Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, with your leave I wish to move—

Sir, when an officer of the House of Assembly retires after so many years of service, it becomes us as members on all sides who have been associated with him over the years, to express our thanks and appreciation to him in this way for highly distinguished services rendered.

Now it so happens, Mr. Speaker, that it is not only the Secretary. Mr. McFarlane, who will be retiring in the recess, but also Mr. Thys du Toit, who has likewise rendered many years of service, first as a clerical assistant from 16th November, 1941, to 30th December, 1936. and then as Clerk of the Papers from 1st January, 1937. to date. It is not customary to introduce motions in respect of officials other than the head official, but I think hon. members will agree that it is fitting that. on the occasion of this motion before the House, I should in passing express our special thanks and appreciation to Mr. Thys du Toit as well for his years of service. In the nature of things he was an official with whom all of us came into contact very often. He was most certainly one of the most helpful people I have ever met in my life, but I think he was also a person who had the best knack of telling a story that I have ever come across. To tell the truth, it was always a sheer delight to have a chat with him and to listen to his version of any matter. Far be it from me to say what one should do when one retires, but when I think of Mr. Du Toit, I think he would be the best sick-comforter one could use anywhere to cheer up people who need cheering up, and, Sir. we as members of the House of Assembly can testify to that, because we often need cheering up. One would therefore like to express one's heartfelt thanks and appreciation to this official, who has had such a special association with us. Not only was he a man who pulled his weight here in the House of Assembly, but he also rendered exceptional services to the church and the community, and we as members did not fail to take note of this.

As far as Mr. McFarlane is concerned, here we have an official who was born at Hermanus on 3rd August, 1908. He completed his school education at the De Villiers Graaff High School. It may be said that this is one of the reasons why he has achieved such success; this is possible, of course, but I still think the reason why he has been so successful is that he can lay claim to the name of ” John”! After leaving school Mr. McFarlane worked for a commercial bank for a few years. Subsequently he worked for the Supreme Court for a few months, before joining the staff of the House of Assembly as assistant committee clerk on 1st December, 1930. He occupied this post until 16th June. 1947. As Chief Committee Clerk he served this House from 17th June. 1947, until 30th March. 1952, as Clerk Assistant from 1st April, 1952, until 30th June, 1959, and as Secretary to the House for a very long time, from 1st August, 1959, to date. He has therefore sat in this House for many years, and all he has not done in all these years is to make his maiden speech.

Particulars of his term of service make pleasant reading As committee clerk he was responsible for the work in connection with many important Select Committees, such as those on the Gold Standard, the Bretton Wood Agreements, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, the Rand Water Board and Wemmershoek. He was the last Clerk of the House of Assembly of the Union of South Africa and the first Secretary to the House of Assembly of the Republic of South Africa. With the change-over to the Republican form of government he was responsible in the Parliamentary sphere for quite a number of arrangements to make the proceedings run smoothly, and indeed, the way in which things went off show how well he performed his task.

In 1963 he visited the House of Commons at your request, Mr. Speaker, to make a thorough study of Parliamentary procedure there, and as a result of this visit the Standing Orders were drastically changed to modernize the rules, to do away with obsolete practices and to expedite the proceedings of the House of Assembly. All of us are aware of his contribution to the good work done in this regard. We also know that the rules were further revised in 1970, when the financial procedure was changed, and I think all of us will agree that all the improvements were excellent ones. As a result of the steps taken to revise the rules, the House of Assembly today compares very favourably in this respect with any other similar institution in the world.

In 1966, Mr. Speaker, as you know, the reporting and translating of the debates were taken over from the Hansard contractors and assigned to the relevant sections of the staff. At the same time a modern, sophisticated system of mechanical recording of speeches was installed in the House of Assembly. I think I am speaking on behalf of all hon. members in saying that the Hansard service we have at the moment, is the best we have ever had in Parliament.

In passing one also thinks of the establishment of the Public Bills Section. Pursuant to a resolution taken by the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders Mr. McFarlane devised a new method of drafting amending Bills which made it much easier for members and for the public to understand proposed amendments. I think I am again speaking on behalf of all of us in saying that the way in which this is done at the moment, not only eliminates a great deal of work, but also makes it much easier for the lay members of the House to follow and understand the legal language in this connection properly. There is not the slightest doubt in the minds of any of us that this system is working well.

I also wish to point out that Mr. McFarlane wrote a brochure on Parliament which is made available to visitors and schoolchildren at a small charge. It is an excellent medium for explaining the functioning of Parliament to the people and is also of great educational value to school-children. He was also responsible—and for this, too, we want to convey our thanks and appreciation to him—for the compilation of the Parliamentary Register which was published last year and which contains the names of all Members of Parliament, Ministers and other office-bearers in respect of the period of the Union of South Africa.

During his term of office as Secretary he also took the lead and played a major part in planning and furnishing the two new wings of the building for the purpose of providing offices to members. All of us know that our six months' stay here has been made much more bearable by the fact that better accommodation has been placed at our disposal. Structural alterations were made to the main building for the purpose of making available more offices and other amenities, providing a separate prestige dining-room for important guests and rebuilding and modernizing the Parliamentary kitchen. The latter plays a rather important part in the lives of many of us who have to take our meals here. In addition, two cafeterias were provided for serving meals and light refreshments.

During his term of office consideration was given to the Press Gallery as well and improved facilities were provided for the Press. Whether the reporting has kept pace with the improved facilities is a matter of taste. Furthermore, there was the installation of an automatic branch exchange for the Parliamentary Buildings and, last but not least, the establishment of the Parliamentary Museum. May we be spared being placed in it!

During his term of office the staff has expanded appreciably. At his initiative, salaries, pensions and leave privileges have been improved considerably. Mr. McFarlane also contributed his share towards the establishment of the Parliamentary Association, and we are aware of the good work that can be done in that connection by hon. members on both sides of the House with the tours that are undertaken. We also thank him for the services rendered by him in his capacity as secretary of the Fernwood Sports Club and for the improvements made there.

Mr. McFarlane played first-league rugby in his day and showed himself to be a true sportsman in every respect. I am told that he is an experienced angler as well. I would have preferred him to have chosen some other branch of sport. During the Second World War he also went on active service, and I understand that, after retiring on 31st August, he is going to devote his energies to cultivating proteas on his farm near Bot River.

This is the career of an official who has rendered a lifetime of service to Parliament, an approachable official to whom all of us felt free to go with our Parliamentary problems in so far as they fell within his sphere, a friendly, charming person who has lived for this Parliament, who has given the best years of his life to this Parliament and who has added lustre to the fine and great traditions of this Parliament. It is for this reason that I felt I should introduce this motion in this House, and if you will now permit me. Sir, through you to address Mr. McFarlane, I wish to say to him: Mr. McFarlane, we. the members of this Parliament—and you have been here a very long time; you have in fact been here longer than any of us —5sincerely appreciate everything you have done for Parliament; we sincerely appreciate the courteous treatment we have received from you at all times; and we sincerely appreciate the fact that you have always been the personification of dignity. in the tradition of the Parliament of South Africa.

I second the motion by the hon. the Prime Minister. We are today taking leave of two officials of this House who devoted practically the whole of their working lives to the service of Parliament. In doing this, I think we have a feeling of gratitude that we have been in a position to rely on the services of two officials who have done their work so faithfully.

I am particularly glad that the hon. the Prime Minister thought it fit also to mention the name of Mr. Thys du Toit on this occasion. He is a person who set everyone an example of courtesy, friendliness and readiness to help. Nothing was too much trouble for him when he felt he could help a member with any of the documents he stores underneath his office. There has always been a singular relationship between him and me. He was an elder in my congregation and in my church, and I must say that there he rendered the same service and save the same guidance as he did here on the staff of the House of Assembly. He told me the other day that there is not one member left today of those who were here when he joined the Parliamentary service. One cannot help wondering what thoughts enter his mind when he ponders on things for a moment One wonders whether he thinks of the figures, of the exceptional people who came into contact with him during that lifetime of service, what his impression of them was. and what he thought of them as personalities. I wonder whether he will not possibly some day employ his gift of making interesting conversation and his sense of fun in writing us something about his experiences in Parliament during the time he spent here. We wish him a very pleasant retirement. We know that he will never be idle.

†Sir, when we take farewell of Mr. McFarlane, we are taking farewell not only of a man who has given a lifetime of service to this Parliament, but also of a man who has maintained the very highest traditions of this institution. The Prime Minister has said that he had a good grounding at the De Villiers Graaff High School, but it is not all the “Johnnies” who came from that school that made good! I think there was something else to it. I may say that we have always felt that we could have the greatest confidence in him.

When we look back over his time of service in Parliament. I think there are perhaps three things which will be regarded as his greatest achievements. The one is his tidying up and simplification of the rules of this House. They have resulted in a far more efficient machine, and they have resulted in our rules being able to compare with anything in the world. They are due very largely to the study, the inspiration and the work which Mr. McFarlane put into the revision of these rules.

Secondly, his great achievement has been what he has done regarding amenities for members of this House. I remember that when I first came here some twenty years ago there was no question of an office for each member. There was not even a desk for each member Fifteen of us were sharing one large writing-room. I will not say that the quality of the work of members has improved all that much, but certainly the facilities that are available today can make a very big contribution to better work by members of this House. I think we owe a very real debt of gratitude to Mr. McFarlane for what he has done in that regard.

I think the third thing for which we shall remember him is the ease with which we changed over our system of reporting the debates of the House, under his guidance and his care. Our Hansard today, as the Prime Minister has said, is probably better than we have ever had it before, and I think we owe him a very real measure of congratulation for the efficiency with which that work is undertaken.

All members, I know, will Want to thank Mr. McFarlane for what he has done over the years for the Parliamentary Sports Club, and also for the work he has done for the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and the Parliamentary Association itself.

When we have said that those are things for which we shall remember him, I do not think that that is the whole story. We shall remember him particularly for his thoroughness in his work, for his attention to detail and for his complete impartiality. That is something which is very important to an Opposition in this House. We always felt that Mr. McFarlane had the courage and the determination to state what he believed was the right interpretation of the rules, or the right interpretation of our procedure, no matter whether the Speaker agreed with him, the Prime Minister agreed with him, or even the Leader of the Opposition agreed with him. That is the sort of impartiality which is necessary in an institution of this kind in order to make it work.

Now that he has come to the end of a long working life of 41 years, I feel that he has the right to go out with a sense of achievement for what he has done to see that the best traditions of Parliament have been observed in South Africa. When he retires, and succeeds in cultivating those proteas which mean so much to him. I have no doubt that the beauty of the proteas will recall to him the faces of so many of the members he has seen pass before him during his lifetime in Parliament.

Mr. McFarlane, on behalf of the Opposition, thank you for what you have done; thank you for what you have meant to Parliament. We wish you well in your retirement, and for the future. You deserve it.

I should like to associate myself with the tributes paid to Mr. McFarlane and Mr. Du Toit by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. As Minister of Transport I was, in the nature of things, associated with Mr. McFarlane over a number of years. During those years I developed a great admiration for his ability and confidence. I was also impressed by his impartiality to members on both sides of the House, as has been pointed out by the Leader of the Opposition. I found that Mr. McFarlane took a great pride in the traditions and conventions of Parliament. He made it his task to initiate changes in the rules and procedures, changes which resulted in this House working more smoothly. To me he was of course of invaluable assistance. He had long service here and during those years he did his duty to the best of his ability.

I can only wish him a long retirement and, for him and his wife, the best in the years that lie ahead.

*Then I also wish to congratulate Mr. Victor, who will succeed Mr. McFarlane. I am convinced that he will be a worthy successor to Mr. McFarlane.

The hon. the Leader of the Progressive Party… [Laughter.]

The Parliamentary Leader of the Progressive Party, Mr. Speaker! I too should like to associate myself with everything that has been said about the two gentlemen who are now retiring from the Parliamentary service. I have often had occasion to visit Mr. Du Toit. Every time I popped my head around his door, he was most welcoming and assisted me in every way. However, I have never had the benefit of any of the stories referred to by the hon. the Prime Minister. I rather regret that. But I should like to thank him for all the assistance he has given me and to wish him well during his retirement.

As far as Mr. McFarlane is concerned, I have, of course, special cause to be grateful to him. When, ten years ago, I found myself here as the sole representative of my party, alone and, I might say, whip-less, I was fairly ignorant about many of the finer points of procedure and of the rules in the House. Consequently, there were many occasions on which I had to get advice from Mr. McFarlane. That advice has always been forthcoming. He has been extremely patient and most willing to give me any advice I needed. For that I thank him. I too would like to wish him and Mrs. McFarlane a period of happy retirement. However, I am afraid I cannot agree with what the Leader of the Opposition said, because I doubt very much that he will find the Pincushions and Blushing Brides will remind him of the beauties he has seen in this House.

Since the rules and the practice of the House do not permit Mr. McFarlane to thank hon. members personally, he asked me on his behalf to convey his sincere thanks and appreciation to the hon. the Prime Minister, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, the hon. the leader of the House and the hon. the Parliamentary Leader of the Progressive Party.

Mr. McFarlane is deeply grateful for all the kind words that have fallen from your lips in regard to his person and the services he has rendered. I hope the House will allow me also to say a few words in this connection. I got to know Mr. McFarlane when I was still a backbencher in the Opposition about 28 years ago. During all these years he has rendered able and devoted service. I, perhaps more than any other hon. member in this House, can testify to his devotion to his duties. He devoted his whole life to his work. It was his primary consideration. He was a capable man who knew his work. When one asked Mr. McFarlane for his advice or his opinion, or entrusted any task to him, one could rest assured that it would be correct or would be carried out correctly. One could always rely on his absolute and unimpeachable integrity. Whenever I discussed a difficult matter with him, he always gave me his candid and honest opinion. He was an efficient man. One never had to wait for him. He had a quick mind. He was always ready with an answer to any matter that cropped up unexpectedly.

† He was a reliable servant of this House One could count on his reliability at all times. Frequently he and I consulted each other after hours when we had to discuss matters, and I could always rely on his advice. He was very punctual. On the stroke of time he would be at his post and available. His attitude towards me and all the members of the House has at all times been correctness itself.

*His duties and work were of an exacting nature. There is hardly any kind of duty or work which does not come to him as Secretary and through him to me. Most of these matters are of an urgent nature, so that he had little time in which to consider or to decide about them, but he always had an answer ready and his answer was always the right one.

†What is more, we have a very small staff, but a highly efficient one, and it was trained to be highly efficient by Mr. McFarlane. The staff has also proved to be a very willing and most loyal one. No working hours are too long for them and no trouble or duty too much.

*Mr. McFarlane had to exercise supervision over the staff, the buildings, the papers, the smooth functioning of the House, and the expenditure. I could spend an hour discussing the matter of expenditure with you. I refer to the expenditure which South Africa is saved as a result of the smooth functioning of this House and to the time that is saved in the transaction of the business of the House. The evening and all-night sittings which the old members experienced became intolerable. Matters have been brought to the stage today where our House is functioning efficiently, effectively and expeditiously without anything being omitted or neglected as a result of much less time being devoted to it.

A very important matter to us is the translation work. It is no easy task to do justice to both languages as far as accuracy and correctness are concerned. In all the years Mr. McFarlane has been sitting here, we have not had one single complaint about the work done in this Parliament as far as his translations are concerned.

The needs of hon. members, and not only of hon. members, but also of their families, are a matter of very great importance. This is a matter which Mr. McFarlane has all along attended to with great care and with great consideration to the hon. members and their families. Whenever he approaches me in this regard, it is always with a sympathetic recommendation, especially in cases where a family has suffered through illness or death. In such cases Mr. McFarlane has always approached me in a spirit of goodwill and kind consideration.

†His duties were wide, difficult and diversified, They were composed of almost everything. I, too, wish to thank Mr. McFarlane for the services which he has rendered to Parliament and to me personally. I am grateful to you, Mr. McFarlane, for the very loyal manner in which you served me in all the time I have been connected with the Chair.

