Mr. Speaker, I ask your permission to make a statement.

The Fourth Interim Report of the Commission of Inquiry into Certain Organizations was tabled on 12 August 1974. It contains unanimous recommendations and a minority report. Paragraph 20.2.1. of it forms part of the unanimous recommendations. The Commission stated in that paragraph that the National Union of South African Students was active in South African politics and that it was influenced and supported from abroad in its political activities here, inter alia, by donations of large sums of money. The Commission then recommended that measures be considered to prevent political activities in South Africa from being supported and influenced by financial help from abroad. The Affected Organizations Act, which was placed on the Statute Book earlier this year, is aimed at thwarting foreign support for and influencing of South Africa’s internal political activities. In terms of section 8 of that Act I have appointed fact-finding committees consisting of three magistrates each to make factual reports in relation to the National Union of South Africa Students and three organizations through which Nusas is also pursuing political objectives, respectively. Through the National Union of Students Education Department it is doing this in the sphere of education, through the National Union of Students Welfare and Action Department it is doing this more specifically on the action front, and through Aquarius it is doing so in the sphere of culture. Nusas has already decided formally to dissolve two of these organizations as from next year. I have received and considered a factual report in respect of each of these organizations. Proclamations are being published in the Government Gazette today in which these four organizations are being declared to be affected organizations by the State President in terms of section 2 of the Affected Organizations Act.

On behalf of the Leader of the House, I want to say that we shall deal with the Orders of the Day as they appear on the Order Paper, with the exception of Nos. 9, 10 and 12, which will stand over. On Monday we shall proceed with the Labour and Bantu Administration Votes.

†On Wednesday the Minister of Transport will deliver his Budget speech and after that we shall resume the consideration of the Vote Bantu Administration if it is not finished yet and after that we shall proceed with legislation as it stands on the Order Paper.

I understand it is not competent for me to move some of these amendments and therefore I am not moving amendments Nos. (4), (5), (8) and (9). I understand that this would require special instruction as it needs more finance; so I am not moving that although I should like to talk to the remaining amendments as they stand on the Order Paper. As I indicated to the hon. the Minister yesterday in the Second Reading debate, I do not believe that he has really given any good reason for reducing the size of the council, and more particularly the number of elected members. I cannot see how he can completely ignore the wishes of the Medical Association and the Dental Association in this regard and I would like him to give some consideration to try to reinstate the position whereby those universities that have faculties of Medicine and Dentistry have full representation on this council. I also believe that he is putting too many nominated members on the council and, as I say, I think the Pharmacy Board member should be a liaison member who does not have full voting rights on the council but can only vote on those matters which concern the pharmacy profession. Sir, I know that there is a lot of dissatisfaction about the way in which the hon. the Minister is proposing to compose this council and I ask the hon. the Minister to consider the following amendments which I hereby move—

1. (1) To omit subparagraph (iii) of paragraph (b) of subsection (1);
2. (2) at the end of subparagraph (iv) of paragraph (b) of subsection (1), to add “, one of whom shall be a lawyer”;
3. (3) to omit paragraph (c);
4. (4) in line 50, to omit “universities” and to substitute “faculties”;
5. (5) to omit the proviso to paragraph (d) of subsection (1);
6. (6) in line 61, to omit “more than two medical practitioners and not more” and to substitute “less than one or more than four medical practitioners and not less”;
7. (7) in line 63, after “Republic”, to insert “or in South-West Africa”; and
8. (8) to omit paragraphs (f) and (g) of subsection (1).

During the Second Reading I indicated why I would like to see alterations to this clause. The hon. the Minister said that he felt that the number of people on the council should be reduced so that he could streamline it. He said it could work better if he reduced the number. But at the same time he introduces, in a later clause, committees to do the work of the council. I cannot see the value of the committees. If they have continually to bring back their work to the council the council might as well do it themselves and so save a lot of time. If it is true that he thinks that a smaller council can work better than a bigger council, I should like to say that I think the number of people he nominates should be reduced and that the number of people who are now elected should remain the same. I indicated what was happening in other countries, especially in Great Britain. There the number of elected members is small but to keep the whole number of people on the Medical Council in line with what it is at the moment, I would say to him let us keep what we have got and let us reduce the number of nominated people. I suggest this not for any reason that any one group may override another group. I think the Minister is making a mistake when he thinks that the people who go on the council because they are elected or nominated … in very many cases these are nominated through the Medical Association. They have meetings and decide among themselves who they think should be the man to represent the profession on the board, but once they are on the board it is the same as if they were judges. They go there with the greatest impartiality.

Nobody can accuse any doctor serving on the board of taking sides. I think that the hon. the Minister is making a mistake in thinking that because he is increasing the number of doctors who are elected, that these doctors will run the council. I do not hold with that. I think that they will be there as a body, in the first instance to adjudicate on the actions of their fellows, their colleagues. The second point is that they themselves who have been to university will do their best to raise the standard of tuition at the universities and to maintain those standards as they have done in the past. Although I cannot move my second, third and fourth proposed amendments. I hope that the hon. the Minister will consider the suggestions contained in them. From time to time we have asked for the opening of more medical schools in this country. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that if we want to encourage medical schools to take an active part in health matters, we must see that they get representation wherever possible in relation to teaching. I do not think that the number of practitioners who are going to represent the universities, or the one dentist who will serve all the dental faculties, is going to be adequate. I want to ask him to consider increasing the number of medical practitioners who will be representing the universities at which faculties of medicine have been established, and the one dentist representing the universities at which faculties of dentistry have been established, from four to seven. I move the first amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

Mr. Chairman, I just want to bring hon. members back to our discussion yesterday. We must understand one thing very clearly. According to the objectives of clause 3(a), (c) and (d), these health services are a multi-disciplinary matter. This council is no longer mainly a professional council as it was in the past. Then it clearly had to judge only certain aspects of the profession. Its function is being extended greatly and therefore it is being laid down in clause 3(a) that one of the objectives of the council is to be of assistance in promoting the health of the population of the Republic. We have brought the provinces into this multi-disciplinary matter. We have brought in also the training schools as such. These training schools are being included here so as to afford them representation there.

I just want to say that discipline will pay a very important role as far as this council is concerned and I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister to bear in mind the Medical Research Council in designating these four persons. I hope he will also bear in mind another aspect which is very important in this multi-disciplinary concept, and that is the question of instruction. He must bear in mind a person who is specifically trained in health instruction. We must have a merger. It is not a question of how many people of various associations there will be. We must have an umbrella body which will be chosen on the broadest level possible. In the Bill we therefore provided for committees so that they may then expand further. Surely this will not in any way be prejudicial to the task of the members of the council.

Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the hon. the Minister when he replies to explain to me why he has departed from the principle of a minimum number from each province. It would appear to me to be the more democratic way of doing this sort of thing. He is now specifying a maximum number. It appears to me that the correct thing would be to change this to a minimum number.

Minimum number?

Yes. In other words, to ensure that each province has at least one representative. At the moment the provision specifies a maximum number of members from any one province. That appears to me to be wrong because you may have a spread where some of the provinces are not represented at all. Perhaps the hon. the Minister will look into that matter.

Mr. Chairman, I want to tell the hon. member that that is a good point and I shall make a special note of that.

It might interest hon. members to learn that all the members appointed are members of the Medical Association of South Africa. There might be exceptions, but these are very rare. In regard to representations by the Medical Association, I want to say that they almost have full representation as far as doctors and dentists are concerned.

