Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak this afternoon at a time when we are perhaps a little more aware of the Press than we were when the debate was adjourned last week. I think the time has come to say just a few words, initially in my speech, on the responsibility or the lack of it to be found in some of the individuals in the Press.

Now, Sir, the week began with a report of a certain lunch which Mr. Blaar Coetzee, our ambassador in Rome, had with a certain press reporter. Although I have always differed with Mr. Coetzee politically and although it was very interesting to read some of the things he said—as it is to read many of the things said by retired Cabinet Ministers these days—it occurred to me that, reading between the lines, there is very little doubt that there was a breach, on this occasion, of confidence and of hospitality by the reporter concerned.

You are quite right.

Then, Sir, there followed a series of articles in the Sunday Times yesterday concerning my party and my leader. Not only was the tone of those articles a disgraceful personal attack on the person of the Leader of the Opposition, about which more will be said on another occasion, I have no doubt, but the key factor which I find impossible to stomach is again a breach of confidence by a person who considers himself the leading newspaper man in the country. And then, Sir, perhaps worst of all, there was an attempt to impeach the integrity of the Leader of the Opposition. If it comes to a comparison between what Mr. Joel Mervis says as to a given set of facts and what the Leader of the Opposition says as to a given set of facts, and there is a clash between the two versions, then I have no doubt whatever as to what version I and the rest of the country will accept.

Hear, hear!

There is one thing that neither Mr. Joel Mervis nor anybody else in this country can do, and that is to impeach the integrity of Sir de Villiers Graaff.

Hear, hear!

The Press upon which I wish to comment briefly, is not only the English language Press. We have developments in the Afrikaans language Press. Indeed, these days I cannot wait on a Sunday morning to read Rapport, and very frequently I find it difficult to put off reading Die Burger. If one looks at yesterday’s Rapport, one will see that it is not only the Opposition that is under fire. The hon. the Minister of Transport is apparently to be expecting higher things. The hon. the Minister of Defence is reconsidering his position … [Interjections.] There are, apparently, tensions within the Nationalist Party. There is likely, apparently, to be a reorientation of policy and events in that party. And, Sir, the skids are apparently under the hon. the Prime Minister.

Maybe they consulted Hillbrow about that? [Interjections.]

I doubt very much that they consulted Hillbrow; I should say, Sir, they listened to the speech of the hon. the Prime Minister in the no-confidence debate a short while ago. I propose to say a little more about that. We had a major speech from the hon. the Prime Minister just over a week ago. Not only did I listen to that speech with great interest, but I have had the advantage of being able to study it in Hansard. It is interesting, very interesting these days, and in the light of recent events, to compare the speech of the hon. the Prime Minister with the speech delivered by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition in this House last Friday, about which I shall also have something more to say a little later. These speeches are, I believe, worth comparison because they are a gauge to thinking people of the merits of those of us who sit behind these two respective leaders. In order properly to assess the speech of the hon. the Prime Minister, one must look, I believe, at the circumstances in which that speech was made. He is, after all, the head of a Government whose country, apart from a few traditional friends in the West, is virtually alone in the world. Those Western friends of ours are friends not because of this Government, but despite it. They are friends of ours because of historical ties and associations, nurtured largely in the past by the United Party, most of which this Nationalist Party has condemned. Not only have we few friends, but in the words of Gen. Hiemstra, we alone are incapable of defending ourselves against a worth-while power. And, Sir, there is likely to be a change of Government in the only country from whom we can buy arms at the present time. Furthermore, with Britain now in the Common Market we face in respect of a material part of our exports, some of the most difficult times that we have ever experienced.

Internally, we have a galloping inflation, the worst of which, following successive devaluations, we are still to experience. We have ever-increasing contrasts in the wealth of some of the Whites and the poverty of some of the non-Whites. At the time that that debate took place, the debate in which the hon. the Prime Minister spoke, we were experiencing in our major seaport town and in one of the major industrial powerhouses of this country, industrial unrest on a scale which South Africa has not seen before, industrial unrest involving a large-scale flouting of the law, which no one could or wished to prevent or enforce. In addition, at the time the hon. the Prime Minister spoke a large part of the country was faced with one of the worst droughts in living memory. Total crop failure was the rule. Finally, he spoke at a time when the racial policies of the Government had been in operation sufficiently long for thinking observers in the Press and elsewhere, including observers that support the policy of the hon. the Prime Minister, to be in a position to comment authoritatively that the policy had failed, or at least to put in doubt the likely success of the policy to an extent which necessitated a restatement by the hon. the Prime Minister, both of his policy and of the philosophy behind it.

It failed and you took part of it over.

Well, that is another matter that I shall deal with also if I have time. I could devote a whole speech to that aspect of the speech of the hon. the Prime Minister. As I say, Sir, there was sufficient adverse comment from informed opinion to warrant a restatement of direction and philosophy. Sir, with all this vast field of problems surrounding us, immersed as we are in immense difficulties and dangers, having just emerged from a period of scandals in administration such as we have never had before in the history of government in this country, when even the Nationalist Press is asking for a restatement of direction and philosophy from the Government and from the Prime Minister, what did we hear from the hon. gentleman in a speech of an hour and 20 minutes? He dismissed foreign affairs with the phrase that relations with those countries with which we have diplomatic ties are as good as can be expected. He dismissed the economic field, both here and abroad, with the suggestion that there would be time to talk about this in the Budget debate. Inflation, perhaps the greatest immediate danger in our lives at the present moment, was not even touched upon. The explosive situation in Durban was dismissed with platitudes such as these—

Sir, what was the lesson? “The individuals concerned are human beings with souls.” That, Sir, is the lesson we have learned from the situation in Durban, perhaps the most serious measure of industrial strife that this country has ever faced: “They have souls; they are human beings.” That was the sole contribution by the hon. the Prime Minister to this serious situation of labour unrest in Natal. Sir, that certainly is a lesson for some people. But surely the lesson to be learned is that when the urban Bantu workers organize en masse to fight for elementary advantages, they can flout the law with impunity, and that is what the hon. the Prime Minister should have talked to us about when he spoke in this House last week. The lesson, Sir, is that they did not use the strike weapon to enforce unreasonable demands. They made unreasonable claims, yes, but they settled for increases in their wages which, generally speaking, were not unreasonable. Sir, what did this House and the country want to hear from the Prime Minister? After all, he is not a cabaret star; he is the Prime Minister. We have these debates not to be entertained, but to be informed and to be led. What we wanted to hear on that occasion was the answer to this question: If in future the strike weapon is used, as it was on that occasion, to claim the right to home ownership in the townships, what then? What will the hon. the Prime Minister do on an occasion such as that?

You are prompting them to make such a demand.

Sir, one could quote a dozen examples of how this type of action could proliferate in the future unless thought and guidance and control is exercised in respect of it at the present time. Sir, the cardinal point, I believe, is that the recent events in Durban have ushered in an entirely new era. Government policies and philosophy, whether successful or not, are entirely irrelevant to that situation. They have been overtaken by events which conclusively demonstrate the total irrelevance of a policy which seeks to neutralize the political pressure of an urban proletariat by channelling it into the rural homelands. Sir, as I said, political pressure was successfully exercised by the Bantu urban proletariat in a White urban area. That is what took place on that occasion, and it is the first time that it has been successfully exercised. It was done for economic gain and, Sir, precisely the same thing can be done for economic gain in other fields in the White urban areas, in fields such as home ownership, secondary education and urban permanence. These problems stare us in the face; they are right here in front of us. They are problems which are cardinal to the position of Government policy and the Prime Minister in particular. And what do we get in this serious situation? We get a hilarious cabaret show from the hon. the Prime Minister, one of the best in town for those who are blind to the events of 1973. The hon. gentleman has once again done what he has done on previous occasions and that is to laugh off the problems of the day and, indeed, to disguise his own inadequacy.

You are talking nonsense. You got a hiding and you are trying to run away from it.

The hon. gentleman has laughed off problems before, and I have incurred the wrath of the hon. the Prime Minister and of the House for drawing attention to it. It is one of the weaknesses in the hon. gentleman’s make-up that when faced with difficulties, instead of dealing with those difficulties, he laughs them off. Sir, to me that spells one word only, and that is irresponsibility, in the true sense of that word. But, Sir, there is something that goes with it which I regret very much, and that is an apparent lack of sincerity, and I say deliberately that it is apparent because I hope that events will show that it is not real.

Sir, let us look at what the hon. the Prime Minister said about the Coloured people. We are dealing with a Prime Minister who has been in office for some time and whose Government has been in power for 25 years, with all the administrative apparatus available to learn the reasonable wants and wishes of the Coloured people. What did the hon. gentleman himself say in regard to the Coloured people? He said—

And so, Sir, he went on and on for almost a page telling us in the fullest detail how close he was to the Coloured people and the extensive nature of his consultations with them …

After 25 years.

… not only one group, Sir, but all the groups represented in the Coloured Council. In other words, we were led to believe that there was nobody in this country who was closer to the Coloured community than the hon. the Prime Minister. The question of liaison with the White Government was discussed, according to the hon. gentleman, in the greatest detail, and what do we find, Sir? We now have appointed one of the most high-powered commissions that the country has ever seen to go into the very problems which, if the hon. gentleman is sincere, he has discussed at great length with the Coloured people and to which he must know all the answers. Sir, as I have said earlier, where is the sincerity? They cannot stand together. Why, if what the hon. gentleman told us in this House on Friday is correct, does he not deal with the question of the Coloured people in this House? We all know why. Because it is the biggest hot potato sitting in his lap at the moment; because he does not wish to commit himself, because if he does, he splits his own party from top to bottom. If there are leadership qualities in a man, then he will overcome problems of that kind as long as he holds the position with the authority and the prestige of the Prime Minister’s office.

But, Sir, it does not end there. There are other aspects of this question of the Coloured people. There exists at the present time a very old established body, the S.A. Bureau of Racial Affairs, set up, I believe, by the late Dr. Verwoerd specifically to study racial problems in South Africa within the framework of separate development. It is an old established body, consisting of important politicians, intellectuals and academics, a body ideally suited, one would think, to go into this very problem of the Coloured people. But not only is it completely bypassed but not a single member of that body is appointed to this hon. gentleman’s Coloured Commission. Why?

Has it crossed your mind that there is nobody from the Institute of Racial Affairs either?

The answer is quite clear. What the hon. the Prime Minister knows, and what everybody else knows in this House, is that that commission is going to bring in a finding and a set of recommendations which are directly opposed to Government policy in respect of the Coloured people. That is why SABRA has been left out entirely.

The Prime Minister toyed in humorous vein and at great length with the policy of the United Party and various newspaper comments on the federal policy of the United Party. Indeed, the greater part of his speech was not original thought but playing about with newspaper comments on the position of the United Party and its policy. But the interesting thing is that within this wealth of banter, at no time—and this is the important part, and I read the hon. the Minister’s speech very carefully indeed—did the hon. the Prime Minister either criticize the proposed institutions, the legislative assemblies, or the powers that we propose for them. That is the lowest tier of our federal arrangement. At no time did he deal with that critically or speak on it. The second interesting point is that at no time did he criticize the concept of a federal assembly, which is again a cardinal aspect of the United Party’s federal policy, nor did he criticize or discuss the powers proposed to be given to that assembly. Finally, at no time did the hon. the Prime Minister discuss the regulating function of this Parliament, another key aspect of our federal proposals. In short, Sir, in a speech of an hour and twenty minutes, at no time did we get from the hon. the Prime Minister any attempt seriously to discuss or criticize the basic essentials of the federal policy of the United Party. [Interjections.] This indicates, firstly, that he was either unable or unwilling to do so, it indicates a triumph for the policy and a triumph for this party and a triumph for the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. [Interjections.]

Order!

Indeed, when one listens and one analyses a performance by the hon. the Prime Minister on an occasion such as that, one comes pretty close to the conclusion that there is one way to describe it and that is that he is the Harold Wilson of South African politics—superficial, highly entertaining, a great showman …

I like Mike.

… unable to grapple with the details of the problem and, finally, totally lacking in any sincerity in dealing with the real problems of the day.

Now, I want to come to another point the hon. gentleman took a long time on and that was the question of bilingualism, particularly as it relates to the United Party. You know, Mr. Speaker, when one enters a field of that kind one should be pretty sure and careful of the situation in one’s own party. I want to tell the hon. the Prime Minister of a meeting I attended in my own constituency. I do not often go to Nationalist Party meetings but it is quite interesting to do so from time to time.

You can learn a lot.

Quite right, one can learn a lot. The one I attended was just after the Bell affair when the Nationalist Party held a large meeting in Mtubatuba, part of my constituency. There was a packed hall as you can imagine, Sir. There were three speakers there on that occasion, all Ministers. There were the hon. the Minister of Water Affairs, Mr. S. P. Botha, Mr. Herman Martins, then Deputy Minister of Transport, and Senator Dirkie Uys, then Minister of Agriculture. The audience was largely English speaking, as is to be expected in that community. Mr. S. P. Botha spoke for half an hour during the initial half of the evening. He spoke entirely in Afrikaans; not a word in English was said. Mr. Herman Martins spoke next for something over half an hour. He spoke entirely in Afrikaans; not a word of English was used. Finally Senator Uys spoke for over an hour; entirely in Afrikaans, not a single word in English. If one takes the standards of the hon. the Minister of Defence as uttered by him in this House last year …

And accepted by the Cape United Party. [Interjections.]

Order!

I want to say immediately that I do not accept his standard. These three Ministers of the Nationalist Cabinet about whom we have heard so much from the hon. the Prime Minister last week, were either unable to address that audience in a language other than Afikaans …

That is more likely.

… or they were not prepared to do so. [Interjections.]

May I put the hon. member a question?

I am not prepared to answer questions. [Interjections.]

Order!

In the words of the hon. the Minister of Defence they were in all three these cases being deliberately disparaging of the rights of the English speaking there … [Interjections.] You cannot have this both ways. If there is an ounce of sincerity on this issue with the hon. the Prime Minister, and if he was using this out of genuine conviction and not merely to gain a debating point—it is very easy to do so, but it is dangerous—then he will repudiate the situation which arose on that occasion. I may say that the people there, English-speaking people, and I myself view that situation quite differently.

Why do you not switch into Afrikaans?

My people had no objections at that meeting, for we are familiar with the circumstances of this country—they resulted from the history of our country—that there are people in South Africa who are English speaking and that they have difficulty in speaking another language. There are also people who are Afrikaans speaking and they, in turn, have difficulties in speaking English. [Interjections.]

Order!

There were United Party people in that audience and they are aware of these things and there was no objection whatsoever to the fact that three Ministers who spoke for longer than two hours, did not use a single word of English at a meeting where the majority of those present were English speaking.

†That is the attitude which should be adopted on occasions like this, an attitude of tolerance in respect of the other man, an attitude which is inherent in the attitude of the United Party on these language questions, an attitude which suggests very strongly to me, as I said in the beginning, that what we have learned from the hon. the Prime Minister in this regard and in others, is a total lack of sincerity. Finally, we hear enough about leadership these days. When you analyse what the hon. the Prime Minister said—froth, humour, banter without any attempt to meet the challenges of the day or to project a philosophy or any solution to those challenges, and you compare it with the philosophy in depth by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition on Friday last, you find not only an analysis of the problem by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition but also a blue-print which is an attempt to meet them. That is what we want. What the people require at the present time is not froth and banter and a cabaret act, but a serious attempt to put forward solutions to the problems which face us. That is true leadership, and that is what we got on Friday from the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Zululand has again this afternoon made one of his potpourri speeches. He spoke a great deal, but in fact said nothing. He said a little about everything and accomplished nothing. At this late stage he attempted to put right what had gone wrong in the no-confidence debate. He tried to detract to some extent from the Prime Minister’s speech. In the meantime they had the biggest ever hammering from the Prime Minister, worse than they had ever received in a no-confidence debate before. [Interjection.] They were destroyed from the one side to the other. What did the hon. the Prime Minister say then … [Interjection.] Subsequently he read up what the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition had said. Now he has come to certain conclusions, but he has missed the whole point. The hon. the Prime Minister did not analyse their policy. Why should he have done so, because those hon. members themselves admitted—and this was proved by the hon. the Prime Minister—that they themselves did not understand their policy. Then the hon. the Prime Minister said to them: “Go back now and find out what your policy is; define certain important points, and when you understand them and know what they involve, come back and then we can debate the matter; in fact, we shall then fight an election on the matter.”

Give us a diagram!

Oh, really, the hon. member may as well forget about drawing pictures. He is fond of looking at pictures. I also read the speech by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and I shall also have something to say about that later on. The hon. member then proceeded to dwell for a long time on the strikes. If it were not for the strikes, I do not know what the hon. Opposition would have discussed. It was manna from heaven which helped them to have something to say and to waste time. Instead of acting in a more responsible manner by not dragging the matter into politics, they did so after all. It is a serious matter, something which ought to teach them a lesson too. But they go on dragging it into politics. It is important, because it is concerned with the whole of White South Africa, and they are also part of White South Africa. We must give serious consideration to this matter and refrain from dragging it into politics.

Then the hon. member also made this really reckless statement when he said, “There is galloping inflation in South Africa.”

Yes.

Who says “Yes”?

I do.

I expected that from the hon. member.