*Then it is a heart-felt wish of mine also to thank Mr. Du Toil for his long years of loyal and devoted service. Mr. Du Toit has not only been a model of courtesy, but has always been prepared to make sacrifices. He was devoted to his work. I wish to express my thanks to him as well.

I also wish to extend my congratulations to Mr. Victor, Mr. Van Zyl and Mr. Venter, who will occupy these high offices here in future.

Motion put and agreed to.

Mr. Chairman, I move—

This is the paragraph in which provision is made for the 7½ per cent loan levy on dividends. I do not propose to go into the rights and the wrongs of this matter again. They have been dealt with very fully during the Second Reading of the Bill, particularly by the hon. member for Constantia. We believe that the method of application of the principle involved is an extremely bad one in its present form. We do not believe that it is capable of fair and efficient administration. We believe, as has already been said, that it imposes an unfair burden on the taxpayer, in this case the companies. Here we have a position where what you are required to prove, you are unable to prove and you have no legal right to make any inspection which will give that proof. The position then really boils down to this: If in doubt, you pay. This is what this clause means. If a company is unable to establish that its dividends will flow to another company, then it will pay the tax. Here again we have one of the issues we have complained about constantly, the question of uncertainty.

There is another consideration which I think should have been taken into account. The Income Tax Act places certain obligations on people. In this case the obligation is to prove to the Secretary for Inland Revenue that the dividend has flowed from one company to another company What is the position if a company should so prove quite innocently that this is the case and then it is subsequently found that it is not the case? Because the taxed company has no way of establishing anything to the contrary, will it be liable for some penalty? Has it performed an illegal act? We believe that this clause imposes a penalty on the taxpayer which is quite wrong. It is for that reason that I move this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, as I have indicated, it is of course quite impossible for me at this stage to deviate in any way from the decisions and the proposals contained in this legislation. What we are dealing with here is a matter where R20 million is at stake. From a purely practical point of view, the hon. member cannot expect me to accept on this last day of the session an amendment, the result of which will be that I will not receive this R20 million which this legislation will provide me with. From that point of view, I am therefore not in a position to accede to his request.

I have already pointed out during the Second Reading debate that other countries do, in fact, have tax on individuals; a full tax in Australia, in the Netherlands and in Germany as well. In those countries dividends are taxed in full, while other countries are also contemplating the introduction of a tax such as this. What we have in this country is merely a minimal loan levy of 7½ per cent and not even a tax. I agree that administrative problems are going to arise. But we must not stare ourselves blind at these problems. A company may accept that its share register, in the first place, will indicate where this money will have to go—except in cases where there is doubt, for example, in the case of a… company, in which case it will have to make investigations. In this regard, I want to ask that all the receivers of revenue should render assistance to companies. I am sure that with the necessary co-operation, we will be able to iron out any difficulties which may arise.

Amendment put and negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

Clause 17:

There is one point I should like to raise in connection with clause 17 (1) (c), reading—

Read in conjunction with subsection (2) (d) in terms of which this is made retrospective to June 1962, this latter provision is to be deplored. I referred yesterday to the comment made in the explanatory memorandum. On page 10 of that memorandum it is stated—

What actually happens here? A taxpayer took the Secretary for Inland Revenue to court—the Rosen case. The decision in that case was directly the opposite of what this memorandum says the practice is. The practice might have been intended but it was not the practice in interpreting the Act. Following the Rosen case this was not the practice and where it was the practice it was the incorrect practice. This Bill amends this situation and now makes it the practice. A number of these explanations seem to indicate that all we are doing is cleaning up a position that exists. When the court ruled that that position did not exist then such a position does not exist. In the circumstances the explanatory memorandum ought to have made it quite clear that what was intended by the Act was not in fact in the Act, that the courts have found that not to be in the Act and that, consequently, it is necessary to change the legislation to make it legal. The memorandum ought to have made that quite clear.

I support what has been said by the hon. member for Parktown. especially about the provision making this retrospective to 1962. Surely that is unsound. When the Bill lays down rules for taxation, then the Minister may be taking a chance. When the courts give a decision against the Minister, the Minister follows the usual procedure and puts the matter right the following year. That is the customary procedure. Here, however, the Minister is not only following the customary procedure, but he is going back to 1962 by providing that all assessments from 1962 onwards will be affected by this provision. That we regard as being unsound.

It often happens that the decisions of the courts are different to the original intentions of the Act. When the courts give such a decision, it is customary to rectify the matter. This is an every-day occurrence. I do not apologize for the fact that we are now amending the Act in order to clarify this position after the court has decided otherwise.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 18;

Mr. Chairman, I move as amendments—

We have no objection to this, because we think it clarifies the position as enunciated by the hon. the Minister yesterday. We think this is an improvement to the Bill and, consequently, we will support it.

Amendments put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Clause 26:

Mr. Chairman. I move as an amendment—

We accept this, Mr. Chairman, There is no reason why this should not be applied also to mining.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Clause 50:

Mr. Chairman, I move as an amendment—

We have no objection to this amendment.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

This Bill amends the Marketable Securities Tax Act, 1948, the Transfer Duty Act, 1949, the Estate Duty Act, 1955, the Diamond Export Duty Act 1957, the Licences Act 1962, and the Stamp Duty Act, 1968.

Estate Duty:

The most important change effected by this Bill, is the change in the structure of estate duty, as recommended by the Franszen Commission. The present system, under which the calculated duty on the full value of the estate is reduced by the duty calculated on the basis of the relevant rate on an amount equal to the total of the rebates to which the estate is entitled, is being substituted by a system under which the permissible abatements are deducted directly from the value of the estate. Along with this amendment a new rate of duty, with a maximum marginal rate of 35 per cent, is being introduced. Furthermore, the abatement for a surviving child, or the descendants or spouse of a deceased child, is being raised from R12 500 to R25 000. These changes effect considerable relief in the case of the smaller and medium-sized estates. For instance, in a case where the deceased left a spouse and two children, no duty will be payable on an estate of R100 000, as compared with the amount of R5 800 payable under the present provisions. Only estates of R250 000 or more (R450 000 or more if the deceased left a spouse and two children) will have to pay more duty than is the case at present.

A further concession which is being introduced, is that the existing maximum exemption allowed in respect of assets, derived from insurance policies, local registered stock, local bonds and Land Bank debentures, is being increased from R25 000 to R50 000, provided that a maximum of R25 000 will be exempted in the form of insurance policies.

In exceptional cases of successive owners of the same assets dying in rapid succession, the estate duty may have a consuming effect on the assets for the heirs. Relief is being granted in such cases by permitting a deduction from the calculated duty of a percentage of the duty attributable to the inclusion in the estate of the relevant assets. On the recommendation of the Franszen Commission more relief will be granted in this regard, and the new percentages that will be applied, have been prescribed in clause 9 of this Bill.

In terms of section 3 (a) of the Estate Duty Act the assets from an insurance policy on the life of a deceased person paid out as a result of his death, must be included in his estate. It is being felt that it is unfair that this position should also apply in the case of a policy which was taken out by a stranger for his own benefit on the life of the deceased and which therefore implies no benefit to the estate or the relatives or dependants of the deceased. Clause 4 (1) (a) of the Bill makes provision for exemption in the case of policies of this nature.

Diamond Export Duty:

The Diamond Export Duty Act provides that no diamonds shall be exported except by registered post. It sometimes happens, as it did during the recent Post Office strikes in Britain for example, that this procedure cannot be followed. A discretionary power is now being conferred on the Commissioner of the South African Police to authorize, in exceptional circumstances, the removal of diamonds by other means.

Marketable Securities Tax:

The marketable securities tax is payable in respect of transactions in shares concluded by stockbrokers. The Commission of Inquiry into the Stock Exchanges Control Amendment Bill recommended that this lax be also levied in the case of similar transactions concluded by merchant banks and other financial institutions. Clause I of the Bill gives effect to this recommendation in so far as it concerns merchant banks.

Transfer duty:

The amendment to the Transfer Duty Act is consequential upon the passing of the Sale of Land on Installments Act, 1971, It provides that registration officers will have to be satisfied that, in cases where the rights of the original purchaser under a contract of purchase and sale of land were acquired by way of a series of cessions by another person, transfer duties have been paid in respect of each such transaction.

Just as I did in previous years, I once again made available to hon. members an explanatory memorandum, in which all the provisions are dealt with fully. Consequently I only dealt with the more important clauses.

Mr. Speaker, we will support this Bill. The hon. the Deputy Minister has dealt with it in some detail and we have also had an explanatory memorandum, for which we thank the Deputy Minister. The amendment in clause 1, which changes the definition of “stockbroker” to include “merchant banks’’, flows, as the hon. the Deputy Minister has said, from a recommendation of the Commission of Inquiry into the Stock Exchange Control Amendment Bill. Sir, we believe that this was necessary because we did not want to stop merchant bankers operating outside the Stock Exchange for the purchase and sale of shares, but we did believe it was fair that transactions which took place outside the Stock Exchange should bear the same rate of tax as those which took place within the Stock Exchange. That was the reason for our recommendation.

I think that clause 2, dealing with the sale of land, is necessary; it is to ensure that transfer duty is paid when cession takes place before actual transfer.

Sir. the Bill, apart from this, deals mainly with the question of estate duties. Here there is much that we agree with, but also much that we disagree with. It has always been the policy of this side of the House that we in South Africa should do away with estate duty. We do not believe that it should be part of our fiscal system. Provision is made here for rebates to be changed to abatements and for certain benefits to people who leave estates up to a particular figure. There is also a provision in regard to the rates of duty which are to be paid where the estate flows from one person to another as a result of death of an heir, and we are in favour of this provision.

But, Sir, the rate of tax has been increased from 25 per cent to 35 per cent on that portion of the estate which will now be taxable. I know the hon. the Deputy Minister will probably say to us: “It is true we have done this, but we have raised the level at which tax starts by virtue of the change from rebates to abatements.” This is perfectly correct. But, in furtherance of our policy that there should be no estate duties, we must resist any change in the rate, irrespective of what has taken place before, and we will move an amendment to this effect in the Committee Stage.

Sir, I am afraid that I cannot agree with the idea expressed here by the hon. member for Parktown in respect of estate duty. As the hon. member knows, the Franzsen Commission recommended 40 per cent, and the Government decided to make it 35 per cent. It is not so easy to accept, as the hon. member for Parktown put it, that estate duty is something which has to be done away with entirely. I know that there are sound arguments to be advanced in favour of estate duty having to be done away with, but I also know that there are in fact sound arguments to be advanced in favour of the retention of estate duty. I just want to mention one fact briefly. The fact that an estate has a value, whatever its value may be, is one that may be attributed to the activities of the community. All circumstances considered, I think it is only fair that when and estate is administered, recognition should be granted to the community for its contribution. If we take a look at the history of estate duty—I do not want to go into too much detail, but let us just take the position in recent years—and we take an estate valued at R300 000, I readily admit that an estate valued at R300 000 in 1948 was a much wealthier one than is an estate valued at R300 000 today. Comparisons are difficult, but at the same time the amount which the community receives, as I put it a moment ago, is consequently also worth so much less proportionately. For instance, in 1948 the duty on R300 000 was 35,7 per cent. And over the years this was gradually reduced to 19,3 per cent, 18,1 per cent—I am omitting certain years—and 14,8 per cent in respect of an estate where there were a surviving spouse and one child. In cases where there were a surviving spouse and two children, it was also 35,7 per cent in 1948, and this rate was reduced to 18,8 per cent, 18,1 per cent, 17,2 per cent and 16,5 per cent, and this year it has been reduced to 12,5 per cent.

What I think hon. members opposite should also take into account, is that as the provision has been made here, one never really reaches 35 per cent, taken on the whole. I think that if we made a calculation on an estate valued at R½ million, it would then, all things considered, amount to approximately 29 per cent. Taking these things into account, and in the light of the strong conviction I have that such an estate does concern the community, I regret that I cannot accept the idea expressed by the Opposition, but I want to extend to them my thanks for their support in regard to the rest of the estate duty and the other clauses.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Clause 9:

I should like to move to this clause the following amendment, as envisaged by the hon. member for Parktown—

If our amendment is accepted, it will mean more or less that the position will remain as it was before. In other words, the position will be that the marginal rate will not exceed 25 per cent. In his reply the hon. the Minister told us a moment ago that we should just look back at what was paid in 1948 by a person who had an estate valued at R300 000 and at what such a person would pay now. But why does the hon. gentleman not look at the figures relating to revenue derived by the State, what it derives from estate duty now and what it will derive in future, after these concessions have been announced? In looking at these figures, he will see that the revenue derived by the State from estate duty will hardly differ at all, the result being that in view of the concessions announced by him, the person with a smaller estate, i.e. under R150 000, will receive a considerable added benefit, but the moment that amount is exceeded, I am afraid that the hon. the Minister will be unfair to such estates. The hon. member submitted that there were many reasons for estate duty having to be retained. Of course, that is not relevant here, but I just want to tell the hon. the Minister this, namely that he was a prominent M.E.C. in South-West Africa.

Hear, hear!

I hope the hon. the Deputy Minister will also say “Hear, hear!” to what I am going to say now. In South West they dispensed with estate duty.

Hear, hear!

Now I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister this question: If it is supposedly such a sound principle to retain estate duty in the Republic, why was it such a bad principle in South-West Africa, when they dispensed with those principles there? I honestly and readily admit, as the hon. member for Parktown also did in an excellent manner, that when it comes to determining the actual value of an estate, we accept these concessions that were proposed by the hon. gentleman. At present a new method is being followed, a method which differs considerably from the old one, and it undoubtedly holds a tremendous benefit. But I want to point out to the hon. the Minister that to have today an estate valued at R150 000 and more is no longer such a tremendous achievement, because of the fact that the value of money has depreciated to such a considerable extent; and, secondly, because, especially when it comes to agricultural estates, the method whereby they assess the value of an estate is a quite unsuitable one. They usually assess the value of such an estate on the market value of such agricultural land, instead of doing so on the economic value of the agricultural land. What does one find then? One finds that when such an estate is pushed up into this high bracket most farmers do not have the cash to pay these duties. There is only one alternative to their heirs, i.e. to take further mortgages on that land in order to meet those obligations in regard to estate duties. Nobody can reason away the fact that estate duty is really a capital tax, and this is not a sound principle for the agricultural industry. I want to point out to the hon. the Minister that we have many examples of estates which did not bear excessive burdens, but after the death of the owner so much had to be paid in estate duty that in actual fact those heirs had to incur commitments exceeding the original price of that land. For instance, there are many experts who say that in most cases of large estates involving agricultural land, the next generation has to pay for it again, because of the implementation of estate duty. It is, therefore, undoubtedly a very detrimental kind of duty which is levied in the case of the agricultural industry.

However, it is not only in the case of the agricultural industry that estate duty implies considerable disadvantages to South Africa. I think that if estate duty could be abolished in course of time, it would lure a considerable amount of new capital to South Africa, for nowadays people abroad have to pay considerable amounts in estate duty in their countries of origin. The hon. gentleman should also think of the future, for we need these people who can bring more capital into South Africa, and we must try to lure them to this country. I am sure that the Deputy Minister knows of examples where people sold their goods in South Africa and subsequently bought properties, etc., in South-West Africa, for the very purpose of ridding themselves of the estate duty burden they have to bear in this country. It was in fact his territory that received the benefit of this step. If this happened in the case of South-West Africa, it could most certainly, as time goes by, also hold considerable benefits to the Republic if we could tell people that estate duty did not apply here.

The Deputy Minister made much of the fact that the Franzsen Commission recommended that the marginal rate be increased to 45 per cent, but that the Government decided to keep it at 35 per cent. Personally I believe that even these new I rates announced by the hon. the Minister will, in particular, hit many of the agricultural estates very hard. What is the use of granting considerable concessions to the person with a smaller estate, whereas the person with the larger estate is being hit harder and harder? I want to tell the hon. the Deputy Minister what one of the consequences of this step is going to be. It is the intention of the Minister of Agriculture that the agricultural units in this country should be larger and larger. These new rates announced by the hon. the Minister will now mean that when an estate does not have the necessary cash available, and when additional loans have to be negotiated in order to pay those estate duties, people will have to sell some of their land in order to obtain the necessary money. Instead of our eliminating the subdivision of agricultural land, about which those hon. gentleman are so concerned, these rates will in fact give rise to more and more instances of the subdivision of agricultural land taking place. To a large extent this may also result in the uneconomic division of agricultural land.