As far as the proposed amendments to the constitution of the council is concerned, I would rather like to deal with this matter comprehensively. I want to stress the fact that the council was not established to serve the purpose of the medical and dental professions alone and that the previous Act was not passed to establish a monopoly for the medical and dental professions. The Medical Association and the Dental Association in their representations asked for all in all 21 members in a council of 39 members, which they proposed. It is clear that they wanted a majority of members. We do not need any more clarity on this point since it is obvious that they wanted to control this council. I think I made that point clear yesterday. Numbers should not matter so much, but what matters is that the council as it is presently constituted, with the new procedures and new ways in which it is going to operate, should be efficient enough to do the work which is required of them as in the past. The main reason for the request for a larger council was actually that they could have more members to serve on disciplinary committees.

However, we are bringing in new members from the medical profession, experts in their fields, to help them in a case like this. From time to time as committees are appointed, new blood can be brought in. I think it is much better that the ordinary medical people and the experts in various fields who are not members of the council, should from time to time participate in matters such as this. They help their fellow practitioners by being prepared to serve on such committees. That is why I am of the opinion that the introduction of disciplinary committees should be done in this way. They can have practising members who are experts on the specific medical discipline in respect of which a member of the Medical Association or any member of the medical profession stands accused for having done something wrong.

In regard to the representations of the universities, I just want to say that they did not make any representations asking for more members. They are perfectly satisfied. I know after having had consultations with them, that three members are sufficient. That argument then falls away as well. I am very conscious of the role played by universities and I would not contemplate a change which would be to the detriment of the universities and to the role they are playing. They did not ask for it and I suppose that it is not necessary to bring about a change in that respect.

As far as the provincial administrations are concerned, I want to say that they are closely involved in supplying facilities for the training of personnel and therefore I regard it as only fair that they should have representation on this body, which is something they have not had for many years. This is necessary for better co-ordination. The hon. member objected to the inclusion of pharmacists, but this was specifically asked for by the board.

Finally, the constitution of the council boils down to this, that no one of the various interest groups has a majority in the council. The elected members will constitute about 36%, the nominated members 32% and other members 32%. I think that is a fair and well-balanced council. The appointment of the various committees, like the education committee which is very important as far as universities are concerned, can only improve the workings and the efficiency of the council by bringing in new blood from time to time thus making available to the council people who can aid them in bringing about better control and a better service all round both to the medical profession and to the public at large. That is why I cannot accept most of these amendments.

*The hon. member for Rosettenville again raised the question that the number of members should be reduced. I just want to tell the hon. member that I really do not wish to upset the equilibrium in such a way, and I want to repeat what I said earlier on, i.e. that the Medical Association as such, which represents a specific interest group and does not necessarily see to the interests of the public only, does not have a majority on the council. The council is a statutory body and groups should not really be represented. We want knowledge and the fact that the number of members nominated by the Minister himself, has been increased, is really to deal with this aspect of knowledge. Who else can deal with this other than the Minister who appoints the people? In the case of elected members, it may happen that only general practitioners are elected, or only popular men who win votes easily, such as is the case in Parliament, too, at times. Then one does not obtain the balance one really seeks. Therefore I am afraid I cannot agree to the number of members nominated by the Minister being reduced. The procedure the Minister is to follow in nominating them is prescribed. Therefore it is not a question of the Minister being able to nominate those he wants. Four of them must be medical practitioners. They must be some of the best medical practitioners in this country, people who have already proved that they have sufficient knowledge of administration and other matters to take the lead. I am also restricted with regard to the other four members I nominate and it is virtually prescribed to me whom I shall appoint. Therefore hon. members must not hold this against me, for I cannot accept these amendments.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister says that the universities did not ask for an increase in the number of representatives they have now. Unless I misunderstand the position completely, there is, surely a reduction in the number. The present composition of the council makes provision for six members of council—three from the medical faculties and three from the dental faculties.

The universities are satisfied with the reduction.

Are the universities satisfied with the reduction?

Yes, the faculties as such. I want to point out to the hon. member that the universities are involved here and not the faculties as such. After consultation with them the universities had no objection to having three members.

Was that an unanimous decision of the universities? Did all the universities agree to that?

Those universities that have medical faculties.

I am obviously only talking about those and not about universities without medical faculties, because they have no right to elect anybody anyway. I am talking about those universities with medical faculties and the two with dental faculties. Were they unanimous and happy about the reduction of their membership on the council?

I did not say they agreed to it unanimously. I said that after consultation with them and explaining to them the reasons for the reduction in the number and pointing out to them that we want more efficiency and hence do not want just people on the council, people who in any case would not have to work very hard, they were satisfied. It is not a question of them being completely ad idem with us. But they were satisfied with the position.

I am very surprised to hear that, and I say that in all honesty. I must say, this is the first time I have ever heard of any organization being satisfied with having its representation reduced on a council. After all, the universities are tremendously important in this regard because they are responsible for all the training and for the educational standards which are laid down for the dental and medical professions. I am very surprised indeed to learn from the hon. the Minister that those universities with medical and dental faculties were satisfied to have their representation reduced from 9 to 4. That is a big reduction—more than half. I am absolutely astonished.

Nine to five.

Yes. That is right. All I can say is that the hon. the Minister must have been very persuasive.

From Fahrenheit to Celsius.

From Fahrenheit to Celsius. Well, double it, take away 10% and add 32, or the other way round, and you have the answer. But I am nevertheless astonished about that reduction. The hon. the Minister certainly cannot tell me that the associations are satisfied with the reduction. They are not. Neither the Medical Association nor the Dental Association nor the present council for that matter, is satisfied. None of those bodies was prepared to have the composition of the council changed. They have argued that there is very much more work and that they need more members to do the work. The hon. the Minister’s sub-committees are not the answer, for the simple reason that there is no direct communication with the council itself. There will have to be a sort of messenger from the sub-committee reporting to the council as a whole on what the subcommittees have decided. Certainly those bodies do not consider that situation satisfactory.

I must point out to the hon, member that, as far as these committees of the council are concerned, their chairmen will be full members of the council. Also, when representatives of an auxiliary profession such as physiotherapy, have interest in any specific matter with which the council is dealing, they are ex officio members of the council. Their chairmen will be ex officio members. I agree that the Medical Association as such is not satisfied with their seven members. They are an interest group and would have liked 21 members instead of nine.

Have they done a bad job?

Must it be 10, 11 or 12? The fact is that they asked for 21 members. I say that numbers are not of such importance. At the same time, I have indicated fairly clearly the way in which this new council is going to work, that is by committees. It will work down to committees and back in a more efficient way. It is therefore not necessary to concentrate so much on numbers as such.

Mr. Chairman, has the Medical Council indicated to the Minister that they prefer to have committees consisting of a member or two of the council and other persons whom they appoint themselves? I do not know whether this is an idea which comes from the Minister himself or whether it comes from the council. If it comes from the council, obviously we will have to take cognizance of their wishes. But if it comes from the Minister, I think perhaps it might be a good idea if this question is discussed by the council themselves to see what they think about it. They may find that it is not going to work properly and what will we do then?

Mr. Chairman, the council was almost evenly divided about the matter of committees. However, I can also tell the hon. member that it is for me to use my discretion to decide which members of the council are giving the lead at this moment. I had to make a decision, because my decision did not depend on a majority vote in the council or in the Medical Association. I can tell the hon, member that the people whom I regard to be giving the lead in the medical profession, the opinion-makers as such, agree with me. They agree with me that this is the most efficient way in which the council can operate and that the question of numbers is not that important. They are satisfied that this is the way in which we must do it in future if we want to have a council which will be able to do its work properly.

Amendments negatived.

Clause agreed to (Official Opposition and Progressive Party dissenting).

Clause 10:

Mr. Chairman, I move as an amendment—

1. “(3) Five members shall constitute a quorum at any meeting of the executive committee.”.