He cannot gallop any more; what is galloping now …

Not at all, he is galloping all the time. The hon. members must please be very careful when they talk of “galloping inflation”. “Galloping inflation” is a terrible phenomenon in the economy, and that is not what is happening in South Africa today. If that story is broadcast to countries abroad, it can only prejudice us. It is sheer ignorance.

Then it is rolling inflation.

There the hon. member is displaying his ignorance again! It is as a result of ignorance that that hon. member makes such statements.

I would like to say a few words about this “inflation” of which so much is being said. Concerning the no-confidence debate and this financial debate so far, I want to say something to the hon. member for Parktown. I would like to say to his credit that he was most responsible in the speeches he made here. He did not make wild statements, although he complained a great deal about our labour policy. He said that our labour policy was limited, but I want to put the other side of the story to him. I want to tell him that Bantu labour is not limited here in South Africa if those who want to use it would only go where the labour is. They are free to do so, but these people go on complaining about our labour being limited, about there being no freedom of movement. They cannot have their bread buttered on both sides. They cannot talk about a free flow of labour so that the businessman or industrialist can have it when he wants it and how he wants it, but at the same time talk about control as well. When we accused them of wanting to free everything and wanting to allow labour to flow through the country indiscriminately, they say that is not true and that is not their policy. They cannot advocate both. They cannot want to have both. Under our policy Bantu labour is available to anyone who wants it, but he must go to where the labour is. There is no limit on that labour. In the border areas as well as in the Bantu homelands it is available to him. So, that is not true; that Bantu labour is not freely available, is an incorrect statement.

I want to come back and just say that apart from this one matter, the hon. member was responsible. However, I cannot say the same for the other hon. members on that side of the House. They made many irresponsible statements here about inflation. In the no-confidence debate the hon. the Leader of the Opposition made inflation one of the main themes on which he attacked the Government. They did so without making a proper analysis of it or furnishing an identification of the kind of inflation prevailing in the country. I want to make three statements here today: In the first instance, I want to say that the National Party is not responsible for inflation, because inflation is not the invention of the National Party. It is an international problem, and we can do nothing about it. It is found in every industrial country in the world. I shall prove that statement. I want to make a second statement: Inflation is in fact an international problem, but the inflation prevailing at present is totally beyond the control of the authorities. It is a cost inflation which could not be curbed by the authorities. This inflation was imported. The third statement I wish to make is this: Although the Opposition attacked us, they presented no alternative. They could not offer us anything; they could not tell us how to solve it. The Opposition has no formula for combating inflation.

To return to my first statement, I wish to repeat that inflation is an insoluble international problem. I want to prove this, but before doing so, I would like us to go back to the days when a subsistence economy prevailed throughout the world, as is also the case today in the Third World. I refer to the days before the Industrial Revolution. At that stage there was an appalling scarcity throughout the world. In spite of all the available resources being utilized, the demand could still not be met. After the Industrial Revolution these times of scarcity started changing; the scarcity disappeared. The market mechanism arrived in the world and a welfare economy made its appearance. Simultaneously imbalances began to appear in economies. The first depression which brought about inflation and unemployment, hit the world in 1870, 100 years after the Industrial Revolution. Demand was one of its major causes. For 60 years the world was saddled with the problem of recurring depressions. The last great depression which hit the world, occurred in 1930. As I have said, demand was the greatest problem. Because demand was not constant, it could not keep production constant. There were periods of high and low demand in the world which gave rise to periods of peaks and lows. Then came the period after the outbreak of the Second World War. What happened then? Then the old depression, as we knew it and which also hit us hard in 1930, disappeared from the face of the earth. After that there were only periods of slight recession, and then we entered the period of continuous growth. Hon. members will ask me: Why have depressions disappeared? As I have said, before that time demand was the greatest problem, the demand was not constant. Economists at that time thought that demand was determined by price and supply. After 1940, as a result of new techniques and theories, they became aware of the fact that demand could be determined by income. Subsequently the technique of regulating demand by income was applied. Thus it was attempted to keep supply and demand constantly in line and to do away with depressions in this way. This was done by way of demand manipulation, which we still apply today. As I have said, after 1940 we had a period of continuous growth. However, what happened then? Out of this process to which I have referred, a new problem arose. The new problem was the rising price index, and this problem cropped up in all developed countries, countries where there is no apartheid and where there is no job reservation. It occurred in all countries and the economic laws operated in the same way. It is interesting to note that in 1870 the international problem was demand. It worked both ways, namely towards inflation and towards under-inflation or negative inflation. In 1973 the problem is still demand, but possibly an excessive demand. That is what happened. That, says the United Party, was caused by the N.P. They say that the N.P. caused inflation. I want to say now that inflation is theoretically not a prerequisite for growth. It is decidedly a by-product of growth which we are unable to eliminate.

I have now proved clearly that this problem is an international one. Now I want to go further and say that the inflation prevailing in the country at this stage cannot be ascribed to the Government. To understand this one must realize that there are various kinds of inflation. One has cost inflation and demand inflation, which I have just dealt with, and then there is also demand-pull inflation, which I shall not deal with now. In order to judge this position properly we must identify the kind of inflation which prevails today, namely the one afflicting us at present. Firstly, I want to say that cost inflation is caused by political reasons, matters outside the economic cycle, by climatic conditions and international monetary problems over which one has no control. It does find that demand inflation is a more internal matter, which we therefore try to control by applying certain measures.

If we want to take a look at the situation which prevails today, we must go back to 1971. As hon. members are aware, we were subject, at the end of 1971, to a high demand inflation. The Government applied measures and they were successful. By the end of that year our rate of inflation had declined substantially. In fact, it had declined so much that the Government began to think in terms of stimulating the demand again. Then our problem began. We know what America did. It took unilateral actions in connection with trade, etc. The rate of exchange was also against us. We could do nothing else, and there were only two methods the Government could follow in order to meet this situation. The one was to apply import control and the other was the well-known method, namely devaluation. And this the Government did. As hon. members know, our reserves dropped to a very low level, with the result that protective measures had to be taken. What happened then? It was a very successful devaluation.

That hon. member should not laugh, because in doing so he is laughing at his own member, the hon. member for Park-town, who admitted this. That is why I have said he is responsible and he knows what is involved. I want to extend my congratulations to the hon. the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Economic Affairs and the Government as a whole, because they read the signs of the times and the economic signs very well. They brought about one of the most successful devaluations in history, and that is why we are in such a strong position today. But to come back to the position at that time, what did this devaluation mean? Devaluation meant that we were forced against our will to make certain sacrifices because we could not help it. Our imported goods would be considerably more expensive. We had to import a large quantity of goods and therefore cost inflation as well. The present inflation is partly the result of that. Then we also have the normal demand inflation, which must and will be present. If one could limit it to 3%, for instance—that is regarded as normal today—we could be pleased if we could achieve that. Part of the 7% inflation we have now is demand inflation, and the rest is cost inflation. I am not going to tell you today exactly how much the one is and how much the other is. I do not think that there is anyone who can work it out accurately. But our common sense can tell us that cost inflation must form the greater part. Let us assume that our normal demand inflation is 4%, which is not bad, and that cost inflation is 3%.

How much?

I say, let us assume that demand inflation is 4%, which is not bad by any standard. The total inflation would then be 7%, which is high. But there is nothing we can do about it. The United Party speakers stood up one after the other and said that the National Party was responsible for the inflation. Now I want to say: We are not responsible for it.

Then I want to come to my third statement, namely that the United Party has offered absolutely no alternative. They attacked us and accused us of being the cause of inflation and of doing nothing about it. But, after all, it is a generally accepted fact that if one moves a motion of no confidence concerning a matter, one can solve that matter. I accuse them, Sir, of political dishonesty.

Order! No, the hon. member may not …

I withdraw it, Mr. Speaker. I accuse them of reckless irresponsibility; because they hold up to the people a matter which they cannot solve and for which they cannot offer any solution. We in the National Party have never said to the people that we will eliminate inflation and that there will be no rise in the cost of living. What we have in fact said is that we shall do our best to control it and keep it within limits. That, Sir, we have done. We do not need the United Party—because they offer us nothing—to come and tell us whether we have done it or not. In order to prove it, we compare what we have done with what has been done by comparable countries overseas. We compare it with comparable data from the major developed countries in the world.

Sir, I am not going to quote those figures. They have been quoted ad nauseam. The hon. the Minister of Planning quoted figures here the other day, and so did the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs and the hon. Deputy Minister. We in South Africa have had signal success—compared with the rest of the world—in controlling inflation and the rise in the cost of living in this country. It stands recorded, and we can defend ourselves against anyone as far as that is concerned, and the people must know this.

I have said that that United Party can offer us nothing. They have said nothing that is worthwhile. I would just like to point out to you certain silly things that have been said. I want to refer here to what the hon. member for Gardens said. They have displayed the greatest measure of ineptness in this matter. The hon. member for Gardens made a statement here in retrospect. He said (Hansard, col. 123)—

Just imagine, he is now asking why we devalued !

Sir, I now want to ask him one question. He must tell me, please, how the bank rate would have remedied our exchange rate situation. Surely that is a ridiculous suggestion. I see that hon. member is not here now. That is a pity. I want to say to him: He is still living in the dream world of the gold standard. We are no longer living in the days of the gold standard. The acknowledged method today for remedying this matter is manipulation of the exchange rate. That is the obvious instrument. The bank rate is merely a following rate in South Africa today. It is no longer a barometer rate. Let us hear what else the hon. member had to say. I refer to col. 124, where he said the fol lowing—

Yes, these are the old days—

I do not know what he meant by that, but he went on to say—

This is what that hon. member said. Now I want to ask him a question: Presumably he still remembers very clearly those days before 1948, when there was a certain cost-of-living allowance which was linked with salaries and which was later consolidated by this Government and added to the salaries. Presumably he thinks that that cost-of-living allowance which existed at that time, was just a little gift which the Government gave the people. But, surely, there was inflation in those days, Sir; it was nothing else. How can you therefore make such a statement?

Now I come to the statements made by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. He also spoke about the cost of living and said the following (col. 375)—

I would just like to ask him the following: How does one control the effects of devaluation? It is a consequential fact; surely one cannot control it? Then he made his second statement (col. 376)—

Here he referred to the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs—

That was his comparison, and then he went on to say—

I have just proved that demand manipulation is the method by means of which the world has escaped the dreaded ogre of depression, which caused unemployment and all the misery and wretchedness which that entailed. That is the same regulation of demand to which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition referred. He said, in the first instance, that if we employed that method—the modern methods employed by the Minister of Economic Affairs—we would be back in the days of the depression, and then he described the position in Germany in 1914. Next he proceeded to tell us that these real methods, which help us today, were outdated.

Actually, it is strange to go on with this matter, Sir, because how can one conduct a meaningful debate on these matters of inflation and finance with such speakers on the other side of the House? How can one do it? The hon. the Leader of the Opposition went on to say that we were complaining because they had not put forward an alternative, and then he said (col. 378)—

Then he referred to his speech in 1972, and in 1972 he made a prediction and told us how to control the devaluation of 1973. In that connection he mentioned six points, and those six points were contradictory. One point which he advocated was a limitation of demand; that is disinflationary. On three points he advocated increased demand; that is inflationary. Then he pleaded that our exporters be encouraged, and, finally, he complained about the labour policy.

Sir, I think that it has already been settled in this House that the labour policy has very little to do with the inflation situation. Sir, to me it is as clear as daylight that the United Party have just as little decisiveness and clarity in regard to their economic policy as they have in regard to their federal policy at this stage. That is very clear to me. The United Party is at this stage really without an ideology, nor does it have a message for the people, and if it were ever to come into power, it would never apply unpopular measures such as those which we applied in the past where it was necessary. The reason for that is that they lack that deep-seated, fundamental conviction and daring which the National Party has. Their policy is to try to make political capital out of every situation so as to gain a few votes, but they do not come forward with a long-term policy. Sir, the problem is what we can do in the future in connection with this inflationary situation. At this moment we can do nothing else but sweat out this cost inflation which we imported. We should simply sit and wait until that has happened; we can do nothing else.

What the Government is doing at the moment is dead right, and the hon. member for Parktown agreed with that. At present more than 20% of the capacity of the manufacturing industry is not being utilized. All we can do at this stage is to encourage and stimulate production and to encourage demand, and that the hon. the Minister of Finance is doing at this moment. The hon. member for Parktown agrees. Sir, there is nothing else that can be done concerning the cost part of inflation; we shall simply have to sweat it out and wait. Sooner or later its effects will abate, and then we shall return to the normal form of demand inflation, and that will in due course be regulated by means of monetary and fiscal measures, as we regulated it in the past. Sir, we can but hope stability will be brought about on the international monetary level. As long as there is stability, we shall have the opportunity to control inflation. But we are a small country; we have an open economy. We are very sensitive to international influences, and if instability arises on the international front, we shall once again be placed in a position where we shall have to act in the best interests of South Africa, as we did in the past. Once again I want to congratulate the Government on the steps which it took in the past.

The hon. the Minister of Finance has accomplished miracles, with the result that we have achieved such a position of strength that it was not necessary for us to devalue recently along with America. We only hope that a degree of stability will come about now and that costs will stabilize, but as things are going now, as the price of gold rises and the dollar flees, I do not know whether we are not heading for more international monetary problems and instability in the near future. I say again that we can but hope that we shall sweat out as soon as possible the effects of the cost inflation which we are experiencing now and that we shall once again experience normal conditions.

Sir, something for which one must give the hon. member for Pietersburg credit, is that he has tried this afternoon to bring this debate back to financial matters. He has of course in the process given the Minister of Finance openings and we hope and trust that the Minister will avail himself of those openings. The hon. member for Pietersburg dwelt at length on inflation. It is a matter which is impossible to discuss in the short time at one’s disposal, but the hon. member spoke about an extremely successful devaluation. Sir, to me as layman there is only one effect of devaluation which is very clear, and that is the rising cost of living for the ordinary citizen of South Africa which has already compelled the Government to accommodate both Railwaymen and public servants by means of substantial salary increases. But signs of greater confidence on the part of the business community and entrepreneurs similar to those we had after the devaluation of 1933, are still lacking, and a heavy responsibility will rest on the hon. the Minister when he introduces his Budget in a month or so, to give a lead to and stimulate business undertakings in South Africa. One can only hope that in order to do so, he will make use of the windfalls which are coming his way at the moment. If one thinks of the increased gold price and what that will mean for the Treasury in the form of taxes on the gold mines, the ordinary citizen and the entrepreneur in particular can look forward to welcome stimuli on the part of the hon. the Minister to promote the business of our country.

But it is not enough simply to talk in general terms about the question of demand inflation. The State, the Government has done its best to curb inflation by means of the curtailment of consumption and high taxes and credit ceilings, and so on, but this has not worked. It has possibly delayed the process to a certain extent, but it has not halted it. Therefore the Government was compelled to devalue, which in one respect constitutes an acknowledgment that we must accept inflation as permanent and we must adapt ourselves to the realities of what is occurring in South Africa. Now I would like the hon. the Minister to tell us what is going to be done to prevent this from continuing, so that we need not continually and always be weighed down by this ever-increasing burden of a rising cost of living. Mr. Speaker, there is nothing—possibly the Minister does not realize this because it is outside his own experience—which is so disturbing to the ordinary man who has to support a family or to the ordinary woman who has to feed and clothe a family, if she cannot be certain that she can budget year after year according to her income, if she has no confidence in the value of her money. There is nothing so disturbing for an aged person who has been a faithful citizen, who has saved over the years and had a little capital when he retired and invested it at, say, 84%, and therefore expected an income of 84% a year as the reward of his frugality and diligence, as to experience the phenomenon of inflation at 7% to 7½% a year and find that the actual value of his income and of his savings is only 1% per year. On paper he gets 8½%, but the value of his capital has declined by 7½%. Year after year what he is able to acquire with his income from his savings is less all the time. It is frustrating. It is unfair and the State which is the curator of the currency of the people has a duty to ensure that if there must be creeping inflation, it is kept within reasonable limits and does not continue at a rate of 6%, 7% or 8%. It would be very interesting if the hon. the Minister could tell us something about this.

Mr. Speaker, for us as South Africans the past two weeks have probably one of the most notable periods in our monetary history. Who of us could have expected that within only 14 months after the Smithsonian Agreement, which was described by President Nixon himself as being one of the most significant agreements in the monetary history of the world, that within a space of two weeks the dollar would not only have been devalued once again by 10%, but that the price of gold on the free market would increase from a record price of $70 per fine ounce to a further record price of $90 and more per fine ounce. Admittedly the price of gold did subsequently fall back slightly, but one thing is certain today, and that is that gold has once again proved its strength and its invincibility. In times of crisis and monetary uncertainty it is to gold that people turn. Throughout the centuries gold has proved itself as the currency and as the reserve asset in which man has confidence because it has its own intrinsic value, and because it is not involved in any debt commitment with any other currency. In recent years we have, in the monetary sphere, experienced one crisis after another, and the rulers have tried with all kinds of adroit moves to resolve these crises.