I want the hon. the Deputy Minister to consider the consequences which may develop as a result of these changes, for people will be obliged to divide their agricultural land and to sell portions of it. This reminds me of a cynical remark I once heard: “Under this Government living is not worth-while, nor does it pay to die”. I want the hon. the Minister to Day attention to this matter, and I hope that he will support this amendment.

I think that at the Second Reading I dealt to a large extent with the arguments advanced by the hon. member for Newton Park. I cannot compliment the hon. member on having very sound judgment if he thinks that by raising here this story about South-West he can steal a march on me. The attitude I adopt in respect of South-West and in respect of this country is exactly the same. As far as the abolition of estate duty in South-West is concerned, I can tell the hon. member in a few simple words that when Mr. Eric Louw was still Minister of Finance, estate duty in the Republic had already been reduced to such an extent that in South-West, where there are few large estates—there are quite a number of well-to-do people but few really large estates—it was considered that it would not be worth-while to administer estate duty if regard were had to what was derived from it, i.e. if, for obvious reasons —to which the hon. member in fact referred—South-West did not want a higher rate of estate duty than obtained in the Republic. For that reason alone—therefore, for purely practical considerations— it was subsequently abolished. At present South-West has hardly 100 000 Whites who would normally be eligible for estate duty, and if one has regard to the rates of estate duty applicable in the Republic today, there are a very small number of them who would really be liable to paying such duties.

As far as the valuations of land are concerned, the position is that under the Estate Duty Act of 1955 the value of immovable property must be the market value thereof. However, an exception is made in the case of immovable property on which bona fide farming operations are carried on. In such a case the value depends on the choice made by the executor—either the equitable market value thereof or an amount for the market value of the property for farming purposes as calculated by a Land Bank valuator in terms of the prescriptions of the Land Bank Act. If the executors prefer to accept the latter valuation, it is calculated on the so-called yield basis, i.e. the income capacity of the property is calculated and then capitalized. This amounts to a valuation lower than the equitable market value, but in the opinion of the Franszen Commission it cannot be claimed that this is unfair towards the owner of such property. I think the hon. member was unfair in his criticism by referring to land which would now be fragmented and saying that it did not even pay to die any more. This is not fair in the light of the concessions made here—for instance, in the light of the fact that for a normal farming family, i.e. a surviving spouse and two children, an estate will only become liable to higher duty if its assets exceed R400 000. Well, a farmer with an estate of R400 000 is after all no longer a needy farmer, in spite of the depreciation of the value of money. Furthermore, there are the concessions that are being made in the case of testators dying within a period of 10 years. The relief granted in this respect, is considerable in itself.

How does the hon. the Deputy Minister explain the fact that with all these concessions the revenue to the State from estate duty will not be much less than it was in the past?

Because certain rates are being increased, slightly. I have the tables here, but I do not want to bore the House with them. However, the position is that in the case of large estates the rate is being increased. But the people who may really be hit hardest, who are least able to pay, receive considerable concessions here. In spite of these concessions we find the type of sarcasm here which we had from the hon. member for Newton Park.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 136, and amendments dropped.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

With the recent passing of the Abuse of Dependence producing Substances and Rehabilitation Centres Act—we have always referred to it in abbreviated form as the Drugs Act—a deficiency was created in the Medical, Dental and Pharmacy Act, principally as a result of the following two reasons: (a) the Drugs Act deleted the Fifth Schedule to the Medical, Dental and Pharmacy Act containing the substances which have up to now been regarded for the purposes of that Act as habit forming drugs. These substances have been included as prohibited and dangerous dependence- producing substances in Part I and Part II, respectively, of the Schedule to the Abuse of Dependence-producing Substances Act. (b) That section of the substances included in the Sixth Schedule to the Medical Act as potentially harmful drugs, was removed from the Sixth Schedule and included as potentially dangerous dependence-producing substances in Part III of the Schedule to the Abuse of Dependence-producing Substances Act.

In terms of sections 2 and 3 of the Drugs Act it is an offence to deal in or to have in one’s possession the said substances. The term “deal in” is defined for the purposes of the said Act to include virtually all actions which may be performed by doctors, veterinarians, pharmacists and other registered persons in regard to any of the substances, and includes, inter alia, the importation, supply, administration, exportation, sale, manufacture and prescription of the substances.

Section 4 of the Drugs Act provides that the provisions of the Act (and therefore the prohibition on dealing in them as well) with regard to the substances in Parts II and III do not affect the provisions of the Medical Act or any other Act with regard to substances which are regarded for the purposes of the Medical Act or any other Act as habit-forming drugs or potentially harmful drugs.

Since Schedule 5 and that section of Schedule VI comprising psychotropic substances has been deleted from the Medical Act and the substances included in the Drugs Act, the provisions of said section 4 do not rectify the position relating to acts carried out by doctors and other registered persons for example because references to the substances in question in the Medical Act are no longer valid. All control over the substances under the Medical Act will therefore fall away with the commencement of the Drugs Act.

It is consequently necessary to amend the Medical Act in order to provide that a reference to habit-forming drugs is a reference to the substances included in Part II of the Drugs Act instead of to the Fifth Schedule to the Medical Act, while a reference to potentially harmful drugs shall be a reference to the substances included in Part III of the Drugs Act as well as to the substances remaining under the Sixth Schedule to the Medical Act and no longer merely a reference to the Sixth Schedule. To achieve this, suitable definitions of the terms “habit-forming drugs’’ and “potentially harmful drugs” are being included in the Bill. Hon. members will find these in clause 5. In addition the position is that apart from the channelling through medical practitioners, veterinarians and pharmacists and provisions in respect of the dispensing of prescriptions and supplying to patients, other actions in regard to psychotropic substances are not controlled or specially authorized by the Medical Act. The most important actions which are relevant here, are inter alia the importation, exportation and manufacture of the said drugs. Since the Drugs Act makes these actions illegal, it is consequently necessary for provision to be made to regulate this matter properly and the suggestion is that the Minister be empowered, as an interim measure and until such time as the Act can be fully adjusted in this respect, to do so by way of a notice in the Gazette. Provision in this connection is being made in clause 6.

In addition it is necessary to amend section 35 of the Drugs Control Act, 1965, where reference is made in paragraph (1) to the Fifth and Sixth Schedules to the Medical, Dental and Pharmacy Act, in order to adjust it to the altered circumstances. This is being done at the request of the Drugs Control Board. This specific matter is to be found in clause 7.

The aim of the proposed measure is to rectify the position in regard to actions by the various professions in regard to habit-forming and potentially harmful drugs as it was before the passing of the Drugs Act.

Certain consequential amendments to the Medical Act are also necessary, and provision is being made for that in the Bill as follows —

1. (a) Subsection (1) of section 61bis has to be deleted because it is no longer an accurate reflection of the position, and a definition of “potentially harmful drugs” is now being inserted (clause 5 (b)). This entails that subsection (2) of section 61bis has to be amended to make provision for the amendment of the Sixth Schedule because subsection (1) to which the present reference to “said Schedule” relates, falls away. Clause 1 of the Bill makes provision for these amendments.
2. (b) Since prepared opium is now included as a prohibited dependence- producing substance in Part I of the Schedule to the Drugs Act. 1971, the necessity for section 64 (3) of the Medical Act falls away, and it may be deleted. Clause 2 effects this amendment.
3. (c) Clause 3 contemplates an amendment of section 65 of the Medical Act to delete references to the Fifth Schedule so that reference will only be made to habit-forming drugs which are now defined in clause 5.
4. (d) Clause 4: Section 65ter of the Medical Act provides at present that no person may possess potentially harmful drugs unless they were obtained by virtue of an action authorized by this Act. It is necessary that this provision be limited to the substances remaining in the Sixth Schedule to the Act since separate provision will now be made (clause 6) for the regulation of and control over actions regarding the psychotropic substances which have been removed from the Sixth Schedule. A new subsection (2) is therefore being inserted by clause 4 in order to regulate this restriction.

In conclusion I just want to mention that the various interested parties such as the Medical Council, the Pharmacists Commission and the Drugs Control Board have been consulted in regard to his matter, and that they have all agreed to the envisaged measure.

Since we are dealing here with drug laws, I just want to say that it is with a profound feeling of gratitude towards the great Healer that we saw this morning that our colleague, the hon. member for Brentwood, is with us again today. I think this is a fitting occasion, during the discussion of this legislation, to express our pleasure and gratitude at the fact that he and his wife have recovered to such an extent that he can be with us again today.

May I, first of all, join with the hon. the Minister in welcoming back our colleague, the hon. member for Brentwood, and to wish him a full recovery to normal health. It is good to see him back again in the House on this last day of the session.

We on this side of the House support the Bill presented by the hon. the Minister. However, I regret to say that this Bill is another example of the result of rushed legislation. If there had been proper cooperation and consultation between the Minister of Social Welfare and the Minister of Health in connection with the Abuse of Dependence Producing Substances and Rehabilitation Centres Bill, there would have been no necessity for this Bill. This Bill is before the House because of the failure of two Ministers to co-operate in order to determine what the consequences of the drug legislation would be. Hence this Bill has become necessary. Without it we would have created great difficulty for medical practitioners and pharmacists to carry on their work. They would virtually have been breaking the law. Even today they may, in view of the long schedules being prepared under the Drugs Bill, find a big burden on their shoulders to carry out the law as it ought to be carried out. In the past perhaps, some of my colleagues have been a little lax in noting in their registers those prescriptions which contained drugs, drugs which were habit-forming or potentially harmful. Now. however, there is a much longer list of drugs and they will have to know that it will be necessary for all these drugs, when prescribed by them, to be entered into a register. Otherwise they will be breaking the law. In busy practices this is going to be a most inconvenient thing to do. It would mean that a medical practitioner would have to keep a duplicate of practically every single prescription and keep it ready for inspection. To have such prescriptions transcribed into a register, as chemists would have to do, is going to make the life of the busy practitioner virtually impossible. The Minister says this is an interim measure and I hope the Pharmacy Board, the Minister and the Medical Council will soon get together with the Medical Association to see how these procedures can be simplified so that the issuing of prescriptions will be made as easy as possible; otherwise I fail to see how it is going to be possible for doctors to do all this paper work.

There is a clause in this Bill about advertising. Here once more I should like to emphasize an absolutely essential part of the Minister’s job. i.e. the combating of false advertising of medicines, I hope therefore that he will keep his eye on this and make sure that fantastic claims for certain medicines sold over the counter, claims which do not truly represent the quality of that medicine, are stopped. When the Minister has consultations again with the Medical Council, I hope they will find ways and means of persuading doctors, especially doctors in hospitals and in institutions dealing with out-patients, not to over-prescribe I think it is wrong on the part of doctors in institutions to give a patient medicine which would last up to three months. Doctors must surely have more confidence in their prescriptions. Instead of prescribing the use of a drug for three months without requiring the patient to come back for a re-examination, they should prescribe monthly. Only yesterday I heard of a man who collapsed. He was taking blood pressure tablets which he kept on repeating, with the result that his blood pressure had gone so low that he collapsed in this House. When I asked him when he last saw his doctor, he said it might have been two months ago. This is the sort of thing that happens. Therefore doctors must be persuaded not to over-prescribe. The Minister now has the opportunity, when he introduces the next Bill, to see what he can do about this.

Another speaker on this side will go into this Bill more fully. However, I hope that this is only an interim measure designed to tide matters over the period of consultation and that in future when Bills have to be introduced here due consideration will be given to them by those persons interested in them, instead of being rushed through as was done with the Drugs Bill this session.

Allow me to express a few words of sincere gratitude for the words of the hon. the Minister and of the hon. member for Rosettenville. I am one of those people who say that with drugs, two plus two is not always four. There is always another great Healer, the Almighty and that is why I am grateful to be back in this House. This legislation is of course a result of the investigation by the commission of inquiry into drugs under the Department of Social Welfare. I agree with the hon. member for Rosettenville that we should inevitably exercise stricter control over the distribution of drugs. Chlorodine may well be an unimportant and unclassified kind of drug, a drug which is not addictive, and you can clear up a stomach ailment with five drops, but I know of a case of suicide where a nurse drank half a bottle. Then one realizes that even chlorodine can have a harmful effect. That is why I welcome all these steps by the hon. the Minister. In fact, they are not yet drastic enough. I think that steps ought to be taken to try to include even alcohol. I fell a victim to that myself and I cannot but avail myself of every opportunity to speak against it.

Sir, I should like to associate myself with the remarks of the Minister and of the hon. member for Rosettenville, who expressed their pleasure at seeing the hon. member for Brentwood back in his place. We wish him well and a complete recovery.

Sir, reference has been made to the fact that this Bill is an interim measure. We accept that. I feel that there are certain aspects arising out of this Bill and which may arise in future legislation and which I should place before the hon. the Minister for his attention and consideration. I realize that this Bill has become necessary as the result of the passing of the previous Bill on drugs introduced by the hon. the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions. Both these pieces of legislation have stemmed in the main from the Grobler Committee’s report. Sir, it is interesting to note that some of the recommendations contained in the Grobler Committee’s report have been acted upon very promptly and that others seem to have been put on one side. I notice that particularly in regard to the suggestion that there should be a register of premises. The report of the Grobler Committee (Recommendation 630) said—

I believe that this is a very important recommendation for the implementation of which the Pharmacy Board has been pleading for years. I want to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister to section 92 of the present Act, which says that the council or the board may be required by the Minister to advise the Government and shall communicate to the Minister any information acquired by it in the course of its duties on matters of public import. I believe that with the Pharmacy Board’s recommendation in this respect, now endorsed by the Grobler Committee, this is a matter which deserves urgent consideration. I believe that the necessary provision! could be made under section 60 of the existing Act, but I feel that this is one aspect which the Minister should investigate very closely.

Sir, what is the present position? We have a register of pharmacies, that is to say, anywhere where dispensing is carried out, and that includes hospitals, nursing homes, etc. We also have, I believe, records which show the number of persons, non-chemists and druggists, who handle poison, but we do not have a full list, as far as I know, of the 20 000 outlets for medicines to which the Grobler report referred. I feel that this is something that we should go into. Sir, we have no record of the number of medical practitioners who operate in terms of section 73 of the present Act. Section 73 provides—

It then indicates the conditions under which it can be done. But, Sir, I believe that the time has arrived when this particular section should be implemented, not necessarily with a view to collecting additional licence fees, but with a view to establishing the distribution points of scheduled medicines. I think we must have an accurate picture of all points of distribution. The hon. the Minister earlier on this session indicated to me, in reply to a question, that no statistics are available with regard to medical practitioners who operate quite legitimately under section 73 of the Act at present.

Sir, I want to deal with the question of abuse arising out of the distribution of medicines, and I want to refer the hon. the Minister to paragraph 314 of the Grobler Committee's report. This is the comment of just one witness, but it is significant. This is what the report says—

Sir, the hon. the Minister is aware of a particular example, the details of which I think should be placed before this House. Last September there was a theft of drugs from a doctor’s consulting rooms in Durban. The drugs which were stolen were all scheduled drugs. They consisted of 10000 dexamphetamine tablets, 10000 terramycin capsules, 2 000 terramycin injections, and 5 000 ephedrine tablets. Sir, this is a very large stock of scheduled drugs.