The object of this amendment is simply to obviate any delay when the executive committee has to be brought together in an emergency. The executive committee consists of quite a few people, namely the president, the vice-president, the Secretary for Health or, in his absence, an officer of the department, and five other members of the council designated by the council. The clause provides who should be designated. It is possible that when these persons have to be brought together quickly, it may, even in these modern times, not be possible. Realizing the importance of the executive, I think it is necessary, for that reason alone, for this important group of people who do so much work for the Medical Council to have a quorum. I do not know whether it will be possible to provide for this by way of regulation.

It will be possible.

If it will be possible, I should like to withdraw the amendment. If it is not possible to provide by way of regulation, then I say to the hon. the Minister that I should like him to accept the amendment.

We can make provision in this regard by means of regulation and I intend doing that.

Mr. Chairman, with the leave of the Committee I should like to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, with leave, withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 15:

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

1. “(d) the election of a chairman of the board concerned by the members of that board from among themselves.”.

The reason for this amendment is because I believe that this should be specifically indicated in the Act and not by regulation. I appreciate that in line 15, subsection (5), on page 17, it is provided that—

What worries me, however, is the acceptance of what might possibly be regarded as a principle in clause 11 of this Bill which has already been accepted, because this clause of this Bill refers to other committees, and in both subsections (a) and (b), in regard to the establishment of committees by the council, the education committee or the specialist committee, it is specifically stipulated that the member of the Medical Council shall be the chairman of such committee. I have no objection to this in principle. However, I want to draw the attention of this Committee to subsection (8) of clause 15, which is now under discussion. This is on page 17, line 38. Subclause (8) states—

This deals with reports of the professional board. I quote further—

That refers to the Medical Council. If the principle is adopted in the promulgation of the regulations to the effect that the chairman of this psychologist board should in fact be a member of the Medical Council, it would mean that the chairman, who is the member of the Medical Council, would then appear and enjoy his full rights as a member of the council. However, if the council of this board has the power to elect its chairman from among its members, and it decides that its chairman shall not necessarily be the medical man appointed to the board, then that chairman elected by that professional board will have rights under these special circumstances whereby he will be able to be present at the meeting of the council to discuss the matters which the council is discussing concerning that particular professional board. He shall have the right to vote and he shall have the right to participate as a member of the council. I believe that this is a very important right which a member of the professional board who is not a member of the council, should enjoy if it is the expressed wish by election of the professional board that a member who is not a member of the council should be elected to that board. The regulations in subsection (6) lay down certain conditions. The subsection reads as follows—

Provision is made for “the inclusion of at least one member of the council, designated by the council.” There is no objection to that. Also for “the election of the majority of the members of such professional board”. There is no objection to that either. Also for the inclusion of a medical practitioner and there is no objection to that aspect. I believe that it is important to add, after these three subparagraphs (a), (b) and (c), the amendment which I have moved, to the effect that the regulations shall provide “(d) for the election of the chairman of the board concerned by the members of that board from among themselves.” Mr. Chairman, I believe that it is a reasonable suggestion. It is intended only to make for the smooth working of the professional board concerned and I ask the hon. the Minister if he will accept it on that basis.

Sir, the hon. member for Berea succeeded to argue his case reasonably well, but I am of the opinion that at this stage, with reference to these committees we are going to nominate and which are actually sub-committees, we should not, when making the regulations, interfere to any larger extent than that which they themselves suggest. The council, with the assistance of the majority of the members of the committee, will suggest to us what we should, do, and I am prepared to consider any suggestions submitted by them, but I am not going to write that into the Act. They may decide that they want a member of the council as chairman every time, although I personally do not think they will decide this, for a professional council must have someone at its disposal who is specifically interested in that profession and is constantly keeping an eye on all aspects of that profession. Therefore I feel I cannot accept the amendment at this stage, but I shall take into consideration the points the hon. member has just raised here, in the regulations which are to be made. These people must consider what will be the best for them in future. Do they want a member of the council who will be part of the committee, or do they want a member who will ex officio be a member of the council and will not have the right to vote; what is best for them? Sir. I think perhaps it is best that we leave the clause as it stands for the time being and that we wait until we receive suggestions from these people. After all, an Act is not passed to remain unchanged on the Statute Book for all times. The hon. member’s suggestion is of importance, but I personally do not think I should change the clause at this stage. Therefore I shall not be able to accept the amendment at this stage.

I understand the feelings of the hon. the Minister in this respect, but first of all I would like to point this out to him. The hon. the Minister referred to committees. This clause deals with professional boards. The hon. the Minister also suggested that this would be laying down the conditions under which the chairman should be appointed. Sir, that is not the intention; the intention is merely to make sure, as the amendment says, that the election of the chairman of the board concerned shall be by the members of the board from their own ranks. I feel that that is a safeguard which they should have in view of the fact that in previous clauses which we have already passed we have accepted the principle that the chairman of committees shall in fact be a member of the Medical Council appointed to that committee. I feel, in view of the fact that the regulations have stipulated three specific points, that this amendment would clarify the position; it would not restrict the professional board in any way, but it would indicate to them that they would have the right to elect their own chairman, and if the member of the Medical Council was the distinguished gentleman, whom he possibly could be, they could elect him, but then they would realize they would be losing the representation on the council, under certain conditions, of one of their own members. That is my reason for asking the hon. the Minister please to reconsider this matter.

I assure the hon. member that what he has asked for is precisely what we are going to provide for in the regulations to be promulgated. But this is a committee, or a board, as the hon. member put it more correctly perhaps; it is a board on a lower plane, and matters concerning these boards are usually regulated by way of regulation. This is exactly what is going to happen. These people, by majority vote, are going to elect their president and vice-president or their chairman and vice-chairman. It will be the same pattern all over, starting from the president of the board as such, so the hon. member need not worry about this at all. But we cannot write all these things into an Act.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 16:

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

My reason for this amendment, particularly in regard to the inclusion of the Pharmacy Act, is this. Clause 16, in the marginal note, refers to the fact that this clause deals with control over training. There is a specific exclusion in that the Nursing Act is excluded. The clause starts off with “notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any other law contained, but subject to the provisions of the Nursing Act …”. I think the hon. the Minister will agree with me that the medical profession, in consultation with the Minister, has full responsibility for the training of members embraced by this Bill. I think he will also concede that the S.A. Pharmacy Board is to be reconstituted in terms of a Bill to come to this House shortly. In that Bill provision is made for the S.A. Pharmacy Board to control its training, also after consultation and in collaboration with the hon. the Minister. I feel that there are certain aspects which I believe could lead to confusion. Let me quote certain points. “No person or educational institution may offer or provide any training having as its object to qualify any person for the practising of any profession to which the provisions of this Act apply.” Now, already in line 4 the Nursing Act has been removed from this provision. It goes on “or for the carrying on of any other activity directed to the mental or physical examination of any person or to the diagnosis, treatment or prevention of any mental or physical defect, illness or deficiency in man, unless such training has been approved by the council”. Now I accept that the term “deficiency in man” has been circumscribed. After discussions with the officials of the department. I appreciate that that is the position but what I cannot accept is the fact that should the S.A. Pharmacy Board in its wisdom decide that in a period of training, the one-year training after the four-year academic course, it would be desirable for the trainee then to take a course in first aid, would it be necessary then for the S.A. Pharmacy Board to come, in terms of this clause, to the Medical Council and say that in their training they wish to carry out such further training? Let me make it quite clear. I am aware that later on in the Bill we shall discuss the question of doing certain things for gain. Let me make it quite clear that as I understand the position, no pharmacist would ever carry out emergency first-aid for gain. I just feel that this provision as it stands now would be clearer if the Pharmacy Act were to be embodied in this provision on the same basis as the Nursing Act, and also, that the Medicines and Related Substances Control Act could be included at the same time. I think that the hon. the Minister will agree with me that the Medicines and Related Substances Control Act, the old Drug Control Act, No. 101 of 1965, will have a great bearing on the activities, rights and restrictions that may exist in so far as the prescribing and dispensing of drugs is concerned. There may be instances where it would be as well to have that particular Act embodied on the same basis as the Nursing Act and the Pharmacy Act, and I believe it should be included here.