But each time their efforts have failed. One of the reasons the efforts failed was because the rulers of the world refused to accord to gold its rightful place and value within the monetary system of the world. Since the Committee of Twenty is attempting, this year, to create a new international monetary order, I want to say even at this juncture that they will find no satisfactory solution to the monetary problems of the world unless they accord to gold the place which gold deserves. I want to express the hope that those who are entertaining the idea of demonetizing gold and eliminating it from the monetary system, of according it a subservient place in the monetary system, will learn a lesson from the events of the past few years, even of the past few days, and particularly from the recent crisis, which is that man will not allow gold to be dethroned, whatever the learned theoreticians may assert, and that gold will always maintain itself, whatever some politicians desire. I want to express the hope that all policy-makers have learned that, for the foreseeable future at any rate, gold must remain the nucleus of the monetary system of the world and that there ought to be an adequate adjustment to its official price to enable it to play this role. I do not in any way want to suggest that gold is the answer to all problems; we as people and as nations have too many failings for that to be the case. However, I do want to state emphatically that without gold it will not be possible to find any solution whatsoever to the present problems.

I now want to return to the past week’s debate. In the first place I want to address the hon. the Leader of the Opposition on the matter of certain observations which he made in the course of the debate and during the recess and which did not reflect any too favourably on South Africa’s economy. I have known the hon. Leader for almost a quarter of a century. I know that he is no irresponsible person and for that reason he will accept it from me when I express the hope that when he discusses South Africa’s economy and uses figures in that connection, he will use the figures which are the most favourable for South Africa. During the previous year’s debates, during the recess and also during the course of this debate, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition compared the per capita income of South Africans to those of other nations in the world. He said that the per capita income in South Africa had, over a certain period, increased by only 2,4%. He went on to say—

But that was last year.

Yes, it was last year, but the hon. Leader referred to this again in passing in this debate.

The figures come from your department.

The figures come from the South African Reserve Bank. The hon. Leader read them in a report of the South African Reserve Bank. The figures used by the South African Reserve Bank were in respect of the years 1958 to 1968. But in the meantime other figures have become available. Therefore I say to the hon. Leader that if he knows of more recent figures which have become available he should in his future speeches make use of those figures. I have with me here the World Bank Atlas—Population per capita Product and Growth Rates. Here the World Bank furnishes the most recent statistics for the sixties, from 1960 to 1969, of the per capita growth and the population growth of every country. Here South Africa’s increase in per capita income per annum is given not as 2,4%, the figure which my hon. friend mentioned, but as 3,8%—a considerable difference. This 3,8% per capita increase in the income per annum of our population during the sixties is greater than that of most countries in the world. It is greater than that of the United States, Sweden, Switzerland, Canada, Denmark, Australia, New Zealand, West Germany, Belgium, and so I can go on. It is one of the highest in the world.

Are the other figures incorrect?

Those are for a different period, and these are recent figures. I am not saying that the hon. gentleman was being irresponsible, but I do say that the more recent figures, the figures as furnished by the World Bank, give us a different picture. There is another very important aspect, and this the hon. the Leader of the Opposition did not tell us. He did not tell us that the population of South Africa grew far more rapidly than that of other comparable countries. This is after all a very important matter, if the population grew …

I emphasized it repeatedly.

I am pleased if the hon. Leader emphasized it, and for that very reason he will agree with what I am now going to say. If the population of a country grows rapidly, its per capita income decreases proportionately.

Why did it take the hon. the Minister a year to furnish us with those figures?

The population growth percentage in South Africa as given in this book was 2,3% per annum over that period of ten years. The hon. member said that we fared even worse than countries such as Spain and Greece, but the population of Spain increased by 0,9% and that of Greece by 0,7%. Because our population increased so rapidly, our per capita income had to be lower.

Yes, but after …

If the hon. member for Pinelands does not understand it, it is not my fault, and he will simply have to go and think about it again. If a family consists of a husband and a wife, and they have a joint income of R6 000 per annum, their per capita income is R3 000 per annum. If a child is born, their per capita income is R2 000 per annum. [Interjections.]

I come to a second matter which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition mentioned in one of these debates. He referred, namely, to the devaluation of the rand and asked “why does the rand remain linked to the dollar?” That was in a previous debate. He went on to say—

He then said—

The hon. Leader stressed two points. He said that the rand had at that juncture been devalued by 4%. How does the hon. Leader come by that assertion? Where did he find the figures which indicated that the rand had, at that juncture when he was speaking, been devalued by a further 4%? That is not true. The furthest the rand could move in terms of the rules of the International Monetary Fund was to be revalued upwards by 2¼% or devalued downwards by 2¼%. The most the rand moved was by 2¼%, but it did not devalue by 4%. Then the hon. member said even more than that. He said that the devaluation had by then run to 20%.

Have you seen what has happened to the dollar now?

We must be very careful …

What happened then to the dollar?

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition must not interrupt me; I want to have my say. Hon. members must be careful when they are working with rates of exchange. In December 1971 we devalued by 12¼% in terms of gold, but you must always see the significance of your devaluation in terms of the other nations which are also devaluing and revaluing. According to a calculation made by the International Monetary Fund the December devaluation amounted to 12% as against the world as a whole. In October of last year there was a further devaluation of approximately 4% as against gold, but ours was not the only country to devalue. Sterling devalued further than we did. Other countries also devalued. When one takes all those devaluing or revaluing countries and compares the extent of our trade with those countries, do hon. members know what the extent of South Africa’s devaluation then was? The 4% devaluation of October of last year is then equal to exactly 1%. According to the calculations of the International Monetary Fund our devaluation after October of last year was not 16%, as my hon. friend said, but exactly 13%. I go further. I told the hon. member that monetary questions were very complicated, and for that reason I understand why he is shaking his head.

I understand it very well.

Last week the dollar devalued by 10%, but we did not devalue. Some of the other monetary systems also devalued further, but does the hon. member know where the rand stands at present in relation to the monetary units of the world? The total devaluation of the rand is at present 9%. This is in reply to the people who speak of a massive devaluation.

I still say so.

These are the calculations of the International Monetary Fund which are being presented here. According to those calculations the total devaluation of the rand against the monetary units of the world is 9%. Our position today is better than that of the dollar or of the pound, particularly if we also compare the pound with its devaluation in 1967.

The hon. Leader of the Opposition made a third observation. He presented a plea here for the salaries of Bantu to be increased. I do not want to quarrel with him about this, for it is a matter which has to be dealt with on its own. However, the hon. Leader quoted a very interesting article from a journal, the latest edition of the South African Journal of Economics. With reference to that edition, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said—

I also read that article. As I interpret that article, it arrives at an entirely different conclusion to that which the hon. Leader saw in it. The writer of this article makes it very clear to us—and I quote—

The writer then goes on to say that we could perhaps consider raising the wages of Bantu by 12%, the wages of the other non-Whites by 8% and the wages of the Whites by 3%. This we could perhaps do if we were to consider it, but it would mean a loss of profits from 15% to 10,7%. I come now to the most important point the writer made—

In other words, the whole tenor of this article is to point out the tremendous influence it would have on the economy if Bantu wages were increased by 20%

†I now want to come to the main subjects of the debate. I want to come to the speeches of my hon. friends, the member for Parktown, the member for Constantia and the member for Von Brandis, who told me he would not be here. These speeches touched on the main points of the economy, namely the effects of devaluation, growth and inflation.

Coming first to devaluation, I think it is correct to say that it has been the general view, particularly of my friend, the hon. member for Parktown, that devaluation has been a great success. I think he admitted that and has even congratulated me on the success we have attained with devaluation. But a new theme and a new way of attack were followed by the hon. member for Constantia and the hon. member for Von Brandis. Last year when we discussed this matter, I asked the other side of the House: Do the Opposition accept devaluation? When there was silence I said that we now had evidence that the Opposition could not make up their mind, of the ambivalence of the Opposition—all things to all men. At that stage the hon. member for Parktown rose and said “I have told you we are in favour of devaluation …”

Under the circumstances created by you.

But in spite of that the hon. member for Constantia and the hon. member for Von Brandis attacked devaluation, the hon. member for Constantia even calling it an act of insolvency. Again in this debate we find the hon. member for Constantia, in a very interesting speech, and also the hon. member for Von Brandis, telling us that devaluation was not really necessary.

That it was not successful.

Well, the hon. member for Constantia should not run away from what he said the other day. He said very clearly that devaluation was not necessary because the economy would have righted itself and would have solved its problems of its own accord. The hon. member for Constantia clearly said that the price of the raw materials we exported had risen to the extent that it had not been necessary to devalue the rand. I want to say today that I want to thank the hon. member for Constantia. I have often heard good things about the economy of South Africa, but the greatest compliment paid to the economy of South Africa was paid by the hon. member for Constantia, when the hon. member admitted that our economy was so strong at the end of 1971 that it was not really necessary to devalue in order to solve our problems. The hon. member for Von Brandis went even further and said that it was not necessary to devalue because of the inherent strength of our economy. The hon. member for Constantia said it was not necessary because later on in 1972 the price of metals, minerals, agricultural products and gold rose to such an extent that the economy could have completely recovered. I do want to ask the hon. member if it is true that the price of our export articles rose to such an extent that it could have rectified our economy? What about the price of imported articles? It is true that the price of export articles increased, but why did the hon. member not tell us about the price of the products which we imported? The balance of payments position of the country is determined not only by the price of the exported articles, but also by the price of the imported articles. It is the terms of trade which counts. I make the statement that the terms of trade were not strong enough in those years to make the devaluation of the rand unnecessary.

Let us pause for a moment and see briefly what the position was not, because of our fault, as the hon. member over there said, but because of international circumstances over which we had no control. What was the position? We had the position of falling reserves in 1971. We had the position of an unfavourable balance of payments and of trade. We had the leads and lags as we all know. We had the uncertainty about the rand and the speculation against the rand. I submit here, with all the seriousness I can command, that after the 15th August, when the gold window was closed, and after the 21st December, when the dollar devalued, it would have been completely impossible for the rand to maintain its parity and not to devalue. If we take into account local and world conditions in those days, there was no way out but to devalue, because if we had not devalued—which, according to the hon. gentlemen, was not necessary—our reserves would have fallen further. Speculation against the rand would have been rife. The leads and lags would have continued. Foreign capital would not have come to the country. The already existing cyclical movement would have gone further down. What is more, the monetary and fiscal policies which we had been applying in order to restrain inflation, would have had to be continued.

But in order to prove that devaluation was successful and had to be undertaken, briefly let me put it this way: Firstly, the balance of payments was immediately turned into a surplus. If we had waited for the future, as the hon. gentlemen wanted to wait, we would have had to wait for months and months to see the prices of our export articles increase and of import articles decrease. But this is not what took place. What did take place, is that we immediately had a reversal of the balance of payments position from a negative to a positive situation. Immediately we had a reversal of the leads and lags. Immediately our reserves increased to the extent that they reached record heights. I do concede to the hon. gentlemen that there were other factors, too; but those factors were not enough and could not act soon enough. In the third place, the cyclical movement, which was downward, was arrested, and the process of cooling down the economy was halted. If we had not devalued in 1971, we might have been forced to continue with restrictive monetary and fiscal policies. Mr. Speaker, devaluation, as we all know, last year brought an economic and financial climate which is favourable to economic growth in this country. It has brought higher incomes for exporters, particularly for the gold mines. It has brought higher income for the State, too, and I think hon. gentlemen are also interested in that. It has broadened the money and the capital markets. As a result of the removal of credit ceilings and the lowering of interest rates, the State loans in the last year have all been very successful. The building societies have received considerable funds. New life has been given to the Stock Exchange and natural protection has been given to industries. Generally, Sir, there was created a new stimulus to economic growth. All these things could not—I emphasize that—have happened if we had waited, as the hon. gentlemen wanted us to do, and had not devalued at the time.

Although the hon. member for Constantia made a very interesting speech, I must say this: If he had been in my place in 1971 and if he had advised his Government—if they had been the Government of the day—and if upon his advice his government had decided not to devalue, he would then have gambled recklessly with the fortunes of this country. I say that he would have acted irresponsibly towards the future of our nation.

The hon. member for Von Brandis, who is not here today, also made a very interesting speech. He approached the matter from a different angle. He said that devaluation was not necessary and could not be successful because of the inelasticities, the rigidities, in the economic field. He said that certain things have to be bought by a country, such as coal or oil, and even though their prices increased, these things have to be bought, and for that reason devaluation cannot be successful. Mr. Speaker, there is a measure of truth in this statement, but this also applies to the monetary and fiscal policies, which are the only other alternatives. We know that monetary and fiscal policies do not have the same effect now as they used to have in the past. Hon. members know that interest rates today do not play the role they played in the past. They know that unemployment does not play the role in the economic field that it did in the past. There are rigidities; nevertheless devaluation is one of the methods which has to be used. We find in the international monetary sphere that today it is the tendency to advise nations that they must resort more to the method of devaluation. It is a general tendency which will be included in the new regulations which are to come, that nations, instead of using monetary and fiscal measures too much and thereby dampening their economies too much, will be urged sooner and more often to use the principle of changing the parity of their currencies.

I now come to the second point the hon. member for Constantia made. He made some interesting remarks, following upon the hon. member for Parktown, and then mentioned the matter of growth in the economy. The hon. member for Parktown said that I had succeeded in the first objective in my Budget speech, namely to improve the balance of payments position, but that I had not succeeded in obtaining the measure of growth which I wanted, and which I had set as a goal in my Budget statement. I concede that, for the time being. I think my hon. friends on the other side of the House are in too much of a hurry. You cannot plant a seed today and pick the fruits tomorrow.

But you must pick them before they go bad.

Then you admit they are there? Mr. Speaker, let me put it this way: This is not only true of South Africa these days. May I compare South Africa with other countries? If my hon. friend could compare South Africa unfavourably with other countries, I should be allowed to compare South Africa favourably with other countries. Can I not do so? We say that last year we had a real growth rate of just below 4%. Let us look at a few countries, not fifth-rate countries, and compare their growth rates last year with ours, which was just below 4%.

Take away their population growth rates too.

We are not talking about per capita now, please. The U.K. had a growth rate of 3,25%, the Netherlands had one of 3,5%, and Italy one of 3%. The rate in respect of Ireland was 2,75%. Then I come to the one which is most important to me, the giant of Western Europe, Western Germany, which is regarded as the strongest country in the Western world apart from America today. What was the growth rate of Western Germany last year? It was 3¼%. There the growth rate was 3¼% and then we are attacked here by hon. gentlemen opposite because our growth rate was just below 4%.

And our population growth?

Sir, the hon. gentleman does not understand what I am trying to say. The population increase in South Africa is accounted for largely by an increase in the number of small children who are unproductive, whereas the population increase in Germany has been due largely to an influx of workers from other countries. [Laughter.] Sir, if there is anything which shows me that hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House do not understand the elementary principles of economics, it is the laughter on that side of the House. It is known all over the world to every first-year student of economics that if a population grows very fast, the greatest percentage of that increase is made up of children and old people who are not productive. In countries such as Western Germany, the population growth consisted to a large extent of workers who were taken from other countries and who immediately became productive units in Western Germany. Sir, what about this year? The expectations of the large institutes in the world about the expected growth this year in Western Europe are the following: The growth rate expected in France is 5½%, in Denmark 3½%, in Germany 5%, in Britain 5%, in Italy 4½%, in Holland 4½%, in Belgium 4¾%. Sir, I do not want to make any forecasts today; there are too many unpredictable and uncertain factors in these matters, but if these are the expected growth rates for the main industrial countries of the world during this year, then I think that by the end of the year we will find that we in this country are not completely out of step.

I want to come now to the hon. member for Constantia. The hon. member says that the “slow” growth rate in South Africa is due to the fact that there is not sufficient investment in the private sector; that investment is the cause of all growth. He gives four reasons as to why there is not sufficient investment in South Africa to promote growth. In the first place he says that certain durable goods industries are still licking their wounds due to hire purchase restrictions and the sales tax provisions. Possibly it is true that this does happen, but this is the case all over the world. It is the policy today in every country of the world, when an economy becomes overheated, to apply fiscal and monetary policies because no government can allow the economy of the country to become overheated, and in our country too, as is the case in many other countries, as the hon. member should know, the Government was forced, in order to cope with demand inflation, to apply monetary and fiscal measures in order to restrain demand. I know, Sir, that some of our industries did not like this. I know that it was not pleasant. I know that if you want to kill or to curb the dragon of inflation when it rears its ugly head and you apply fiscal and monetary measures, it hurts people, but it also hurts us to apply these measures. It is not pleasant for them, but it is not pleasant for us either. In every country where there is inflation today, you will find that the authorities are being urged to apply stronger fiscal and monetary measures which admittedly are not pleasant and which do hurt industrialists but which are in their interests.

In the second place the hon. member says confidence is shaken due to stop-go policy, for example importing firms in respect of import control, etc. It is true, but this is not the Government’s fault alone. I think this is the fault of the importing firms. When firms are importing beyond the capacity of the country, what must the Government do? Every country has a certain limit for its imports and once that limit is exceeded, when imports grow beyond the limits or the ability of the country, something has to be done. Does the hon. member not know that in the year 1971 and before, South Africa was over-importing? He must surely be aware of the situation. Does he not know that there was a time in the history of our country when we imported far more than we could pay for? I am sure the hon. member cannot deny that in the first quarter of 1971 the unfavourable balance of payments on current account, on an annual basis, amounted to R1 500 million. Does the hon. member wish to tell me that we should have allowed it to continue in that way?