In order to assess the position, Sir, I decided to conduct a survey and I sought from chemist colleagues of mine details concerning the normal stocks which they estimated they held at the end of February of this year, and also what they estimated the monthly quantities dispensed would be of these four particular drugs. I was objective in my selection for the purposes of the survey and I sought the opinion of chemists and druggists in the city areas mainly, in Durban and in Cape Town. In the questionnaire which was sent to certain of these chemists and in which they were asked to supply details, I made certain that day and night chemists also would be included by virtue of their preoccupation mainly with dispensing and the large number of prescriptions which they would have to handle. I have handed the results of this survey to the hon. the Minister, because I feel it is very apt in this particular situation. Where 10 000 dexamphetamine tablets had been stolen, the total number of tablets dispensed by nine chemists and druggists over a whole month was 1 000. As far as the terramycin capsules were concerned, 10 000 were stolen and the total number dispensed by nine chemists and druggists was, roughly, 8 900. As far as the terramycin injections were concerned, 2000 were stolen, and only four injections were dispensed by nine chemists in one month. As far as the ephedrine tablets are concerned, 5 000 ephedrine tablets were stolen and nine chemists dispensed or supplied in terms of the Act a total of 2 800 tablets. Sir, I believe that this is something which needs a very close investigation in order to impose control.

This Bill, together with the previous legislation, does impose a further responsibility on the professions in that the schedules have been extended and more drugs will now have to be placed on register. When a drug is placed on register, it means that the person responsible in terms of the Bill —the medical practitioner, the dentist, the chemist and druggist, the registered person in the hospital—has to keep a record of incoming and outgoing drugs; he has to balance those and he has to do so every quarter. Sir, this means a great deal of additional work, but if it is in the interest of the control of drugs, I believe the professions will accept this added responsibility willingly. But, Sir, if this control through the keeping of registers is to be meaningful, then I believe that inspections also have to be carried out to check the registers and stocks.

I want to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister to paragraph 491 of the Grobler Committee’s report, where details are given in regard to inspections which have been made in so far as registers are concerned. The details given in the report reflect only those inspections which have been made in the case of pharmacies. In 1966, 61 per cent of the pharmacies were inspected in terms of section 65 and 65 bis of the Act, that is, relating to potentially harmful and habit-forming drugs. In 1967, 60 per cent of the pharmacies were inspected; in 1968, 65 per cent; and in 1969, 93 per cent. Last year, 3 135 inspections were carried out. This represents in total more than the actual number of pharmacies, so obviously there was more than one inspection made per pharmacy. Out of the total number of inspections of, roughly, 9 400 over the last five years, we find a very interesting situation. We find from official figures that nine chemists and druggists have been found guilty of unprofessional conduct in regard to the handling of habit-forming drugs and potentially harmful drugs—nine out of a total of 9 400 inspections made!

Then, Sir, I want to refer the Minister to paragraph 328 of the Grobler report, where it says, inter alia—

I submit, with respect, and for the sake of the record, that the number must be very few in the light of these figures. But the point that I want to put to the hon. the Minister is that there are also some unscrupulous inspectors, and I hope that the hon. the Minister will give me an undertaking in this respect. I want to refer him to the editorial of the official organ of Pharmacy, the South African Pharmaceutical Journal, of June 1970, which said this—

I hope the hon. the Minister will give us an assurance that this sort of procedure will not be adopted when it comes to dealing with professional people.

Sir, is it not time also that the hon. the Minister and his department should review, as the result of this case and other cases, the question of the telephoning of drugs? The provision still exists as far as potentially dependence-producing drugs are concerned, and I believe that the hon. the Minister should consider this. I would like to refer him to paragraph 147 of the Grobler report.

I believe that the inspections that are made should be conducted on a broad front. In the past they have not been on the broadest front possible. I have indicated that over 9 400 inspections were made of the records of chemists and druggists over five years. During the same period 70 inspections were made on dentists, and 1 500 approximately on medical practitioners. I believe that this is something which must be adjusted. We all share an equal responsibility and I believe that the inspection of registers must apply equally in each respect. In passing, I would like to refer the Minister to paragraph 289 of the Grobler Committee’s report in this respect.

I now want to come to clause 5 of the Bill, which links the present Schedules in the Medical, Dental and Pharmacy Act with the new Schedules created in the previous Drugs Act which has been passed this session. The names in the Schedules are complex organic chemistry terminology, and as the hon. member for Rosettenville has said. this will create a great deal of difficulty in the minds of the professions who have to implement these schedules. We are not all of us in a position to interpret the organic chemistry names which are given here. I believe that the Minister himself has a means of assisting the professions in this particular respect, and I wish to draw his attention to section 22 of the Drugs Control Act, where it says that the council has to furnish certain information to medical and dental practitioners and chemists and druggists. Then the section refers to the fact that the council shall, subject to the approval of the Secretary for Health, in the manner most suitable, disseminate certain information which could be considered of interest and of vital importance to the professions.

Now I know that this particular section of the Act has not yet been implemented, and when I asked the hon. the Minister, the reason he gave, was that it had been proved that pamphlets, brochures and similar reading matter had little or no effect on professional persons. I must cross swords with the hon. the Minister over that statement, because I believe that this method of promotion by pamphlets or brochures, etc., is one which is employed by the ethical houses advertising their ethical products to the medical profession, with a certain degree of success, judging by die prescribing habits of the medical profession. So I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he will not give serious consideration to implementing this particular section, and particularly subsection (4), where it says “regarding any other matter concerning such drugs which, in the opinion of the council (the Drugs Control Council), may be of value”. Sir, I submit that if the professions are given lists which interpret the complex organic chemistry terminology used in the Schedules, and which has to be used in the Schedules, it will be of great help to achieve the smoother working of the Act in this particular respect.

Then I want to deal with clause 6, empowering the Minister to authorize certain categories of persons to perform certain acts relating to potentially harmful drugs. I want to suggest to the hon. the Minister that as the wording stands now, it could be amended with improvement because it says the Minister “may, by notice in the gazette, subject to such conditions as may be determined by him,…” I want to ask the Minister whether he will give consideration in the Committee Stage to the addition of the words “after consultation with the council and the board”. I say this because in many sections of the existing Act that particular provision applies. When regulations are made it is by the hon. the Minister, after consultation with the council and the board. So I hope the hon. the Minister will consider this favourably and I hope, too, that early next session there will be this consolidated legislation placed before the House after careful consultation with all the statutory bodies concerned,

I shall certainly, during the recess, give very serious attention and consideration to the various points raised by the hon. member for Berea. Then, with regard to the statement made by the hon. member for Brentwood that the legislation is not drastic enough, I also want to give the assurance that apart from the considerations we are giving to this, we also have the most cordial cooperation of the various bodies, the Medical Council, etc., dealing with this.

Then I might just say to hon. members, particularly in reply to the hon. member for Rosettenville that there was proper consultation. My colleague, the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions and I met about ten parties and had discussions with them about two months ago in Pretoria, discussions which lasted one whole morning. The result of those discussions was the two pieces of legislation before Parliament, those relating to the professional people and those which have been included in the Drugs Act. So, the consultation was there. I then went further and the Secretary of Health wrote the following letter to 11 different bodies, hon. members will all know who they are. This includes the Nursing Council, the Medical Council, the Pharmacists Commission, etc. That letter read as follows—

hon. members will see that apart from the letter we wrote, we also had close consultations with each one of these bodies, and we hope to come forward with these amendments early next year. These amendments may he presented in one or two ways. They will either be amendments to the Medical Dental and Pharmacy Act, or, if my department can succeed in consolidating and amending the present Act, I shall come to this House with the consolidated Act. However, I cannot give that undertaking because hon. members will realize that it is a tremendous task. But in any case, with regard to the matters with which we are now dealing, i.e. dependence-producing drugs, I give the undertaking that we will come forward with legislation early next session, depending on the results of these consultations and negotiations which are taking place.

Just in conclusion, in reply to the hon. member for Rosettenville, he referred to the long list of drugs in the various schedules. Now, these lists have been made available to us by the Drugs Control Board, but the necessary attention will also be given to them in the amending legislation which is being contemplated.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Clause 6:

Mr. Chairman, I should like to move the following amendment—

I gathered from the way the hon. the Minister nodded his head earlier that he might be prepared to accept this amendment; so I move it formally at this stage.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Berea’s conclusion was not altogether correct. He was kind enough to inform me about this in advance. I agreed with the sentiments he expressed in this connection, but I did not indicate that I could accept this amendment. I shall give the hon. member a very good reason why I cannot do so. It is customary to consult the board or the commission involved with a certain matter. That is the custom and it is, in addition, also written into certain clauses. I can understand the hon. member also wanting to have it written in here, but in this connection we have a legal problem. The hon. member will notice that in clause 6 reference is made to nine different categories. If I were to accept the hon. member’s amendment, as he has moved it, it would mean that in each of these nine cases I would have to conduct consultations. If a veterinary surgeon or a nurse, for example, is involved, it would mean that I would still have to consult the Pharmacy Board and the Medical Council. At this late stage it is therefore not possible to accept the hon. member’s amendment as it now stands. I asked the legal advisors what the position is, and I can assure the hon. member that it would be very difficult to include the amendment in this clause as it now stands, so that there are only consultations with the relevant body under which the particular category falls. However, I also want to give the hon. member the assurance that in the interim period, the next six months, it will be customary to conduct consultations in that way, as in fact it is at present.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to thank the hon. the Minister for his explanation. I believe that, as we are dealing here with the potentially harmful drugs, which primarily is the concern of the medical profession and the pharmaceutical profession by virtue of their training, both these statutory bodies should be involved in this consultation, whereas it may not be necessary to deal with the other bodies to which the Minister has referred. I trust that when the hon. the Minister considers this matter, as he has promised to do, he will bear that aspect in mind. In view of the explanation of the hon. the Minister, may I withdraw my amendment?

Amendment, with leave, withdrawn.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

It is still being found necessary to introduce a Bill of this nature every year. This year this Bill contains, on the one hand, certain adjustments as a result of announcements made in the Budget speech, and, on the other hand, a number of important amendments to existing Acts which have meanwhile become necessary, especially as a result of amendments in related Acts.

In the past this Bill sought mainly to implement such concessions to pensioners as had been announced by the Minister of Finance in his Budget speech. The position today is that most concessions of this nature may be put into operation by regulation. This year it is only necessary to enact by legislation the concessions granted to war pensioners and their dependants. The War Special Pensions Act of 1962 provides for the payment of pensions to volunteers of the First World War and their dependants. Similarly, the War Pensions Act of 1967 provides for the payment of pensions to volunteers of the Second World War, the Korean War and members of the Citizen Force and their dependants. Both of these Acts provide for the payment of a children’s allowance to pensioners in respect of every child dependent on him or her. For this purpose children are divided into three groups in terms of the existing Acts: Children under the age of six years, children in the age group six to 13 years and children older than 13 years. As was announced in the Budget speech, these groups, and consequently the various rates according to age, were dispensed with as from 1st April, 1971. Only one rate, the highest rate, will now be payable in respect of each child. Clauses 2, 3 and 5 rectify this matter.

As was also announced in the Budget speech, as from 1st April, 1971, the bonus payable to war pensioners was increased from 12½ per cent to 174 per cent.

As hon. members will remember, as from 1st April, 1971, a considerable increase was granted to civil pensioners, especially in the form of increased bonuses. This increase is being borne to a large extent by the pension funds concerned. Clause 9 provides inter alia for this matter. In this respect I should like to point out to hon. members that these increases amount to considerably more than the pensioners concerned envisaged for themselves. It was only when the increased pensions were paid out for the first time in May, that it really dawned on most of these persons how considerable these increases were. The gratitude for this concession is evident from the very large number of acknowledgments received.

In terms of clause 10 certain pension benefits payable to widows are excluded from the definition of “property” as defined in the Estate Duty Act. It was found that only a few widows’ pensions were subject to estate duty, whereas administrators had to furnish with details of all widows’ pensions. This amendment eliminates the fruitless administrative work which must be done at present.

In the main the remaining clauses of this Bill regulate the pension rights of certain persons. Although the clauses concerned are technical to a large extent, they do not contain any far-reaching amendments at all. If hon. members desire more details in regard to this matter, I can discuss and explain it more fully at the Committee Stage.

However, it would perhaps be proper for us to explain clauses 11 and 12 to a certain extent at this stage already.

Clause 11 is intended to supplement section 6 of Proclamation 96 of 1970 in order to regulate the pension rights and retirement ages of the staff employed in provincial hospitals and medical or nursing institutions in Bantu areas which are being taken over by the Department of Health.

The proclamation deals with health matters in Bantu areas. It entrusts to the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development all administrative powers, functions and duties relating to the administration of health matters, including hospitalization in regard to Bantu in Bantu areas. In practice, however, these powers and duties are entrusted to the Secretary for Health, and in their implementation the appointment of officers and employees is subject to the Acts governing the Public Service.

Therefore this clause provides that any person who is employed in connection with health services in respect of Bantu in any Bantu area, may elect to continue to be a member of the Provincial and the Territory pension Fund, retaining all rights and privileges. If such a person does not make such an election, he contributes to the other pension or provident fund to which he becomes liable to contribute as a result of his appointment or transfer.

The South African Mint Act. 1941, provided for the take-over of the Pretoria Branch of the Royal Mint and its staff by the then Union Government. Inter alia the staff had a choice of accepting conditions of service based on the Government Service Pensions Act as if they were public servants. The persons who so elected, never became members of or contributors to a public service pension fund.

During 1969 those persons who were employed at the South African Mint and who were employed exclusively for the manufacture of munitions, were taken over by the Munitions Production Board.

Although the persons concerned were not members of a pension fund, they, unlike other public servants, could not become members of the Associated Institutions Pension Fund upon entering the service of the Munitions Production Board. As a result of a legal error they were nevertheless admitted as members of this fund. However, it very soon became evident that officials who had transferred from the service of the Public Service to that of the Munitions Production Board, and became members of the Associated Institutions Pension Fund, had to pay an extremely high price for their pension rights in that fund. Consequently the Act was amended in 1967 in order to give them a choice to end their membership of the Associated Institutions Pension Fund and to become members of their previous funds again. However, owing to an oversight, the old members of the Royal Mint who had transferred to the service of the Munitions Production Board, were once again not included in the provisions of the amending legislation. Therefore their pension rights are hanging in the air, as it were. However, the amendments to the Act which are being proposed, will place them in the position as if the various steps taken in respect of them, had been legal throughout. Therefore they will be restored to the position in which they would have been if the wrong steps had not been taken in respect of them.

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. the Deputy Minister has indicated, the Bill which is now before the House deals with a number of technical and administrative amendments which are necessary for the smooth functioning of the various funds administered by the hon. the Minister’s department The Bill also provides for improvements in the rate of payment of certain pensions and allowances. Certain concessions are embodied in the Bill to provide for improvement as far as the recipients are concerned. For these reasons we on this side of the House, fully support the Second Reading of this Bill.

There are, however, some items which, I believe, bear comment. Although the hon. the Deputy Minister has indicated that we could perhaps raise some of these at the Committee Stage, some of these matters can be raised now at the Second Reading. First of all, is the question of the concession that was announced to military pensioners, those persons receiving war pensions in terms of the two War Pensions Acts which make provision for the payment of such amounts. Here the bonus in terms of clause 6, has been increased from 12½ per cent to 17½ per cent. This is indeed welcome as many of these persons are finding it extremely difficult under present living conditions to maintain any sort of standard of living with the amount of war pensions presently being paid in respect of disablement, I would like to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether he will handle by regulation or by some other means the position of those persons who are also receiving social pensions, such as an old-age pension, or a war veteran’s pension. We know that a large number of the improvements that were announced by the hon. the Minister of Finance and for which the hon. the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions is responsible, are now dealt with by amendments to the regulations appertaining to the various social pension Acts. Therefore this House is not afforded the opportunity of examining or discussing in detail, the various amendments and improvements that were announced at the time of the Budget. By means of one aspect. namely that with regard to amendments to the War Pensions Acts, of which there are two, we are able to discuss this matter and to ascertain what improvements are being made for these people. As far as the means test is concerned, it is unfortunate that, in some instances where the person receives an increase on the one hand, he finds that there is a decrease in his social pension due to the means test. I hope that the hon. the Deputy Minister can give an indication as to what steps are being taken to ensure that those persons who are entitled to receive war pensions, will not have their social pensions reduced as a result of an increase in the war pension that is paid in terms of the Bill before us. I have been unable to ascertain exactly where the authority exists for the hon. the Deputy Minister or the hon. the Minister, as the case may be, to ensure that an increase in the war pension will not result in a decrease in the social pension of the person concerned. The other aspect deals with the question of the payment of a flat rate in regard to widows’ and children’s allowances. These are set out in the four schedules incorporated in this Bill. It would appear that this is merely a matter of paying a flat rate for the children of the deceased or incapacitated volunteer on the basis that this will be paid at the rate which was previously paid in respect of children over the age of 13 years. This will perhaps result in an increase for very few of those who have children under the age of 13 years and who receive children’s allowances. In view of the fact that more than 25 years have passed since the Second World War, I am sure that the number of persons who are receiving these allowances in respect of children under the age of 13 must indeed be a very small and decreasing number. I hope that the hon. the Minister at some time in the future will be able to give consideration to improving the position as far as these allowances are concerned. The amending legislation that is now before us, will only bring about an improvement to a very small number indeed. I hope that at a later stage, the hon. the Deputy Minister will be able to discuss this matter with the hon. the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions and also with the Minister of Finance to see whether some relief cannot be afforded to these people.

