague and pay tribute to one of the greatest doctors and surgeons South Africa has ever known, in the person of Prof. Fransie van Zyl. When he passed away, all sections of the profession itself and of associated professions as well as many thousands of members of the public felt that a cedar had fallen. He rendered unsurpassable services; he was far-sighted in his views on medical science; and as a member of the Medical Council he rendered tremendous services to South Africa. It is a privilege for me to pay this brief tribute to him.

I should now like to come to the debate and I want to start with the hon. member for Berea. I want to read to this House what he said. I wonder whether the hon. member realizes what he said and what he implied by it. He said: “With due respect to the Medical Council, is the Medical Council or the medical profession in this particular instance …”. Immediately the hon. member linked the “medical profession” with the “Medical Council”. He continued: “… able really to judge objectively what is in the public interest?” For the time being I shall quote only that portion of what the hon. member said. Surely the hon. member for Berea knows that ever since 1928 the Medical Council has seen to the high level of medical science in South Africa today. Now, in 1971, the hon. member questions their competence to do this or not. The hon. member continued: “I ask this in all seriousness”—he is not joking now—“because the very fact that they are judging this question of professional boards in the public interest is a matter too which has a direct personal effect on their own financial interests and their own professional activities.” In other words, the hon. member implies that the financial considerations of the members of the Medical Council make them incompetent to judge on these matters. It is not merely an insinuation, but a direct allegation. Who serve on the Medical Council? Amongst others, elected members of the medical profession. I may as well mention a few names. There is Prof. Bremer, the president, Prof. S. F. Oosthuizen, the chairman, who has held the office for 20 years now, and also his predecessor, the late Dr. Karl Bremer. Together with them, there are the Secretary for Health, the Surgeon-General of the Defence Force, two representatives of the Nursing Council, representatives of the dental profession, lay members in the sense of medicine and dentistry appointed by the Minister, Mr. Daan de Villiers and Prof. Yates, and others. I think Prof. Yates is a professor in law. The late Oom Willie Roodt was their predecessor and a great fighter for the public there. There are other members as well. Now the hon. member for Berea says that he doubts the competence of these people because their own financial considerations may be an obstacle. Sir, on behalf of the Medical Council and the public of South Africa I must reject this. I do not like to use the expression “reject with contempt”, but I think it is justified in this case. I should like to defend the Medical Council against a member who himself belongs to a profession associated with medicine. But I want to quote further what he said—

He now makes that suspicion about the possible financial implication in regard to the members of the Medical Council, even stronger, because in a far-fetched way all these para-medical services are of course in competition with medicine, although they are supplementary. I must defend the Medical Council. I cannot allow a member who is himself a pharmacist to reflect upon their standing. If it were another member who is out of touch with matters, one could have understood it. This is a direct reflection. Do hon. members know what the hon. member said? He said that an eminent, outstanding and exceptional person such as Prof. S. F. Oosthuizen may be influenced in his judgment by his own financial position. No, Sir, I want to ask the hon. member to rectify this matter on another occasion in the name of propriety. I hope he did not mean it in this way. Let me ask the hon. member something. Will he say these same things about the Pharmacy Board when matters involving homoeopaths, for example, who are also concerned with medicine, come up for consideration and I, in the nature of things, consult the Pharmacy Board as the obvious body to consult?

If necessary, yes.

Was it necessary in this case? As I have said, if it had been someone else talking in ignorance, it would have been understandable, but that hon. member! For that reason I want to say now that I want the entire medical profession, the Medical Council, the Pharmacy Board, the Nursing Council, the entire nursing profession concerned here and all members of the para-medical services, who probably amount to 50,000 to 70,000, to take note of what an hon. member, who himself is a member of one of these allied professions, said in his rashness. Let me mention an example. The Drugs Control Council was recently established. It is doing tremendous work in South Africa and will continue to do so. Will the hon. member be prepared to say that the persons serving on the Drugs Control Council, who, in the nature of things, must predominantly be people who have been trained in pharmacy, may, under certain circumstances, allow their own financial position to play a role in their judgment in the execution of their duties? As long as I am Minister of Health, I will certainly not allow such a reflection to be cast on the Drugs Control Council, and least of all on his own board, the Pharmacy Board.

I just want to draw attention to the further reflection which the hon. member cast on the Medical Council. I quote:

To whom does he want to give the right then? It is again a direct reflection on the Medical Council.

Then the hon. member cast a reflection on me as well. I shall go down the line as he spoke. I leave the hon. member to his own conscience as well as to the judgment of the medical, dental and allied professions. Nobody in South Africa may share the views of the hon. member for Berea, because they are not true. There is no hint of suspicion against the Medical Council or against any other statutory body.

Then the hon. member asked—

The hon. member is quite right—one cannot be dogmatic and say at this stage exactly how many boards will be formed. Medical science is continually developing. However, there are already 28 para-medical services in respect of which voluntary registers exist with the Medical Council. These professions are radiologists, chiropodists, i.e. the people who treat sore feet. It seems as if the hon. member for Houghton has experience of them. These people do good work and confine themselves to their subject. They do not try to diagnose other things. They are a great help especially to the female sex. Then there are diagnostic radiographers, dieticians, food inspectors, health inspectors, masseurs, medical physicists, medical technologists, occupational therapists, optometerists. Here I may just say that the optometrists are the people who came forward first to be registered and will probably be the very first to make use of this legislation. In addition there are orthopaedic technicians, orthopedists, physiotherapists, psychologists, psychometrists, remedial gymnasts, cytotechnicians, speech therapists, audiologists, surgical appliance makers, therapeutic radiographers, optical dispensers, oral-hygienists, audiometricians, electrocardiographic recorders, cardio-pulmonary technologists and operating theatre technicians. These are 28 para-medical services for which voluntary registers exist. The hon. member and others asked me about homeopaths and naturopaths. The position in this respect is that I already have the support of the Homeopathic Society for this legislation. Not only do I have it in writing, but also from discussions which I had with them very recently. The standpoint of the Medical Council is that at the moment they do not see their way clear to registering homeopaths as a para-medical service, but that they may continue as in the past on condition that they do not contravene section 34 of the Act. Of course, there is no question of their in fact contravening that section. Thus their position is not in danger.

The hon. member also asked me about witchdoctors—Nyangas. The hon. member knows that in terms of section 98 (2) of the Medical, Dental and Pharmacy Act, these people are licensed by the Minister of Health on the recommendation of the Bantu Affairs Commissioner and the magistrate. There are lists and lists of them that I licence from time to time. Of course, there are certain regulations in this regard, but we experience no problems. I think they are mainly to be found among the Zulu people, if my facts are correct.

Then reference was made here to representations which came from certain trade unions which also gave evidence before the commission. Let me say that certain representations were made to me as well, and we of course gave very careful attention to the representations, in the same way as thorough attention is given to any other representation, including those from the trade unions. In fact, the commission of inquiry did so as well, and they said the following—

In other words, the commission considered these thoroughly as well, but I think hon. members, as well as my friends in the trade union, will understand that, in matters like these, one must consider their representations, but when the final decision is taken, scientific factors and the advice of authorities who are better qualified to make final recommendations in regard to this matter, carry more weight. And now I come to the point. Referring to the private bill of the former member for Pretoria West, our present ambassador in Portugal, Mr. van der Walt, the hon. member said—

Sir, let me state very clearly that the standpoint I am adopting today, is exactly the same standpoint as I adopted at that time. There is no prejudice. Let me say at once that I am not on bad terms with the chiropractors of South Africa. We are on the best of terms; we understand each other; and I want to say one thing here today: As far as our negotiations are concerned, they have never yet told me a lie or misrepresented anything. I am referring to our negotiations now, not to other matters on which one may differ. I have their evidence and hon. members can ask them and I am sure they will say that I have always treated them honestly and squarely, although certain standpoints which I inevitably adopt were not acceptable or pleasant to them. But let me add this as well: Instead of being prejudiced, I stepped into the breach for them in the Bill of which I gave notice yesterday and in the one which was before this House, of which hon. members are aware in any case, to the extent that I was not prepared to accept the recommendations of the commission because the commission of inquiry had recommended that they should be trained as medical practitioners within a prescribed period. I have always adopted the point of view, and have embodied it in the legislation which was before this House and in the legislation which is before this House at the moment, that the established interests of these persons must not be affected. In the second place, when it came to my attention last year that this legislation might affect them, I gave them the absolute assurance, which I still stand by, that this legislation on chiropractors is not intended to affect the chiropractors in any way or to restrict them in South Africa, and this is the case today.

Then the hon. member expressed concern about his own profession and asked why, since an exception was being made in regard to medical practitioners and we were now going to include dentists in this as well, the same was not being done with his own profession, that of pharmacy. It was not deemed necessary, firstly, because there was no such request from the Pharmacy Board and, secondly, because this Bill was in fact thoroughly brought to their attention. In addition, there was no such recommendation from the Medical Council, but I am convinced that none of these para-medical professions will in any way prejudice the pharmaceutical profession.

Then the hon. member referred to the question of section 67bis. Here too I can say that it was formulated as at present at the request of the Pharmacy Board. I concede that the situation may have changed in the meanwhile, and that new points of view have come forward, and between now and the Committee Stage I shall again pay attention to this specific matter, or if it is not possible to hold consultations—because I must consult with the Pharmacy Board—then certainly when this legislation is considered in the Other Place.

I have now finished with the hon. member, except to say to him that as a result of what he did here in this debate, he must not blame me for no longer regarding him as one who belongs to the circle of medicine and its allied professions, and I shall certainly no longer view his claims, his advice and his opinions in that light, but as being those of a perfectly ordinary member of this House.