That is not what I was talking about.

But the hon. member has said people are licking their wounds, that they are shaken by the policy of import control when the Government tries to stop these huge imports. I may tell the hon. member that whenever the imports of those who over-import in order to increase their stockpiles rise too much at the expense of the nation, the Government will step in in order to bring imports within the ability of the South African people to pay for them. The hon. member says another reason for not investing is the fear of the investors that they will soon experience the old bottlenecks again when demand picks up. I am not quite sure what he means; it is rather a vague accusation. It is rather difficult to reply to it. I must say, Sir, I do not know our businessmen and our industrialists in this way. Wherever I have gone abroad in the years of my ministry, I have always boasted of my fellow-countrymen and I have always seen the South African businessmen and industrialists as men of enterprise and men of initiative and of daring. But now the hon. member tells me that South African businessmen are people obsessed with fear, afraid of bottlenecks, afraid of what might happen if the demand again picks up. Sir, if they think the demand may pick up or is picking up, it is in the character of our businessmen that they should now start preparing themselves for the day when demand really picks up. If they do not, I am afraid foreign businessmen are going to take the path in our economy and take that opportunity. Lastly, the hon. member has said that one of the reasons why people do not invest is the fear—again the fear—that inflation is out of control and that there will be no residual buying power in the hands of the public after buying the necessities of life. Mr. Speaker, again this claim has no validity at all. Does the hon. member not know—and the figures have been quoted quite a number of times in this House—that in spite of inflation, the earnings and the wages and the salaries of our people have gone up faster than the cost of living? Is there any hon. member who will deny that wages and salaries and income have increased faster than the cost of living? As a matter of fact, it is not a lack of money; the money is there. It is not a lack of credit which keeps people from buying. The hon. member talks about demand. It is true that people do not buy so much as before. It is true that there is not the demand desired. My hon. friend, the Leader of the Opposition, used to attack me on the grounds that I had allegedly said in the past: “Spend for prosperity.” That is what he accused me of. Now everybody, all the economists throughout the country, say: “Consume more in order to bring prosperity to the country.” But he says nothing about that. I say that in the case of most people there is money enough. People are even saving and our savings are increasing today as the figures show. Unfortunately, however, some of our buying public are buying less, because they are afraid of being exploited.

They do not have the money.

Unfortunately some businessmen have unjustifiably increased the prices of their goods to such an extent that people are afraid to buy for fear of being exploited. I want to say emphatically that it is sometimes necessary that the confidence of the entrepreneur should be restored, but I also think that sometimes it is very necessary that the confidence of the purchaser should be strengthened. I want to say why there is not more growth. I want to make the statement that growth has been lacking to the extent that it has been lacking in the past year because of the situation of our balance of payments. I want to make myself quite clear in order that there should be no further misunderstanding.

They will find it difficult to understand in any case.

In the year 1971 it was impossible for this government to stimulate growth because we had an unfavourable balance of payments and we had low reserves. Everybody who knows anything about economics knows that it is impossible for any government to stimulate growth when you have an unfavourable balance of payments, because if a country grows economically, there is heavy demand, a pressure on your reserves. We all know that. In the year 1971, when we had the unfortunate position, because of world conditions, that our reserves were low and were falling, we could not stimulate growth. In 1972 we could not do it either, because first we had to wait to build up those reserves to a point where they were strong enough. That is why I said in reply to my hon. friend that you cannot plant a tree today and expect to pick its fruit tomorrow. We have been building up the reserves in the last year and now, for the first time, we have reached the point in our economic development where we believe that our reserves are strong enough and that we can now start to stimulate the economy, as we are already doing. The hon. gentlemen knows what we did about stimulating the economy. I refer to last year’s budgetary measures, the tax and labour concessions. I refer to the greater protection of our industries, the decentralization concessions, the lowering of purchase tax, the easing of hire-purchase regulations, the promotion of exports, the freeing of credit, the lowering of interest rates, the repayment of loan levies twice within a few months and the increase in salaries of railwaymen, public servants and the Post Office employees.

Quite a number of steps have been taken by the Government already, and if the necessity arises the Government will take further steps as it sees fit in the months to come to promote stable economic growth. However, the State must be careful not to over-stimulate. We must be careful not to apply the measures of stimulation so strongly that that which should have been a spark becomes a conflagration. I believe that once growth really starts, it will feed on its own strength. I also want to state quite clearly that it is not the task of the Government alone to promote economic growth; it is also the task of private initiative to take over where the Government has stopped. I hereby make an appeal to our industrialists and our businessmen in the private field to see what is going on in the rest of the world, to study the conditions of today and to start before it is too late.

Mention has been made here of another matter. It is strange; on the one hand it has been said that we do too little, but on the other hand it has been said that we are doing too much. Mention has been made, for instance, of the IDC and it is said that it is bringing about a kind of creeping Socialism, which should be stopped. I will not go into this matter fully now, but I can only mention the IDC’s share in investments in South Africa since 1940. Their share has been about 3%. That does not show any undue increase in their share of or their hold on economic life of South Africa.

I want to conclude this part of my speech by saying that I am extremely optimistic about the economic future of my country.

Hear, hear!

My optimism is based on the following factors: The first one is the strength of our balance of payments and the high level of our reserves; in the second place, the improved terms of trade and especially the high price of gold on the free market. Thirdly, there are the steps which are being taken by the Government today to protect industry through higher tariffs and through devaluation. Fourthly, there are the low level of inventories. We know the level of inventories was very high, with the result that certain industries and certain commercial undertakings did not buy from industries; they did not place orders. These inventories have dropped to a normal level now and more orders will have to be placed with industry. Fifthly, there is a surplus capacity in industry, a figure of about 20% is being mentioned, in some cases there is surplus capacity even with hoarding of labour. Sixthly, there is the higher disposable income of consumers. Seventhly, more credit is available. Above all, I believe and I have confidence in the character and the quality of our people, of our entrepreneurs and of our employees. I trust that they will not be found lacking when opportunities arise for the promotion of our economy. I am happy to know that confidence is coming back. Wherever we go we find that there is a new surge of confidence in the country. We have it reflected, for instance, in the latest report of the Bureau for Economic Research of Stellenbosch. We find it in newspapers, in the financial magazines. I have foreign visitors here in my office, several every week, and all of them talk very highly of their expectation of the economic future of his country. They have the utmost faith in the future of South Africa. Here in my hand I have a letter which was written by one of the big banks of America—I will not mention the name; it was written to me some two weeks ago. This bank was arranging a R30 million credit for South Africa. This is what they say—

That is the general spirit. I am afraid that our people might sit back; I am afraid that in future with all the confidence of people abroad, we might have South Africans sitting back when others come into our field. I think we can also say that there are already signs of an upturn in the economy. The November statistics from the Department of Statistics show that the index for total manufacturing output stood at 182,2 in November last year compared with 175,6 in November, 1971. This is equal to an increase of 7,2% in manufacturing industries. The index figure for November is also an all-time high one. Though I know that one swallow does not make a summer, in these particular statistics we find an indication that industry is already on the upsurge.

I now want to come to the question of inflation.

*Hon. members will once again have to pardon me for referring to the inflationary position in other countries, and expressing agreement with what was said by my hon. friend for Pietersburg, which is that inflation is not an exclusively South African problem. Inflation is a world-wide phenomenon. We, as part of the world, suffer under the same inflation that is prevalent throughout the world. I have here an article in a magazine which my hon. friends will probably accept, viz. the I.M.F. Survey. In that survey the following is said—

That is Europe!—

That was between April and October last year. I have the official figures for the last quarter of last year. They are: Belgium, 7,6%; France, 9%; West Germany, 8,7%; Ireland, 13,7%; Italy, 8,7%; United Kingdom, 10,5%.

Is that an annual rate?

Yes, the annual rate. This was the annual rate for the last quarter, seasonally adjusted.

Mr. Speaker, I do not have much time. I hope I shall be able to speak further on this during the Third Reading stage.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 85.

Question put: That all the words after “That” stand part of the motion.

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—92: Badenhorst, P. J.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, R. F.; Botha, S. P.; Botma, M. C.; Brandt, J. W.; Coetzee, S. F.; De Klerk, F. W.; De Villiers, D. J.; De Wet, M. W.; Diederichs, N.; Du Plessis, A. H.; Du Plessis, G. F. C.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Du Toit, J. P.; Engelbrecht, J. J.; Erasmus, A. S. D.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Hartzenberg, F.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Herman, F.; Heunis, J. C.; Hoon, J. H.; Janson, T. N. H.; Jurgens, J. C.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, W. D.; Kruger, J. T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Le Roux, J. P. C.; Loots, J. J.; Louw, E.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; McLachlan, R.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Muller, S. L.; Munnik, L. A. P. A.; Nel, D. J. L.; Nel, J. A. F.; Palm, P. D.; Pansegrouw, J. S.; Pelser, P. C.; Pienaar, L. A.; Potgieter, J. E.; Potgieter, S. P.; Prinsloo, M. P.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, J. W.; Rall, M. J.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, H.; Smit, H. H.; Swanepoel, J. W. F.; Swiegers, J. G.; Treurnicht, A. P.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Van Breda, A.; Van der Merwe, P. S.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Merwe, W. L.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Vuuren, P. Z. J.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, W. L. D. M.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Vorster, B. J.; Vorster, L. P. J.; Vosloo, W. L.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: W. A. Cruywagen, S. F. Kotzé, P. C. Roux and G. P. van den Berg.

Noes—41: Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Baxter, D. D.; Cadman, R. M.; Cillié, H. van Z.; Deacon, W. H. D.; Emdin, S.; Fisher, E. L.; Fourie, A.; Graaff, De V.; Hickman, T.; Hopewell, A.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Hughes, T. G.; Jacobs, G. F.; Kingwill, W. G.; Malan, E. G.; Marais, D. J.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, D. E.; Moolman, J. H.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Oliver, G. D. G.; Pyper, P. A.; Raw, W. V.; Smith, W. J. B.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Taylor, C. D.; Timoney, H. M.; Van den Heever, S. A.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Webber, W. T.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Winchester, L. E. D.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and J. O. N. Thompson.

Question affirmed and amendment dropped.

Bill accordingly read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move without notice—

Mr. Speaker, I move—

It is estimated that about 400 new chemicals are produced annually. Many of these chemicals are extremely toxic but the toxic properties and their effect on man are not known at the time of their production and availability to industry and the commercial world. It may take years before the toxic effects are known and at that time serious illnesses or even death may have been caused by these chemicals. It is thus imperative that the necessary safety measures be instituted in the Republic to protect man from these toxic substances. Such enlightened countries as England, the U.S.A. and even our neighbour, Rhodesia, have legislation to control these substances.

Many of these chemicals are hazardous substances only used in industry and the workers are protected from their harmful effects under industrial legislation applicable to the particular industry using these hazardous substances. Unfortunately this does not apply to all industries and manufacturing processes using hazardous substances.

When we come to the commercial marketing of these substances, we find that the consumer at present has little, if any, warning of the dangers of these hazardous substances or the methods of handling these substances to prevent injury or to prevent the pollution of the environment, and particularly of the signs and symptoms of poisoning with the more toxic hazardous substances and of first-aid treatment that may be life-saving.

The purpose of this Bill is to provide enabling measures which will not only protect the householder from the dangers of these hazardous substances, but which will enable him to use and apply the substances with confidence and safety, and above all, to protect and safeguard children from accidental poisoning, especially children in the 2-5 years age group.

Clause 2 empowers the Minister to declare any substance, electronic product and radio-active material to be a group hazardous substance and the provisions of this Bill shall then apply to these grouped substances. Provision is also made that, after the declaration of a substance or electronic product into a group, interested parties may, within three months, submit to the Minister motivated reasons why such grouping should not be applicable.

The chemical substances, depending on their hazardous nature, which includes their toxic, irritant, sensitizing, corrosive or flammable nature, will be included in Group I or II hazardous substances. Groups III and IV will include electronic products and radioactive wastes respectively. Clause 3 makes it an offence for a Group I substance to be sold by any person not licensed to sell such substances and under conditions other than prescribed. In the case of a Group III substance, no person may use or operate such a substance unless it is registered and the premises on or in which it is used is also registered, and otherwise than subject to the conditions prescribed or determined by the Secretary. In clause 4 the Secretary is empowered to license persons as suppliers of Group I substances and to register Group III substances and the premises on which they are installed.

The regulations are dealt with in clause 29. These regulations can vary for different chemicals in the Group I substances, depending on the type of hazard of the chemical concerned.

The regulations will include specific labelling requirements which will include—

• (a) the common chemical name of the substance or the chemical name by which it is known;
• (b) the toxic route of the chemical, i.e. by ingestion, inhalation or through skin absorption;
• (c) the precautions to be taken in handling the chemical in concentrated form, e.g. must rubber gloves be worn, or a respirator be used, etc.

This will mostly be applicable to Group I hazardous substances, but a Group II substance will have similar warnings to the consumer.

Certain chemicals will be allowed for industrial use only, because of the nature of the toxic effects of long exposure and the liver damage that can result from chronic or subacute poisoning. A very good example of this type of chemical is carbon tetrachloride, a cleaning agent used in many households. Most of the Western countries have prohibited this chemical for household uses.

Certain of the more toxic chemicals will only be available from persons licensed to sell such chemicals. The sale of such chemicals will have to take place in accordance with prescribed conditions. A register will have to be kept of the name of the buyer and the purpose for which it will be used and such sales will be limited to a certain age. This will apply to many of the poisons listed in Division I of the fourth schedule of the Medical, Dental and Pharmacy Act, 1928. These chemicals will have to be stored away from food and other products and will have to be kept under lock and key, e.g. arsenic, strychnine, sodium mono fluora acetate, cyanide, etc.

Regulations will also prescribe the container for certain of the Group I substances so that these containers will become associated with a toxic product and will not be used for any other product. In the case of the less toxic products, especially those which will be included in Group II which are used in homes, the container, i.e. the bottle, metal tin can or plastic bottle, will have to include a device which will dispense only a small amount of the contents at a time. This amount will be much smaller than a toxic dose. This will prevent many cases of poisoning in children as a small child will not be able to gulp down huge mouthfuls of the fluid from the bottle or container. This method is the latest in the U.S.A. to prevent the accidental poisoning of young children.

Colouring additives will be added to such substances so that, with the necessary education of the public and especially children in primary schools, these colours in liquids will be associated with danger.

The department has also been requested to make provision for the safe transport of dangerous or toxic chemicals in tankers. Special attention will be paid to this aspect.

Fumigation for pests, whether these pests are in the agricultural field or in urban areas, e.g. flies, cockroaches, bed bugs or fleas, will be controlled. Only fumigators properly trained and equipped with all the necessary equipment and resuscitation apparatus will be licensed. At present fumigation with cyanide is the only fumigation process which is controlled by legislation and that under the Public Health Act, 1919. Many present-day fumigation chemicals are as dangerous as cyanide and their use must be properly controlled.

The application of pesticides both in agricultural practice and home gardening will be regulated after consultation with the Minister and the Department of Agricultural Technical Services.

The content of lead in paint which is to be used on furniture for children, will have to conform to specific standards so as to ensure that the possibility of lead poisoning, due to children chewing their cots or other furniture and swallowing pieces of paint, cannot take place. This will also apply to the paint used on children’s toys and to toys in general. Many toys can inflict serious injury to children when they are broken by the child. The retail distribution of fireworks will also have to be controlled for the protection of children.

Chemical sets sold will have to conform to set standards and will have to be labelled with all the necessary safety measures and possible dangers of accidentally swallowing any of the chemicals. The sale of certain chemicals will be limited to certain groups of people and the inclusion of these chemicals in mixtures will be prohibited.

The dumping of hazardous substances, whether it is a by-product, a waste product from some industrial process or the hazardous substance itself after it has been used, will only be allowed if the dumping will not endanger man and his environment. Ultimately most waste will be disposed of by depositions on either land or water. Land is the more likely, and the selection of suitable areas requires considerable care. Such factors as accessibility to trespass, impermeability or absorption characteristics of soil, height of water table, and lie of surrounding water courses, must be assessed.

The electronic products in the Group III substances include X-rays, microwave ovens, T.V. sets, etc. These products are at present controlled in terms of the Public Health Amendment Act, 1971. For practical and functional reasons the existing control measures are included in this Bill and the aforementioned Act is repealed.

The Group IV substances are radioactive waste. This waste will be about 90% the result of the reactor of the Atomic Energy Board and the other 10% the result of medical, industrial and research uses. As this waste is radioactive, precautions for transport and the dumping of the waste will be instituted. At present the disposal of such waste is the responsibility of the Atomic Energy Board, but this function will be transferred to the Department of Health within the very near future.

Clauses 2, 3, 4 and 29 are actually the whole basis of control and the essence of the Bill and they follow the same principles as the Federal Hazardous Substances Act of June, 1967, of the U.S.A.

The control measures in the Bill are largely based on those of the Foodstuffs, Cosmetics and Disinfectants Act, 1972. These measures have proved themselves and are accepted by industry.