Mr. Chairman, this clause has very wide terms in regard to the control of training in various spheres as provided in this Bill. In considering this clause, we must bear in mind that there may possibly be a considerable number of professions, supplementary professions, which will fall under the control of the council as provided for earlier in this Bill. The wide terms of these provisions are illustrated in subsection (1). Not only does it refer to any person endeavouring to make a diagnosis and treatment of any physical or mental defect, but also to the prevention of such mental or physical defect. The extension of these provisions to include the prevention of such defects could, I feel, lead to difficulties arising in respect of groups of persons in the supplementary health services who wish to be registered in terms of the Bill and who apply to the council in this regard. However, the basis of training in respect of these persons in the supplementary professions is of course subject to the control provided for in this clause. Subsection (4) states specifically that any decision made by the council in terms of subsection (3) shall be final. Subsection (3) refers to an application by any person or educational institution wishing to offer such training as is provided for in the first portion of this clause. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister could give us some clarity in regard to the question of the decision of the council being final. Is there any further recourse for any aggrieved group in the supplementary professions? Can that group appeal to the Minister? I think that there should be some further recourse in this regard so that there will be some appeal from any decision of the council that can be made in terms of this Bill. As I understand these provisions, the council has the final say and such persons would then not be able to appeal to the Minister if they felt aggrieved by the council’s decision, particularly in regard to the control of training and the basis of training in their particular profession.

Mr. Chairman, in regard to the question of the control over training referred to by the hon. member for Berea, he must in the first instance remember that the pharmaceutical profession is specifically excluded from the professions under this Bill. The marginal note to the clause does not form part of the Bill itself, if I accept his amendment it will imply that the two Acts mentioned by him in his amendment will also have control over the training of the profession to which the provisions of this Bill apply. I am sure that the hon. member will acknowledge the fact that the inclusion of the Nursing Act in these provisions is relevant in regard to the duties generally of nurses in relation to the treatment of patients and the control of diseases and illnesses.

*This clause really deals with the training of people in a profession which deals with people who are physically or mentally ill. However, he must interpret this within the narrow context in which the word is used—as the learned people say, the “ius dem generis rule” according to which the meaning of a word in an Act is the specific meaning of that word. Where the word is used with other words, the words “physical defects” in this context, indicate diseased conditions only. This does not mean people who want to improve their weight or something similar. The pharmaceutical profession is associated with the medical profession, but as a profession it is not there to undertake the treatment of diseases itself. Therefore, I do not think it necessary to include the Pharmacy Act and the Medicines and Related Substances Control Act in this clause. The Medicine and Related Substances Control Act does not deal with a profession, but deals with the control of specific substances which may be used in more than one profession. Therefore I cannot really agree with the hon. member that this amendment should be accepted. Even if the pharmaceutical profession were to decide in future to apply first-aid, etc., that would be a matter for the future. At the Second Reading I made mention of the fact that a pharmacist might possibly have a wider function in the future. I do not want to chase up hares at this stage, but the fact remains that when the time arrives and we are able to employ our scientists over a wider field, then, and then alone, aspects of a nature such as this may be reconsidered. At this stage, however, it cannot be done.

The hon. member for Umbilo wants to include the National Welfare Act, as well as the Medicines and Related Substances Control Act. In this regard the same rules come into play. The profession of a welfare worker or social worker is actually defined in their own Act. It does not deal with the diagnosis, the treatment and prevention of mental or physical defects, illnesses or deficiencies connected with a diseased condition as such. This is not the function of this profession. If a reference to the National Welfare Act were to be included in this provision, it would mean that the rules I have just mentioned with regard to the interpretation of Acts, would be emasculated. Furthermore, this would mean that we were in actual fact envisaging more than we really wished to lay down in the legislation. Under the circumstances it is therefore necessary that no reference to the National Welfare Act, which concerns social workers, be included in this legislation. The only reference to social workers in this legislation is in clause 37 and in that clause social workers are being excluded specifically. The same reasons which I furnished with regard to the Medicines and Related Substances Control Act, also apply here. We are not dealing with a profession dealing with the physical or mental defects of a person seen in the context of diseased conditions belonging to that profession. Therefore I cannot include a reference to that Act in this clause either. Consequently I must reject both amendments.

Mr. Chairman, we have not dealt with clause 17 as yet, and I was wondering whether the hon. the Minister could give a reply to the question I raised in regard the decision of the council in terms of subsection (3). I asked him whether they will have the right of appeal to the responsible Minister if they are aggrieved by a decision which is arrived at by the Minister in terms of subsection (3), which concerns the control of their training.

Is the hon. member referring to clause 17(3)?

I am dealing with clause 16. The hon. the Minister has not yet replied to the point I raised.

I must admit that I have not examined that aspect thoroughly. Because the council is an autonomous body, there cannot be any appeal in this case.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 17:

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

This amendment must also be linked with clause 32 and again with clause 37(4)(b). In my speech yesterday I referred to the concern expressed by social workers about this Bill and the knowledge at that time. From clause 37(3)(d) it is clear that after representations had been made by the social welfare profession, the Minister recognized that because clause 37(3)(d) does enable registered social workers to continue to practise their profession. However, I hope that the Minister will agree to the insertion of the National Welfare Act of 1965 (Act No. 79 of 1965) in clause 17(1) (b). The main problem here is that where this clause in the Bill refers to mental examination or mental treatment or giving advice or even the prescribing of medicine, you have obviously not only to deal with the medical profession and the psychological or phychiatric profession concerned, but also with the social welfare people who deal with so many persons who are mentally distressed. The Mental Health Act (Act No. 18 of 1973) defines mental illness as “any disorder or disability of the mind, and includes any mental disease, any arrested or any incomplete development of the mind and any psychopathic disorder”. A psychopathic disorder is defined as “a persistent disorder or disability of the mind which has existed in the patient from an age prior to that of 18 years and which results in abnormally agressive or serious irresponsible conduct on the part of the patient”. This is a very wide definition indeed and certainly does cover such people as the so-called “battering mother”, the mother who ill-treats her child. This mother is obviously not only medically unwell, but is mentally unbalanced as well. The same goes for the treatment of the alcoholic, the drug addict, the ex-prisoner, the retarded child, and so on. When you come to the front line of the concern and the care for such distressed people, the psychiatric social worker and the social worker in general are very often the people who seek to assist, to listen and even to suggest a means of bringing some relief to the person who is in need. Historically the social work profession has developed methods of its own, for example the so-called case work, group work, community work, like diagnosis and treatment without trespassing on the field of the medical profession as such. I mentioned yesterday that whether they were right or not, in seeking to interpret the Bill it seems that there are many social workers and many who are responsible for their training at universities, and so on, who are concerned that if the Bill stands as it does, they would be liable to prosecution if they did their normal work. I think that their request for the insertion of the National Welfare Act here and then subsequently in clause 32 and the deletion of it in clause 37, all of which is tied up with their particular profession, Should be met. I hope very much that the hon. the Minister will agree to this amendment and would reserve any further statement until I hear from the Minister.