The other matters that are contained in this Bill, are mainly of an administrative nature. We have no objection to them in any way. We believe that it is important that, where any anomaly exists or any shortcoming is found to exist in legislation concerning pensions, that shortcoming and that anomaly should be eliminated as soon as possible to bring about a smooth functioning of the department and of the regulations and Acts governing the various funds which are administered by the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions.

We support the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Umbilo for supporting us and for not opposing the Second Reading of this Bill. It is a Bill which comes up from year to year.

Certain principles involved in the grants and supplements, and in regard to norms, were raised by him. I shall sum up by telling him that they relate more to principles which he has discussed with the hon. the Minister in this House from time to time. As the hon. member knows, increases to old age and war veterans’ pensions are made by regulation. It is a fiscal measure which is determined by the Budget from year to year. Increases in war pensions do not affect social pensions, such as old age or war veterans’ pensions. There is an amending Act which provides for this. However, all pensions are periodically considered. Even though the hon. member has mentioned certain specific principles according to which he does not quite agree with the kind of adjustments being effected at the moment, it is not something about which I can give him a final answer today. At any rate, I take note of what the hon. member said, and this also applies to the means test, etc. This will, at the same time, be brought to the attention of the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions. The question of a simple flat rate for the children of war veterans, which appeared in the previous two Acts, will also receive attention.

The hon. member also indicated that the rest of the Bill mainly contains administrative measures which require amendments and adjustments. I do not think there is anything more for me to say at this stage.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Clause 11:

Mr. Chairman, this clause brings into being a provision to protect the pension rights of certain persons employed in Bantu areas in connection with health matters. Here we are dealing with an administrative difficulty which arises when an employee is transferred to another department and becomes liable to join a pension fund of that new department. Earlier during this session we had the Bantu Authorities Service Pension Bill, which has since become Act No. 6 of 1971. This Act makes it compulsory for persons who are transferred in terms of that Act to belong to their pension fund. We have a position arising here where certain persons who are in the employ of other authorities are transferred to the Bantu Authorities and therefore become a member of that pension fund. The clause clearly states that “Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any law contained, but subject to the provisions of the Bantu Authority’s Service Pension Act, 1971” and then it gives the manner in which these persons shall be transferred. There is no difficulty in regard to the first aspect where the person who is employed in health matters including hospitalization and who presently is in the employ of another authority, such as a provincial hospital under the control of a provincial authority, elects to transfer to the new pension fund to which he becomes liable. Here I believe there is the clear-cut position that a person may elect to remain a member of the Provincial and Territory Pensions Fund of 1969, in terms of which he has probably been making contributions for a considerable time.

Now, Sir, there is the question of the person having the right to elect to remain a member of the Provincial and Territory Pensions Fund and of their particular fund or to join the Bantu Authority’s Service Pensions Fund. Here the circumstances involved are very important in view of the fact that in other legislation that we have dealt with where, for instance, the special schools were transferred to the Central Government, those persons were given the right to elect to remain members of the Provincial and Territory Pension Fund instead of transferring to the Government Service Pension Fund. Unfortunately in some instances the position was not made dear to them as to what was involved in regard to such transfers and how their pension rights were protected in bringing about such a transfer to another fund. That is why I think it is important that this matter of transfer and the pension benefits entailed in such transfer should be dearly brought to the notice of those persons who have the right to elect in terms of this clause to join the Bantu Authorities Service Pension Fund instead of remaining a member of the Provincial and Territory Pensions Fund. I mention this in order that these persons may be fully acquainted with the provisions.

The clause clearly defines that these persons are given ninety days in which to make the election whether to join the other fund or not. Then there is a proviso that this period of ninety days may be further lengthened at the discretion of the head of the department concerned. In this respect I should like to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether he has given consideration to whether there should not be a further appeal in the event of the person finding at a later stage that he wishes to make this election, and that that person should have the right to ask for a longer period in coming to that decision, to give him an opportunity to fully study and become acquainted with what is entailed in the transfer of those pension rights. In other legislation we have allowed such a person to make an appeal to the Secretary of the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions. After all, he is the executive officer in the department which is administering these funds. This person should then have the right to discuss this matter and to take it to the head of the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions. As the clause now reads it merely gives the person the prerogative to extend the period of 90 days at the discretion of the head of the department concerned. I submit that it is possible that the head of the department concerned might not be fully acquainted with all the conditions that are entailed in such a transfer of pension rights. That right should perhaps be at a higher level than the head of the department concerned. I do hope that the hon. the Minister will give some indication whether this matter has received some thought in so far as the rights of people so transferred are concerned.

This is retrospective legislation with effect from 1st April, 1970. I should like to know from the hon. the Deputy Minister, seeing that this is retrospective legislation, what the position is in regard to the 90 days in which the person has the right to elect to transfer from the Provincial and Territory Pensions Fund to the new fund in terms of his new basis of employment with the Bantu Authorities. Here there is the retrospective effect but at the same time a 90 day time limit in order to elect whether to join the other fund and to cease to be a member of the Provincial and Territory Pensions Fund. I hope the hon. the Deputy Minister will give us some further information in this regard.

Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member raised a few interesting points, which I want to clarify at this stage as best I can. The hon. member referred in particular to the period of 90 days and said that people could be prejudiced as a result of this, especially those who are normally not aware of this and are to a large extent uninformed. Now the head of a department is given an arbitrary right to grant such a person a further extension. I cannot really tell the hon. member anything further at this stage, except to mention that, as far as this is concerned, I shall certainly point out to the head of the department that there must be flexibility in cases of this nature, because we are dealing with people. If the period of 90 days is made applicable to people as an absolute rule, it will not always be quite fair. The privilege of making such an election will, I can assure the hon. member, be brought to the attention of these people, There are not many of them. If it appears that there are those who, for good reasons, were not aware of this, the matter will receive attention. I can also give the hon. member the assurance in the presence of the head of the department, who is listening to it at this stage.

As far as the question of retrospective legislation is concerned, the hon. member also raised a point which possibly requires attention. Personally I cannot think of a reply which I can give the hon. member at this stage. It would be an anomaly if we did not. on the commencement of this Act, allow a person to obtain the full rights which he was unable to exercise months ago. I assure the hon. member that I shall go into this. What I do not know about it I shall find out. I shall see to it that no injustice is done here.

Clause put and agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

This Bill gives effect to the provisions and recommendations contained in the report of the Select Committee on Pensions. As hon. members know, these recommendations have already been approved by this hon. House and the Other Place.

We on this side of the House fully support the Second Reading of this Bill which, as the hon. the Deputy Minister has indicated, gives legislative effect to recommendations that were accepted in this House when the report of the Select Committee on Pensions was considered.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Schedule:

This schedule contains recommendations which were accepted by the Committee of the whole House when it considered the recommendations of the Select Committee on Pensions. I would like to draw the attention of the hon. the Deputy Minister to item 10 in the schedule. This recommendation provides for an amount of R60 per month to be paid during her widowhood to the widow of a former member of this House, and it provides for an additional pension of R20 per month to be paid in respect of each of the four dependent children. The schedule also provides that this amount in respect of each child shall be paid until each child attains the age of 21 years. Sir, we are creating a new position here as far as the payment of pensions in respect of dependent children is concerned. In the main the existing legislation provides for the payment of such amounts up to the age of 18 years. When we look at other legislation such as the Childrens’ Act, we find that maintenance grants which are paid in terms of that Act are paid up to the age of 18 years. When we look at the definition of “child” in the Parliamentary Service Pensions Act, we see that there too a child is defined as being an unmarried child under the age of 18 years. This recommendation therefore departs from existing practice, and it would appear that when the Select Committee on Pensions discussed this matter and made this recommendation, it was not fully realized that it would be possible for this amount to continue to be paid even if the child was married and under the age of 21 or if a child was no longer dependent, was fully employed and could therefore maintain himself or herself between the ages of 18 and 21 years. Sir, I realize that there is this important factor that in most cases children, if they have the potential, can continue their education and go on to university while still remaining dependent on the parent or parents. I wish to move the following amendment to item 10—

This amendment, if accepted, will bring the position in this case in line with the position which exists under other legislation, and it will obviate the payment of an allowance up to the age of 21 years in respect of a child over the age of 18 years who is self-supporting. Unfortunately, Sir, under the rules of the House I am not able to move another leg of the amendment which I would like to move and in terms of which the amount would continue to be paid if the child is attending an educational institution as a fulltime student. In terms of the rules I am unable to move that portion of the amendment but I do hope that the hon. the Deputy Minister may be in a position to do so. I understand that it would be competent for him to do so and that it would be an acceptable amendment. I hope therefore that the hon. the Deputy Minister will give the matter his consideration. Although we have every sympathy with the widow in this case, I think he will realize that we are creating a situation here which is in conflict with the existing provisions in all other legislation.

I gave this matter my consideration. I am grateful to the hon. member for Umbilo for providing me with the amendment he intended moving. He mentioned, quite correctly and logically, that the ordinary case is that we provide only for children up to 18 years of age. As far as his logic is concerned, I have no swords to cross with him, but these cases are usually treated on an individual basis, as was so clearly put by their side in connection with some other cases we had some differences about.

Now, Mrs. Raubenheimer’s grant is not a very generous grant, although at the moment I suppose she may just be able to save the day for the time being. Grants like these—and this is a unique grant— are not subject to periodic revision. She can only come back here by way of a further petition if she cannot make ends meet. We know that the amount for civil grants are revised from time to time, but hers is a singular grant and that we must take into consideration in deciding on this case. We also know that the purchasing power of money diminishes. Most of these children are still young. In time to come, in five or six years’ time, this money would have been eroded, and I think that if some of these children can fend for themselves before they are 21 at the same time this should be some sort of compensation to which she is entitled, seeing that the value of money diminishes from time to time. So I regard this grant as something unique which should be judged on its own. I think the Committee judged it on its own, and what is more, this hon. House and the Other Place decided in their wisdom to accept the report in full, and in the report stage both this House and the Other Place were ad idem that this should be the case in so far as the grant to Mrs. Raubenheimer is concerned.

Taking all these matters and all these points I have raised into consideration, I regret that I cannot accept this amendment.

Amendment put and negatived.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

hon. members are aware that the Government has decided to allow the sale of yellow margarine again in future. Consequently the object of this Bill is to amend existing legislation in such a way that the Government’s decision may be carried into effect.

In order to meet the serious shortage of butter which was experienced during and immediately after the Second World War, it was decided at the time to make yellow margarine available. The necessary legislation to make provision for that was introduced during April, 1945, in terms of the war measures.

Because of the unobtainability of certain ingredients, however, manufacturing could commence only during 1947. Only limited quantities of yellow margarine were manufactured and were distributed predominantly among the lower income groups by the Food Distribution Scheme of the State.

The manufacture of yellow margarine was prohibited as from 1st December, 1950, as a result of the persistent representations by interested bodies and persons and after the whole matter in regard to its manufacture and distribution had been investigated. Subsequent to that approval was granted for the manufacture of white margarine which could be distributed freely, but which was subject to strict measures of control as regards the quantity produced.

White margarine is used for cooking and baking purposes in competition with other cooking fats and oils and also as a bread spread in competition with butter. From 1965-'66 up to and including 1969-70 the consumption of white margarine increased from almost 24 to 35 million lbs.—an increase of nearly 46 per cent. In comparison with this, the sale of butter increased from approximately 109 to 121 million lbs.—an increase of 11 per cent.

In recent times the local production of butter has been considerably lower than the domestic consumption of this product. Any shortfall is supplemented by means of imports. In order to promote a better balance between local production and consumption, as well as to compensate for the rising costs in recent years, a relatively sharp upward adjustment in the prices of butter fat and butter was introduced as from 1st June, 1971. Because of, inter alia. the composition and the division of the income of the population, the necessity of making available an acceptable spreading fat at a lower price, was enhanced.

The acceptability to the consumer of a substitute is determined to a significant extent by the effectiveness of the imitation of the qualities of the product to which the consumer is used. Traditionally, a bread spread must be yellow in colour, and for this reason the butter industry, too, sometimes makes use of colouring matter to give butter the proper yellow colour. The availability of yellow margarine will stimulate its consumption as a bread spread, especially in the short term.

In the U.S.A. most Federal restrictions on yellow margarine were lifted in 1950. In the first two years subsequent to that, the per capita consumption of butter dropped by almost 19 per cent, while that of margarine increased by approximately 30 per cent. In the next five successive years, however, the consumption of margarine showed an increase of only 9 per cent, while that of butter dropped by almost 3½ per cent. The initial sharp rise in the consumption of margarine in the U.S.A. after 1950, went hand in hand with, inter alia, a special advertising programme and an improvement in the quality of the product. However, a balance between the consumption of butter and that of margarine was brought about in a relatively short time, after which butter could maintain its position as a bread spread more effectively. I may just add that such control as is being envisaged in this legislation is not being applied in the U.S.A. Last year something like 10 million dollars was spent on propaganda, i.e. advertisements. An analysis of the consumption tendencies in respect of butter and margarine in various countries during the post-war years, indicates that the consumption ratio of these products is determined to a significant extent by economic factors such as changes in income and prices and changes in consumption habits.

Since the establishment of the margarine industry in South Africa in the forties, the manufacture of margarine has been subject to statutory restrictions, inter alia, to provide some protection to the dairy industry. Therefore, in order to explain the objects of this Bill, brief reference will be made to said restrictions and to the existing system of control. In terms of section 14 of the Dairy Industry Act, 1961, the manufacture of margarine is prohibited, except under the authority of a permit which may be issued by the Minister of Agriculture in his discretion, hut after consultation with the Dairy Board. This applies to the manufacture of white margarine only, because the present Act places an absolute prohibition on the manufacture of yellow margarine. Permits are issued subject to certain restricting conditions only, the most important of which is the quantity which may be manufactured under the authority of the permit concerned. The quotas are determined annually on 1st July by the Minister of Agriculture on application by the permit-holders. Furthermore, the use of premises for the manufacture of margarine is prohibited, unless such premises are registered in terms of the Act. The Act also lays down standards in respect of the composition, packing and labelling of margarine.

Hon. members will understand that the existing measures of control are intended, on the one hand, to safeguard the interests of the dairy farmer and, on the other hand, to protect the consumer. I want to make it very clear that although the Government is of the opinion that the admission of yellow margarine to the South African market has become essential, it nevertheless wants to grant protection to said interest groups, and in particular to the dairy farmer. For that reason the object of the Bill is to accommodate the manufacture and importation of yellow margarine in the present system of control. This means that the existing absolute prohibition on the manufacture and importation of yellow margarine must be lifted and replaced by a permit system of control such as that which applies at present to white margarine. Manufacture and importation will be subject to quantity control and it is proposed to determine separate quotas in the permits for white and yellow margarine. The existing provision in the Act that the importation of margarine may be completely prohibited by proclamation, is being retained. The Bill also provides that the permit may specify the types and sorts of oils and fats which may be used in the manufacture of margarine under the authority of that permit. This envisages, firstly, to make the use of, for example, certain types of vegetable oils or fats compulsory, if necessary, in the manufacture of margarine. Secondly, it envisages either to prohibit the addition of butter fat to margarine or to make such addition compulsory. At present the Act provides for the addition of not more than 10 per cent butter fat to margarine. At this stage it is not a settled thing whether or not the addition of butter fat to margarine is in the best interests of the dairy industry. In the course of time experience will determine which alternative will be applied. In this connection, too, the Bill prohibits the mixing of butter and margarine except to the extent to which that may be allowed in terms of the Act in the manufacturing process. It remains a punishable offence to mix butter and margarine in public eating places.