Provision for appeal against decisions of the Secretary for Health in terms of clauses 4 and 5 is made in clause 6, and in terms of clause 7 the Minister will have the power to withdraw or suspend a licence or a registration if any condition to which such licence or registration is subject has not been complied with. When a licence is granted or a registration made, there will be certain general conditions specified by regulations, and the Secretary will also have the power to specify particular conditions in respect of individual applications, especially for Group III substances, which must be conformed to if the licence or registration is to stay valid, e.g. the time before renewal, the precautions that must be taken to ensure that unauthorized persons can have no access to the premises and that no Group III substance may be modified without the consent of the Secretary.

If any of these conditions are not conformed to during the period of validity of the licence, depending on the seriousness of the breach of the conditions, the Minister can withdraw or suspend the licence or registration.

Because of the technical differences in Group I and II and III substances, the qualifications required of inspectors for these substances are so different that provision is made in clause 8 for the Secretary to appoint two types of inspectors with specialized knowledge of the group of hazardous substances for which they are appointed inspectors. It will be noted that inspectors for a Group III substance will only be appointed by the Secretary for Health. Such inspectors will be required to have either a university degree with Physics as a major subject or be qualified radiographers with a number of years’ experience. Many Group I and II substances will be sold in all types of stores throughout the Republic and since many of the requirements applicable to these substances will be labelling and other minor requirements it would be impossible to enforce the provisions of this Act without the help of personnel not on the staff of the Department of Health. Provision has therefore been made that the powers, duties and functions of inspectors may also be exercised or performed by officers of the Department of Customs and Excise, local authorities and members of the S.A. Police.

The powers of inspectors and detention of substances are dealt with in detail in clauses 9 and 12 and the preservation of secrecy about information acquired by inspectors in the performance of their duties is dealt with in clause 17.

Clause 10 provides for the appointment of analysts by the Secretary and they are appointed for Group I or II substances. The methods of analysis, forms to be completed, the certificates that must be submitted by the analyst, his powers, duties and functions may be prescribed by regulation. With the rapid advances that are being made in analytical procedure in the scientific world, flexibility is needed if the most recent methods of analysis are to be used, and that is why the aforementioned matters will be dealt with by regulation.

Clause 13 provides for the conviction of a person selling a Group I or II hazardous substance which does not comply with the provisions of the Bill and clause 14 provides for special defences with regard thereto.

Provision is made in clause 16 for the prosecution of the employer or principal of a firm for any offence committed under the provisions of the Bill, but provision is also made for the procedure to be followed by such a person to prove his innocence.

The offences described in clause 18 relate to the duties of inspectors and clause 19 provides for penalties that can be imposed on persons found guilty of an offence under the Bill. Convicting any person of an offence under this Act, the court may declare any grouped hazardous substance forfeited to the State in terms of clause 21.

Provision is made in clause 24 for the enforcement of the Bill by authorized local authorities.

This delegation may apply to such substances or any classes thereof and may contain such restrictions as the Minister may specify. In terms of clause 8(3), such authority will be limited to Group I and II substances. Clause 25 provides for authorized local authorities to enforce provisions of the Bill in their areas of jurisdiction, and to prosecute anybody who fails to comply with the provisions. The delegation of powers by the Secretary is dealt with in clause 26.

The Bill should mainly be seen as enabling legislation with the particular control measures provided for in more detail in the regulations to be framed in terms of clause 29. In order not to be accused of acting arbitrarily or of being bureaucratic, provision is made in clause 29(9) that before any regulation may be made the proposed text shall be published in the Gazette three months before making such a regulation. Interested parties will then have the opportunity to submit representations or comments to the Secretary in writing. The regulations may then be published by the Minister after he has considered the comments and representations submitted.

Other enactments may legislate for a particular type of substance. This Bill will however only control the health safety matter of such substances—matters for which the Department of Health is directly responsible and which are the particular aims of the Bill. In terms of clause 31 overlapping should therefore not be possible.

Approximately 250 copies of the draft Bill were forwarded to interested bodies for comments. The comments received were of a positive and constructive nature and a number of very useful proposals were incorporated in the proposed draft Bill. Judging from the comments the proposed measure will provide for a particular need and most of the bodies are eagerly awaiting the publication of the draft regulations.

Mr. Speaker, this, in the main, is a Bill for the protection of the public and for that reason we on this side of the House will support it.

The hon. the Minister has subdivided hazardous substances into four groups. He has Group I, Group II, Group III and Group IV and each of these groups deals with a specific type of hazard. However, he has grouped Groups I and II together, and I would like the hon. the Minister, when he replies, to tell the House why he has one group consisting of Groups I and II. There is no indication in the subdivision how he is going to separate those hazardous substances which he will eventually put into Group I from those he will put into Group II. There is nothing in this Bill at the moment which indicates that. It may be that in the information he gave to the interested bodies this point was made clear, but we on this side of the House did not receive this information and therefore we would like the Minister to tell us what he intends doing.

The other hazards which he takes precautions against for the public are those which deal with electronic products and radioactive materials. Now, if you look at the definitions of hazardous substances in the Bill, then virtually any substance, unless it is absolutely inert, can be included in Group I or Group II as far as we can see. Let us look at what the Bill provides in this respect. Clause l(viii) reads—

In clause 2 we read—

Let us just look around us. We have the inhalation of quartz in the mines. Is quartz included as a “hazardous substance”? Is that a hazardous substance? If you pump a motor-car tyre and the tyre bursts through the pressure generated by mechanical means and causes injury, is rubber then a “hazardous substance”? There is no limit to this and I could go on to illustrate in a 101 ways how almost everything around us could be included as a hazardous substance.

Politics is very dangerous.

A woman may be using make-up. Some of her eye-shadow may get into an eye and cause irritation and inflammation. Can you really and truly say that eye-shadow as a cosmetic is a hazardous substance?

For men it could be!

Yes. People could be allergic to it. We could be allergic to the atmosphere of this House, for instance, but of course that in any case is hazardous. In all seriousness I should like to ask the hon. the Minister to give a better definition of what he terms a “hazardous substance” and to give illustrations of what he means by hazardous substances. When it comes to Group II and Group III we understand completely what he intends classifying under these two groups. There is no doubt about that.

I said at the outset that this is a protective measure for the public, but the secret of the success of this Bill will be in its application and it cannot possibly be applied properly and it cannot give the protection that it intends giving unless the Minister has sufficient qualified inspectors. With the present shortage of trained manpower it is going to be very, very difficult for the Minister, with all the good intentions in the world, to find sufficient inspectors to carry out the job he has set out to do. We must try to help him, but let us just take one instance, the instance of the purchase in bulk of sprays, dips, dusting powders that agriculturists use. It is all very well for an inspector in a town or a residential area to go from place to place quickly. One inspector can do a lot of work in one day. However, what happens when he has to inspect farm after farm? The hon. the Minister said—I agree with him—that every inspector shall be a qualified man. Does the hon. the Minister think that he is going to find sufficient people with B.Sc. degrees who will be willing to visit farm after farm—day after day—to inspect the farms to see if (the farmers are looking after and keeping their hazardous substances in order? It is going to be very difficult to find suitable staff to do this type of work.

How are we going to help the hon. the Minister to overcome these difficulties? The first thing, of course, is that these inspectors need not only have to be highly qualified, they have to have university degrees, but will have to be paid very well, otherwise he will not get anybody to do this type of work. Then he is also going to delegate powers to other people because he already foresees that in all instances he will not be able to have inspectors on the spot to do the job. Therefore he is going to employ the police and the customs officials, and so forth. If the sergeant of a police station is going to keep himself busy examining hazardous substances either in an urban or in a rural area, he is going to neglect some of his other duties and I think that every policeman today has his hands full as it is. To put further duties upon their shoulders is asking a little bit too much from these people. They are really paid to do a certain job, but not to do the work that the industrial health officer ought to be doing himself. This is a very good Bill indeed, but it can cause very great difficulty in its application. What I have said about inspectors also applies to analysts. To carry out the job properly it has got to mean that we have to have a sufficient number of analysts to do the jobs that are allocated to them. Every inspector, for instance, will be wanting to take a sample of a suspected hazardous substance in order to have it analysed. Then the analyst must be a qualified man as well. Is the hon. the Minister going to be able to find all the analysts that are going to be needed for this type of work? Perhaps I am exaggerating the position, perhaps I am not; I do not know and the hon. the Minister will not know until he puts this legislation into operation. He will not know before then how many cases he will have to deal with. These are problems which I see and which may face the hon. the Minister and I hope he shall be able to overcome them. The hon. the Minister of Finance and the Treasury will have to dip deeply into their pockets to help the hon. the Minister of Health to carry out these functions properly.

Some years ago I spoke about this type of protection, particularly for the worker, and I thought that this type of legislation should have been incorporated in a Bill where we could deal with industrial diseases. However, that has not come about and we now have this, I hope as an interim measure.

There are one or two things which the hon. the Minister said which I want to deal with. He spoke about the protection of children from poison and he also spoke about the suggestion of colouring poisonous materials. He also spoke about the instruction that would be given in schools about poisons. These suggestions are very good indeed, but I want to tell the hon. the Minister that if he is going to colour substances red or pink or green, he is going to have trouble because those are favourite colours used by the cold-drink manufacturers and it is going to be difficult to wean away a child’s idea of an attractive drinkable substance. Therefore I would suggest to him to colour the container rather than the substance. The container could be in such a colour and design as to make the child, particularly the child, fearful of its contents. Hon. members know it is not so very long ago that medicines of a poisonous nature were put either into dark blue bottles or they had corrugated edges to them. I believe we should have another look at that form of protection rather than to depend on the colouring method. You could do it by means of a label, but if anybody can tell me that there are many children of five years and under who are able to read the label, I would like to know where these children have had their education. Those are problems which the Secretary for Health and the hon. the Minister will have to sort out as time goes by.

I want to come back to the duties of the inspectors. These are set out in clause 9 on page 10 of the Bill. An inspector may search premises, demand information, weigh count, measure, mark or seal substances, examine or make copies of, take extracts from any book, demand from the owner or any person in charge of such premises, statements or explanations in respect of any operational process, demand any information regarding such operation, seize any substance, appliance, book or statement, etc. These are all very important duties that the inspector will have to carry out. His powers as set out in the Bill are terribly wide. I say that even a university graduate with a B.Sc. degree is going to have difficulty in doing this. My suggestion to the hon. the Minister is that every person who applies and is found suitable for this job should be required to follow a special course of training before he is sent out to do the work. It is a specialist’s job. The same applies to the analytical chemist. The analysts will have to undergo special training before being required to do the work set out in the Bill as it stands here.

Talking of analysis, no provision is made here as to how a suspected substance should be examined. I want to suggest to the hon. the Minister that he perhaps by way of regulation determine that, when a substance is taken from a person for examination, this substance is to be divided into three parts; one part will go sealed to the analytical chemist, one part will be retained, sealed by the person who has the substance, in case he wants to appeal against a decision which is not in his favour, while the third part is held by some competent authority. This ensures that the three parts are all of the original substance. That is done in other tests and I think that it is the sort of thing that we should expect in a Bill of this nature. After all is said and done, every action that is taken by the inspector is, or should be, to protect the public. I think too that the person who possesses the hazardous substance should also be given the opportunity of protecting himself, and this is one way in which he can do so.

Those are some of the matters I wanted to bring to the notice of the hon. the Minister. When we come to the Committee Stage, we could if necessary have a further talk about some of the clauses. In the main, I want to tell the hon. the Minister that we on this side of the House consider this a good Bill and we shall give it our support. We do hope, however, that the hon. the Minister will be able to elaborate further on those queries that I have put forward to him here this afternoon.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House are, of course, grateful for the fact that the Opposition, in the person of the previous speaker, intimated that they support this Bill. As usual, when Bills are introduced by this side of the House they are always good Bills. I do not necessarily agree with everything the hon. member said here, but I want to concede that he made quite a few practical suggestions that will most certainly have the Minister’s consideration. I agree with him in one respect, i.e. that the Bill must indicate to us the difference in Group I and Group II medicines, hazardous substances. Groups III and IV are reasonably clearly defined, but one has a problem, when one reads the Bill, in precisely defining what is meant by Group I and Group II medicines. As far as I am concerned this is essential because there are clauses in the Bill that specifically deal only with Group II substances, while the question of Group I substances are not considered.

I am also in sympathy with the hon. member when he speaks about the question of a clearer definition of exactly what a “hazardous substance” is. Here one must, however, also take into account the practical problems. If one defines this too strictly, problems are certainly going to crop up in practice as far as the implementation of this Bill is concerned. One should perhaps incline towards leaving it in this reasonably broadly defined form, simply leaving its implementation in the hands of those who must execute these powers. I believe that with dedication and common sense this specific aspect should certainly not produce problems.

A third point the hon. member made, is the fact that the Minister is going to have problems with the appointment of inspectors to inspect all these hazardous substances. There, of course, I acknowledge that he is right, but I think the hon. member is blundering if he calculates that the idea here is, for example, to send inspectors to all farms to see whether people there are keeping the hazardous substances properly under lock and key. I think the problem can be solved much more easily than this. Usually we find that the public act reasonably as far as this kind of thing is concerned. When specific prescriptions are issued when these substances are purchased, and the containers are properly marked—I shall come back to this at a later stage—giving proper indication what the dangers are inherent in these substances, one usually finds that people will keep these substances under lock and key without inspections having to be carried out on farms. I think that the task of these inspectors will largely be centered on manufacturers and the outlets where the substances are sold, to ensure that the substances are under such control as is prescribed by the regulations in terms of this measure. The Bill provides, of course, that the Minister may call in the staff of a local authority-one thinks here, in particular, of health officers—to help with the inspection of stocks in shops, etc.

We acknowledge that this legislation gives the Minister and the Department of Health very far reaching powers, but actually we are very grateful for that fact. The time has come for us to properly face this question of dangerous and hazardous substances. If one sees what is being done in other countries, we are really lagging behind in this sphere. As one who has been in practice and who has frequently been faced with this problem, it is gratifying to me that we are now coming along with a Bill that gives proper powers to the department to combat these problems and these evils. In contemplating that when, in America, one buys a packet of cigarettes, which is generally available, after all, each packet has printed on it, in bold type that “the contents of this package is injurious to health”, it amazes one that manufacturers in this country are sensitive and that when they place articles or products on the market, which are poisonous or potentially poisonous, they object to labels indicating that these substances could be dangerous. Sir, when one is in practice, as I was, and one finds a young child who has perhaps taken a substance that appeared on the surface to be quite harmless, and that child is in the deadly grip of convulsions, and one looks at the container in which that substance was, one frequently sees that there are no indications on the tin or bottle to the effect that the substance is poisonous, nor are there any indications of what first aid measures must be applied. There are not even any indications of what a doctor can administer as an antidote in those cases. Sir, on a certain occasion I found that someone had accidentally taken a very dangerous substance. The person was really within an ace of death. That container was simply inscribed “Poison/Vergif”, without any indication whatsoever of what treatment should be given to save the person’s life. I had to make a telephone call to the factory in Johannesburg to find out what the antidote in that specific case was. This ought not to be necessary, because in such cases a few minutes hesitation can at times cause death.

In the past decade highly sophisticated substances have appeared on the market. I am referring, in particular, to the organic phosphates. There are many poisonous ones amongst them, substances that ought to be administered and handled with great circumspection. Therefore we welcome the fact that there is now legislation that gives the Minister the power to compel these people to indicate on their labels the constituent elements, the first aid measures and antidotes that can be applied in cases of poisoning. These substances are sometimes very poisonous, although the public is not always aware of the toxic effects. In actual fact, as yet very little is known of many of these substances’ cumulative effects in the body. We know that many of these toxic substances, even when taken in small quantities, can nevertheless have a cumulative effect in the body and sometimes concentrate in the liver, which could lead to the eventual collapse of the liver and fatal consequences for the patient. It is consequently imperative that the necessary information be placed on the containers in which these substances are packed in and sold.

Sir, we know, for example, of substances that are absorbed through the skin. You will remember, Mr. Speaker, that you recently read that a few children died because they had lain down on a couch, chairs or beds, the covers of which had been contaminated by a certain substance while crossing the sea from Holland. Sir, that toxic substance was absorbed through the children’s skin in such quantities that they consequently died. I mention this by way of illustration to indicate the dangers inherent in many of these substances. They are quite ordinary substances. The other day I was looking at a hairspray. Apart from the fact that when in contact with heat, the container could explode, the preparation itself greatly irritates the air passages of small babies in particular. Sir, that container merely indicates that it should be kept in a cool spot. It is not even stated on that container that it is highly explosive if it should land on an open fire. It is not stated that the contents of the tin could be very poisonous as far as children are concerned and could seriously irritate their air passages. There is no indication on that tin of what antidotes must be used against that specific substance. I really want to congratulate the hon. the Minister on his intention to provide that even toys that contain lead, or which are painted with a lead paint, must be very clearly marked. The public is entitled to know that a specific toy is made of lead and is a potential danger as far as children are concerned. The public is entitled to know this when they buy a specific substance that is potentially poisonous. This must be indicated on the container, and there must also be indications of what first aid measures can be applied if a child were to be poisoned.

The hon. the Minister referred to a general cleansing agent such as carbon tetrachloride, one of the most dangerous substances there are today in general use in our homes for the cleaning of clothes. The mere inhalation of the fumes of this substance can have fatal consequences for a child. Therefore we welcome the content of this Bill.