Mr. Chairman, first of all I would like to congratulate the hon. member for Pinelands on his sudden elevation to the front bench.

On invitation. I was lonely!

However, many of the points which the hon. member for Pinelands illustrated are, of course, incorporated in the memorandum from the department of social work at the University of Cape Town, which, I assume, has also been made available to the hon. the Minister, so that he is apparently aware of the point of view they have expressed with regard to the position of clause 17. They made a request that an amendment should be brought in to give clarity as regards the social workers, the psychiatric social workers in particular. Here the question of course is that the clause contains the words “for gain” in dealing with the various aspects under this clause. I understand that there are psychiatric social workers who are also in private practice, and therefore they would be affected if this clause is passed in its present form. It is for this reason that it is necessary to have clarity on this matter. The hon. the Minister has indicated in his Second Reading speech, and again today, that he did not wish to interfere with the situation regarding professional people in other professions, particularly in regard to the social worker, who is fully covered in terms of the National Welfare Act of 1965 and is registered as such under section 33. Consequently, this request is really to gain clarity and to ensure that these people are able to continue the work they are now undertaking, particularly in view of the fact that there are some psychiatric social workers who are also in private practice. That is why I move the amendment standing in my name, as follows—

I also want to stress the other aspect of this amendment, whereby the provision of the Drugs Control Act, Act No. 101 of 1965, should be similarly treated. If we refer to that Act, there could be a situation arising which might be in conflict with subparagraph (iv) of paragraph (b) which provides that no person shall be entitled to practise any other profession, the practice of which mainly consists of the prescribing or providing of medicine in connection with suoh defects, illnesses or deficiencies, unless he is registered in terms of this Bill. Consequently, the purpose of this amendment is to ensure that those persons, or any drugs that are registered in terms of the 1965 Act should also be excluded from the provisions of this clause as it now stands.

Mr. Chairman, I can only repeat what I have already said. Welfare workers are excluded from this provision. We simply cannot involve them in this, for then we imply that we are going further than is meant in the Bill, and that we are dealing here with medical practitioners doing their work. Clause 37, to which we shall come later, states the position of welfare workers very clearly. It will be of no use to us to involve welfare workers here as well, for then they come within the cadre of a profession in respect of which the whole setup is that it deals with disease, with the diseased conditions of people in the ordinary sense of the word. But as far as the mental treatment they may give is concerned, there is only one restriction. We can discuss that later. This deals only with people who are mentally ill and certifiable.

†It does not apply to people who are perhaps to a certain extent mentally retarded, or to mothers with a battered baby syndrome, or to alcoholics. Those people are not certifiable.

*The people who are called welfare workers today, are covered by the National Welfare Act. Their rules prescribe precisely what their training should be and what they may do. Provision is made for them in clause 37. This clause provides for problems they may experience with regard to the definition of what may be done by a psychiatrist. But that is not relevant here, and therefore I cannot accept the amendment.

And the second part of the amendment?

Which second part?

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister has not yet dealt with the question of the Medicines and Related Substances Control Act, i.e. the second part of my amendment.

But I have already done that. I am afraid the hon. member did not understand me.

†The Medicines and Related Substances Control Act does not deal with a profession. Here we have to do with a profession which is specifically relevant to the treatment of people who suffer from a disease of the mind and/or the body. It is not a profession to control medicine as such. The control of medicine is the function of a board and therefore this Act has no relevance at all. I have said this twice before.

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to persist with this forever, but it does seem to me that for the sake of consistency our point in regard to the insertion suggested by our amendment still stands. Let me give an example. Let us consider the question of a teenager who is an unmarried mother, a person who so very often will over a period of time receive direct assistance from a social worker, yet she is not certifiable. She may be mentally disturbed, as does happen very often in such cases, and she may even have tendencies towards suicide. I do not think it is asking a great deal for the insertion of a reference to the National Welfare Act in order that there will be some protection or some reassurance to this very valuable profession. It could then be tied up again, for the sake of consistency, with clause 37 in connection with which the hon. the Minister has given notice of amendments on the Order Paper.

Provision is made for cases such as those which are not certifiable. The case to which the hon. member has referred occurs in the ordinary course of the performance of the duties of a social worker. These cases are not certifiable but if they become certifiable the services of a psychiatric nurse and psychiatric attention will be necessary. The hon. member will have to agree with me on this score.

All right.

Amendment moved by Dr. A. L. Boraine negatived and amendment moved by Mr. G. N. Oldfield dropped.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 19:

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

1. (1) In line 52, to omit “during the” and to substitute “for a continuous period of”; and
2. (2) in line 55, after “of”, where it occurs for the second time, to insert “the receipt by him of”.

I shall now deal with the first amendment. Clause 19(T)(a) reads—

I think that is quite ambiguous, because it may mean the whole of the three years or part of the three years.

It may even mean that a person who has been absent from the Republic on a holiday may be removed.

As I have said during my Second Reading speech a doctor may go away for six weeks and because he has been away during the three years, he may be struck off the roll. I do not think the hon. the Minister intends doing that and that is why my amendment seeks to clarify the position by saying “for a continuous period of three years”. I should like the hon. the Minister to consider and accept the amendment.

I now come to the second amendment. Clause 19(1)(b) reads—

Here we have a bit of trouble. The clause provides the letter must be sent to the person whose address the registrar has. The registrar has the person’s address in the register, but the person may have failed to notify the registrar of a change of address, quite unintentionally. He could merely have transferred from one set of rooms to another. His registered address will then be that of his first set of rooms because he has forgotten to notify the registrar. The registrar then posts a registered letter to the person’s old address and according to the clause, that is proof that the person should have received the letter and acted upon it although he may not have received it. The clause does not provide that he should have received the letter. It could have been posted and then returned to the registrar “address unknown”. That is what will happen if it is a registered letter, because there were nobody to receive it. It will be returned to the registrar “address unknown”. Yet that may be regarded as proof of the reception of the letter. I must disagree with the hon. the Minister. The way in which he has put it in the Bill, is not at all clear to me. So I say that to avoid that we should accept the amendment that I have placed on the Order Paper. “On receipt of” simply means that when the person receives his registered letter, he will sign for it, hand it to the postman and the postman will take it back. We are then certain that the practitioner has received the letter. For that reason I think that the Minister should accept that amendment to the clause. The other one is simply a clarifying amendment.

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

I do not think I am going to talk at any great length on this. I am simply worried about the fact that a medical man whose name has been removed from the register because he has been confined to a mental institution, can come out of that mental institution and immediately start practising again simply upon satisfying the council that he has been discharged in terms of the Mental Disorders Act. Surely it is necessary for the council to satisfy itself that the man is not only well enough to be discharged from the institution and that he can be allowed to go home and will do no harm to anybody, but also the council should have to satisfy itself that the man is in a fit state to resume practice. That is the object of the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I am in sympathy with what the hon. member for Rosettenville mentioned, but I must point out to him that every medical practitioner who is registered must, within one month of changing his address, notify the council of the fact. That is very important. Secondly, according to the Interpretation Act some time is usually allowed after a letter has been posted and I know of no Act in which receipt of a letter is mentioned. No proof of any kind is required.

*The fact remains that one may post a letter to a person, and, in terms of the Interpretation Act of 1957, allow a reasonable time for the person to receive the letter. There is a second guarantee as well. A practitioner cannot blame the board because he should give notification of any change of address within a month. But this is where the problem lies.

†Many of these practitioners, when they get a letter from the council, do not bother to open it. I think it is only fair, therefore, that we should retain the clause as printed.