Who is this?

The hon. member for Berea. The hon. member for Cradock also mentioned a few matters. The first was the question of persons who may possibly possess, have developed or discovered by chance a remedy for cancer. We must never exclude this possibility. Medical science has never closed its eyes to this. The hon. member raised the important point that such people may fear that this secret of theirs will now be lost without their being able to get anything for it. I can agree with him to a very large extent that the general approach is that if someone has something like that, it should be available for curing humanity. This must be the primary point of departure, but it is also true that all discoveries which were made for the benefit of mankind, not only in medical science but also in all other fields, brought certain benefits to the inventor or discoverer. I therefore want to tell the hon. member that such persons need have no fear that this may happen, because, in the first place, they can register something like that before the time with the Drugs Control Council. Secondly, the Medical Research Council is the obvious body to carry out further tests, to pay attention to this and to make sure that it is genuine, and that council consists of thirteen persons of the highest calibre and with the best scientific background and knowledge in South Africa.

Let me also say that in regard to cancer specifically, the Cancer Society long ago launched a campaign to collect all possible information in regard to possible means of fighting cancer, and the strictest secrecy is also ensured, if such a remedy does in fact exist. Then, in regard to misleading reports, articles and advertisements in newspapers, this is a matter which is being handled very effectively at present by the Drugs Control Board. I think the hon. member will agree with me that since the Drugs Control Council was established, with all the many functions it has to perform, cases of this type have decreased to a very large extent, and we hope they will disappear entirely as a result of the actions and the powers of the Drugs Control Council.

The hon. member for Durban North had problems in connection with the chiropractors because he said that the legislation dealing with them was not yet before this House. That is correct, but under Notices of Motion on today’s Order Paper there appears a motion which very clearly indicates what is contained in the Bill. Furthermore I want to give the hon. member and the chiropractors of South Africa the absolute assurance—which was in fact accepted by them last year and this year as well—that this legislation is not intended to affect them in any way. Secondly, the insertion of a clause to this effect in this Bill is acceptable to me in principle. But the advice I received from the law advisers —I accept it and stand by it—is that we should rather introduce a separate Bill dealing with chiropractors and which will, inter alia, exclude them from the provisions of this legislation. It was on the basis of that advice that two Bills were introduced, and for no other reason.

Now I want to deal with certain aspects of the debate conducted here in regard to chiropractics. I shall be careful not to anticipate the debates that are still to come. But in view of the fact that considerable attention has been paid to this matter, Sir, you will afford me the opportunity of reacting to three particular aspects of it. In regard to chiropractors in South Africa, provision was made in the new as well as in the old legislation for vested rights not to be interfered with. I give that assurance and I have always given it to them. I give it on behalf of the Government. In fact, in the course of years this has been traditional in regard to many other professions.

Secondly, I think it is human, fair and equitable that the existing rights of people who make their living from it should be protected. I said so as far back as 1962. In the Hansard of 15th February, 1962, column 1289, I said the following—

It was my alternative to the Bill of the hon. member for Pretoria West. I continued—

This is precisely the same standpoint as that which I am now adopting. Of course, the fears of the public also have to be taken into account. Reference was made in this House to telegrams. But I also want to say that one should keep one’s balance. These telegrams came from people who of their own free will and on account of their experience were concerned about the fact that they would no longer be able to go to a chiropractor. But telegrams undoubtedly also came from various sources where the matter was specifically organized. At the moment there are 118 chiropractors in South Africa. In this regard members must retain their perspective, because if the patients of the 11,000 doctors and of the 28 para-medical services in South Africa, who all support this legislation, had decided to send telegrams to this House and its members, what would this place have looked like? I am just mentioning this so that we may retain our perspective in regard to this matter. The fear that existed, therefore no longer exists for the immediate and near future. Those who are there, will be able to continue as at present, while South Africans who are at present students, will still be admitted. The one point is therefore that we do not want to interfere with their vested rights. Now you may with justification ask me, as I have in fact been asked: Why do we not grant permanent recognition to this profession, as the hon. member for Durban North suggested? I am now talking to the hon. member as a scientist on his level. I want to tell him that there are two reasons why no person who has the interests of the patient at heart, can today grant permanent recognition to chiropractics. I have already dealt with the vested rights. I am dealing with the future now. I want to mention two reasons for the standpoint I have adopted. In the first place, there is no scientific basis whatsoever for chiropractics. In this regard there is a dispute between the chiropractors and the scientists, but in the age in which we are living, the age of science, which has given us so much, must this House allow itself to be led by chiropractics which was established in 1895, or by the science of the world, and specifically medical science, which is 2,500 years old? I may add that science has thoroughly investigated this newcomer, chiropractics, in every country of note in the medical and scientific field. Furthermore, the Medical Council, which the hon. member for Berea ran down to such an extent, has stated very clearly and unambiguously that there is no scientific basis for chiropractics. They said this after they had investigated the matter. Let me also say very clearly that the question of competition never entered into the matter in any respect. It must not enter into the matter, and it must not be in my thoughts as the responsible minister. What is involved here is the protection of the public and basic training.

Furthermore, the commission of inquiry declared that there was no doubt that there was no scientific basis for it. Who served on the commission? The members were all scientists, and not one of them had had medical training, except one, who is a dentist. This matter has been investigated throughout the world and without a single exception it has been found that there is no scientific basis for it.

Let us look at the evidence itself. I quote (translation)—

This is their own point of view. To indicate how unscientific they are, I want to read what Mr. D. D. Palmer said in 1895, when chiropractics was started in America. I think Mr. Palmer was a grocer, and his son, D. J. Palmer, took over from him. B. J. Palmer said the following about one of their training schools:

The advertisements of the Palmer school, which are available for all to see, read as follows:

These words come from Mr. Palmer, the father. Now I ask the hon. member for Durban North: What does his legal knowledge tell him now? What does his university training and his contact with scientists tell him now? Do not let us run down these people. Some of them are good people. I do not want to lose them as my friends. In fact, some of them and I belong to the same club, one of the best clubs in South Africa apart from this place. However, we are concerned here with the fundamental question whether it is scientific or not.

Then we have a further problem as well, an insurmountable problem, as hon. members know, i.e. the disputes among one another. One will never be able to get the “straights” and the “mixers” together. Mr. Speaker, I think I have now replied to the question why these people should not get permanent recognition. As I have said, the first reply to this is that there is no scientific basis for their work. But there is a second reason as well, namely that their training is inadequate. If one sees the training in terms of years, it takes four years. The basic minimum training which a doctor must complete is seven years. Why do I emphasize this?

They have holidays in between as well.

Yes, but I do not think they have holidays for three years. I am not emphasizing this because of the treatment, but because of the diagnosis. For the protection of the public, we say, in the wisdom of the Medical Council, which we accept and which has led us to these heights, that any person who wants to make a diagnosis must undergo at least seven years’ training. After the seven years many of them still make mistakes. Many people die specifically as a result of incorrect diagnosis being made by doctors. It is true. But the protection is at least contained in the fact, as far as is humanly possible, that a doctor must have seven years’ training. Let me give another example. One of the aids which is used to a large extent is X-ray photographs and the reading of the photographs. For our protection, the Medical Council has decided in its wisdom that anyone who wants to become a radiologist in South Africa must undergo seven years’ basic training and gain five years’ practical experience after that. Thus a radiologist must have twelve years’ training altogether. Surely it is not in the interest of the public of South Africa that we allow someone, no matter what intensive training he has had over four years, to do that same work. Surely I would then be evading my duty.

But in their own evidence they are concerned about this matter, and have written a letter to me in which they, inter alia, give their support to this Bill. In this letter they give their full support to this Bill and the letter was signed by the President of the Chiropractic Association of South Africa. This letter is dated 22nd February, 1971. The letter reads as follows—

On the basis of this I accepted them as the mouthpiece of these people. The letter concludes with the following sentence—

and on previous occasions, I may add—

Which Bill is that?

The one that you will receive tomorrow. They agree with that Bill in letter and in word without a single change, not even a comma as far as I know.

*But I was dealing with their own evidence in regard to their training. In this regard they said the following—

In other words, their own evidence indicates that the training, even according to them, is inadequate. So much for the duration of the training.

I now want to refer to the quality of the training. I quickly want to tell hon. members …

Order! Is the hon. the Minister not going too far now? Is he not discussing the legislation which he wants to introduce later?

Mr. Speaker, with your permission, I want to continue. You are aware of the tremendous publicity and the tremendous unrest there has been. In the light of that, I think it is necessary that I raise just this one point in reply to this debate. After that I shall leave this subject. I just want to say that the quality of the training is such that it is unacceptable to the Medical Council. The point I want to raise in this regard, is that the training has no connection with any hospital in the world. My standpoint is that anybody not associated with a hospital cannot make a diagnosis. Now I want to raise the last point in regard to the quality. This matter does not concern the chiropractor alone. There are literally hundreds of medical schools in the world where doctors can qualify, but the South African Medical and Dental Council says that doctors who have qualified at certain medical schools may not practise in South Africa although they may have studied for seven years. This applies mainly to medical schools in America. It therefore does not apply to chiropractors alone. The last point I want to raise in regard to the quality is that South Africa has no control over the quality of training maintained in these schools in America and Canada. It would be foolish to recognize the quality of training centres over which one has no control. Therefore I say that it would be a retrogressive step if we were to grant this recognition on a permanent basis. I want to leave the matter at that, not because I have dealt with it exhaustively, but because I should like to comply with the request which you made to me, Mr. Speaker.