Sir, I also want to broach another matter that I have already raised in this House on several occasions, and that is the question of the sale of methylated spirits, which is certainly as hazardous a substance as any other available on the market. Sir, you will remember that on previous occasions I have referred to the fact that these spirits are increasingly being used, by our Coloured and Bantu populations in particular, as an alcoholic substance.

They drink it with Coca-Cola.

After my representations to the Department of Customs and Excise, it was decided a year ago to add a substance called bitrex to the ordinary industrial methylated spirits in an effort to make the spirits so bitter that no one would want to drink it. To my amazement I found, in my own town—and other cases have also been reported to me—that this bitrex additive had no effect upon the intake of methylated spirits. These people simply add a lot of sugar, or they use a very popular soft drink to conceal the taste, and methylated spirits is still being used increasingly by these people as an intoxicant. During the past weekend a minister from a mission station in the Boland approached me and earnestly requested me to again bring this matter to the Government’s attention because the situation was becoming completely unbearable in certain places. The intake of methylated spirits as an intoxicant is still increasing, and there is apparently no way in which the public can combat this evil. I immediately want to acknowledge that methylated sprits is still a general cleansing agent for our less privileged in particular. It is still in free and general use as a fuel for spirit stoves, etc. But, Sir, we can no longer overlook the dangers of this, and I want to advocate that very serious attention be given to this matter. I realize that the practical solution of this problem is no simple matter, but it beats me that any child, whether he be seven years old, ten years old or fifteen years old, can be allowed to walk into a shop and buy as much methylated spirits as he sees fit. I feel that initially the solution of the problem lies in the fact that the sale of methylated spirits should be prohibited to children under the age of 18 years.

Secondly I want to suggest that serious consideration should be given to having methylated spirits sold in smaller quantities per purchase than is the position at present. At present it is generally made up in 750 ml bottles, and there is no reason why methylated spirits cannot be made available, in smaller quantities, only to adults. I should like to see the sale of methylated spirits prohibited by our general dealers, but this would be completely impractical, however, for the reasons I have already mentioned. I believe the Department of Health owes it to our people to face up to this problem, and with the wide powers this legislation grants to the Minister and the department, I believe a solution can also be worked out for this problem.

Mr. Speaker, I was very interested in the remarks of the hon. member for Cradock and I stand foursquare behind him in his suggestion that the system adopted in America, in regard to the marketing of cigarettes, could well be given serious consideration in South Africa. He is a medical man and I am sure he realizes that if the tobacco which goes into cigarettes were a recent scientific development, it would have been proclaimed as a potentially harmful drug and it would have been treated accordingly in the various schedules which exist for the treatment of potentially harmful drugs. I do not got so far as to say (that the sale of tobacco should be banned; I merely believe that the people who use it, should be warned of its ill effects. The hon. member for Cradock also referred to the dangers which arose because certain medicines do not carry sufficient advice, precautions, warnings and information concerning antidotes. I believe this is a matter of which the Drugs Control Council is fully aware and which will be dealt with as the Drugs Control Council catches up with the backlog of registrations of many thousands of medicines which are waiting to be dealt with.

As far as methylated spirits is concerned, here again I have no fault to find with the hon. member’s suggestion, excepting that I do not believe that to go back to the old days of requiring stockists to keep registers and to issue passes will really solve the problem. I believe it is important that there should be an age limit in regard to those persons who are entitled to purchase methylated spirits, and I believe that either a body like the CSIR or some other body, should be asked as a matter of urgency, to find an additive which can be added to the methylated spirits to render it completely unpalatable. I realize that there are certain difficulties in this respect but I feel that that is the way to deal with it, and not only to impose control on sales. In the past I have had personal experience of it and it did not work, and I do not believe it will have any material benefit as far as the problem is concerned in the future.

Then I would like to express my appreciation to the hon. the Minister for the very concise description he gave in his Second Reading speech of the implications of this Bill. At the same time I believe that this is the first Bill that this hon. Minister has introduced in his present capacity as Minister of Health. I would therefore like to wish the hon. the Minister a good and fruitful term of office in this portfolio of Health.

I would also like to express to the new Secretary for Health, who I believe is gracing the bay for the first time in his official capacity, a happy and fruitful term of office in that position. Now I believe there are certain aspects which we must consider from the Minister’s introductory remarks. In the first instance I would like to welcome the indication the hon. the Minister gave in regard to the fact that the sellers or handlers of these various groups of hazardous substances would probably have to register their premises, and that registers will be kept in regard to the supply and sale.

I also notice that the hon. the Minister referred to the question of inspectors. He indicated that not only would the department appoint inspectors, but that departmental officials of the Department of Health would be used, and I understood him to say that customs officials would also be used, as well as the South African Police. I ask the hon. the Minister whether consideration has been given to the inclusion, with the South African Police, of the South African Railway Police, because I believe that in the harbour areas they could quite easily supplement the activities of customs inspectors when it comes to the investigation in relation to the importation and handling of hazardous substances.

I believe that there are a number of aspects which need clarity in regard to the question of the grouping of the substances. I want to refer to the long title of the Bill which states, inter alia—

I submit that such wording must surely have more than a passing interest for the members of the medical, dental, pharmaceutical and nursing professions. I realize that under the definitions clause the term “hazardous substance” is dealt with briefly. The hon. the Minister has indicated that various substances will be dealt with under the regulations. However, I want to refer to certain provisions which could be regarded as referring to medicines for human use. My hon. colleague, the member for Rosettenville, quoted from clause 2 and I want to reiterate that clause 2 gives the Minister the power to declare any substance which might cause injury to human beings, to be a Group I or a Group II substance. The hon. the Minister is a medical man and I am sure that he is fully aware of the implications of the Medical, Dental and Pharmacy Act, No. 13 of 1928, as it has been amended over the years. I am sure that he is aware too that there exist, in that Act, the fourth, fifth and sixth schedules which will be dealing, as I see it, with many of the substances which could fall within the ambit of this Bill. Let us take for instance the fourth schedule, which lists the poisons. We have there two divisions: Division I poisons—the hon. the Minister referred to some of them—include arsenic, strychnine, chloroform. They fall already under Division I and are subject to rigorous control. We also have the Division II poisons and here we have preparations of lead—I just quote a few examples—preparations of mercury, ether and various vermin killers.

When it comes to the fifth schedule we have the prohibited dependence-producing drugs and here we include dagga and heroin and then we have also the dangerous dependence-producing drugs in which are included such substances as morphine, cocaine, pethidine, etc. We also have a further schedule, the sixth schedule, which includes the barbiturates, certain slimming drugs and certain tranquillizers.

In addition to those we have in the Medical, Dental and Pharmacy Act, as it stands, section 82 which deals with certain substances which, I assume, will also be included in the term “hazardous substances” in terms of this Bill. I am referring to substances such as sulphuric or battery acid, to methylated spirits, to which the hon. member for Cradock has referred, to caustic soda, carbolic acid, rectified spirits, and liquid preparations containing ammonia. All these are at the moment under some form of control under section 82 of Act No. 13 of 1928. I believe that it has been accepted too that the Abuse of Dependence-producing Substances and Rehabilitation Centres Act has introduced schedules which in the main correspond with the schedules which still appear in the Medical, Dental and Pharmacy Act, but we realize that Act No. 41 of 1971, to which I have referred, does provide stricter control and more severe penalties. I am concerned about the scheduling or grouping of many of these substances which could be regarded as mainly medicinal.

We recently had, in 1971, the passing of the Drugs Laws Amendment Act. I believe that this Act was intended to link the Medical, Dental and Pharmacy Act and the schedules therein, to the Abuse of Dependence-producing Substances Act. As such I believe that a very comprehensive and what appears to be adequate form of control exists as it stands now. I wonder whether, with all this control, it is necessary to introduce in this Bill the suggestion that these substances, covered adequately by other legislation, should be included here.

Hon. members will see that the legislation to which I have referred is already complicated. It has led to frustration amounting to resentment on the part of members of one profession, and there is evidence to suggest that it has led to an almost casual disregard on the part of a section of another profession. Although I can find no specific mention in the Bill of a drug or a medicine, I believe that the question of drugs themselves is fully covered in the Drugs Control Act, Act No. 101 of 1965. Therefore I ask the hon. the Minister to make it clear to me in his reply whether it is the intention in the case of Groups I and II to take over the various schedules which exist under other Acts to which I have referred, and whether he feels that by doing so, the control which he intends to implement, will be more effective and less complicated than it is at present. I ask him this because if it is not his intention, would it not be advisable, in the interests of clarity, for the word “drug” or “medicine” specifically to be mentioned and to be excluded from the ambit of this Bill? I ask this question because I find it difficult, from what we see in the Bill itself and from the hon. the Minister’s remarks in his speech, to equate what we have now, with the purport of clause 31 which states—

Therefore I repeat: If this new legislation is to streamline administration, I am sure it will be very welcome, but if it leads to confusion and duplication in the field of medicines for human use, I believe it could meet with a mixed reception by most professions which are intimately concerned with the day-to-day handling of medicines.

The hon. member for Rosettenville has referred to the question of the appointment of inspectors and the appointment of analysts. I must say that I agree with him wholeheartedly it appears to be necessary it be stated somewhere, not necessarily in the Bill, but in the regulations which flow from the Bill in terms of clause 29, that some minimum qualification is required in so far as the inspectors which this department will use in the implementation of the provisions of this legislation, are concerned. The Minister has indicated that in so far as inspectors of Group III substances are concerned, there will be laid down minimum qualifications and I can clearly see the necessity for that. But the powers of the hon. the Minister and the powers of the secretary are broad in this, and not particularly specific. As the hon. member for Rosettenville has said, the powers of inspectors are broad too. They can enter and search, they can seal packages or appliances, they can demand information, etc., and I believe that, in the interests of all who may be affected by the terms of this Bill, there should be a guarantee against the possibility of false pretences or fraud. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he does not think it would be desirable to establish the bona fides of the inspector, by laying down in the Bill that the inspector should display his identification, establish his bona fides, without being asked to do so by the person he is inspecting but before he makes his inspection itself. It is the intention of this side of the House to table an amendment in this respect during the Committee Stage and I trust that the hon. the Minister will give it sympathetic consideration.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister indicated that more than 250 draft copies of this Bill had been circulated and submitted to interested parties. I want to leave a suggestion with him in this respect. It could well have happened that this Bill came up earlier in the session, in fact, shortly after it had been placed on our tables which would have left us very little time to consider the actual Bill fully. Therefore I would like to suggest to the hon. the Minister that it could be of help to the members on both sides of this House if, when draft Bills of this nature are circulated, members of Parliament themselves could inspect them so that they could be aware of what form of legislation may be coming forward. I think it will help, because sometimes we are called upon at very short notice to debate a Bill which may in itself not be contentious, but may contain many clauses and may require many hours of careful study if one is to be able to take part in a debate intelligently. It would seem that commerce and industry as such are quite satisfied with the provisions of the Bill and if the hon. the Minister can satisfy us in his reply that there will be no problems with control overlapping with the control under Acts which are already on the Statute Book, I am sure that we on this side of the House will be able to support him in this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, it is also an honour and a privilege for me today to congratulate the hon. the Minister heartily in his new capacity as Minister of Health, and in particular on this occasion when he is introducing in the House of Assembly his first legislation in this new capacity. We know that the hon. the Minister is very well equipped to take upon himself this very important task in South Africa. Hence we are glad that he is the one who must watch over the people’s health and over our beloved medical profession. Permit me too, Mr. Speaker, to make a few remarks in respect of our new Secretary for Health, who has already taken his bow as well. In his new capacity as Secretary for Health, we believe that he will also be able to make a great contribution to our national health, something he has already been doing for so many years with so much distinction in his previous capacity.

Last year I said, on a specific occasion: “The Department of Health is always on the ball.” I also think this is the case with the legislation before us this afternoon. It is so that the hon. member for Berea objects to the fact that he did not have this Bill for prior perusal, but perhaps he is actually excusing the fact that he did not do his homework. I think this is good legislation. I do not want to say that this cannot be improved upon in future, because we are living in a period in history in which there are innovations virtually every day. Therefore it is necessary for laws to be continually adapted and for new legislation to come along to suit our times. This is particularly the case when we take into account the tremendous technological development and the development in the chemical industry, which has been remarkable, particularly during the last two decades. Therefore it is necessary for us to exercise effective control over substances which are being produced at this time and which the public can come into contact with, substances that can prejudice their health and which can also play a role in the pollution of our environment. I should like to quote a portion of the long title of the Bill, because this is, in my estimation, a very important aspect of the whole approach. It reads—

This Bill is going to lay down certain guidelines that we must adopt in future in respect of the handling of this matter. There is, however, one thing that is as plain as a pikestaff. It also holds good for many other matters in our country and relates to the dangers that may threaten the public and the fact that no legislation can eliminate such dangers. It is absolutely essential, as an initial premise, to take as a point of departure the fact that the public must be informed about what can, in fact, threaten them. I think it will become increasingly necessary, in future, to particularly draw the public’s attention, at schools and on every possible occasion, in these times in which we are living, to the dangers of their environment and the dangers related to the substances with which they come into contact. If they do not have the knowledge, we cannot expect the public to be able to take the necessary counter-measures. This Bill deals chiefly with substances that cannot normally be applied as medicines. I consequently think it is also a reply to the question the hon. member for Berea put, because those other substances are controlled by the Medical, Dental and Pharmacy Act and by the Drugs Control Act. Then, of course, there is other legislation, which we dealt with last year, relating to foodstuffs, cosmetics and disinfectants, which again cover that specific category. These, however, are substances that are normally used in commerce and industry and which people can come into contact with. And again, neither does this legislation cover all the aspects of various substances that are controlled by the Atomic Energy Act. It deals only with specific aspects of radiation not covered by that Act.

Many very serious accidents have already occurred in the past, causing disability and death as a result of the negligent handling of potentially dangerous substances, and therefore we also welcome the control, particularly today. But the most important aspect of this Bill is that by means of regulations dealers are being given specific guidelines about how to handle these substances. I have already frequently been struck by the fact—and previous speakers also mentioned this here this afternoon—that extremely dangerous substances sometimes do not have proper labels. It was my tragic experience to have shared once in the sorrow of a good friend whose two-year-old child took an overdose of a paint-removing substance. Although it can appear to be the negligence of the parents in such cases, in this particular case there was really no indication of the serious toxic nature of this substance. This meant that for many years this child had to undergo several operations, that his oesophagus had to be removed eventually and that transplants from his stomach to his throat had to be done. It is therefore imperative that the labelling in this connection should be handled very correctly. The dealers in these substances are people who must display a great deal of responsibility. Therefore this Bill is also very specific about the protection of the public, but also of the dealer himself. I think the dealers themselves may perhaps welcome it to a large extent, because if they conduct themselves within the framework of this Act they will not so easily expose themselves to possible claims that can result from accidents of this nature. But, Sir, we are living in the atomic age, and therefore this Bill makes provision for the detrimental effects of electronic apparatus and the effects of radiation. Later in my argument I will say something more about that.

There are only a few remarks I want to make in connection with the licensing of persons, which in my opinion must be controlled very strictly. In terms of clause 7 a person’s licence can even be suspended if he does not comply satisfactorily with the provisions of this Bill. But on the other hand the Bill is nevertheless very fair in the sense that after reasons have been furnished by the Secretary for Health about why such a licence has been suspended, such a person may appeal to the Minister. We believe and know that in such cases the Minister will hear the appeal very judiciously. We cannot escape the fact that a person, who is dependent upon trading in these dangerous substances, can suffer serious embarrassment by the actions of injudicious inspectors. Therefore I want to associate myself with the remarks made here this afternoon by the hon. member for Rosettenville. I think it is extremely necessary for the training of these inspectors to be given precedence, because in terms of this Bill the powers of these inspectors can be transferred to a variety of persons, inter alia, policemen as well. I therefore ask: Is a policeman, without the necessary training, in fact really competent to act as an inspector?

No.

I believe that provision will be made in the regulations for many of our problems, but I do want to advocate that in the implementation of this legislation, the training of the people, who must implement it, must be given very strong precedence.

I think it is also important that the inspectors should have minimum qualifications, particularly in the light of the fact that clause 28 safeguards an inspector against any action and provides that he cannot accept responsibility for his actions in such cases.

I have also a few remarks to make about another aspect of this Bill that perhaps does not emerge so clearly. You know, of course, that the pharmacological effects of many of these substances are well known. However, there are many conditions that arise as a result of the injudicious administration of certain substances or radiation, which does not have a clearly obvious effect, which can cause minimal disfunction of organs and tissues which can to a minimal extent affect the ductless gland system and can even have certain effects on the central nervous system and also the cognitive system. Sir, I want to give you an example. Recently I saw an article in connection with experiments being done with mice, in which the brain tissue of certain mice, already subject to certain experiences, were fed to mice who had not yet had those experiences. The remarkable aspect of these experiments was that a correlation exists between certain elements, which were present in the brain of the mouse that did have the specific experiences, and which can be transmitted orally to another, i.e. into the system of another organism. Therefore I think that we cannot yet, by any means, realize the full implications of the effects that dangerous substances can have on us. There is the question of mutations. Mutation is in reality the artificial or the natural changing of certain characteristics vested in the human or animal chromosome system. We are, virtually daily, exposed to certain minimal radiation. We take X-ray photographs; this is even done to an excessive degree. Sir, I want to tell you that the control of X-ray apparatus on the platteland is very shocking in many respects. The chromosomes in our body are bombarded by this electronic apparatus that can change our whole system and also our characteristics. I think the time has passed when monsters, physical deviations or new evolutionary forms exist only in the imaginations of writers of fiction. The fact remains that the injudicious use of Rӧntgen radiation and also other forms of radiation on human beings, as in radioactivity, could in future have a considerable effect on the future of mankind. I therefore say that the necessity for this Act is not yet properly realized. It will perhaps be necessary to supplement the Act considerably in future to make provision for future knowledge and development in that connection. Sir, therefore I also want to express the requirement that in South Africa additional intensive research should be done in connection with the implications of those hazardous substances and the contact the public has with them. This is a good and an essential Bill which is a great step forward, and we should like to support it.