The second aspect which he mentioned is that it must be quite clear that what is meant is that the person concerned must have been absent from the Republic for an uninterrupted period of three years. I do not agree with the hon. member that the clause as it stands is not clear, because it refers to a person “who has been absent from the Republic during the three years immediately preceding such removal”. This cannot be interpreted as various periods making up a total of three years. It is clear that what is meant here is that the person concerned must have been absent from the Republic for three years.

With due respect, it does not mean that. It means that he can be away from the Republic for any period at all during those three years; he may only be away for a couple of days, and under this clause his name may then be removed from the register.

Sir, I can only go on the legal advice that I have received as to the correct interpretation of this clause. If there is any doubt here, I will ask our legal advisers to look into the matter, because I agree with the hon. member that the person concerned must have been absent from the Republic for a continuous period of three years. The only question is whether my interpretation of the clause is correct, or whether the hon. member’s interpretation is correct. There is a difference of opinion and I shall have this matter looked into.

There is no doubt that the clause is very ambiguous as it stands.

I grant the hon. member that.

Order! The hon. member must allow the Minister to complete his speech.

I am sorry, Sir, I thought the hon. the Minister had completed what he had to say. I just want to say that there is no doubt that it is ambiguous as iit stands. Does the Minister mean for a continuous period?

Yes.

Then why not just say “for three years”; everybody will then know what he means, because “during” is an interval of time between two dates. In other words, during that period of three years the person concerned might have been away for one day, or he might have gone overseas to attend a medical conference, or he might just have gone on holiday for a short period. I cannot see any reason why the hon. the Minister should not amend this paragraph.

Sir, I have listened to the hon. member’s argument, but I have explained why the words as printed here were used. I have also explained that I can only depend on the legal advice that I get as to the meaning of this clause. As far as the intention is concerned, we are ad idem. If there is any doubt in the minds of the legal advisers, then we can change the wording to the satisfaction of hon. members.

The hon. member for Houghton referred to the problem that after a patient has been discharged from a mental institution, it is for the council to decide whether he is fit mentally again to be put back on to the register. Well, that is so, but I am not going to burden the council with the task of embarking on what may be a long, cumbersome process of litigation. A certificate from the superintendent of the institution concerned should be acceptable to the council, because, after all, the superintendent is a psychiatrist. I do not want to burden the council with a duty like this. I think this is something that must be done by the psychiatrist of the institution concerned. The council can then peruse the certificate issued by the superintendent, and if it is in order I am perfectly satisfied that the name of the practitioner concerned will be restored to the register.

Amendments negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 32:

This clause, which deals with the examination and registration of persons practising supplementary health service professions, refers to those who are in professions other than the professions practised by a medical practitioner, dentist, intern, psychologist or any profession to which the provisions of the Nursing Act of 1957 or the Pharmacy Act of 1974 are applicable. I move the amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

I do not wish to repeat the argument we have already had on clause 17, but the purpose of this amendment is to gain clarity and to ensure that those persons who are in professions which are recognized in terms of other legislation fall under the same category as those under the Nursing Act and the Pharmacy Act of 1974. For that reason this amendment not only includes the National Welfare Act of 1965, but also the Chiropractors Act of 1971 and the Homeopaths, Naturopaths, Osteopaths and Herbalists Act of 1974, which is still to be considered by this House. It extends the scope of the exemptions in the clause as it now stands, so as to bring these other persons who are registered in their professions in terms of the Acts I have mentioned into line with those who fall under the Nursing Act and the Pharmacy Act of 1974, so that they are treated on the same basis.

We are once again faced with the endeavours and the zeal of the hon. member who constantly wants to include the National Welfare Act in this legislation. If the references to these Acts were to be included, it would mean that we would in fact be closing the door to professions such as chiropractors, homeopaths, osteopaths, naturopaths and herbalists to be recognized by this board some day. They may be recognized some day if they bring their house in order. But by including the Welfare Act we would be giving a much wider meaning to this provision than that which we intend. I explained from the outset that this was concerned with diseased conditions and I tried to point out and describe to him as far as possible what these diseased conditions were. The board has the power and is receiving the right to allow supplementary health service professions to practise. That is why the supplementary health service professions have been included in this Bill. But there are certain other professions it does not want to recognize as yet at this stage. These are the homeopaths, the naturopaths, and chiropractors. They have not been brought in and we have framed separate Bills for them, but one day it might happen that these professions, when their house is in order and their affairs are correct, will be brought in. They are concerned with diseased conditions of man, but they are not in this legislation. They simply have a similar right of being brought in as those under the National Welfare Act have. Well, the board has an optional power in this regard, and as we already have Acts for the national social welfare workers, and the social workers, and as there are Acts for all the other professions, this provision can exercise no influence in respect of these various professions to exercise their professions. Therefore I cannot see why this Act should be brought in here. Again the same rule applies that one should give a word its meaning, describing other words and circumstances attached to it, and) I think that if we applied this rule in respect of the diagnoses, the treatment and the prevention of mental or physical handicaps, indispositions or shortcomings, then it could mean one thing only, and that is diseased conditions in man. For this reason we cannot include here the reference to the Welfare Act. Perhaps one day it will become something we regard as being so important that it should be included under these categories, but at this stage this is not so. It is being regulated and controlled by a separate Act, and I cannot include it here at this stage.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 36:

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

I move this amendment simply to give the pharmacist further protection. I have been listening to what the hon. the Minister has had to say about the insertions we wanted to make in other clauses. If this amendment is accepted, clause 36(2)(b) will read—

Perhaps the hon. the Minister will explain to us what the position of the pharmacist will be if my proposed amendment is not accepted. I feel that it is necessary to include this reference for the protection of the pharmacist.

Mr. Chairman, I have been having second thoughts in regard to my amendment to this clause as printed on the Order Paper. I just want to say that the reason for this amendment relating to medical students was in order to make quite sure that those medical students who assist at places like Shawco, Alexandra Clinic and Rivoli Clinic will not be penalized in any way by the provisions of this clause. I see now that this clause prohibits a person not registered as a medical practitioner from practising as such for gain. This being the case, and in view of the fact that medical students are certainly not paid for the work they do, I shall not move my amendment.

Mr. Chairman, with regard to the hon. member for Pinelands, I can set his mind at ease. There is no problem. The work of a medical student is not performed for gain.

With regard to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Rosettenville, I want to repeat to the hon. member what I have already said. The Drugs Act does not deal with a profession. In this case we are concerned with a substance they have to handle. This concept is being carefully defined. However, in this case it deals with medical practitioners. We revert to the treatment of people as such. Medicine control, which is not a profession, is not relevant here. For that reason the connection of the pharmacist in the execution of his task with regard to control over medicine, is not a profession which is required to be included here.

Mr. Chairman, in view of the explanation of the hon. the Minister, and with the leave of the Committee, I shall withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, with leave, withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 37:

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

1. (1) In line 18, page 47, after “by”, to insert “or under the supervision of”;
2. (2) in line 20, page 47, after “(1965),”, to insert “or by or under the supervision of an officer in the service of the State performing social work as defined in section 1 of the said Act,”;
3. (3) in line 21, page 47, after “of’ where it occurs for the third time, to insert “such”; and
4. (4) in line 21, page 47, after “worker”, to insert “or such an officer or of the training of a social worker”.

The proposals embody the amendment of clause 37(3)(d). The provision as it stands, makes provision only for a registered social worker. The fallowing shortcomings exist: The practical training of students in social work, and officers in the service of the State who possess outdated qualifications in The practical training of students in social workers in terms of the Act. This is not covered. The inclusion of the words “or under the supervision of” and “or of the training of a social worker” will fully exempt the student of social work from the provisions of clause 37(2). Similarly, exemption will also be granted to the officer in the service of the State who performs social work and is actively concerned in the practical training of the student.