In the last place I want to state very clearly that health matters have never been made a party-political issue in this House. There may be a certain degree of doubtful party political gain in such a matter, but I doubt it. What we must weigh up against each other are the 118 people and their patients and the 11,000 people and their patients who are associated with paramedical services.

Patients are not divided in that way.

No, of course not.

I go to both, to doctors and to chiropractors.

Yes, but as a member of this House, the hon. member has to account to his own conscience what the minimum protection is that should be afforded to the public. This is not a matter of doing something popular as far as a certain group of people is concerned. In 1928 we had a duty, and the hon. member knows that we had a duty in 1934 in regard to legal agents. Similarly, we had a duty in regard to nurses as well. Now we have a duty in regard to para-medical services as well. This legislation, as it stands now and without any amendment, is the greatest step forward we have taken in this field since 1928. I am confident that this House will not deviate from the tradition it has maintained over the years in regard to these matters. In addition, I am confident that this legislation will be accepted in its present form.

Did you deal with the herbalists and the osteopaths? What is the intention in their case?

I have dealt with them. The same position applies to them as to the homeopaths. As far as they are concerned, it is not really a matter for the Medical Council. They do not make diagnoses. As far as they are concerned, it is a matter for the Drugs Control Council, which is already dealing with it. They must ensure that the preparations which they in fact sell and recommend are not poisonous or harmful and are in fact the preparations they say they are and can in fact achieve what they are reasonably claimed to be able to achieve. However, this is a matter for the Drugs Control Council which is not dealt with in the legislation before us.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The present Trade Marks Act, Act No. 62 of 1963, came into operation on 1st January, 1964. As is often the case with legislation in general, a need has also arisen now for this Act to be reviewed. This task of reviewing the Act was entrusted to a committee consisting of the Registrar of Trade Marks and representatives of the Bar, the Side Bar and the South African Institute of Patent Agents. This committee had to determine how the Act was to be adjusted to developments in other countries with which the Republic is connected by way of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, and how the problems experienced in implementing the Act in practice could be ironed out. The proposed legislation is the result of the activities of this committee.

At the moment the Trade Marks Act only affords protection in respect of a trade mark registered for use in connection with goods. However, the need has now arisen for marks distinguishing the particular services of one institution or organization from similar services rendered by another organization or institution to be registrable under the Act. A characteristic of such service marks is that they can be identified with a business or an enterprise and that they do not relate to goods at all. In this regard reference can be made to the use of marks or symbols by certain banks and building societies, which, apart from the fact that these institutions are known by distinctive names, are immediately recognized by the particular marks or symbols used by them. Furthermore, there are numerous companies, some of which are quoted on the Stock Exchange, of which the abbreviations of their names are even better known than the names under which they are registered in the companies office.

In terms of the common law these particular abbreviations, symbols or marks do receive some protection, but in the absence of the possibility of registration under the Trade Marks Act, these parties are obliged to have recourse to the courts on the grounds of passing-off in order that such abbreviations, symbols or marks may be protected, because at present they cannot avail themselves of the relatively simple and effective remedy provided by the Act on the grounds of infringement. In the case of an action on the grounds of passing-off, it is more often than not very difficult for the claimant to prove the facts on which his action is based, and the process of furnishing proof in a court of law is often a cumbrous and expensive one.

For the said and other reasons the registration of service marks will imply considerable benefits to their owners. It is, therefore, being envisaged that provision be made in the register of trade marks for the protection of marks capable of being proposed in regard to services that are being rendered in virtually every class or kind of business or undertaking. In order to realize the said objective, the existing definition of the concept “trade mark” in section 2 (1) (xxi) of the Act is being suitably amended by clause 1 of the Bill so as to make it clear that a trade mark may be used in regard to both goods and services. For the rest, the reference to “goods” in the Act is being amended throughout in order to include “services” as well.

The provisions in regard to service marks constitute the only entirely new principle embodied in the Bill. I shall now proceed to dealing with the most important of the other amendments suggested by the committee, to which I referred a moment ago. The most common manner in which a trade mark is used, is in a visual form on specific goods or on the container or packaging material thereof. At present words and slogans are also very commonly being used for advertising purposes and in radio broadcasts, whilst there is at the same time no visual perception of the mark, word or slogan, and of the goods or services. In view of this increased use of marks which can only be reproduced audibly, it was felt that a greater measure of protection could, under the Trade Marks Act, be afforded to the relevant kind of mark.

The amendments contained in clauses 2, 3 and 4 of the Bill, respectively, seek to clarify, in the wording of sections 10, 11 and 12 of the Act, the interpretation attached to those sections in rulings given by the court of the Registrar of Trade Marks. The proposed amendments to section 10 of the Act put it beyond any doubt that any distinctive mark may be registered as a trade mark, on condition that that mark as such shall not reasonably commonly be required for use in the trade. For instance, it would not be practicable if exclusive rights could be obtained in respect of marks used in commerce and trade on a common basis, or if the generic name of a particular article or service is being used as a trade mark by a specific business or enterprise. The proposed amendment also simplifies the procedure whereby it is possible to prove that a mark or name which is not distinctive in itself, is in fact distinctive. Section 11 of the Act is being amended in order to make it clear that a mark will qualify for registration as a trade mark in Part B of the register of trade names, on condition that it is capable of becoming registrable, through use, in Part A of the register in respect of such goods or services. The said amendment also has the effect that the wording of section 12 has to be brought into line with that of the preceding two sections.

Clause 7 of the Bill contains proposed amendments to section 17 of the Act and seeks to eliminate the possibility of a trade mark being used in such a manner that it may deceive or cause confusion. As it is, the interpretation which is at present being attached in practice to the provisions of section 17, has been creating problems in regard to the question of whether a specific mark is deceptive or confusing. The fact that in future trade marks will also be used in respect of services, will add considerably to these problems. At present it is possible for trade marks resembling each other to be registered by two persons in respect of goods falling into different classes. If an identical trade mark were to be registered by two different persons, the one in respect of goods and the other in respect of services, that mark could give rise to deception or confusion. It is, therefore, considered necessary that wider discretionary powers be granted to the registrar to judge a trade mark under section 17 in respect of the likelihood of its being deceptive or confusing.

In terms of clause 8 of the Bill certain provisions of the Act will be deleted. In section 20 (2) and (3) of the Act provision is at present being made for matters which resulted from the consolidation into one register of the provincial registers for trade marks which existed prior to 1916. The circumstances in respect of which these requirements applied, have already lapsed, and consequently these requirements may now be removed from the Act.

Clause 10 amends section 23 of the Act, which contains a special arrangement in regard to the use of registered trade marks by subsidiary companies. It is being proposed that, as a result of the problems encountered in determining what companies are subsidiaries of others, this arrangement should now be deleted. Therefore, from now on all companies will have to avail themselves of those provisions of the Act which make specific provision for registered users of trade marks. This amendment also gives rise to certain other requirements of the Act having to be amended.

Clause 16 adds a proviso to section 36 (1) (c) of the Act in order to afford a greater measure of protection to the rightful proprietor of a trade mark in the event of the original proprietor having died, or, in the case of a trade mark registered in the name of a body corporate, such body corporate having been dissolved and having neglected to comply with the requirements of the Act in regard to the transmission of rights.

The amendment in terms of clause 20 to section 43 of the Act makes it clear that any proceedings for infringement of a trade mark may only be instituted if the trade mark concerned has been registered under the Act.

The provisions of clause 21 are aimed inter alia at wording the requirements of section 44 (1) in connection with the infringement of registered trade marks in such a manner that a clear distinction may be drawn between marks which have not been registered and trade marks which have been registered.

Clause 27 of the Bill effects important amendments in respect of the requirements of the Act relating to certification marks. In terms of the definition of the concept “trade mark”, a certification mark is not a trade mark. However, certain provisions of the Trade Marks Act are applicable in respect of a certification mark when such a mark has been registered. The committee to which I referred before, felt that, amongst others, the following shortcomings existed in regard to the statutory requirements in respect of certification marks—

1. (a) No provision is being made to ensure that applicants for a certification mark have at their disposal suitable facilities for undertaking the certification of articles.
2. (b) There is no provision for the removal of a certification mark in the event of the proprietor thereof no longer being competent to undertake the certification of goods.
3. (c) It is possible for registered users of certification marks to be appointed summarily and without any control.
4. (d) There is no provision for appeal against the existence of a certification mark.

Consequently it was felt that section 52 of the Act had to be reformulated as a whole, and that the requirements in the relevant context had to be brought into line with similar legislation in countries where the Paris Convention applies.

The nature of a certification mark is now being defined in section 52 (1) of the Act. It is stated clearly that the said mark may not be used by a person who manufactures the goods himself or renders the services in respect of which the mark is being used. Such a state of affairs could be deceptive and lead to anomalies. The provisions in respect of the infringement of trade marks are also being made applicable in respect of the infringement of certification marks. Furthermore, provision is being made for the approval of rules and regulations under which the registrar is to allow such a mark. Experts will have to advise the registrar on the adequacy of the facilities and the ability of an applicant to ensure that goods which are certified, do in fact have the characteristics they are claimed to have. A right of appeal to the courts is being granted to persons who wish to avail themselves of the certification mark but are unlawfully prevented by the proprietor thereof from doing so. In addition, the transmissibility of such a mark from one proprietor to another is being restricted, unless the registrar is satisfied that the latter proprietor has the required control facilities at his disposal. Provisions making it possible for withdrawn certification marks under certain circumstances, are also being inserted in the Act.