I should like to associate myself with the congratulations which have already been conveyed to the hon. the Minister on his promotion to his new office, and we want to wish him every success. I may just mention in passing that I am only sorry about one thing, and that is that he is no longer the parliamentary head of the Publications Board, because I could have had an interesting chat with him about statues, from Michelangelo’s to Tienie Pritchard’s; but that is neither here nor there.

The hon. member for Newcastle mentioned an important point when he spoke of X-ray apparatus used by doctors and dentists and other persons and bodies in our country. It is quite true that a large percentage of those X-ray apparatus is obsolete. The standards which applied when they were bought, no longer apply today and I think it will be one of the important tasks of the hon. the Minister to see to it that an investigation is made, especially into the matter of these obsolete apparatus which is still being used today.

†Under the Group III products mentioned in the Bill, and also the Group IV products, are included electronic products in the light of the danger to health, etc., that some of these electronic products may bring about I hope you will not take it amiss, Sir, if I raise the question here of what can happen to our country when inadequate and badly protected television sets are built, distributed and sold in South Africa. Sir, this is no mere surmise on my part.

It has been found in America that a certain percentage of television sets were injurious to health, not in the way Dr. Hertzog said, but injurious in that they gave out rays, radioactivity which could be harmful to the viewer, and one could think how harmful they could be particularly to young children who are exposed to this radiation for many hours a day. It is good to know that the S.A. Bureau of Standards will be laying down very thorough specifications for the building of these television sets, but I take it that their specifications will deal more with the mechanical aspects, the viewing aspects, and I trust that the hon. the Minister of Health will also use his powers to see that the danger of radioactivity from badly designed or badly constructed sets can be combated. This is not a plea, Sir, incidentally against bringing in television because I am sure we all want it, but this is a very important aspect which should be seen to.

Years ago we had these little instruments in the shoe stores which were fluorescent and showed the bones of young children when they were being fitted for new shoes. Those things were known and declared to be dangerous but it took such a long time before their use was stopped. I believe they have been discarded in this country and are not being used anymore, but it is an indication of how sometimes unconsciously some of these things can be pretty dangerous to us.

It is naturally a world-wide problem but I am just wondering whether the hon. the Minister can give us the assurance as to what extent we in South Africa, where we investigate these harmful substances, are working in conjunction with similar organizations in other countries which hand out licences or prohibit harmful substances. There is the Food and Drug Administration in the United States of America and they have a list of thousands upon thousands of drugs which are harmful. So they also have in Western Germany and in Britain. Do we see to it that when a drug is declared harmful in one of these other countries it is also tested and examined in this country or, if we do not have the laboratory facilities to test these drugs immediately, do we at least see that we prohibit the sale of these drugs until they have been tested? This sort of thing is important when you think of the tragedy of the thalidomide babies in Western Germany, where a drug taken by expectant mothers led to the birth of these poor crippled little children. Thalidomide was passed in Western Germany but I believe it was stopped in time in the U.S.A. and also in other countries. I do not know whether we ever allowed thalidomide into our country but we can thank Providence for the fact that we have had no ill effects of that drug, which could have caused a tragedy in our country too.

It was not sold here.

I am very glad that it was not sold here. That was an excellent bit of prevention. I am thinking of the discrepancy you find between different countries in regard to the harmful effect of certain of these drugs in Groups I and II. Take sweatening agents. In France saccharin is sold, I believe, only under prescription while it is freely available in South Africa as a sweetener in cool drinks and in food. On the other hand calcium cyclamate is prohibited in the U.S.A. as a sweetener while in this country it is permitted. You find bottles of cool drinks stating that the contents have been sweetened by calcium cyclamate. Now, this is not an argument against saccharin or against calcium cyclamate but one would like to know whether sufficient attention has been paid to or whether sufficient investigation has been done in such matters. There are so many ways in which poisons and other noxious substances can affect the health of people in our country. Take the question of mineral oil, for instance. Mineral oil can be carcinogenic. Fortunately it was prohibited many years ago, about 20 years ago, from being used in any kind of food, but mineral oil is still very widely used today in sprays and paints and that sort of thing and it could be that some of these carcinogenic elements of mineral oil could be harmful to people using it today. It is a vast problem and I think we all wish the hon. the Minister success in his handling of it.

*It is a never-ending task and I only hope, as I stated at the beginning, that there will be correlation and co-operation with the other countries which can naturally have bigger laboratories than we can and which can sooner detect hazardous substances, in order to enable us to protect the lives as well as the health of many of us in this county.

Mr. Speaker, this Bill is a new measure and we must therefore expect that there will be omissions and perhaps defects at the start. We have the legislation of other countries available that can be of help to us in foreseeing some of the problems which we are going to encounter. At the same time I have full confidence that we have succeeded in producing a very effective Bill at the start, because I have great confidence in the ability of those who produced this Bill.

Before I proceed to answer the different hon. members on what they have said about the Bill, I first want to express my appreciation for the good wishes directed at my address by some of the hon. members. I sincerely appreciate it. I know that one is only popular on the first day and that thereafter, after the chocolate has been rubbed off, it is just fighting from start to finish. At the same time I also realize that we need not fight on the scientific plane on which we find ourselves at the moment. It will really be unnecessary. We can add to each other’s knowledge. I must congratulate the hon. members on the way in which they have approached this Bill. I think it is an example of the way in which the parties in this House can cooperate and really sometimes produce something worth while.

I also wish to add my own congratulations to the new Secretary for Health, Dr. De Beer, who is here today. He cannot speak on his own behalf, but on his behalf I also want to thank hon. members for the good wishes which they have directed to him.

The hon. member for Rosettenville, as well as other hon. members, did their utmost to approach this Bill in a neutral and scientific way. I think they have all made very good contributions.

I will start by attending to a few of the questions raised by the hon. member for Rosettenville. He was worried a little and was not sure what the difference was between a Group I and a Group II substance. He also is not clear in his own mind as to what the definition of a hazardous substance really means. He wanted to know why it was so wide and why it included such a number of substances. I shall answer him in a comprehensive way; I shall try to make it clear to him and to other hon. members who too may be worried about this. A Group I substance is the more dangerous substance. Group I substances include some medical substances which are in use at the moment, substances like arsenic and strychnine. Group II substances consist of household substances household substances which are used although they are dangerous. By subjecting them to labelling and by prescribing their usage we can at least make them less noxious. As far as a hazardous substance is concerned and the definition thereof, we took our cue from the medical legislation. In clause 2(l)(a) of this Bill you will find the definition. If we look at the American legislation of some time ago, of 1958, we will find the same definition which we have in our Bill. We took it from them, because what they did in the past 14 years has been proved. It is legislation that has proved itself to be very effective. I can tell the hon. members that it is possible at this stage even to find make-up among the Group I or Group II substances. It is just possible. We must start sometime or other and we are starting now. We may at the start group certain substances in a certain way and later decide that they must be grouped differently.

The hon. member is worried about our shortage of manpower. I am also worried about that. I have been worried about that all along. He is worried about the fact that we will not have enough inspectors, but I must tell the hon. member that we have inspectors at this stage to help us to apply the Food, Drugs and Disinfectants Act. Realizing the shortage of manpower at the same time, we have decided that the Department of Customs and Excise, the local authorities and the Police must, with the inspectors they have available, try to help us in enforcing the provisions of this legislation. As far as the agricultural departments are concerned, they might help us with pesticides and we believe that the Department of Commerce and Industry with their manpower will also be able to assist us. We must remember that the new hazards in the world of technology, as my hon. friend, the member for Newcastle, has said, that confront us from time to time will increase in times to come. We must start somewhere and we must use our available manpower to the best of our ability. However, we must not be defeatistic about it. Therefore I do realize the trouble and restrictions, but at the same time I realize that we must make a start somewhere. That was what we are doing as far as this Bill is concerned. As far as the question of colouring is concerned, I think the hon. member for Cradock has already answered the hon. member. I think it is more hazardous for people to identify a substance from the bottle than it is from the colouring.

Hear, hear!

I definitely think so. Sir, there are more sides to this question and it is not so easy to find a satisfactory solution. I have sympathy for the hon. member’s suggestion that inspectors should follow a special course. I believe that that will come in due time. We will do our best as we go along carrying out the Act. We may prescribe by regulation that certain inspectors must from time to time see to it that they acquire more knowledge of these hazardous substances. That is something we can consider. At the same time, I do not at this stage want to commit myself to that. I do not think in any event that it is necessary to include that in the Bill. I think there is one other matter the hon. member mentioned, namely, that if a substance is to be analysed, it should be divided into three parts to ensure that each one of the various parties concerned has a sample available of the same basic substance. Well, that is provided for in the Bill. I think if the hon. member reads the Bill carefully, he will see that it is provided for.

I do not want to be too elaborate in my speech today, although I am sure that some of us who are interested in the scientific aspects, may not be unwilling to listen to what is going on in other minds. I noticed at the beginning of my speech that there were few members left in the House in any event. But there are a few more things I should like to say.

*The hon. member for Cradock made a very interesting speech in which he spoke of his experience in particular and in which he emphasized that the manufacturer and the people at the outlets of industry will be of great importance. That is so, as I have already said. There are practical problems such as the colour and the shape of bottles, as I have already said, but we shall go into that. It is also true that there are substances—and that is why they are labelled and described accordingly—which cause certain reactions under pressure. These substances we can also group under Group I, under which these are mostly grouped, or under Group II. Nowadays this is often not done. I do want to mention that hon. members need not be concerned about these groupings, because in this regard three months’ notice will in any case be given of the Minister’s intentions. It does not preclude the possibility of substances being transferred from one group to another. I was particularly impressed by the words expressed by the hon. member for Cradock in respect of methylated spirits. Methylated spirits is something that holds many dangers for our people, particularly for our Coloured people. Arising from complaints received by us we find that these people—and probably some other people too—sometimes drink methylated spirits and that this has sometimes caused accidental death. We know that it has often caused blindness as well. It appears that bitrex, the substance that was added to combat or to reduce the intake of methylated spirits, has not helped much. I want to tell the hon. member that I do think that if there are representations for methylated spirits to be placed under Group I or Group II of these hazardous substances it will deserve our consideration.

Stronger purgatives could be added.

The hon. member would not know, when a man started running, whether it was the result of fear or of purgatives. In any case, I really do not think we can take that risk. We can only aggravate the condition of people who are already ill if it contains alcohol and those other things as well. There are certain people who have some experience of this. I personally have some experience of such people who have come to complain to me; I am so sorry for them that I should prefer not to add this. Rather let it have a bitter taste in that case.

†I want to thank the hon. member for Berea for his contribution. I think he is a person who interests himself a lot in these matters and I think he made a few very interesting suggestions. The South African Railway Police can be used by the department. They work in the harbours and I think they will be available. I therefore think that the hon. member need not worry about that. The hon. member talked about the various schedules, but we do not include dependence producing drugs amongst the Group I substances. We will include some substances used in medicine such as arsenic and strychnine and substances like that. We are planning to change the Drugs Control Act so that by next year we will be able to control all drugs under the Drugs Control Act. In the meantime, we will have some substances used in medicine included in this measure and under Schedule 4 which the Drugs Control Council may amend. The hon. member was also worried about some corrosive substances such as sulphuric acid and some methylated form of corrosive substances, but I can assure the hon. member that all the corrosive substances and irritating substances, including sulphuric acid, are included. Nearly all of them are included and at the moment I think we have very few left which are not.

As far as this Bill is concerned I want to say that it is not in substitution of any other Act, but in addition to those measures already dealing with these substances. Where there is overlapping this will be rectified in the years to come. By next year I think we will have three measures, one dealing with the medical and dental profession, an Act dealing with the pharmaceutical profession and one dealing with the control of medicines. At the moment we are working on this and are trying to draw up three measures in the place of the old Medical, Dental and Pharmacy Act, which has become very cumbersome and difficult to interpret nowadays. The hon. member for Berea also made a very interesting suggestion about the bona fides of inspectors and I think it is a suggestion which I will look into. An inspector must be required to produce his bona fides instead of waiting for the person whose premises he is to examine to ask for it. Some become very worried and fearful when they see an inspector and forget about their rights. There is something in which the hon. member for Berea suggested as far as this is concerned. I also made a note of the hon. member’s remark about the availability of the Bill. It is sometimes difficult to have the Bill available for everybody in time. I want to tell him that it will not save much time because as was suggested the Department of Health is so on the ball that as soon as a Bill is certified it only takes a day or two before it can be laid on the Table in this House. Therefore even hon. members on the Government side only have a head start on Opposition members.

*I want to thank the hon. member for Newcastle for his fine contribution. He told us a few very interesting things about the practical implementation of this measure. His knowledge shows that he takes a particular interest in this subject and I wa particularly pleased to hear him speak of the future dangers that threaten us as a result of our own technological ability. Then the hon. member for Orange Grove, too, made a contribution which was quite important, although it surprised me that the hon. member for Orange Grove, who has been putting up a tremendous fight for years to obtain television, has now at last found something that counts against it. This is something that counts against television and we have to consider it. A thing is not always to be considered from one side only. I want to tell the hon. member for Newcastle that guidelines will be laid down for dealers. As far as the appeal in regard to licensing is concerned, he can rest assured that the interests of those people will most certainly be considered by the Minister. I am concerned about the training myself, not only of inspectors, but particularly of analysts. But we have analysts in the department already who are doing this work today. They only have to be supplemented to some extent. Then we must remember one thing: There is no such thing as an inspector or analyst just being allowed to do as he likes and being safeguarded against any legal action by clause 28. If he reads clause 28 again, my hon. friend will see that such a person has to have acted in good faith. When you act in good faith the person who takes you to court can still try to prove that you did not act in good faith. But this is so in all cases. In any case, I am very impressed by the wide knowledge he displayed.

Then I finally come to the hon. member for Orange Grove, who indicated that he knew of many obsolete X-ray apparatus. That is so. To me that is not the greatest problem with X-ray apparatus. The problem is that we have already allowed the idea to gain too wide an acceptance that people who are not properly trained may operate X-ray apparatus, that a person has only to look at the instruction book to see how he has to handle it, and that as a result of this proper attention is not paid to the tremendous dangers to which the person taking X-rays is exposed. If a person takes a number of X-rays every day and he stands in the wrong place when he presses down that switch and is exposed to that radiation, it may be a matter of six months before he is suffering from leukemia or something else. Consequently I am glad that the hon. member indicated that there may be obsolete apparatus. It is true that there may be apparatus which may be defective and which may point in the wrong direction and affect other people in this way. But at the same time I just want to eradicate the idea that any person can work with an X-ray apparatus, which is a potentially very dangerous apparatus, and can use it for diagnostic or other purposes. It is true that there have been cases in America of television sets that were inadequately protected. This is something of which we shall take note. The hon. member remarked, however, that in my Second Reading speech I specifically referred to the fact that the Group III substances are electronic products. These include X-ray apparatus and television sets. This Group III will be subject to thorough supervision by the South African Medical and Dental Council. The department will not make and confirm regulations without first having referred them to this council. So hon. members can rest assured that we shall see to it that the public is afforded full protection in this respect as well.

It is not our intention either to work in isolation in regard to this Bill. Hon. members have already learnt that we studied the American and all other laws when this Bill was drafted, and we are certainly going to co-operate with these people so that we may be able in future to bring all the modern developments in regard to the protection of man, of his environment and of his health under the purview of this Bill whenever it may be necessary.

†The hon. member mentioned something about the cyclamates. It is rather a funny story, but at the start there was this research about the cyclamates, especially into the possibility that they might cause cancer, or some form of carcinoma. Then in the end when it was really brought down to essentials, it was found that in the human being it takes 5 000 of these cyclamate tablets a day to induce a state that is comparable to the state that is induced in a rat to which about one of these tablets is applied.

What about the genetic influences?

No, there are no really proven hypotheses about the genetic effects upon man as far as the cyclamates are concerned. That is why I would advise the hon. member for Orange Grove, if perhaps he has had any trouble with his weight, to use saccharin and to forget about the cyclamates. I conclude. Sir, by giving the hon. member that free medical advice.

*Mr. Speaker, I have now tried, to the best of my ability, to reply to all hon. members.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

On account of the ever-increasing and vast changes in respect of medical and pharmacy matters, constant amendments to the Medical, Dental and Pharmacy Act have become necessary. This is manifested in the increasing way the Act had to be amended during the last couple of years. To obviate this practice it has been decided to revise and to consolidate the Act. A start has already been made with the drafting of the proposed legislation and it will be discussed with the interested parties during the coming months. However, certain amendments to the Act are regarded as most essential and cannot be postponed until the consolidation of the Act is effected and in the circumstances I have no alternative but to come at this stage with these proposals.