Mr. Chairman, I move—

1. (1) In line 56, page 45, to omit “lecturer on the” and to substitute “member of the academic”;
2. (2) in line 39, page 47, to omit “lecturer” and to substitute “member of the academic staff”; and
3. (3) to omit paragraph (b) of subsection (4).

The first amendment is aimed simply at clarifying this Bill a little, because there may well be a member of the academic staff who is not a lecturer, who may be involved at this point. It is simply a question of amending the present wording “lecturer on the staff” to “member of the academic staff”. The second amendment simply makes it consistent. Before I go further I should just like to hear how the hon. the Minister feels about these two amendments.

Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to accept the first and second amendments proposed by the hon. member, but I am not prepared to accept the third amendment. If the hon. member wishes to motivate the third amendment, I want to give him the opportunity of doing so.

Mr. Chairman, then I come again to subsection (4Xb) of this clause. This is a very important subsection and relates to subsection (3)(d). It seems to us that to omit subsection (4)(b) will simply tie up very well with the provisions of subsection (3)(d). As I have already argued for that when we were talking about clause 17, I shall not rehearse those arguments again. However, we should like to hear the comments of the hon. the Minister on that.

Mr. Chairman, misgivings were raised with regard to subsection (4)(b). The first problem existing there is in connection with a psychological test. As far as a psychological test is concerned, one has to read the term together with subsection (2) in which mention is made, inter alia, of tests for the determination of intellectual abilities, personality make-up, functioning and change. In other words, it merely means the formal tests which have been developed through the years by the psychological profession for use by psychologists. The Human Sciences Research Bill, which is due later, will define these psychological tests more directly. The people who the hon. member feels should be brought into this subsection, have never yet done psychological tests in the true sense of the word, in any event not the type of psychological test being envisaged here. They have analysed people, talked to people, used persuasion and suggestion, and so forth, but they have not carried out psychological tests as we understand them to be in terms of this legislation, particularly when such tests concern people suffering from mental disorders. In that case we have to ask ourselves what mental disorders are. It is alleged that this is very wide, but if the most limited meaning is attached to a word, when it is used on its own, and the definition is read within the scope of that legislation, it is clear that mental disorder is a certifiable illness. That is, when it is certified that such a person should be treated in an institution. Alcoholics who are voluntarily admitted for treatment to mental institutions are not certified, except in cases where they have suffered brain damage. The social worker, as I have so often said, does not treat mental illness and therefore the reference to the treatment of mental disorders is not applicable to them at all. If the restriction in subsection (4)(b) were to be omitted, it would mean that the field of psychology and psychiatry would be left open so that unscrupulous persons might offend in that sphere. This is what I can tell the hon. member in connection with the objections raised by him.

Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to accept the assurances of the hon. the Minister in regard to this. The only reason why we have tried to stress the need for some protection is that not only have the social workers themselves raised the problem, but also practising psychiatrists at Groote Schuur Hospital as well as teaching psychiatrists at the University of Cape Town, who work very closely indeed with psychiatric social workers on cases every day. Provided there is some assurance, which we have now got from the hon. the Minister, that anything that is accepted as being normal on-going work and assistance under very careful supervision may continue, we have no problems.

My previous amendment covered this aspect.

First and second amendments moved by Dr. A. L. Boraine agreed to.

Amendments moved by the Minister of Health agreed to.

Third amendment moved by Dr. A. L. Boraine negatived.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 52:

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

This clause deals with dispensing by medical practitioners. I do not think we need enlarge on this very much. I received a specific request from the Medical Council to amend this clause in this manner. It is true that medical practitioners do at times abuse the fact that they are allowed to dispense medicines in areas in which there are pharmacists. During my Second Reading speech I sounded a very specific warning in this regard. Because this council, which you all esteem so highly and which has to advise me, felt that this is a principle which they have as yet been unable to thrash out with me at this stage and one which should rather stand over, I have felt that this provision, which will restrict medical practitioners to a certain extent, will be unacceptable to many of them and that is why I have decided to effect this amendment. I am not prepared to deviate from this. This is my opinion, although hon. members might differ with it.

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

Mr. Chairman, I referred to this matter during the Second Reading debate yesterday. I think the hon. member for Rosettenville, on another Bill, passed some comments which are relevant to this particular matter. My difficulty with this particular amendment of the hon. the Minister, which is as I see it directly the opposite of the one which I have under the same clause, is that this particular amendment removing “prescribed conditions”, removes a provision which has existed since 1928 in the Act. I said yesterday and I say it again that I am not against the medical practitioner exercising his inherent right to dispense, but I believe that in the interests of the public there should be some control. If the Minister can assure me that under some other legislation there will be this control or that he envisages such control, then I shall be very happy to withdraw my amendment. But I believe it is in the interests of the public and in the interests of the pharmaceutical profession that there should be some reassurance, some expression of the intention of the Minister in regard to this particular matter. Let me briefly enlarge upon it. The hon. member for Rosettenville referred yesterday to the question of theft from a doctor’s consulting room. This doctor was legally entitled to dispense, and I have no objection to that. But let me give you more details. The theft involved 10 000 amphetamine tablets, about 6 000 terramycin capsules, about 2 000 terramycin injections, and about 4 000 ephedrine tablets, all of which are scheduled drugs. To my knowledge, none of them was recovered. Now, Sir, just to put the matter into full perspective, I want to tell the hon. the Minister that I was so concerned at the quantity of medicines stolen from the doctor’s consulting room and the amount of stock which he carried, that I asked some of my pharmaceutical colleagues to assist me. A survey was made. I can tell you briefly that the stock of nine chemists, some of whom did not have small pharmacies, who disclosed to me their stocks of the four particular scheduled drugs mentioned that they held at that particular time, as well as the amount which they dispensed in a month during that particular period, together, did not equal the stock stolen from one medical practitioner’s dispensary. It seems to me that to remove any suggestion in this Bill that there will be a form of control, is not in the interests of the public. I know that there have been inspections, and I know that the pharmaceutical profession has been the subject of these inspections, as is stated in the Grobler Committee’s report—

The position that distresses me, is that there appears to be some reluctance. Although the law is the same for all professions, there appears to be some reluctance to exercise any form of inspection over the stocks held by members of the medical profession who dispense. I believe that it is essential for the department to have some knowledge of the doctors who in fact are dispensing, quite legally, in terms of the Act and who will continue to do so under this Bill. But if this particular provision is removed, I feel that it will remove every vestige of control which the council itself might feel obliged to take. If the Minister can reassure me that it is his intention, in terms of some other legislation or some other regulation, in the interests of the public, to ensure that large stocks of medicines are under adequate control, I shall be pleased. The Minister will appreciate that it is not possible for a medical practitioner to exercise continuous supervision and control over the drugs under his control. He often goes out, carrying out his duties, and he only returns to the place where the drugs are stored at certain intervals, whereas the drugs under the control of a pharmacist by law have to be under the continuous control of a qualified pharmacist. I believe there is a weakness. The Grobler Committee has emphasized in more than one paragraph that this is something which needs attention. I ask the hon. the Minister to give me the reassurance that this question will be attended to in such a way that control will be adequately enforced.

Mr. Chairman, I am largely in agreement with the hon. member for Berea as regards the matters raised by him. I, too, think that it is in the interests of both the medical and pharmaceutical professions that these ethical relations be regulated correctly. One may, however, take the matter up with the council so that these aspects may also be regulated by means of ethical rules. I should like to obviate a misunderstanding. If the amendment is accepted, the clause will read as the relevant section has read since 1928. There will therefore be no change.