Section 77 of the Act, which is being amended by clause 30, contains requirements in regard to an address at which notices and documents in regard to a registered trade mark may be served. The existing provisions are considered to be inadequate and are now being supplemented. Section 81 (A) is being inserted in the Act by clause 32 in order to protect existing rights which would have lapsed at the commencement of the proposed legislation. In view of the fact that regulations are to be prepared for the purposes of the proposed legislation, clause 33 provides that the envisaged legislation will come into operation on 1st January, 1972.

Mr. Speaker, we are grateful to the hon. the Deputy Minister for the very lengthy and comprehensive explanation that he has given us in connection with this Bill. This is a technical measure in the main and, as the Deputy Minister has told us, it was decided upon by a committee which he appointed and which included those people who are most concerned with this type of legislation. The whole question of trade marks is one that certainly required up-dating, and we welcome this Bill because the question of trade marks is being up-dated now and the Bill also tightens up the protection of the rights of those people who have registered trade marks. The Bill deals mainly with two aspects, the question of service marks, which is almost a new venture and which is something which is long overdue, and the question of certification marks, which is also something which in this modern day and age with organizations such as the C.S.I.R., for example, becomes quite important. There are two matters that concern us somewhat. We will examine them in the light of what the hon. the Deputy Minister has said this afternoon, and if we still have any reservations thereafter we will raise them in the Committee Stage. The first is the question of audible reproduction for trade mark purposes. One thinks, when one talks about audible reproduction for trade mark purposes, of the problems involved in the registration of something that is audible only, but it does seem that this type of trade mark is capable of registration. But we will have a further look at it.

Then I want to refer to clause 10 which does away with section 23 of the principal Act and which, as the hon. the Deputy Minister has told us, relates to holding companies. We would like to take a look at that clause again as well. We do realize that there might be protection for the holding company by registration as a user, but we are not quite certain that the relationship between a parent company and a holding company is completely taken care of in terms of the Bill before us. We will have a look at it and if we have any further comments we will raise these matters in the Committee Stage. Otherwise, Sir, we welcome the Bill. We think it is an improvement; it is something that the country requires under the modern circumstances in which we live, and the Bill will therefore have our support.

I would like to concur with the hon. member for Parktown in his statement that we regard this proposed measure as an improvement to the existing legislation governing trade mark practices. I would like to go a little further than the hon. member for Parktown has gone into clause 10 of the Bill and ask the Minister if he can elaborate on what difficulties are at present being experienced in regard to section 23 of the Trade Marks Act, 1963, which it is proposed to repeal. Section 23 of the existing Act enables wholly owned subsidiaries of a holding company to use a trade mark registered by the holding company by the simple process of notifying the Registrar of Trade Marks that that particular mark will be used by that subsidiary company. That is a simple practice. It means that the holding company can become the umbrella holding the trade marks for all subsidiaries in the group. I think that with the expansion of conglomerate companies and the tendency of companies to diversify into new fields, it is a practice that is likely to be used to an increased degree in future. I was not aware that it was causing any difficulties. By repealing section 23 of the existing legislation it does mean that holding companies will no longer be able to register trade marks unless they are actively going to use those trade marks themselves. It means in practice that it will be the operating subsidiaries of holding companies, which are actually using the trade marks, which will have to register them. This means, too, that if subsidiaries —and by subsidiaries I refer to wholly-owned subsidiaries—want to use the trade marks of their holding company, or if holding companies want to use the trade marks of their subsidiaries, or if subsidiaries want to use the trade marks of fellow-subsidiaries, they will have to enter into register-user agreements with the other parties to do so. Those agreements, as the hon. the Minister no doubt knows, are fairly complicated, fairly expensive and fairly time-consuming things to register. I feel that unless there are very good reasons and the difficulties being experienced under the present processes are very real ones, this repealing of section 23 of the existing Act may well be reconsidered, and I would like to hear what the hon. the Minister’s reasons and difficulties in this regard are.

In the main the only thing that is left for me to do is, to my mind, to express my appreciation for the friendly attitude adopted by the Opposition. Furthermore, I accept, as it was put here by the hon. member for Parktown, that after the explanation I furnished here, he will take another look at the aspects which caused him concern and then raise them at the Committee Stage. Both he and the hon. member for Constantia raised the question of clause 10. which repeals section 23. According to the note I made here, subsection (1) provides that where a trademark was used by a subsidiary company, it will be deemed also to have been used by the holding company. Subsection (2) grants the holding company the right to lodge, at the time of its application for a trademark, also a statement of the subsidiary companies which would be using the trademarks. To my mind this eliminates the hon. member’s problem. Subsection (3) provides that use by a subsidiary was deemed to be use for the purposes of section 12, where distinctiveness has to be proved. The original idea with this section was to indicate in an easy manner that subsidiary companies were registered users of a trademark. In formulating the section, it was provided that such registration only related to the application, and consequently a great deal of doubt arose as to whether the proprietor of the trademark really enjoyed protection when it was being used by the subsidiary companies. Furthermore, a subsidiary company was not defined. The definition of such a company, as contained in the Companies Act of 1926, cannot be applied, as applications are being received from a large number of foreign companies, where the concept of subsidiary holding companies in terms of the laws of such countries, differs from the concept in the Republic. As a result of the repeal of this section, all companies will have to make use of those particular sections in the Act which make specific provision for registered users, and therefore all possible doubt is eliminated. Existing rights are being protected in terms of section 81 (A).

I believe this will possibly solve the hon. members’ problem. Should they be experiencing further problems in this regard, I shall try to help them at the Committee Stage.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The Bill now before the House is really consequential upon an amendment to section 38 which I moved during last year’s session.

As you will remember, Sir, I pointed out on that occasion that the formula for compensation prescribed by the then section 38 in respect of property expropriated for housing purposes by the National Housing Commission and local authorities was quite unrealistic under present-day circumstances, and consequently section 38 was amended to provide for the compensation being fixed at an amount not exceeding the market value. This amendment was generally regarded as a great improvement.

Subsection (2) of section 38, however, provides that there shall be added to the compensation just mentioned an amount in respect of goodwill value attached to any profession or business which will be lost as a result of the expropriation. The amount in this respect must be equivalent to the assessed value of the goodwill, but must not exceed the net profit during the immediately preceding period of twelve months. Where the profession or business has been practised or carried on for less than twelve months, the amount must be equivalent to twelve times the average net profit per month during the period such profession or business has actually been practised or carried on.

It was then felt that the limitation to an amount not exceeding the net profit during the immediately preceding period of twelve months was not fair towards the owner. The formula for the calculation should give him a chance of being compensated on a reasonable basis for the loss of his goodwill value. I then intimated that I would be prepared to accept an amendment, but unfortunately the amendment could not be moved in the Other Place.

I am satisfied that it would not be unfair if a longer period were taken into consideration in calculating the amount to be added to the compensation in respect of goodwill value, and I feel that a period of three years should give a realistic overall view of the business. The Bill consequently provides that the amount to be added to the compensation in this respect shall not exceed the highest net profit during any consecutive twelve months of the immediately preceding period of three years or portion thereof. In a case where the business has existed for less than twelve months, the amount shall be equivalent to the net profit for twelve months, calculated pro rata to the net profit derived in the period the business has actually existed.

Since this amendment could not be effected during last year’s session when section 38 was amended, I intimated that I would consider whether or not the present amendments should be made with retrospective effect. However, I have found that since the amendment last year no expropriation of land involving goodwill value took place and also that no such expropriation is shortly to take place. Accordingly no hardship can be caused if the present amendment is not made with retrospective effect and therefore no provision has been made for it in the Bill.

The hon. the Minister has mentioned to the House that the Bill before us introduces an amendment to a section of the Housing Act which was introduced in a Bill last year. At that time we on this side of the House were unhappy with the provision that the goodwill value would be simply the net profit derived during the period of 12 months preceding the date of expropriation. As the hon. the Minister has pointed out, he was willing to accept an amendment in terms of the amendment which is included in this Bill. It was found that this could not be done in the Senate, as had been thought possible, and therefore this Bill became necessary. In view of the fact that it is in line with the proposal which we made last year, this Bill has the support of this side of the House.

Mr. Speaker, perhaps I should have mentioned that this idea came from the other side of the House, which proves that they can make a good suggestion now and then.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Problems which arise necessitate the Rents Act to be supplemented from time to time in order to cope with the situation.

The principles contained in the Bill before this House, can best be explained by dealing with each clause separately, and consequently I shall do it in that way.

Clause 1 (a): This clause is self-explanatory. As can well be realized, a great deal of hardship is caused when a lessee divorces his wife or deserts her and moves somewhere else, which means that the divorced or deserted wife has to vacate the dwelling. The amendment therefore seeks to give the divorced or deserted wife the opportunity of staying on in that dwelling as a lessee.

Clause 1 (b): The definition of “reasonable rent’ contained in section 1 of above-mentioned Act, specifies the way in which rent for controlled premises is to be calculated. In terms of that a lessor is allowed, inter alia, a return of 6 percent and 8 per cent on the reasonable rent value of the land and buildings, respectively, per annum. If, however, any loan secured by a mortgage bond is registered against the land, a formula as laid down in the second proviso to the definition of “reasonable rent” is substituted for the said 6 per cent and 8 per cent, and in terms of that formula the interest payable on the loan is brought into the calculation. Last-mentioned formula has the effect of yielding a higher return than the 6 per cent and 8 per cent calculation yields on its own. Consequently it follows that when a mortgage is registered against a property, it may have the effect that lessees of that property have to pay a higher rent.