Certain additional penalties are being prescribed for the transgression of the measures of control, for example, the withdrawal of the registration of a margarine factory manufacturing margarine which does not meet the prescribed requirements or a condition of a permit in regard to the ingredients of which margarine is to consist. The maximum fine for any failure to comply with the provisions of the Act in regard to the manufacture, importation and distribution of margarine, is being increased from R400 to R1 000. Furthermore, the Bill confirms the present principle that margarine must be packed and labelled in a particular way. For example, it is essential for yellow margarine to he labelled as such so that it may be distinguished from butter.

From the aforegoing it should be clear to hon. members that the interests of the dairy producer will be looked after in future as they were in the past. For that reason the manufacture or importation of margarine may not take place freely, but will be subject to permit control. The importance of the dairy industry to the country as a whole and to agriculture in particular, is fully realized. Members are aware of the importance of the animal factor in the pattern of farming and for the maintenance of the fertility of the soil. A healthy industrial milk industry is also of fundamental importance as regards the provision of fresh milk as the fresh milk sector is dependent mainly on the industrial milk producer for the maintenance of his dairy herds. In the application of the measures of control these aspects will still be taken into account at all times. In addition I want to draw attention to the fact that the compulsory use of vegetable oils in the manufacture of margarine will increase the demand for locally produced oils. This will be beneficial to the local oilseeds industry and many producers of oilseeds are indeed producers of dairy products as well. This factor is of more than passing interest especially if regard is had to the systems of crop rotation which are applied in the maize-growing areas. Consequently, an increased demand for oilseeds may serve indirectly as a means not only of diversifying farming for the sake of the economic advantages this has, but also of gaining an additional benefit by way of improving the fertility of the soil. In the U.S.A. the emphasis was placed on the production of soya beans, as a result of which the fertility of the soil was rapidly improved.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation with which the hon. the Deputy Minister has come forward this afternoon, is indeed sweeping legislation, if one keeps the dairy industry in mind, in his introductory speech the hon. gentleman very clearly stated that he was now assuming powers that would make it possible for him to give the best possible protection to the dairy industry. I want to thank him for the assurance he gave today, i.e. that he would always, and in all respects, keep the interests of the dairy industry in mind, and protect them in the exercising of these powers. At a later stage this afternoon i hope to give the hon. the Deputy Minister further reasons why I think that his ideas about this are good ones. However, what I find strange here is that the hon. the Minister, in reply to a question in this House, said that the Government did not intend to allow the manufacture of yellow margarine. Shortly afterwards—it was a matter of hours—the Minister of Health announced that it was, in fact, the Government’s intention to submit such legislation. I found it strange that the hon. the Minister of Agriculture, who is responsible for this matter, did not know at that stage that the Government intended submitting such a Bill, while his colleague, the Minister of Health, shortly afterwards announced that it was, in fact, the Government’s intention to do so. What I also find strange is that an amendment of the Dairy Industry Act is suggested, although the people involved in this matter have not been properly consulted. Although the Deputy Minister implied in his Second Reading speech that he would, in fact, consult the Dairy Board in the future, I find it strange that they did not try to obtain the co-operation of the dairy industry as a whole before this legislation was submitted. That would surely have been the sensible approach to this matter. According to the Burger of a few days ago, the manager of the Dairy Board, Mr. Marais, was asked whether he knew of this legislation. This is what he said (translation)—

Afterwards, he pointed out that in countries such as the U.S.A., where yellow margarine was allowed, there was an immediate decrease in the consumption of ordinary butter. Sir, those are the people who are responsible for the Dairy Board’s schemes, and surely the hon. the Minister should have consulted these people before the time, but it seems to me that absolutely nothing was done to satisfy them in this connection. I want to point out to the hon. the Deputy Minister that the dairy industry is an important industry in this country, and that it has been through difficult times. They are now only just beginning to see the light, after there had been an improvement in their price structure. The hon. gentleman could so easily have had the co-operation of these people, had he only been prepared to consult them. The manufacture of yellow margarine is nothing new in this country. The hon. the Minister mentioned that in 1945, under the old war measures, it was also the intention to make yellow margarine available in this country, particularly for the less privileged groups in our population. However, in 1950 this Government itself decided that a ban should be placed on the manufacture of yellow margarine. Why did they want to place a ban on it at the time? I think that in doing so they wanted to afford protection to the dairy industry. What has happened in the meantime? As a result of a lack of policy and planning for the future, we have found ourselves in a situation where butter in this country has become increasingly scarcer. The consumption has increased considerably without a concordant increase in production, and now the hon. gentleman is being forced to come to light with this legislation. There is a reluctance on the part of the housewife of this country to pay 54 cents for 500 grams of ordinary butter. In order to satisfy the South African housewife once more, this legislation must now be submitted. It is as a result of this situation that the United Party feels that it must support this legislation. The price of butter today is such, and butter so scarce, that the ordinary housewife can hardly afford it, let alone the non-White groups in the country. These people and their interests must also be looked after. It is tragic that so difficult a situation has developed recently in connection with the availability of butter.

Today I once more want to appeal to the hon. the Minister and ask whether it is not possible for them to subsidize the price of butter to a greater extent, so that the housewife will not have to pay this tremendously high price. What must not be lost sight of is the fact that a large degree of unfair competition may now develop. I am speaking of unfair competition in the sense that yellow margarine is made available to the public at a considerably cheaper price than butter. In other words, the competition between these two products, which are both agricultural products, can perhaps prove unfair to the natural butter product. I must point out to the hon. the Minister that butter is not the only product deriving from milch cows. The Minister knows this. Particularly those farmers, who are a great distance from cheese factories and places where ordinary fresh milk can be supplied for domestic purposes, devote themselves to the production of cream. If the demand for butter were to decrease, this would entail unfair competition as far as those people are concerned. I want the hon. the Minister also to bear this in mind when he grants the best possible protection to the dairy industry.

In respect of yellow margarine a considerable amount of propaganda has been made in the past at the expense of natural butter. The intake of animal fats can cause arterio-sclerosis, a cardio-vascular disease. The incidence of this disease could perhaps be affected by the fact that more products such as margarine, which is manufactured from natural plant fats, is made available. Many ideas of this kind have never been proved scientifically. It is said, for example, that in the U.S.A., which has the lowest butter consumption rate, i.e. one-fifth of that of New Zealand, easily has the highest death rate. In New Zealand, where there is a tremendous consumption of butter, i.e. 43 pounds per head of the population per annum, the death rate from cardio-vascular disease is only 231 per 100 000 of the population. In the case of America, where the butter intake is 8,8 per head per annum the death rate per 100 000 is considerably higher.

Therefore, to come along with any kind of propaganda about the fact that margarine can prevent this kind of disease, would at this stage also be unfair. I can, for example, mention that years ago experiments were carried out in France. They showed that bus conductors were less subject to heart diseases than, for example, the bus drivers. The conclusion the scientists reached in that connection was that the conductors, for example, obtained more exercise than the drivers who only sat behind the wheel. Thus dozens of conclusions can be drawn from many of these scientific investigations. At this stage it is perhaps not worth while saying that margarine, as a product, would specifically be more beneficial to the health of the South African people.

What is more, what few people realize is that the basic ingredient of margarine is frequently milk. In other words, that animal fat is specifically also present in the margarine that is manufactured. How can one specific ingredient be beneficial in one product, but detrimental in the case of another product? That is why I think that the people must be careful not to be stampeded by propaganda and advertising campaigns which will suddenly and exclusively try to focus the good qualities of margarine at the expense of the natural butter product.

You say that you support the Bill, but you are arguing against it.

No. I told the hon. the Minister that I am going to give him the reasons why I think that he should have come forward with this legislation. If the hon. the Minister wants them, I shall give them to him right now. The foremost reason, which I have already mentioned, is that the hon. the Minister who is leader of the House and an outstanding member of the Cabinet, is one of the people responsible for the fact that we are in this scrape today with respect to the butter industry in this country.

We are not, as a result of the negligence of this Government, going to be so unreasonable as to penalize the South African public at large. So ridiculous the United Party would undoubtedly not be. The hon. the Minister ought to thank the Opposition for the responsible attitude it is adopting, i.e. in not making capital out of this situation that has developed in South Africa, That is the reason why we are adopting this standpoint. Because we realize how tremendously high the present-day cost of living in South Africa is, we are prepared to support this legislation in principle. There is nothing wrong with our warning the hon. the Minister about what effects this might have on the natural dairy industry in this country. If the hon. the Minister does not do his duty in this respect, when his Vote comes up for discussion next year, or at the first opportunity that presents itself, we shall definitely say where we think he is acting wrongly.

You remind me of the girl who protests while she is saying yes.

But does the hon. the Minister not know that it is very much more interesting…

Order! The hon. member must come back to the dairy industry.

Mr. Speaker, may I just tell the hon. the Minister…

No, it is better not to reply to that.

It does make it very much more interesting when she eventually says yes.

Yes, but this is much more useful.

We on this side of the House accept the hon. the Deputy Minister’s word that he will protect the dairy industry, as he said, and that this will be applied under the strictest control. He has these powers, and we want to urge him to give the public what is their due. The public needs it under these circumstances. But at the same time the dairy industry must also be protected, because it is not only the cream producers who are affected by this. The general future of the dairy industry is also involved in this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to see that the hon. Opposition acknowledges that this legislation is necessary. Whether it is the Government's fault that this legislation has become necessary, is quite another question. The weather conditions and the high price of meat are. in my opinion, the foremost factors contributing to the scarcity of butter in the country. Just look at how butler production has fluctuated. If there is a dry year, butter production decreases and butter has to be imported. When a good year comes along, the production of butter increases and consequently less butter is imported. But butter production has shown an overall downward trend in the course of years.

The hon. member for Newton Park said that the hon. the Minister had made a mistake by not consulting those persons involved in the matter. As far as I know, when the Hairy Board requested an increase in the price of butter fat, it was warned that if this were acceded to, the Dairy Board should remember that margarine would be competing more strongly with butter. But they insisted that they should get the high prices, and these were granted. Now they must bear the consequences of those high present-day prices for butter. The hon. Minister explained that there would be protection for the dairy farmers in this legislation, and hon. members understand this too. On the other hand the consumer is being given what he would like to have. If it appears, in the course of time, that there are again butter surpluses, the Minister also has the right, in terms of regulations, to again slightly discourage the use of margarine and to encourage the use of butter. Hon. members know what our exporting of butler means; they know what losses we suffer on butter exports.

Sir, this Government has had the interests of the dairy farmer so much at heart in the past that he can trust this Government not to leave him in the lurch when there is again a surplus. The hon. member for Newton Park speaks of people who are some distance away from cheese factories and cities, and who must sell a little butter fat so that they can have an income, but experience has taught us that it is specifically those people, who are far away from a railway line and who sell butter fit, who have changed over to rearing their calves and no longer milking. Years ago we imported butter from South-West Africa to the Republic, and today we export butter from the Republic to South-West Africa, because those people found that it paid them better to keep the calves with the cows and not to milk those cows, They then obtain a better price for that calf when it is 10 to 12 months old. In that way they also eliminate labour costs, which are very high today, because it is then not necessary to milk on Sundays. Milking on Sundays, just like a second wife, gives the farmer a great deal of trouble and strife. What is the position today in the Western areas? Once upon a time there was one of the biggest butter factories at Vryburg. What is its present-day production? Very little, In many parts of the country where the farmers are far away from a railway line, we find that today farmers are going in for meat, because it is more profitable, where they previously marketed butter fat.

Sir, I do not want to say much more about this, because the Opposition agrees with us that this legislation is necessary. Their voters in the cities want it. The hon. member for Newton Park cannot but support this legislation today, because he no longer represents the platteland farmer who is far away from a railway line; he represents the consumers in the cities, and that is why he felt that he would have to support the Bill. It would go very badly for them at the next election if they do not allow yellow margarine to be sold. The consumers of margarine would like to have it in that colour. The hon. member hopes that margarine would save them if they allow it to be made yellow, and that is why they support this Bill.

I want to agree with him that butter is not as unhealthy as some people make out. Everyone’s systems are not the same; one man’s system absorbs more nicotine when he smokes than another man’s system. The same applies to cholesterol. It just depends upon one’s way of life. People who are very tense, who live at a very hectic pace and who sit on benches all day long, are more prone to illness than those who do manual labour. That is why I want to say that people can continue to eat butter without alarm, because I eat butter, spread very thickly on the bread. I smear the butter on. I do not scrape it on, and look at my appearance after all these years.

[Interjections.] In the light of the interjections which are being made, I think it would be fitting for me to begin this afternoon by misquoting Shakespeare, if I may be permitted to say: “Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears; I come to bury the dairy industry, not to praise margarine.” The hon. member for Newton Park made it quite clear that we are not opposing this legislation. He has also made it clear that we are not opposed to the sale of margarine. The whole dairy industry has made one thing clear to this hon. Minister, and that is that the industry accepts the challenge of a competitive product, but that it must he fair competition. The dairy industry rejects unequivocally the dressing up of margarine to masquerade as butter. I quote the dairy industry. That is their attitude. This Minister is the person who controls the destiny of that dairy industry. It has been in the hands of this Minister now for a few years to stimulate that particular industry. Its whole future has been in the hands of this Deputy Minister, but what has he done to it? He has killed it in the last four years, It is not necessary for me to go into the history. That Deputy Minister knows the harm that was done to this industry in 1962, when his party—not him but the Minister appointed by his party —reduced the price of dairy products, and how it took that industry from 1962 until 1967 to recover; and it only recovered then because it was then made economic once again to produce dairy products. The hon. member for Ladybrand made it quite clear in his speech, too, that the farmers no longer are sending their milk to the creameries or to the cheese factories, etc., because it is uneconomic and because it is more economic to channel their energies into more profitable things. The Deputy Minister knows that. That is what happened in those years between 1962 and 1967.

But in 1967 we finally prevailed upon the Minister, who is still the Minister of Agriculture, to grant an increase in the price of dairy products, and what did we find? Immediately there was an increase. By 1968 the local production was meeting the demand again. By 1969 we were exporting. We had a surplus in 1969-’70 of 13 million lbs. of butter. We exported nearly 6 million lbs of butter that year. But within two years we are faced with a tremendous shortage of butter. The local production of butter will fall short by nearly 40 million lbs. of the demand in this country, and that is nearly 30 per cent of the consumption.

It is in the light of this situation and the parlous state in which the dairy industry finds itself today that we are presented with this Bill. Just after that Deputy Minister had announced, as pointed out by the hon. member for Newton Park, an increase of 5 cents per lb. of butler, the dairy industry, reeling under this blow, and the housewife, reeling under this blow, are both now going to be faced with yellow margarine. As was pointed out by the hon. member for Newton Park, we are not going to oppose this Bill, We will allow it to go through. But I believe that the facts have to be stated and that the public and the dairy industry particularly deserve from that hon. Deputy Minister an explanation as to why this legislation comes now. Here you have the dairy industry reeling under this blow, and the public reeling under the increased prices with an anti-butter feeling engendered amongst the public because of this Act, and then we find yellow margarine being introduced.