Provision exists in section 2(3)(b) of the Act for the appointment of the Chief Health Officer or Deputy Chief Health Officer of the Department of Health as a member of the South African Medical and Dental Council. No provision exists, however, for the appointment of the Secretary for Health as a member of the council, and no stipulation has been made that the Secretary for Health shall also be appointed as Chief Health Officer. It is considered essential that provision be made that the head of the Department of Health could serve as a member of the council and the amendment in clause 1 will give effect thereto.

Section 37 of the Act authorizes a registered chemist and druggist to employ under his supervision, for the purpose of compounding and dispensing drugs and medicines, any apprentice or trainee chemist and druggist in the pharmacy in which he is serving his apprenticeship or is undergoing practical training, or any unqualified assistant. “Trainee chemists and druggists” are persons who have obtained a degree or diploma in pharmacy and are undergoing practical training before being registered as chemists and druggists. According to the present definition an “unqualified assistant” is a person who has completed a period of apprenticeship with a chemist and druggist and who has been registered as such. The latter definition is being amended in clause 8 of the Bill to include a person who has obtained credit for the first and second years of study for a degree or diploma in pharmacy. The purpose of this amendment is to enable students who have passed the first and second-year courses to obtain practical experience in a pharmacy during vacations. To enable the board to exercise the necessary control over the employment of such unqualified persons, it is necessary to add “unqualified assistants” and “trainee chemists and druggists” to the list of persons in respect of whom the Pharmacy Board shall keep registers and an amendment giving effect thereto is embodied in clause 2. These amendments are consequential to the introduction in 1970 of a four-year academic course for a degree or diploma in pharmacy.

Section 22(2) of the Act provides for restricted registration of medical practitioners and dentists in the Republic. Such registration takes place in respect of practitioners who, for various reasons, do not qualify for full registration in terms of the Act, and is only valid for an initial period of five years and thereafter for such periods as the council may determine and is also subject to such conditions as the council may determine. No such provision exists for restricted registration of chemists and druggists. Certain mission hospitals are employing chemists and druggists who obtained their qualifications in countries such as Holland, Germany and Finland and who are not eligible for registration in the Republic. The Pharmacy Board wishes to regularize the employment of these persons at such hospitals by granting them restricted registration in terms of which they will practise their profession for such periods, in such areas and subject to such other conditions as the board may determine. The board will be able to do this in terms of the proposed amendments in clause 3(a) and (b) and this will put chemists and druggists on the same level as medical practitioners and dentists with regard to restricted registration. The Act was amended in 1969 to make provisions for the introduction in 1970 of a four-year academic course for a degree or diploma in pharmacy. Through an oversight no provision was made that a person who obtains such a degree in pharmacy shall be eligible for registration as a chemist and druggist, as in the case of the holder of a diploma in pharmacy, only after he has completed at least twelve months’ training with a chemist and druggist in the Republic. Clause 3(b) (the new subsection (5) will rectify the matter.

The nature and duration of the practical training to be undergone by persons who have obtained a degree or diploma in pharmacy in terms of section 22 may be prescribed by regulation. The purpose of clause 4 is to extend this provision to include the practical training to be undergone by a person holding a diploma or certificate prescribed under section 27(1) of the Act.

Section 27(1)(c) of the Act provides that the board may grant a diploma or certificate which shall entitle the holder to be registered as a chemist and druggist, to any person who has passed the prescribed examination and has thereafter undergone practical training for a continuous period of not less than one year. The amendment in clause 5 will enable a person to obtain the diploma or certificate immediately after he passes the prescribed examination, and makes it clear that he may be registered as a chemist and druggist only after he has also completed the prescribed practical training to the satisfaction of the board.

The amendment in clause 6 becomes necessary as a result of the amendment in clause 2.

In terms of section 95A the State President may, on the recommendation of the Medical and Dental Council, by proclamation in the Gazette, authorize the council to prescribe an annual fee to be paid by all persons registered in respect of any para-medical profession, provided that the council shall make such recommendation only after consultation with the professional board established in respect of such profession. Provision for the establishment of such boards under the aegis of the council was made in Act 43 of 1971. Professional boards have so far been established in respect of only three of such professions. The proposed amendment in clause 7(a) will enable a fee to be prescribed in the case of a para-medical profession for which a professional board has not yet been established. The amendment in clause 7(b) will enable the council to exempt any such registered person from payment of any prescribed annual fee. A similar provision already exists in respect of medical practitioners and dentists and is applied in cases where a person is unable to practise his profession for reasons such as illness, advanced age, etc.

In terms of subsection (2) of section 96A, Government Notice R.2200 of 3rd December, 1971, will lapse on 6th December, 1973. In the Government Notice the Minister authorizes certain categories of persons, including medical practitioners, dentists, veterinarians, chemists and druggists to perform certain acts relating to potentially harmful drugs which are referred to in Part III of the Schedule to the Abuse of Dependence-producing Substances and Rehabilitation Centres Act, 1971.

As I have indicated in my preamble the revision and consolidation of the Medical, Dental and Pharmacy Act is receiving attention, but as a result of the necessary consultation with interested parties, the draft legislation will not be ready for this session of Parliament. It is therefore necessary that subsection 96A(2) be amended so that the Government Notice may remain in force after the 6th December, 1973, and the proposed amendment in clause 9 will extend the period until the 6th December, 1974.

The above-mentioned amendments have been recommended by the S.A. Medical and Dental Council and the S.A. Pharmacy Board respectively.

Mr. Speaker, this side of the House will support the Bill. It is a Committee Stage Bill and we do not see that any further amendments will be necessary to the suggested amendments to the principal Act. I should like, however, to avail myself of the opportunity to make one or two comments on what is happening at the moment. I feel firstly that every encouragement should be given to those people who wish to qualify as pharmacists, especially those who are non-Whites and find it difficult to enter a pharmacy school. They should be enabled to qualify so that, if necessary, they could attend to their own people. There is this deficiency in the educational facilities for the non-Whites and I hope that when the hon. the Minister has an opportunity of going into this matter of education for the para-medical services, the pharmacists, and also doctors and dentists, these difficulties will be cleared up. The hon. the Minister knows as well as I do how few Bantu pharmacists there are at the moment, how few are available to serve their own people not only in the homelands but also in the urban areas.

Are there any?

The position must be cleared up as soon as possible. The hon. the Minister will know that the pharmacy course is a relatively long one and if we start immediately it will be anything between five and six years before we shall have a proper and efficient team of pharmacists in those areas which are outside the urban areas. As a result of that difficulty which we see in giving the Bantu a reasonable service in the homelands, I welcome the provision which is now made for people who come here from overseas to be given an opportunity to practise particularly in mission hospitals. I should like to say to the hon. the Minister that, if it is possible to find positions for these people in places other than hospitals in homelands, they should be allowed to practise. Does it mean that a man who comes from a country with which there is no reciprocity at the moment will be denied permission to open up a chemist shop, but will be allowed to practise in a mission hospital nearby? These are difficulties which the hon. the Minister must face himself, and the hon. the Deputy Minister sitting next to him at the moment will have to give this serious consideration. I want also to say to the hon. the Minister that he must make very effort immediately to provide for the training of more Bantu pharmacists.

Talking about the admission into the country of pharmacists from countries where there is no reciprocity, brings me to the position of the other para-medical services which may require similar assistance. How many of our physiotherapists who have trained in the urban areas would readily go to a Bantu homeland to practise? Can we expect them to? Can the Minister see ways and means of giving these people a salary commensurate with what they would be earning in the urban areas? I doubt it very much. So, if you open a door to pharmacists, I would suggest that the Minister of Health also goes into the position to see whether other para-medical services should not be encouraged to enter our country under the same conditions as those under which pharmacists are being allowed to practise here.

Talking about the para-medical services, I wonder whether you will allow me, Mr. Speaker, to deal with another matter which is not directly in the Bill, but I will only be a minute on this matter. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister to consider the position of those people who have been practising in the para-medical services for years and years. In one case that I know of a physiotherapist, who served through the war as a physiotherapist, who since the war has practised in a large town, who has been acclaimed as an excellent physiotherapist and who has been used by his colleagues in the medical profession, is not recognized as a qualified physiotherapist by the law as it now stands. He is not recognized as a physiotherapist because he did not pass the required examination at that time but studied in a country where there is no reciprocity. These people are now denied a living, and the denial comes at a time when it is virtually impossible for them to sit for an examination.

Order! The minute is up now.

That was a fast minute. Anyway, I think I have made my point.

I must congratulate the hon. the Minister on preparing the ground now for these deficiencies that have occurred from time to time. I cannot see anything in this Bill which we can object to. We shall give it our support, although there will be one or two matters which we might perhaps want to deal with in the Committee Stage. The Minister has already replied to some of the queries I wanted to put to them. He denied me that opportunity of cross-examining him here because he got in first, but with the few remarks that I have made I will again tell him that we will assist the passage of this Bill at the Second Reading.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House support the legislation of the hon. the Minister. Although it is not contentious, there are nevertheless a few important amendments. We are pleased that the Secretary for Health will in future serve on the Medical Council. The Medical Council themselves asked for it and the medical practitioners in this country welcome this amendment whereby the Secretary for Health will serve on the Medical Council.

This amendment also regulates the training and registration of pharmacists. In the past the training has not always been well understood, but now proper provision is being made for the training of pharmacists. The Council is also being granted the right now to recognize diplomas and certificates obtained abroad, and to register the holders of the certificates as pharmacists in our country. We hope there will be reciprocity between us and the other countries. We believe it is important that this training of pharmacists should be laid down in the legislation for it could indeed be harmful if doctors are properly trained, nurses are properly trained, but the pharmacists who have to dispense the medicines are not properly trained. One finds many people from countries where the training is rather poor, who practise here, I believe it also offers protection to our own pharmacists if we should close the door a little through which others from abroad are able to enter this country without being properly qualified. There is not much more contained in this Amendment Bill and we support this provision. We thank the hon. the Minister for having effected this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister has given the reason for the introduction of this Bill, which has met with the full approval of the Pharmacy Board and of organized pharmacy. The hon. the Minister made an interesting observation when he said that the three professions will be separated and that there will be a separate Medical, Dental, and then a Pharmacy Bill next year. I want to suggest to the hon. the Minister that over the years many amendments of a much more contentious nature have been suggested to the hon. Minister’s predecessors and these amendments have been swept under the carpet. I trust that, when consideration is given to the Bill which is to be introduced into this House in 1974, the hon. the Minister will approach the problems with courage and understanding, because I want to tell him that there is a ferment in the pharmaceutical profession at the present time. I believe that many of the present qualified members of the profession see no professional future for chemists and druggists, with the position as it is at the present. I think that the entrants into the profession are also becoming frustrated. I will deal with this matter a little later on.

I want to refer to clause 3 of the Bill and say that it is welcomed. The hon. the Minister has referred to the position which now arises, whereby chemists and druggists who come from lands where reciprocity is not recognized, will be able to practise in the mission hospitals. I know that this clause has been dubbed “the missionary clause”. There appears to me to be a paradox in this because, while we have had the provision in the Act for the control of pharmacy schools inside the Republic, the Board now receives permission to control pharmacy schools outside of the Republic. Let us have a look at what is going on in the pharmacy schools inside the Republic. At the present moment there are ten institutions or pharmacy schools, namely five universities—two for Whites and three for non-Whites—and five colleges for advanced technical education, all of which are training chemists and druggists. In these ten institutions the total enrolment last year stood at almost 2 000 students, taking total enrolment for the various years’ courses. In addition to that there are more than 90 highly qualified members of the teaching staff providing this training at the ten institutions. What is the result? Between 200 and 300 pharmacists have qualified according to the latest figures at my disposal during 1972. So we have this vast number of students being trained in pharmacy but we have a terrific drop-out rate. I want to suggest that, as this training is taking place at tremendous cost to the State and the taxpayer, the time has come when the drop-out rate in the training of pharmacy students merits very serious consideration, because what must these 200 or 300 students who qualify do to survive and to make a living when they have qualified? They have to become involved in cut-throat competition with patent medicine dealers and cut-price chain stores. This is the main outlet for many of those people who are going in for a long, difficult and expensive course. When they finally qualify, they find that with the situation as it is at present, there is very little hope for them in the future as professional people.

Then I want to refer to another question. The hon. the Minister has pointed out that in terms of clause 3 provision exists for medical schools and dental schools and for the Medical Council to deal with medical men and dentists who qualified at medical and dental schools outside of the Republic. This, I realize, is the position but I want to point out to the hon. the Minister that a very serious position now exists in the dental profession. I have a letter here which comes from the Secretary of a branch of the Dental Association and from which I wish to quote briefly:

Let me make it clear that I do not find any fault with that, because this is a provision which I believe safeguards the situation and ensures an adequate standard. Put the point that disturbs me is this, and the letter concludes by saying:

Take for example the R.K. Kahn Hospital at Chatsworth in Durban. There they could serve the two years which would entitle them to registration. We know there are a limited number of posts in the Transvaal Administration but the problem exists primarily in Natal, because the Indian population is mainly concentrated there. And so we have this summing up of comment: It is claimed that there is a tremendous demand for the services of Indian dentists to serve their own people, and that the services are not available in the vast area of the North Coast and Durban where many of them live. The claim is made that the King Edward VIII Hospital is fully extended with its existing staff and that they cannot take any more. It is said that the Indian dentists with British and South African qualifications who are registered in South Africa and who are entitled to practise and to serve their own people, are at present dealing with up to 100 patients a day. They are doing it primarily on a humane basis in order to help those who are suffering pain and who need urgent dental attention. They say that the services are stretched. The claim is made that the population is crying out for services. There are people willing to perform that service, but nothing is being done due to a lack of action on the part of the authorities. I commend this position to the hon. the Minister’s notice because I believe urgent steps should be taken to ameliorate the position. If we are to rely on the Indians in South Africa receiving their training in dentistry in South Africa we find that they can only apply, to my knowledge, to one university, the University of the Witwatersrand, and I understand that the intake there is two per year. The claim is made by the Dental Association that there is no other dental faculty in South Africa where Indians can be trained. I know that the position exists, as far as overseas training is concerned, that a South African Indian can apply to a dental school in Great Britain or Ireland. I believe there is some reciprocity, so that having qualified there, there would be no particular problem as regards their practising in South Africa. Since the withdrawal of South Africa from the Commonwealth, however, there has been little inclination, I am told, on the part of various institutions overseas to accept students from South Africa, particularly Indian students. So the alternative is that these people are called upon to qualify in India and then they have to seek registration. At the moment, in order to seek registration, they have to be placed in approved institutions in South Africa and it seems as if these institutions do not exist in sufficient numbers to allow the Indian dentists to qualify on that basis. I would like to appeal to the Minister to do something in this regard. I am told that a member of the South African Indian Council has indicated that there are at present seven fully qualified dentists who cannot practise in Natal because they are waiting for the necessary posts to be made available at the training institutions. I know the Minister will regard this with sympathy because I do not think he likes to know of people suffering from severe toothache for example and being unable to receive the services they require.

As far as the other aspects of the Bill are concerned, we know that they are temporary measures; that they have been introduced to serve the wishes of the professions until such time as all the Acts are consolidated next year. We support the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I do not intend wasting any time, because I think in the Committee Stage we can thrash out many of the problems which have cropped up in this discussion. I have listened with interest to the hon. member for Rosettenville, as well as to the hon. member for Berea, who made a very impassioned plea for the dental profession. I do not know whether it is really the right occasion for that at this moment, seeing that our thoughts are more directed towards the pharmacists of which profession he is a member. I can tell him, however, that as far as the Coloureds are concerned, for whom I am responsible, we have introduced a course in dental training in collaboration with the University of Stellenbosch. We have also decided that, in case there are any vacancies available for students of other races to be trained, we might also admit some Indians. I myself am worried about the position in Natal and will give it further attention.

At this specific stage I do not wish to comment any more on the Bill. I have listened with great interest to the worries the hon. member for Berea in particular has about the future of the pharmacy profession, which is turning out about 2 000 students a year, who are wondering and worrying about their future. They are also scientists, you know, after a four year course. Maybe we can try and fit them in somewhere else. Anyhow, we must not lose them—about this we definitely agree.

*There are problems in regard to all these cases which have been mentioned, and I do not wish to pursue this matter now. I just want to say that I listened with a measure of interest to the matters brought up by the hon. member for Geduld regarding reciprocal recognition between us and other countries. We must bear in mind that we cannot simply open up and allow everybody to enter. We are very proud indeed of the standard of our medical, pharmaceutical and dental services in South Africa, and we must have strict rules. In that process we must sometimes act rather strictly. I want to tell the hon. member for Rosettenville that the services in the homelands are actually the function of the Department of Bantu Administration, with which he had direct discussions. We act as agents there. Regarding the training of dentists, about which he was worried, this, too, is in turn primarily a function of the Department of National Education. As the Department of Health we can only be a department which pleads in this respect. We are intensely concerned with the effects, for should it not be done efficiently enough, we will not get the medical services which we want in the country.

I took note of everything said by hon. members. I want to express my sincere thanks for the support of the Opposition and for the contributions made on this side of the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.