There is no restriction on the application of money obtained in the form of a loan and registered against controlled premises by way of a mortgage bond. The lessor may spend that money at will. Representations have been received from various quarters in connection with the requirement, as it exists at present, that the interest payable on all mortgages be brought into the calculation of a reasonable rent, irrespective of whether or not such loan moneys are spent on behalf of the leased property. People are complaining that what this amounts to in some cases is that lessees are obliged to make capital available to lessors for investments which are unconnected with the leased property. For example, mortgages are registered against the leased property for the purpose of buying other property, financing businesses or solving other financial problems. The lessee derives no benefit from such loans. It is felt, however, that if the interest on a mortgage is to be brought into the calculation in the matter of determining a rent, the loan secured by that mortgage should be applied exclusively to the benefit of the leased property. If a lessor raises a loan on the leased property for any other operation, he has to pay the interest out of his own pocket. Consequently it follows that only the interest on loans raised for purchasing the property, for building the dwelling or flats, or for the improvement thereof, can be taken into account in determining the rent, and consequently the amendment in question is being proposed.

Clause 1 (c): In 1966 an amendment was effected to the definition of the word “services” in order to define meals more closely in that definition. In terms of that amendment a lessor has to provide a separate dining room and supply a proper meal consisting of cooked or otherwise prepared food at least once a day, before he may derive any benefit from the exclusion which the supplying of meals entails, which in point of fact amounts to making boarders of lessees. Now it is deemed necessary to define also prepared food more closely so that when a lessee has to pay for the meals which have to be supplied, he is assured of one course served hot per day. Also in respect of the separate dining room which has to be provided, malpractices have arisen in that the meals are supplied in another building or in a restaurant situated close by, greatly inconveniencing the lessee. Therefore, if a lessor supplies such meals, I regard it as essential for that to be done in the same building as the leased accommodation.

Clause 2: Section 8 (1) (a) of the Act provides that when a rent board is satisfied that a lessee is paying an unreasonable rent:

1. (i) it shall order the lessor to reduce the rent to the amount the board deems reasonable, and
2. (ii) it may order the lessor to refund to the lessee, as from the date upon which the complaint was transmitted to the lessor, the amount that has been paid in excess.

Therefore it is clear that when the board orders a reduction in rent alone, the Act does not prescribe any specific date on which such a reduction has to come into operation. Only in respect of cases in which the board orders a refund, does the Act prescribe a definite date, i.e. as from the date upon which the complaint was transmitted to the lessor. It often happens that a board orders a reduction in rent without requiring a refund as well. In such a case, in terms of the Interpretation Act. the date on which the notice is delivered through the post, is deemed to be the date on which the reduction comes into operation. Such a date gives rise to numerous problems as it is difficult to determine that date. Consequently it is deemed necessary for the Rent Board to be able to determine a specific date, also in cases in which it orders a reduction in rent alone, and consequently it is being proposed to amend section 8 (1) (a) in the manner formulated in the clause.

Clause 3: In brief section 25 provides that:

1. (a) it shall not be lawful for the lessor of any controlled premises to require or accept the payment of any bonus, etc., in addition to the rent or to enter into any agreement or to impose any condition calculated to defeat the objects of the Act (subsection (1)),
2. (b) no person shall demand or accept payment of more than one month’s rent in advance or any payment as a deposit in addition to rent, save a deposit in respect of lights, gas, water and in respect of any damage or any loss of keys, etc. (subsection (2)).

In terms of subsection (3) (a) any person who contravenes the above-mentioned provisions is guilty of an offence and liable to a fine not exceeding R200 in the case of a dwelling and R1,000 in the case of business premises.

In addition the section concerned provides that no person may:

1. (c) require a lessee, by reason of the fact that furniture, household linen, fittings, etc., have been brought onto the premises, to pay a rent higher than that determined under the Act, or to pay for the use of such furniture, household linen, etc., any rent unless such rent has first been authorized by the rent board (subsection (2)bis),
2. (d) require a lessee of a garage or parking space to pay any rent higher than that prescribed by the Act (sub-section (2)ter).

In terms of subsection (3) (b) any person who contravenes the above-mentioned provisions is guilty of an offence and liable to a fine not exceeding R200.

From a recent Supreme Court case it appeared that a lessor imposed the buying of the furniture in his flats as a prerequisite for leasing the flats. The lessor was convicted under section 25 (1), but the Judge very strongly recommended that it should be made possible to imprison, where necessary, people who commit this type of offence. At present the Act merely provides for a fine as indicated. Moreover, in view of the serious light in which the Judge regarded the case, it is clear that the fine should be increased to at least R500.

Consequently the proposed amendments contained in this clause make provision only for an increase in the fine and for imprisonment.

Clause 4: I have already expressed myself in public against lessors who are prejudiced against children.

The Act has always provided that it is an offence for a lessor to discriminate against children in the matter of leasing a controlled dwelling. Recently I took steps to ensure that this provision would also be applicable to dwellings not subject to rent control.

It is customary for lessors of dwellings to specify by way of the lease the number of people who may occupy the dwelling. However, it has been coming more and more to my attention that when the number of people who may occupy the dwelling is exceeded because of an addition to the family, the lessee is given notice to vacate the dwelling on the grounds that he has dishonoured the lease. The same thing can happen, of course, when a child is adopted.

I do not want to interfere with the right of lessors to prevent by means of the lease the over-occupation of their dwellings, but it does appear that in this regard lessors do discriminate against children, in an indirect way, and that cannot be allowed.

Consequently this clause provides that a lessee may not be given notice to vacate the dwelling if the number of persons who may occupy a dwelling in terms of the lease is exceeded by reason of the birth of a baby or the adoption of a child until such time as such a child has reached the age of three years.

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. the Minister has pointed out, this Bill introduces certain amendments to the Rents Act of 1950. We on this side of the House agree with the hon. the Minister that these amendments are either necessary or, at any rate, desirable. The Bill will therefore have our support. But I must add that the hon. the Minister seems to be very neglectful this afternoon. As with the previous Bill, the hon. the Minister has neglected to acknowledge the part played by this side of the House. I am informed that the bulk of these amendments, if not all, are amendments which the hon. the Minister was asked to introduce into the legislation by the hon. member for Durban Point. I am sure that in his reply the hon. the Minister will put the matter right.

Returning to the Bill, whilst we support the Second Reading, there is one matter which we will probe in the Committee Stage. I should like to mention it briefly at this stage so that the hon. the Minister can give some consideration to it. It is in regard to clause 1 (b) which introduces an amendment to the definition of “reasonable rent.” There are two matters that we see arising from this on which we would like clarification.

First of all we are not clear as to why maintenance and repairs should be excluded as a legitimate use of the moneys which are being obtained by way of loan in terms of this proviso.

They are not excluded.

The proviso is, and I quote:

As we see it, it will not be possible to use the money which are being obtained by way of loan for maintenance and repair. It can only be used for either the purchase of the premises, or for the building’s erection or for the improvement of the building. It cannot be used for maintenance and repair. Provided the loan is being used for the legitimate purposes of improving the building or maintaining it, we feel this should be a legitimate use of the moneys loaned. We would like to hear the Minister’s opinion on this point.

The other matter which arises is the following: It often happens that a bond on rent-controlled premises expires and a new bond is sought to be raised to replace the existing bond. It would seem to us that the proviso as worded does not make it possible for that to be done. If we are reading this in a too restrictive sense, we would like to have the hon. the Minister’s assurance, because it seems to us that it is a perfectly legitimate operation to replace an existing bond which is expiring by a new bond. We trust that this will not be excluded by the proviso. We would like to hear the hon. the Minister’s opinion on this matter.

Finally, before I sit down, I just want to make a very brief general remark to the hon. the Minister. We are frequently having amendments to the Rents Act. We get them almost every year. Sometimes we find more than one amendment per year. All these amendments tend to be for the benefit of the tenant, restrictive of the landlord’s rights, etc. This has two undesirable effects. I would like to mention these to the hon. the Minister and I would like to ask him whether he does not think that the time has been reached to appoint a properly based commission to inquire into the whole question of the Rents Act with a view to avoiding the two unfortunate results which this Act seems to be having and which are tending to defeat the object of providing housing. These two effects are, firstly that it is tending to inhibit the building of new flats, because investors feel that so many restrictions are imposed on them that it is really not worth their while investing their money in this sphere. I think the Minister will admit that the Act is having this inhibiting effect. Secondly, it is having the effect, and this is something that has been going on for a number of years, that a large number of rent-controlled flats are in the hands of wealthy people who do not need that type of accommodation. They can afford accommodation which is not controlled under the Rents Act. But they have legitimately acquired these flats and they hold them. I believe that a large number of rent-controlled flats are being held by persons such as these. Unfortunately, we will never know the number until a proper investigation is made in this regard. I believe these two factors alone warrant a proper investigation with a view to seeing how this Act can be applied and, if necessary, amended so as to avoid particularly the inhibiting effect which it is having on investors. That inhibiting effect is defeating the whole object of the Act, which is to provide accommodation for those who need it at a rental which they can afford. But because investors feel that it is not worth their while in view of the restrictions under the Act to put up flat complexes, this inhibiting factor is entering into it and is defeating the whole object of the Act which all members in this House wish to see achieved. I would therefore ask the hon. the Minister whether he does not agree with me that the time has come when this matter should be properly investigated in the interests of achieving the objects which we all wish to achieve.