What else do we find? If you look at the production figures of margarine and the figures of the amounts permitted, you find that in 1959-’60 the manufacturers had permits totalling I7½ million pounds of which they produced 14½ million pounds. In l964-’65 the quota had risen to 22¼ million pounds and production to 19,8 million pounds. In 1968-’69 the quota had risen to 37,8 million pounds and the consumption to 35 million pounds. In the dairy year 1970-71, the quotas granted totalled 42,6 million pounds, in other words 19 345 metric tons. The most interesting feature is to find out how much margarine has been produced in the first nine months, from July, 1970 to April, 1971. Thirty-one million pounds of margarine had been produced.

So what?

The hon. member asks me ” so what?”. The whole point is that this shows the demand for margarine. This demand is there.

They could not sell their quotas.

I told you that they could not sell their quotas, but in ten years, from 1961, the demand for margarine has grown from 15 million pounds a year to 31 million pounds for a nine-month period. This means that over the period of ten years there has been an increase of something like 125 per cent. This means that the public has demanded margarine but that they have also been able to get margarine. Margarine, as we have known if, in other words, margarine wrapped in paper or wrapped in tinfoil, is packed in the same shape as a half pound of butter, but it is white and it is quite clearly marked “margarine”. That is what has been sold until approximately a year ago. Another reason why I believe that this Bill is untimely and entirely unnecessary at this stage is because until a year ago the whole margarine manufacturing industry in South Africa was price orientated. It had one object and that was to produce as cheap a product as possible. They were not quality orientated at all. I do not know how much control has been applied by the hon. the Minister, but an analysis of margarine a short while ago showed that a vast quantity of whale oil a had been used in the production of margarine, not only vegetable oils. Therefore, any argument that this is still agriculture orientated falls away unless the hon. Deputy Minister is going to do his duty, and that is to control the types of oils that may be used in the production of margarine, by means of this legislation. Let us leave poly-saturated fats for a moment because we shall come to the hon. the Minister of Health just now. During the last year possibly having foresight of the shortage of dairy products which was going to develop in the country, the margarine manufacturers—belatedly. I must admit because it has been available overseas for many years —decided to produce a better quality of margarine. This has been produced in plastic tubs. This product has all the physical qualities of butter except the colour. It is white as is required by law, it spreads…

What is the price?

I shall come to the price. As I was about to say, it spreads evenly and it does not harden in a fridge, so that it is too hard to spread. The taste on bread or sandwiches, is not unlike butter and it has been accepted by the public. It is being used by those sections of the public at whom the hon. the Minister of Health has now aimed his comments.

What did I say? Why do you not read what I said?

I shall read it in a minute. Here we have a quality product which has captured the imagination of the housewives of South Africa.

What is it?

I do not think it will be right to use a trade name in this House. The hon. member is free to have a look at it if he wants to. I want to tell this House that last week from Wednesday until Saturday this product was unobtainable here in Cape Town while stacks of butter were lying in the supermarkets. This shows us the demand. The consumption of margarine has risen by 125 per cent in the last ten years. If the hon. the Deputy Minister only had more patience and had delayed this legislation, I feel sure that he would have found that the public’s demand for this quality product would have been such that the demand for yellow margarine would have fallen away.

I now want to deal with the question of price and how the people of South Africa are going to benefit by this measure. When we deal with price we have to start with butter. During this “dairy year” the Government is going to make a profit on the importation of dairy products which I estimate at R5 million. This profit will be placed to the credit of the General Revenue Fund.

R3½ million.

I am glad that the hon. the Deputy Minister concedes that he will make R3½ million, but I think he is being conservative. But let us accept his figure of R3½ million. This amount can subsidize the price of butter, if we were to produce full requirements, to the extent of 3c per pound. But as I have pointed out our production is only going to be 60 per cent or 70 per cent of the consumption in this country. The R3-½ million profit the Government is going to make on the importation of butter and other dairy products could have subsidized that production to the extent of nearly 5c per pound, which is exactly the amount with which the price of butter has been increased. This will entail no additional cost to the Government and will also cause the hon. the Minister of Finance no additional problems. When he prepared his Budget he did not budget for a profit of R3½ million on the importation of dairy products. He budgeted for no profit at all. He now finds himself with a windfall of R3½ million at the expense of the housewife of South Africa and which will be placed to the credit of the General Revenue Fund. I want to repeat the call of the United Party and appeal to the hon. the Deputy Minister to plough his profits on the importation of dairy products back into the industry and to reduce the price of butter back to the April, 1971, price. I challenge him to show good faith with the housewives of South Africa and with the dairy industry by ploughing that profit back and reducing the price of butter. Let him make a name for himself as the man who was prepared to look after the housewife and the dairy industry of South Africa.

But what about the price? Margarine packed in ordinary paper has come in various qualities. People are price conscious and I have sold in my store a half a pound of margarine from 8c to 12½c. In other words, the quality varies from 16c per pound to 25c per pound. Now this product in a plastic tub has come on the market. Its price varies throughout the country, but as far as I can make out it is marked at 19c for 250 grams, that is 38c per 500 grams. The price will therefore work out at something like 36c per pound. As I have said, the price varies. At some supermarkets it is sold at 17c and at others at as high as 21c per half pound, but let us take it an average, the one I have here, of 19c per half pound, and 38c per 500 grams. My information is that the margarine industry intends to colour this expensive product yellow, which is now packed in a tub, and that the cost of this product will be at least 40 cents per pound. Now, to come back to the plea of the dairy industry not to have unfair competition, I want to say that if that hon. Deputy Minister will reduce the price of butter, and restore it to the April price, and if he is going to allow the margarine industry to produce this margarine, packed in a tub, at 40 cents per pound, there will then be fair competition. When he introduced this Bill, the Deputy Minister said that he was aiming particularly at the lower income groups. I say “good show” to him, but is he going to see that this cheaper margarine, priced at 16c a pound, is coloured yellow? Is he going to take the power, in terms of the regulations, to compel the manufacturers to colour this cheaper quality margarine yellow? My information is that that quality of margarine will disappear. The cheap quality margarine is no longer going to be produced. My information is that the margarine which is now being sold at between 16 cents and 25 cents per pound, is going to disappear because it has up till now been produced uneconomically, What benefits are the poor people of this country going to have if those cheap products are going to disappear? We would like an assurance that that Minister will also protect the underprivileged and will compel the industrialists to maintain the production of cheap quality margarine. The fat intake of our people is too low; I must agree with the hon. the Minister of Health. We must stimulate that, but we are not going to stimulate it if the people are only going to be able to buy a product at 40 cents a pound, where they have been paying 25 cents a pound in the past.

I never said so, so you cannot agree with me.

Never said what?

What you are saying now.

Sir, here we have a most interesting statement by the hon. the Minister of Health. He admits now that he has never said that the fat intake of the people of South Africa is low.

I never said so.

Does he believe that the fat intake of the underprivileged people in South Africa is low?

Yes.

All right, I am sorry. Sir, I am crediting the hon. the Minister of Health with more intelligence than he has. We want an assurance this afternoon from the hon. the Deputy Minister that he is going to see to it that the production of low cost margarine is maintained. This is something which is essential to the people. I am in business and I sell an awful lot of margarine. I do not sell nearly as much butter as margarine, because I deal primarily with underprivileged people. I know what a hardship it is going to be to those people if they are only going to be able to buy margarine at 35 cents and 40 cents per pound. Incidentally, my information is that although this better quality product is packed in a tub, it is going to be packed to look like a half pound of butter when it is coloured yellow. This is the sort of unfair competition to which the dairy industry refers.

Sir, the hon. the Minister of Health seems to be very sensitive, and has challenged me to read what he said. I have his Hansard of the 26th May, 1971, here. When he made his statement on the colouring of margarine under the Health Vote, he said (Hansard, No. 16, 1971, column 7620):

So what?

Sir, if ever there was an irresponsible statement by a Minister of this country that was it, and he says “so what”.

I did not say anything against butter.

Sir, of course he did not say anything against butter, but what is the implication of what he said? The implication of what that hon. Minister said was a blow to the whole of the animal husbandry industry in this country. In the light of the propaganda that has been made regarding certain irresponsible statements and in the light of advertising in this field, this was the most irresponsible statement for a Minister to make, because the implication is that if you eat butter or any animal fats, poly-saturated fats, you are going to suffer from heart disease.

That is your deduction.

I am not the only one who has made this deduction. The people outside…

That is medically untrue.

What is medically untrue?

What you have just said now.

Mr. Speaker, I am extremely glad to have that statement from the hon. the Minister, because I hope that this will receive the same publicity as the previous statements of the hon. the Minister. I want to repeat that it is being said that my statement was medically untrue. In other words, it is medically untrue that the consumption of butter and of animal fats leads to heart disease.

Yes.

I am very glad to have that. I am very glad that we have at last received this assurance from the hon. the Minister because I wanted to take him to task for the inference of the statement he made before. If this receives publicity he will have put everything right. I felt that this was an entirely incorrect impression to leave with the people of South Africa. If the hon. the Minister did not intend that I am glad to have his assurance on it. But this is what was accepted by the people outside on the statement that he made.

You leave that impression.

What is the truth about it? Medically it is accepted that any person who is prone to cardio-vascular disease or is troubled with it should not take butter and animal fat. I am sure the hon. the Minister of Health will agree with me. If he does not, he must put me right and I will be very grateful.

That is not true.

It is not true?

Rather talk about something you know something about; then you would have to sit down because you know nothing.

Now, Mr. Speaker, this is fine. The hon. the Minister of Health is not prepared to co-operate with me. I however felt that we had struck a certain accord on which we could co-operate. Then all I can do is to quote from those who do know what the position is. In this respect I want to refer to a long-term American research project which has been referred to as the Framlingham study. This is a study done over 20 years. I quote—

This is the full answer to what was implied or taken to have been implied by the hon. the Minister’s statement. [Interruptions.] In fairness, I am prepared to concede him that. This was the construction that this placed on it. And here is the answer to give the lie to that construction that was placed on his statement.

But there is another aspect. Experiments were also conducted on the rearing of calves. They tried to rear calves on a purely vegetable fat intake. Those calves died. They just would not rear. This is what I wanted to say to refute the implication which has been placed on the statement by the hon. the Minister of Health. For the young people of South Africa let us have a natural product. Let us have butter. It can do our children no harm. For those who are susceptible to arterial and heart diseases it might be safer to use margarine.

In conclusion I want again to make a plea to the hon. the Deputy Minister, The future of the dairy industry in South Africa lies in his hands. He has neglected that industry since 1967. He gave them no increase in price until this year in the case of fresh milk and until October/November last year in so far as the industrial milk prices were concerned. And that increase was just 1½c per gallon and at that stage did not make up the leeway of increased costs of production. I want to appeal to the hon. the Deputy Minister: Do not do to the dairy industry or to the housewife what you have done to them this year. The housewife does not deserve a single step up in the price of butter of 5c. The dairy industry does not deserve to wait five years for an adjustment in the price of their products. Let us have an annual review. Let us consider representations made to the hon. the Minister by the dairy industry through their various bodies, and let us put this industry back on the map in South Africa. I know that margarine is going to compete with butter. The dairy industry is prepared to accept that competition, provided it is fair competition. Whether the competition is fair, can only be adjudged by that hon. Deputy Minister.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will pardon me for not following him on this devious course. I should like to leave that to the hon. the Deputy Minister. This amending Bill on the Dairy Industry Act, 1961, which is being introduced to control the sale of yellow margarine, is of particular importance to the future of dairy farming. Dairy products form the second-largest agricultural output in South Africa, with a total production of R136 821 500 in 1969 and R130 307 000 in 1970. In 1970, therefore, about R6½ million less was produced, mainly because of the drought, but butter was exported as well. In 1969, 2 870 metric tons was exported, which decreased to I 140 metric tons in 1970. There are approximately 80 000 dairy farmers, of whom 49 091 produce butter fat. The 49 091 farmers who produce cream, produce a byproduct i.e. skimmed milk or separated milk. This skimmed milk is an indispensable, vitally important supplementary food for the non-Whites on the farms. It is mainly thanks to this skimmed milk that kwashiorkor does not occur on the farms.

Yesterday I listened to the speech made by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District in which he indicated what a tremendous shortage of milk there was in the country. He mentioned the figure of 100 million for this year and, according to his figures, the shortage of milk will be 200 million gallons in the next four years. This indicates an ever-increasing shortage of dairy products. I think the hon. member painted a very gloomy picture of the future of the dairy industry, and that he was guilty of a certain amount of exaggeration. As a result of the high butter consumption and the low butter production in South Africa, we have had to import a great deal of butler. Seen in the light of the present milk shortage, the attitude of the dairy producers towards yellow margarine and dairy products has changed completely. Until two years ago, there was a surplus in the production of butter, while there was a very limited export market for butter. If we had introduced yellow margarine on the market at that time in competition with butter, it would have been very unfair. The picture has changed now. It is no longer a threat to butter at all. Today it is more of a supplementary product which may provide for the butter shortage. In terms of this legislation, the Minister is being empowered to suspend the registration of a margarine factory if the owner does not fulfill the prescribed requirements in respect of the ingredients of white or yellow margarine, or if more margarine is manufactured than has been authorized in terms of the permit. In this way full control is being placed in the hands of the Minister.

Furthermore, we know that even during the war years, when there was a shortage of butter, yellow margarine was manufactured. It was this National Government which prohibited that yellow margarine on the market in 1950 and which allowed only white margarine to be manufactured on a permit system. Strict rules are being laid down in this legislation the labelling of margarine so that there can be no confusion with butter. We all realize it would be wrong if the menus in certain hotels or elsewhere indicated that bread and butter may be ordered and margarine is brought instead of butter. It would be misleading. In no respect may we allow margarine to be disguised so that it may be sold under the name of butter. This would be immoral. For that reason I am satisfied with this legislation before this House, and I am satisfied that it contains the necessary protection so that there will be no confusion or deception. I have full confidence in supporting this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House have made it clear that we support this Bill, because in the long term we believe that there is a place for butter, margarine and yellow margarine on the market.

Having said that, I want to add that we can in no way condone I would almost say the unseemly haste which has characterized the introduction of this Bill in this House. We have the extraordinary situation that the one day the hon. the Minister of Agriculture knows nothing about the possibility of a Bill of this nature and the next day the hon. the Minister of Health announces it. It is this kind of ad hoc planning that has characterized the administration by this Government of the milk industry over several years that has brought about the very situation where we are confronted with a butter crisis in this country. It is for this reason that we take the strongest exception that a Bill which will have far reaching effects on the future of the dairy industry, could be introduced into this House without there having been proper consultation with the people concerned, like the Dairy Industry Control Board and the South African Agricultural Union. We believe that had there been proper consultation, this whole question of the manufacture and sale of yellow margarine in South Africa could have been ushered in without disrupting any of the other factors of production. This is a matter which we certainly draw very pertinently to the attention of the hon. the Minister and the hon. the Deputy Minister of Agriculture.

Another factor with which I should like to deal very briefly—I will not keep the House long—is that we believe that there has to be the greatest care exercised in how margarine, especially yellow margarine, is presented to the public. In this regard I think particularly of advertising. Here I want to say that we on this side of the House are most disappointed indeed that the hon. the Minister of Health took the privileged position—I do not know on whose authority of announcing this Margarine Bill. This very fact has already put the dairy farmers on the wrong foot. We can see no association whatsoever between the health of the people and the amount of butter they consume. I must say that when one reads the speech of the hon. the Minister of Health, one can only be perturbed by several of his remarks, but particularly by his remark—

Sir, people reading that statement must automatically believe that there is an element of danger in consuming butter, and we believe that it is this factor which the hon. the Minister of Agriculture must be very careful about in deciding what kind of advertisements to allow in any propaganda which the margarine manufacturers may wish to make. Sir, in an earlier debate this afternoon the hon. member for Rosettenville said that in the selling of drugs we must be very careful that the advertising is well controlled and that no wild claims are made about the effects of different types of medicines. I believe that the same must apply to margarine; there must be no wild claims about the benefits of margarine as far as the health of the nation is concerned.