Mr. Speaker, I agree entirely with the hon. member for Musgrave about my neglect in not giving the credit of some of these amendments to the hon. member for Durban Point. I gladly do so because the hon. member for Durban Point is just about the only man on the other side who understands the Rent Act and who has assisted me a great deal. If the hon. member will convey to the hon. member for Durban Point my gratitude for the way in which he is helping me in dealing with this difficult question of the Rents Act I would appreciate it very much indeed. I will do the same when the hon. member gets back.

The hon. member for Musgrave is quite right when he says that in clause 1 maintenance and repairs are excluded. That is excluded because as the Act reads now 2 per cent is already allowed for maintenance and repairs when the rent is fixed by the Rent Board. That is automatic. If someone raises a bond for maintenance and repairs he will get in addition to the two per cent an additional percentage which I do not think is justifiable. We can discuss this matter again during the Committee Stage, but I am quite sure that I will be able to convince the hon. member that I am right.

I agree with the hon. member that the Rents Act is amended almost every year in order to eliminate loopholes and that it is disturbing to a landlord to have this Act continually amended. There is no doubt that as a result of the Rents Act there is a psychological fear with people who invest money in blocks of flats that rent control might be imposed. I also agree with the hon. member that it is having the effect that people are thinking twice before investing in blocks of flats and in housing. However, I think that as soon as the Sectional Titles Bill is passed this position will be remedied to a very great extent indeed. I think however that investors are not justified in having this fear of rent control. After all, no flat buildings erected after the end of June 1966 is subject to rent control.

They can be made subject to it.

They can be made subject, but so can any other buildings. Even an office block can be made subject to rent control. If there is ever any evidence of landlords taking advantage of people renting offices or flats from them such premises can be subjected to rent control. I cannot remember one single case of a block of flats erected after the 30th June, 1966, that has been put under rent control while I have been Minister. I do not think I have had a single request for such a building to be put under rent control. It is all very well for me. I know S.A.P.O.A. and these people. As far as I am concerned, there must be very obvious and clear proof of exploitation before I will agree to a new block of flats being put under rent control. I have not had one yet in the last 2½ years and I do not think I will get any. But the hon. member has a very good point indeed. All the flats that were built before 1966 are under rent control. That includes a very large number of luxury flats which should not really be under rent control. During the last two months I have discussed this question very fully with property owners, with S.A.P.O.A. and all these organizations dealing with flats, property development and so on. They suggested also a commission of inquiry. I discussed it with my colleagues in our community development group, and we doubt whether a commission of inquiry at this stage can do very much good. We know what the difficulties are. What I now am seriously considering—I am still going into the question whether it will be practical—is to ask the Rent Board whether they cannot give me a list of those blocks of flats in all the big towns which are under rent control and which are really luxury flats which should not be under rent control. I shall see whether I can take them out under rent control. I will go very carefully into this question. I ought to be able to have all the information within six months’ time. I agree entirely. I mean, why should a building like Bordeaux Flats, or any of those luxury flats at Sea Point be subject to rent control? Those people do not need any protection.

There has been another suggestion, which I am now seriously investigating, although I do not know how it is going to work in practice, and that is to say that there will be rent control only for flats or houses, say, under a rent of R150 or R175. Why should we worry about protecting the man who spends R300 or R500 on the rent of a flat? There is really no necessity for us to protect a man like that. I do not know what the administrative difficulties would be if we should lay down that they automatically do not come under rent control above a certain rent.

Some flats in a block will be above and others will be below that rental.

That is my difficulty. That suggestion has been made to me, and on the face of it it seems to be a very reasonable suggestion. But then you immediately run into this difficulty that some flats in the same building will be under rent control and others not. I want to give my friend the assurance that, if this idea of mine, which I have now thought over fairly carefully and which I am now investigating, namely of getting blocks of luxury flats out of rent control, does not work, I will seriously consider whether it will be worth while appointing a committee or a commission to go into this whole question of the Rents Act so that the people can still be protected, but we will be able to prevent the fear of property developers and investors of putting money into blocks of flats. The fear of rent control in this case is a completely unnecessary fear. After all, it is useless for me to say that I will not apply rent control. I do not know how long I am going to be tolerated in this position. If the Prime Minister is very wise, it will be for the next 20 years. [Laughter.] But one never knows. So it is no use giving those assurances. You may get a foolish government next year. I mean the United Party may come into power or something of that kind might happen, and they may re-introduce rent control. It is a question of getting the Rents Act to work more efficiently than it does at the moment. There I agree entirely. I think I have replied to all the questions of the hon. member.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, as you know, the Report of the Commission of Inquiry into Water Matters was laid upon the Table during the previous session of Parliament, and I also announced then, during my Vote, that the report, with a few exceptions, had been accepted by the Government.

During the recently ended Water Year a great deal was said about the importance of water, and in particular attention was focussed on the problems facing us, as well as the steps we shall have to take to solve the problems, so that it is not necessary for me today to elaborate on this again.

The Commission found that, and I quote—

There are in the Republic several bodies busy with research projects falling within these specialist fields—among others, the Department of Water Affairs, the Department of Agricultural Technical Services, the Department of Forestry, the Weather Bureau, the Geological Survey, the National Institute for Water Research, and of course our universities.

I may tell you that the various South African universities have reacted exceptionally favourably to requests and also to negotiations entered into with most of them to revise and to equip their research as well as their training projects specially with a view fo fit in with the greater water plan. The Commission feels that to gear modern knowledge to water resources development and utilization there must be effective co-ordination of the research being undertaken by the aforementioned organizations.

In the absence of the continuous cultivation of new knowledge and the progressive refinement and practical extension of existing knowledge, it is possible that water policy, planning and management may be directed towards creating irreversible situations in the Republic’s development. The Commission is convinced that water research must be closely linked with the comprehensive planning of the country’s physical resources. Management and development of the country’s water resources is entrusted to the Minister of Water Affairs, whereas comprehensive planning of resources is the function of the Prime Minister’s Planning and Advisory Council. To ensure effective co-ordination of these functions in the future, the Commission proposes the establishment of a standing committee under the wing of the Planning Advisory Council.

The Commission is aware that the co-ordination of research and the planning and development of the country’s scientific resources have been entrusted to the Prime Minister’s Scientific Advisory Council and that for the purpose three national committees have been created, namely:

1. (a) the National Advisory Committee for Pure and Applied Natural Physical Sciences.
2. (b) the National Advisory Committee for Biological Sciences and
3. (c) the National Advisory Committee for Medical Sciences.

It is the Commission’s conviction, however, that the aforementioned functions of the Scientific Advisory Council must be co-ordinated, particularly in regard to water research, with those of the Prime Minister’s Planning Advisory Council and of the Minister of Water Affairs.

In view of the key importance and inter-disciplinary specialist requirements of water research, it seems to the Commission that a specific co-ordinating committee for water research should be created under the wing of the National Advisory Committee for pure and applied natural physical sciences.

Because of the particular interest of the Department of Water Affairs in water research and the practical applications thereof, the Commission deems it advantageous for the Department to establish a branch having, apart from its own research, the specific task of consulting with the proposed Co-ordinating Committee for Water Affairs, and identifying itself with other scientific investigations and research in all fields affecting water supply in South Africa.

†Regarding the recommendation by the Commission that the Scientific Advisory Council of the Prime Minister should establish a co-ordinating committee for water research to co-ordinate all the research interests in South Africa, I announced in this House during discussion of my Vote last year that I decided not to accept the recommendation as it stood. I also discussed in detail the reasons for this and announced here that I shall recommend to the Government that a Water Research Commission rather be appointed on which various interested bodies will be represented and which will co-ordinate and look after the research side. At the same time there was close liaison with the National Advisory Committees of the Prime Minister’s Scientific Advisory Council.

Today we have before us a Bill to make provision for the establishment of such a Commission and a Water Research Fund.

*The Bill you have before you speaks for itself, and I do not think it is in any way necessary to elaborate further on the need for it.

Hon. members probably scrutinized it and gave it some thought before the commencement of this debate. Consequently we can merely glance at it and I shall briefly, where necessary, explain a few clauses.

Clause 1 is self-explanatory. Clause 2 makes provision for the establishment of the Commission and the general aims of the activities of the Commission. Clause 3 sets out the functions of the Commission and I do not think it is necessary to discuss it any further. Clause 4 makes provision for the constitution of the Commission which will be established, and the period of office of its members. I think that that is also self-explanatory. Clause 5 makes provision for the participation of members of the Commission in its activities.

†Clause 6 makes provision for the remuneration and allowances of members of the commission. Clause 7 lays down the procedures to be adopted at meetings of the commission. Clauses 8, 9 and 10 are self-explanatory.

*Then there is clause 11. For any organization to carry out its functions effectively, money is necessary. It is important to know precisely how we are going to manage with a large programme, and how it will be financed. This clause makes provision for the levying of a special tax on water users. Virtually every person in the country therefore will automatically be affected by such a tax and will therefore experience a minimal increase in water rates. When I say minimal, I may mention to you that a place like Springbok is used to paying in the region of 150 cents per thousand gallons. Many of our large cities are used to paying from 30 to 60 cents per thousand gallons. So we speak in terms of point something cents per thousand gallons, you will realize that it is such a small amount that most people will, for such a purpose, gladly pay this levy. To get an idea of what such a tax will amount to, I asked my Department to make a calculation, and the estimated annual domestic and industrial consumption amounted to approximately 220,000 million gallons. If a tax of only ½ cent per thousand gallons is levied, this will already ensure an income of approximately R1.1 million per year. You will therefore see that if agricultural consumption is added to that, and even if a much lower tax is levied on that, such a levy will entail an insignificant increase in water rates. Let me interrupt myself here by telling you that of the total allocated water in South Africa, a little more than 80 per cent is already being used for agricultural purposes.

In terms of clause 12 provision is being made for the establishment of a fund which will be known as the Water Research Fund. As you will realize, there are educational institutions where research can be done with good consequences, and I am thinking here in particular of our universities, as I indicated a moment ago. The research which has up to now been done by them was in many cases handicapped by a scarcity of the necessary funds. The Commission will now be able to make donations to such institutions to stimulate water research, and may also make financial contributions subject to certain conditions, by which means it will be able to stimulate research in specific directions in which it feels a deficiency exists. In this way students at such institutions will also, during their training, be able to do highly productive work, which could be a great asset to the country.

To this I can also add that it will then also be possible, if we have these funds, to initiate certain research projects and to entrust these to organizations competent to carry these out according to the wishes of such a commission. Clause 13 contains the provisions dealing with the administration of the funds. Clause 14 lays down by whom the accounts of the Commission shall be audited and in what manner its activities will be reported.

Clause 15 deals with the application of the Act in South-West Africa and clause 16 contains the short title.

It is now with great pleasure that I want to present this Bill. I think all of us will agree that if we are to tackle the water problem in South Africa properly, the role which research will play in the case of South Africa will probably have to be a special one. Many people, many organizations, a great deal of money and also a great deal of dedication and knowledge will have to be involved in this. I am convinced, after the favourable attitude which developed after the Water Year and in view of the enthusiasm of the entire country and all its people, that if there is one thing on which this country agrees, it is that we need to do as much as is possible in good time. I think that if there is a sphere in which the entire country would very much like to co-operate and contribute, then it will be the humble contribution all of us are going to make in order to enable us to undertake this major task, a task in which not only the Department of Water Affairs and the C.S.I.R. will co-operate, but a task in which we also intend to try to incorporate all undertakings in the private sector, to throw their co-ordinated efforts behind this great task awaiting South Africa. I believe that the establishment of this Commission is essential. I think that after its establishment the country will feel more assured that what must be done has been done in time. Because this is the way I feel about the matter and because I know that I probably have the support of both sides of the House, it is with very great pleasure that I move the Second Reading.

I think one can at the outset reassure the hon. the Minister that of course legislation like this which is positive and practical and of the utmost urgency will have the almost automatic support of this side of the House. We want to welcome the appointment of a commission of this nature which has been set up as the result of the report of the Water Commission and which will play such a very important role in the co-ordination of research. One of the common experiences of our time is that research costs such a tremendous amount of money and we in this country, with the limited funds we have, can hardly afford to waste any of the money we have and which can be devoted to research. I welcome the idea that this commission can act as a co-ordinating body to direct research in certain specific fields. The hon. Minister read out a list of fields into which research has to be done. On our side of the House there will be two other speakers who will deal with various aspects of what they regard as being important aspects of research which have to be tackled fairly soon and almost immediately in South Africa.

This age of ours has been called the age of research and I think it is common cause that the tremendous expansion in production capacity and in the achievements of mankind have been brought about specifically by research which has tended in the past to be research into more efficient production and the more efficient utilization of the resources available to us. It has gone too far in that direction in that we find ourselves now as mankind seriously infringing on the balance of nature. I believe that a commission of this sort in a country such as ours has a vital part to play.

The hon. the Minister mentioned the question of pollution. We believe that this commission eventually will come to play an even greater part than the Minister has set out, limiting it as he has done to specific subjects which will be the subject matter of research. I think the realization has become common that mankind today is outstripping nature. We are getting to the point where there is such a serious state of imbalance in the environment that immediate attention has got to be paid to it. I believe that this commission which the Minister is setting up will eventually develop in that direction. It is the hope of this side of the House that the hon. the Minister will be able to make use of this commission to develop what has been lacking, in our opinion, up until this time in the Water Act. That is an enforcement agency which will enable the hon. the Minister and his department to substantiate and found cases against people who are guilty of water pollution. This in itself is a tremendous field for research. Those of us in Natal with experience of industries on some of the smaller rivers know that the problem is to bring a case of pollution and to substantiate it in court. The problem is to trace the pollution to its source. A commission of this kind would be able to act in that direction. It is obviously not its immediate task, as the hon. the Minister has indicated. The hon. the Minister has listed a whole list of matters which will be investigated by the commission. The enforcement agency of controlling pollution will reside and ought to reside in the hon. the Minister’s department. We have to realize that pollution control can only be carried out by the most rigid prosecution. I am quite certain that it is not the intention of the hon. the Minister, nor his department, nor the people of South Africa, to permit pollution of any of our water resources to take place. In welcoming this commission we hope that it is going to put a tool in the hon. the Minister’s hands for that purpose. There will be at least a section within that commission which will be able to take immediate cognizance of water pollution in our rivers and to trace that pollution to its source with a view to establishing a case for prosecution. I hope that the hon. the Minister will see to the extension of the functions of the commission beyond the immediate practical task which he has set out.

I hope that we will be able to see in this commission a first step towards the creation of a department of the environment. By founding his research on water and by controlling the water pollution, the hon. the Minister has also control in his other capacity as Minister of Forestry of the tremendous recreational areas of our country. We hope that he will be able to move in this direction. There should be some kind of move made now in South Africa while we are still the young country that we are, to prevent the kind of problem that occurred in so many of the old industrial countries overseas. There people are openly talking today of the destruction of the environment. We believe that research of this nature by a commission of this nature will play a very vital part in that field.

I wish to quote something which was said by Pres. Nixon. It is contained in the First Report of the Council of Environmental Quality, which was appointed recently by the United States Congress. Pres. Nixon said—

These are indeed very strong words. I am pleased to think that we in South Africa are taking steps now which would at least put us in a position to get in ahead of the field, as it were, and to take steps to control this sort of happening. Pres. Nixon went on to say—

One of the reasons and basic causes of our troubles—

In other words, we have tended to concentrate too much on industrial production because it brought wealth to our community, without realizing the problems, dangers and the eventual total destruction that this might bring upon us. The question of the cost is something that we should bring to the notice of the people in South Africa, industrialists as well as manufacturers. The setting up of a factory has to include the treatment of effluent and this kind of thing as a part of their natural course of production. I think our Water Act sets out quite clearly that people who are using water under permit from the Minister, must return it to the stream it came from in a fit condition, or almost in the same condition in which it was extracted. I think it is important that this matter should be brought pertinently to the attention of people who undertake industrial production in our country.

I should like to mention one of the features which struck me about the work which is being done in America. The hon. the Minister has taken specific care to state in clause 3 (1) (g) of the Bill that one of the functions of the commission shall be “to co-operate with institutions undertaking such research in other countries, with a view to the accumulation or dissemination of knowledge of such research and the results thereof”. The United States’ Department of the Interior has put out a publication on water quality criteria, which covers all fields of industrial production. They include even those aspects which relate to the other side of the Minister’s two-sided character, namely, those aspects the Minister deal with in his capacity as Minister of Forestry. Sir, I refer in particular to the recreational areas of our country. Criteria are even set out for the enhancement of the recreational value of water, particularly for purposes other than swimming, such as fishing, etc. This report of the United States Department of the Interior, which I have here, has investigated what must be done to perpetuate and maintain the quality of our recreational areas. I believe that this is the sort of work we have to do here in South Africa. The dams that are being built by the hon. the Minister’s Department are providing to an ever-increasing extent tremendous centres of recreation for our people. I think great danger exists that these areas might become polluted, or a danger to the public.

Certain criteria are laid down here for pulp and paper manufacturing. Those of us who have experience in these matters, know very well that that is a real problem indeed. Furthermore, this report goes on to lay down standards for the marine and esturine organisms. In other words, they say that pollution should not be allowed to take place either in the sea or in the estuaries. An interesting statement made in this report is that, of the total fish catch in the United States, something like 40 per cent is taken in the esturine regions. One can understand the tremendous importance that must be to a country like the United States, and the great concern that is being felt by people in that country because of the threat of pollution of their estuaries. We in South Africa are not blessed with such large tidal flows. The few estuaries we have, such as St. Lucia, are already sources of recreational activity. They are not used in any way for commercial exploitation.

I also want to bring to the Minister’s attention the work that is being done in the United States on saline water conversion. I believe that in this country of ours, with the limited resources we have, desalination is going to play a very important part as one of our sources of water. It would be ridiculous if we were to allow the coastal water around our country to be polluted, or to become the carrier-away of industrial effluent on a large scale, when those very waters may in the future become one of our prime sources of water. The United States Office of Saline Water does a tremendous amount of research on the practical and physical problems associated with the desalination of water. Sir, it has been proved that hot sea water is one of the most corrosive substances that mankind has to handle. In this report one finds that a tremendous amount of research has been conducted just to find a container capable of holding sea water while being heated for the purpose of distillation into fresh water. The importance with which this subject is approached in the United States is demonstrated by the size of these reports I have here, for the years 1965 and 1970 respectively. As you will notice, Sir, the report for 1970 is almost twice as thick as the report for 1965. In other words, desalination in the United States is gaining in importance. It is being funded to an ever-increasing degree, because the United States, even with all the water resources they have, still believe that the water in the sea is one day going to be of the utmost benefit to them. I believe that we in South Africa will, if anything, become far more dependent upon the sea for the water we are going to need in the future. I believe these are some of the matters which the hon. the Minister and his commission will deal with. We welcome this commission very heartily. Indeed, we wish it well. We believe that the proper place for it is in the hon. the Minister’s department. I notice that in the clause dealing with the constitution of the commission, it is laid down that the Secretary shall be the chairman. We wondered whether it should not actually state the Secretary for Water Affairs, because there is no other definition which indicates that it actually is the Secretary for Water Affairs. However, that is a technical point and I think we can discuss that during the Committee Stage. It did seem to be a bit of a gap. But certainly, we welcome this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, we are grateful that the hon. the Minister has come to the House with this legislation. I think it is irrefutable proof that the hon. the Minister of Water Affairs and his Department, the Secretary of Water Affairs and the officials, are not only aware of the water problems of South Africa and their importance to the future of our country, but that they are also working seriously on a planned solution to and method of coping with those problems with a view to the utilization and disposal of our water. Therefore we not only want to congratulate the hon. the Minister on this legislation, but also express the hope that the Commission which will be established under this legislation will really make a great contribution in future in regard to this urgent problem. We are touching with this one of the lifelines of the Republic of South Africa.