Sir, there is just one final point that I want to make. When yellow margarine was introduced in Great Britain, there was a tremendous advertising war between the butter manufacturers and the margarine manufacturers. That advertising campaign cost the British taxpayer, or the British consumer, no less than R4 million. I hope that the hon. the Deputy Minister will watch the situation and see that we are not confronted with a completely unnecessary advertising campaign launched by the respective promotors of butter and margarine.

Sir, I want to conclude by saying this in support of my contention: When yellow margarine was introduced in the United States of America, very strict laws were passed there to control this very feature that I am now discussing. I quote—

And this must be vegetable oil, not whale oil or other substances which could be used—

Sir, I do not wish to say that we must implement all these steps, but I do say to the hon. the Deputy Minister that he has a real mission to look after the interests of the dairy farmer and that he must carry out this mission by seeing that no wild claims are made and that no unnecessary advertising is embarked upon by the margarine producers. I believe that if this is done and properly carried out, the dairy farmers of South Africa will once again show that they ate able to face this challenge.

The hon. member for Walmer as well as the hon. member for Newton Park condemned the Minister at the beginning of their speeches because the institutions concerned, inter alia, the Dairy Board and the agricultural unions, had not been consulted about the yellowing of margarine. Seeing that the then United Party Government regarded it as being in the interests of South Africa in 1945 to allow the yellowing of butter because of its shortage, I want to know from the hon. gentlemen what right they have to allege that this Government was not entitled to take a decision on a matter of principle as a result of the present shortage of butter and to allow the colouring of margarine in order to supplement those shortages. It was done for the very same reason and, furthermore, I doubt whether the United Party Government consulted the agricultural unions at the time before taking that decision.

May I put a question?

My time is very limited. What I do know, is that after the Government had taken this decision on a matter of principle, the Minister did, in fact, hold consultations about the implementation of this Bill before us.

But I think another aspect which we should also take into account, is the question of the price of margarine. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District also referred to it. We can, in fact, produce margarine very cheaply in South Africa, depending on the nutritional value and quality of that margarine which is controlled by this Act. It is possible to make margarine available at a very low price to the less privileged public, but the quality of the protein content would have to be sacrificed, so that it would not have the necessary nutritional value and protein quality for the consuming public. If one were to increase the quality of margarine so that it would compare, more or less, with the nutritional value of butter, the price of margarine could be considerably higher than half that of butter.

But I have no fear that the colour of margarine could in any way be detrimental to our dairy industry in general, because it is important that we should also regard to the development of the dairy industry in recent years against the background of this Bill. In the main the production of butter fat or cream has been an extensive type of farming. As a result of the development of agriculture in South Africa, dairy farming has become more intensive, and the more intensive it has become, which has necessarily meant additional capital, the more the farmers have obviously switched over to the production of industrial milk and mainly fresh milk. A very large percentage of the source of butter fat comes from fresh milk which has been diverted to this industry from surpluses. But in the meanwhile the production has not kept pace either, and the demand for fresh milk, cheese and even powdered milk has increased continually, and that source has also been exhausted now. Consequently we have this tremendous shortage of butter. It is as a result of this more intensified trend which has developed among the dairy farmers. As the hon. member said, instead of producing more cream, other farmers have decided that the calf should have all that milk because they do not want to send an imperfect specimen to market. The farmer has found that he receives more money for meat and now he is not going to milk only two teats merely in order to have some butter, leaving, on the other hand, a calf that has not realized its full potential. This is a development we have experienced in the dairy industry in recent years, with the result that we have this present shortage in our dairy industry.

But we have another problem, which is inherent to the dairy industry, and one which is caused by fluctuations in production. There is probably no other agricultural industry in the Republic of South Africa, of which I know, where such a tremendous production fluctuation exists. Overnight one can have a surplus, and overnight this surplus can develop into a shortage. Then one has to make provision overnight for the importation of butter. We simply could not continue like that But what is very important in regard to this Act, is that the principle contained in clause 14 of the Bill still gives the Dairy Board and the institutions concerned, namely the producers and the industry, that controlling authority in the production of margarine, so much so that I want to state that margarine cannot be regarded as a substitute or a substitute paste for butter; in terms of this Bill it is merely a supplementary substance for butter in order to supplement those shortages.

I have full reason to believe that in general the yellowing of margarine cannot in any way have a detrimental effect on our dairy industry- Proper protection is given in the packing as well as in the composition of the ingredients of margarine. We hope the regulations will be promulgated in such a way that the margarine will be of a high quality, and not of a poor quality merely for the sake of the concomitant low price. I believe that in this way butter would be able to maintain its place in the dairy industry as before.

Mr. Speaker, too many points have been raised for me to reply to them all, but I am going to reply to a few of them. In the first place I want to say that I am also a dairy farmer and if I took only my own standpoint into regard, I would have preferred us not to have this legislation so that Parliament could have been prorogued yesterday already. However, one must be reasonable and understand that the consumers roust also be taken into account. The hon. member asked why we did not use the R3½ million profit made by the Dairy Board in order to subsidize the price of butter. I want to ask hon. members whether that would be a sound thing. I am adopting the standpoint that a man who is really hungry—at least this is what I would do—would eat bread without butter. The Government is already contributing R5,7 million from the Treasury in the form of a subsidy. If the Government had to subsidize at the rate of one cent per pound, it would cost R⅓ million. In the meanwhile the consumption is continually increasing. At present we are importing butter at this price, but what would happen if butter had to be imported at a tremendous loss in three months’ time and we could no longer make a profit from it? On 1st June this year, an article appeared in The Economist, a magazine from England, under the heading “Melted Surplus” in which the following was said—

If we were to find in three months’ time that this so-called profit at which our butter may be imported, no longer existed, and we had already told the housewives that we were going to subsidize the butter with that profit, we would be obliged to tell them that it could no longer be done, or are hon. members requesting that the subsidy of R5,7 million should be increased even further? If the Minister of Finance introduces a tax increase in this Budget next year, those hon. members would be the first to kick up a fuss because we should have to pay more taxation, while, on the other hand, they want us to pay subsidies.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District said that the Government had crushed the butter industry in 1967 as a result of its price policy. In addition, he said there was a tremendous surplus in 1969, while the hon. member knows that we were exporting at that time. He maintained that we had revised the price only this year, but if the hon. member read his speech, he would see that he contradicted himself. If it can be said that the price the farmer obtained in 1962 was unrealistic, why was there a surplus in 1969 and a shortage in 1971? The hon. members for Ladybrand, Bethal and Bloemfontein District mentioned to the hon members the reason for the shortages. There are various reasons why…

Did you increase the price in 1967?

No. It was increased in 1968. The hon. member should remember correctly. In any case, the hon. member first opposed margarine and then said at the end that we should ensure that this 16 cents per pound margarine should still be available. It seems to me that this is rather inconsistent. If the hon. member reconsidered what he said, he would see that it was in fact the case. I fully agree with what the other hon. members said in regard to protection. The hon. member asked why I had said on the Tuesday that we could not manufacture margarine. On the Tuesday afternoon the Dairy Board submitted a representation here to obtain a better price for the cream farmers. I replied on the Tuesday, but the Cabinet decided on the Wednesday only that we should pay the cream farmer in this country a higher price for their cream. This meant that the price of butter had to rise to 53 cents a pound. The next day the hon. the Minister of Health announced that yellow margarine may be manufactured under protection. I cannot see that it is such a terrible sin as hon. members implied.

Why did the hon. the Minister not know about it?

It was on the Tuesday, and the Cabinet decided on the Wednesday only. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District spoke here yesterday of the shop where he had looked for margarine but could find none. This creates the impression that we are leaving the dairy farmer to his fate. Furthermore, I admit that under the permit system we allocated quotas for the manufacture of 41,6 million pounds of margarine, while the factories produced 35 million pounds. As the hon. members themselves realize, this means that there is no market for additional white margarine. This is proved by the fact that the hon. member searched for margarine yesterday and found that the shop’s supplies had been sold out.

In any case, I just want to read out to hon. members the present regulations which these factories must comply with. This is what we are going to do in the case of yellow margarine. There are many conditions attached to the manufacture of white margarine. For example, at least 80 per cent of the composition, according to weight, must contain fat, and not more than 10 per cent, according to weight, must contain milk, and furthermore: “No person shall use any wrapper for packaging margarine unless the colour of the wrapper and the printing thereon have been approved by the department”. There is a very long list of conditions with which the manufacturing and packaging of white margarine must comply. For example, there may not be more than two colours on the packet cither. The size of the letters on the packet is also prescribed. Therefore we are acting for the very purpose of protecting the dairy farmer in every respect, and also of making a cheaper margarine available to the public. As a dairy farmer, I maintain, and I do not mind what doctors say, that there is nothing healthier or nicer than butter.

Mr. Chairman, I regard this clause of the Bill as an important one. because it determines by means of a permit the quantity of white margarine as well as the quantity of yellow margarine. I want to agree with the hon. the Deputy Minister that butter is a very important and fine product. We must not forget that butter is a protecting foodstuff and that butter is very important to undernourished people in particular. I do not want to argue away the fact that margarine may possibly be beneficial for heart- sufferers, but we must keep in mind that butter remains a basic foodstuff which has to be protected, it is for this reason that I regard this clause as an important one. In this clause it is provided that a permit may be issued and that it will determine the quantity of margarine which may be produced, In addition it will determine the kind of oil or fat which may be used, as well as the mixture of the different types or kinds of oils or fats which may be used. However, in a certain sense I want to agree with the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District. It is not laid down anywhere what the price of yellow margarine is going to be. I wonder whether the hon. the Deputy Minister should not at some later stage consider making a price determination in the case of margarine as well. In limiting the quantity of margarine here, we are creating a completely artificial position as far as this product is concerned. We are going to give manufacturers a virtual monopoly, because we are going to see to it that they will always have a good market for their product. This may create a completely wrong situation. It may happen that the price of margarine will rise, so that there will be a small margin only between the price of margarine and that of butter as long as it is selling well. In that case, by controlling the quantity, we shall be protecting the price of margarine artificially. For this reason I am of the opinion that if things should go wrong in the future as far as this matter is concerned, the hon. the Deputy Minister should give serious consideration to applying price control in respect of margarine as well. I regard this Bill as a very important one, particularly in so far as it will afford protection to the dairy industry. On the other hand, however, it is just as important for the public to be protected. This clause will sec to that. It will also maintain the quality of margarine. However, I think provision should also be made for the protection of the public against exploitation by means of the introduction of price control.

Mr. Chairman, I find myself in complete agreement with the hon. member for Humansdorp. I am glad that the plea I made to the hon. the Deputy Minister has at least been understood by the hon. member for Humansdorp. I received no reply to my plea from the hon. the Deputy Minister, in respect of the very point which his colleague, the hon. member for Humansdorp. raised. I did not go quite so far as to ask for price control, but what I would like this afternoon is an undertaking from the Deputy Minister that if this cheap quality of margarine does disappear, he will use the powers he is now taking in terms of this Bill to compel the manufacturers to produce the cheap quality margarine which they are producing today. I hope that, if necessary, he will use his influence with the other members of the Cabinet to see that the price of that cheap margarine is controlled. I agree that we need a cheap fat, particularly for the non-White people in this country, but the danger exists now that that cheap fat is going to disappear. This can only be to the detriment of our people. I have made this plea twice, and the hon. member for Humansdorp has made it too, and I hope that we shall be given a positive undertaking from the hon. the Deputy Minister in this regard.

Mr. Chairman, perhaps I did not emphasize this sufficiently, but I did say that the granting of these quotas would always take place in consultation with the Dairy Board. Hon. members need not be concerned in this regard. However, when it comes to the fixing of a price, we shall go into the matter. We cannot lay down a minimum price. Our problem is that we cannot have unfair competition between butter and margarine. For this reason we cannot make margarine too cheap, because in that case butter will not be able to comlay down a minimum price. I cannot see, pete with margarine. Therefore we cannot from a nutritional point of view, how we can tell a manufacturer who says he is manufacturing margarine at 10 cents per pound, that he may not do so.

Do not play politics—this is serious.

I am not playing politics; I want to go home. I may just tell hon. members that we shall have a sympathetic approach to the question of the price as well as the matters raised by the hon. member for Humansdorp.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 4:

I move the amendment standing in my name, as follows—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Clause 6:

Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister a question in regard to paragraph (b) of clause 6. In terms of this provision, regulations will be made concerning “the particulars with which and the manner in which dairy produce or containers or packages containing dairy produce shall be marked or labelled”. I take it that this provision applies also to the packaging of margarine? Perhaps the hon. the Deputy Minister will indicate that that is so?

It is.

I should like to ask the Deputy Minister whether he will give consideration to framing these regulations in such a way that margarine producers will not experience the same difficulty that other producers have had. There have been occasions where regulations have been framed in such a way that the producers of certain commodities have found their expenditure on wrappings has been wasted somewhat by the intervention of the Publications Control Board. I take it that the hon. the Deputy Minister, in defining the manner in which this commodity can be wrapped, will ensure that the prerogative will remain with his own department, and that there will be no other intervention in the approval or otherwise of the wrappings used for margarine or butter, or the decoration used on the wrappings of these particular commodities.

Mr. Chairman, the point here is that there are only five factories which manufacture margarine or which may be interested in doing so.

Will you allow these wrappings to be made attractive?

Yes, the wrappings can be attractive. For instance I do not think we shall allow the picture of a girl or a cow to appear on these wrappings. The decoration will have to be connected with the content of the package. A cow will therefore not be allowed, because the commodity is not butter. We shall, however, look into this matter.

Mr. Chairman, in terms of the proposed section 29 (1) (p), the Minister may lay down by regulations “standards for the composition, purity and quality of dairy produce, and the ingredients for any composition of such produce”, Now, the definition of dairy produce includes margarine. The hon. the Minister in introducing this measure this afternoon, made an interesting statement. When he was dealing with this particular clause, he said that he was now taking the power to allow an admixture of margarine and butter. I wonder whether he can advise us further on this. What is his intention? Is it his intention to allow such an admixture? Or is he going to keep these two products pure, namely butter and margarine, which are both included in the definition of dairy product.

The regulations must still be drafted by my department and the Dairy Industry Control Board. At the moment, in order to have the smooth effect on margarine 10 per cent of milk is used. The Dairy Board might say in the discussions that we are going to have that there ought to be more milk or more butter. I cannot at this stage say what the regulations will be.

The Dairy Board?

The Dairy Industry Control Board together with my department will draft the regulations. The only thing I can say is that we will look after the interests of the dairy industry. There are substances such as fat and salt, The hon. member mentioned whale oil. I can tell the hon. member that if I am present at this meeting, whale oil is out. I can, however, not say what the actual regulations will be. I can also not say whether butter will be included or not. I hope we will be led by the opinion of the Dairy Industry Control Board.

The hon. the Deputy Minister has run away from the question that I put to him. What is his attitude? He has not told what his attitude is. He said that he was going to consult with the Dairy Board and that the regulations were to be drawn up in consultation with the Dairy Board. If I hear the hon. Minister correctly, he specifically said during his Second Reading speech that he was taking this power to allow an admixture of butter and margarine.

What is wrong with that?

I did not say whether it was right or wrong. I just want to get this point clear as to what exactly the attitude of the Minister is. Is he planning to allow such an admixture? I do not believe that it is necessary or essential. The hon. the Minister says that it is to try and get the texture. It is not necessary, I already pointed out to the hon. the Minister that there is a product on the market now which has that texture.

At 40c per pound.

At 40c per pound.

The hon. member wants to know what my opinion is. My opinion as a dairy farmer is that if this new price is an incentive to the farmers to produce more, and we have good rains and consequently a surplus of butter, and the margarine people, after consultation with the Dairy Board, ask that we should help them with this surplus by adding 30 per cent butter in margarine and furthermore if it is possible with the new campaign to sell the lot, the margarine and the surplus butter, then I am still a businessman. I do not mind what we call the damn thing. As long as one can eat it.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.

Business suspended at 4 p.m. and resumed at 10.13 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, before moving the adjournment of the House, I wish to inform hon. members that a proclamation will be issued summoning Parliament to meet again on 28th January, 1972.

I move—

Motion put and agreed to.