What is more, we can almost say that if we were to neglect our water affairs, or cope with them incorrectly, we could in that way very seriously restrict the future development of the Republic of South Africa. If we deal with it and plan it incorrectly now, it will only be possible to remedy, if that can still be done, the matter subsequently at very great expense. We have often realized that we are in fact very ignorant in regard to water and water matters. I once listened to one of our experts hold a discussion on the radio on irrigation and irrigational techniques. What I found striking was that even he, as an expert, admitted that he knew very little about irrigation and the application of the correct irrigational methods. If the experts, who have had a great deal to do with this matter and are constantly investigating it, admit that we know very little about the whole matter, it proves that we are dealing here with the matter which really requires probing research.

We are therefore grateful that the hon. the Minister is actually proceeding to establish such a water research commission. As I see the matter, the task of this Commission in the first instance is to serve as a source of knowledge, because there is no one who does not from time to time have inquiries or specific problems, whether this be the farmer on his farm, a local authority, in regard to coping with their water problems or laying out new projects. There is a constant demand for knowledge, particularly knowledge which must make an important contribution to the determination of the costs of a particular project and the correct methods which should be applied, etc. During this week I talked to an enterprising farmer. As a private farmer he had his own scheme, which cost thousands of rand, built. He told me that he had found after many years that the irrigation furrow which he had cemented at great expense did not work very well because he was losing too much water. I am just mentioning this, because it is an example which illustrates that that man, in the original planning of his particular scheme, required certain information which was not at his disposal.

If one thinks further of the tremendously great challenge which awaits our scientists in regard to the desalination of sea water, we feel that this is a field in which there is a very urgent need for thorough research. We are fortunate to have at our disposal from time to time information from other overseas sources, but South Africa’s problems are unique. South Africa has its own particular responsibility in respect of the solution of our problems. It has always been our approach that we cannot wait for other people to offer us the solution to our problems. That is why we are grateful that the hon. the Minister of Water Affairs is moving in this direction and that we in our country will also labour diligently at the problem of finding the most efficient, most money-saving, most effective and most long-lasting utilization of our water resources.

The Commission will have a tremendous task, a task which will have to be carried out over a period of many years, but I think that it will not only be a challenge to our scientists, our engineers and our hydrologists, but that it will serve as an inspiration to them because they are attempting to solve one of the most pressing problems in South Africa. It will be an inspiration to them to undertake research and to carry out tests and gradually to make a contribution of this nature in order to plan South Africa’s future as well as possible.

An overseas visitor was once travelling through South Africa, and in this particular case it happened to be a woman. After she had travelled through the country for a considerable time someone asked her what she thought South Africa’s most important problem was. The person who asked the question possibly had in mind that she would say that it was our population relationships problem, in other words, our race problem. That woman replied that water was South Africa’s greatest problem. She took an over-all look at the country and saw that our survival in the first instance depended on our water resources and on the efficient utilization of our water resources. That is why I want to associate myself sincerely with the hon. member for Mooi River. We are grateful that on this matter we are agreed, and we are also grateful for the friendly and sincere support which came from that side. We trust that this legislation and the work which the Commission to be appointed, will do, will make a very valuable contribution in respect of the future of water utilization in South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to associate myself with the remarks made by the hon. member for Mooi River and also the hon. member for Piketberg in supporting this Bill which is before us. As hon. members probably know. I have been extremely interested in the matter of water conservation, also in the finding of water where we need it in our country. I believe that this Bill is a step forward. Such steps cannot be taken unless a vast amount of research is done in a country. One of the big problems of South Africa has been in the past that we have not had sufficient funds for research. It is therefore good to see that this Bill also makes provision for finding the necessary funds.

I am particularly interested, as are some of my colleagues, in one area which I am sure and I trust will benefit greatly by this research, namely the Witwatersrand. It is the most developed area in South Africa and contains more than one-quarter of our industry and the same proportion of this country’s population. It is one of the country’s biggest sources of revenue and the development can only be limited by one factor—other factors, too, of course, but I do not want to discuss Bantu affairs now—and that is the availability of water. There are pessimists who when they speak of the Witwatersrand and the future availability of water in that area say that this factor is going to limit its development. I do not believe that that is the case. There are ex nerts who say that if the water of the Witwatersrand and that of the whole Vaal Triangle is properly re-used, our water supplies, actual and potential, can feed the Witwatersrand and the Vaal Triangle well into the twenty-first century. For that the necessary research is needed.

Hon. members will remember that we on this side of the House moved a motion in August 1966 calling for the better utilization of the water resources of our country. That utilization is very largely dependent on research. I go along with the praise for this particular research commission that will be established, but I trust that it will not be a body which will merely delay essential work which has to be done and which I feel can be started now and on which a great deal of research has been done already. After all, we must remember that an excellent commission, namely the Water Commission, was appointed in October, 1969, and did a vast amount of research. On the basis of that research a great deal of work can already be done in practice. I therefore trust that the idea of the hon. the Minister is not to have us wait again until this new research board has formulated its plan before we take steps of really seeing that we get more water in our country. We want this research commission. We believe that the necessary funds should be made available, as suggested by the hon. the Minister, but at the same time we would like to have an indication from him as to when the actual action is coming, particularly where areas like the Witwatersrand are facing difficulties and will be facing difficulties in the years to come. As the hon. the Minister knows, the Witwatersrand has faced extreme difficulties during past years as regards water restrictions, which we believe would have been unnecessary if there had been no proper planning beforehand.

The hon. the Minister mentions certain factors that need research. He mentioned that we should obtain more factual knowledge about the average annual run-off in the Republic. I agree with that, but one need not delay one’s plans until the exact figure is obtained. The Water Commission has gone into that matter and it has given an estimate of what the position is. There is the major problem of the transference of waters from areas of surplus to areas where there is little water. Research is needed in this regard. We know that certain plans have already been initiated and I trust that a board such as this will not delay the initiation and the completion of those particular plans. The hon. the Minister has mentioned that research will have to be done into the storage of water underground. I agree. That is a very important point. But it is not essential to wait until that research is completed to start already with projects along those lines, and to carry into effect suggestions which have been made. We shall not only have to act and to wait for this particular Water Research Commission —we shall have at our disposal the vast amount of research done by industry and our universities in the past. The Witwatersrand University, to mention only one body, has done an amazing amount of research into the utilization of water, particularly insofar as it affects the Vaal Triangle.

I trust that in this commission the hon. the Minister will make full use of experts in industry and our municipalities, which are most affected by the water problem, and in particular the Johannesburg Municipality. If I am correct. I believe there are to be seven members plus the chairman in this particular commission. The hon. the Minister mentioned certain bodies which are interested and which have been doing research in regard to water affairs. He mentioned his own Department, naturally, and the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Forestry, the Weather Bureau, the Geological Survey, the National Institute for Water Research and the universities. I do not know what his intentions are, whether he intends giving these particular bodies which were mentioned by the commission representation on the Water Commission itself, or whether he intends giving broader representation. I would appeal to him to consider giving particularly our large industries and our large urban complexes, our municipalities, representation on this commission when he does appoint people. These bodies that he has mentioned have done excellent work. They have done excellent work in theory; we are particularly interested in getting people on this commission who have to deal with the practical side of the problem.

My colleague the hon. member for Mooi River mentioned the problem of pollution, which will be researched and which will be, I hope, one of the main tasks of this particular commission. I am very glad to see that the hon. the Minister said so. I wonder whether we realize the terrific ecological imbalance which is being caused at the present moment throughout the whole of this world by the pollution of our water resources. We live in a modern, 20th century industrial state. We have been careless for many years about the results of our industrial activities, where profit has been the main motive. So often a responsible industry of municipality who wanted to do something in regard to the pollution of waters in their vicinity, simply found that they could not raise the funds; or in the case of an industry, they found that if they did do anything, they would be affected adversely in relation to their competitors, who very often gave very little thought to the pollution of a river by their effluents. It has become a terrific problem, as the hon. the Minister well knows, in the United States. Rivers like the Ohio River and even the Mississippi and their estuaries have become so polluted during the past two decades, that almost all fish life has died.

Especially the Mississippi.

That is so. The Great Lakes of Northern America, the United States and Canada have become so polluted that one can hardly find life in those areas any more. We do not want to see that sort of thing happening in our country. We have active industries; we have far-seeing people in this country. I trust that they will work with this commission and that the hon. the Minister will utilize them, their knowledge and goodwill, to see that this particular commission will be able to work along the lines that he wishes it to work. I do wish this Bill every success.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 23 and debate adjourned.