†I should like to draw the hon. member’s attention to the last sentence of clause 52—

*I also want to draw the hon. member’s attention to what I already said during the Second Reading debate—

I then enlarged on the fact that proper care is not taken of these substances, that they are not stored according to directions and that competition even takes place with pharmacists in the sale of medicines. As far as I am concerned this last aspect is quite unethical. I think the hon. member can tell from my attitude that we shall try to rectify this matter. Here, however, we are concerned with a Bill and as far as the legislation is concerned the medical practitioners feel that they are being deprived of a right. If they were to abuse that right, we would have to find ways and means of rectifying it.

Mr. Chairman, I want to express our appreciation to the hon. the Minister for his clarification and for his assurance which I accept. However I wish to draw his attention to the last proviso to which he has referred—

That is accepted but there are many cases, particularly in the townships, where a non-White pharmacist is established and right next door to him is a medical practitioner who does his own dispensing. There could be no possibility of suggesting that the medical practitioner is keeping an open shop in that he is selling or supplying medicine to all and sundry. He supplies the medicines to those who consult him in his professional capacity, but if that medical practitioner—facts at my disposal indicate that this could be the position—is dispensing literally hundreds of prescriptions per week for his patients and the pharmacist next door is dispensing less than ten prescriptions per week issued by the medical practitioner, then I believe that the provision that he shall not keep an open shop assists in no way in solving this difficulty.

However, I accept the hon. the Minister’s goodwill and with the leave of the Committee I wish to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment moved by the Minister of Health agreed to.

Amendment moved by Mr. L. F. Wood, with leave, withdrawn.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 57:

Mr. Chairman, this clause prohibits a medical practitioner from receiving a commission on a prescription from a pharmacist. However, the word “commission” only indicates financial remuneration and it therefore does not cover other cases of reward, for example, a refrigerator, a motor car, or a free overseas trip. In order to provide for cases of this nature, it is essential for the words “or other reward” to be inserted.

I therefore move as an amendment—

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 61:

Mr. Chairman, I move the following amendments—

1. (1) In line 19, to omit “after considering any” and to substitute “on the”; and
2. (2) in line 24, page 71, after “may”, to insert “after consultation with the executive committee of the council”.

Here the Minister is being empowered to make regulations on the recommendation of the council. The executive committee is of the opinion that the words “after considering any” create the impression that the council is being deprived of all powers to draw up draft regulations. This I concede to a certain extent. But this is not the intention, because the council is the body that is most closely concerned with the administration of the Bill, and the Minister will not, from the nature of the case, draw up draft regulations and submit them to the council for recommendation. In order to eliminate the impression created by the present wording I am making this suggestion with regard to subsection (1) of the clause.

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing in my name, as follows:

The hon. the Minister’s amendments go a little way towards meeting my objections and, more important, the objections of the two associations most concerned with this Bill, i.e. the Medical Association and the Dental Association. However, I am afraid that even if the amendments of the hon. member for Rosettenville are accepted, they will also not go far enough as far as I am concerned. The clause as it stands, even as amended by the hon. the Minister and possibly by the insertion of the amendment of the hon. member for Rosettenville, still gives the hon. the Minister very far-reaching powers indeed. He may have to “consider”, he may “consult with”, but neither of these phrases has taken from him the far-reaching power to make regulations which will concern the standard of the general education of a person who is taking up medicine or dentistry, the actual courses required in the training of such people, the registration of interns, the recognition of specialities, the admission of foreign doctors, and a whole range of other matters, including the general ethical code, which the profession must adopt. This has not been found necessary in the past. Up to the present the hon. the Minister has not had the power to make such regulations for the profession, and I see no reason at all why he should give himself what are really almost dictatorial powers. He can “consider”, he can “consult” and then simply disregard. He can go straight ahead and make any regulations that he wants. It is not a question of the profession wanting a monopoly of its control. A major task of the council is to see that the level of education and training of the members of the profession is up to standard and that the members of the profession uphold the ethical code of conduct. I do not think the hon. the Minister can in any way fault the Medical Council over its behaviour over the past years. Why should the hon. the Minister give himself powers to go ahead and make regulations without being concerned as to whether or not those regulations are in fact acceptable to two associations concerned. I am strongly opposed to this.

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing in my name as follows:

1. (1) In line 24, page 71, after “may,”, to insert “after consultation with the council or the executive committee,”.

I feel that the powers which the hon. the Minister wants to adopt are quite unnecessary. It is not as if he is going to do this in an emergency. He is going to consider carefully what has to be done. Therefore I think that if he is going to do this it is obvious that he has to consult with somebody. He cannot do so on his own. If he is going to do it on his own, he is going to receive objections from everyone concerned to the effect that he has done something without consulting anyone else. I do not know why he has asked for these powers. I think they are totally unnecessary. In addition to the amendment I have moved, which stands on the Order Paper, I also wish to move—

1. (2) In line 26, page 71, to omit “without the recommendation of the council,”.

The word “without” is the most important word in that clause. He is going to act irrespective of anything. Now why does he want this? For what reason? What makes him think that the people who are responsible for drawing up this Bill, the people who have been giving him advice on this Bill, the Medical Council and any of the other boards which are in this Bill, cannot give him advice and should not be consulted before there are any alterations in the Bill? The universities, for instance, may want to have a say in this. However, if he so wishes he can disregard all the representations and make his own regulations. I for one cannot accept that. We have tried to co-operate with the Minister throughout on this Bill, but when it comes to taking these powers, they are almost dictatorial, and I must say to the hon. the Minister, with due respect, that we cannot go along with his intentions, and for that reason I move my amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I ought to have moved the amendment, as printed, to subsection (2) as well. The hon. member for Rosettenville has now moved a further amendment to this subsection.

† Actually, it is only clause 61(2) that we are arguing about at the moment, not clause 61(1). I think there we are agreed.

Yes, we agree to that.

It is true that in clause 61(2) the Minister is now taking powers which he did not have before. But it must be remembered that Parliament only delegates powers to this council. This council is not fully autonomous. We have not had squabbles with the council in the past, and in normal circumstances I can only act on the recommendation of the council. But in these changing times a situation may suddenly arise in three or four months which may make it necessary for me to decide that we must embark on a crash programme to train people for medical work, and in that event it should not be necessary for me to consult the whole council or to get the council’s permission to proceed. It should be sufficient for me to consult the executive committee of the council. I would not act on my own; I would consult the executive committee, and as we have had this long history of co-operation I do not foresee any trouble in this regard, but finally the right must vest in this Government, in the Minister, to make decisions if this becomes necessary as the result of changed circumstances. If we have to make a decision as a matter of urgency, we do not want to be bound to follow cumbersome procedures to arrive at a decision which is in the interest not only of the medical profession but of the country as such. I repeat that such a decision will be taken only after consultation with the council’s executive committee, which I could easily get together within a short space of time. I foresee no difficulty here, but if circumstances arise which make it imperative, in my opinion, to act in the interest of the country, I must reserve the right to myself to change the regulations or to insert a new regulation. That is basically what is at the back of my mind. I am sorry, but I have to take these powers.

Sir, in anticipation of what I thought might happen, I asked the hon. the Minister earlier on if he would consider having a quorum for the executive committee. You will remember that when I spoke about this, I said that exceptional circumstances may arise. The Minister agrees that exceptional circumstances may arise. I pointed out that it might even be difficult to convene a meeting of the executive committee. The Minister said that he would provide by way of regulation for consultation with the executive committee. After listening to what the Minister has now said, I would be satisfied if he would insert in this clause the words “after consultation with the executive committee”. This would not necessarily mean that the Minister would have to consult the whole executive committee; it would be sufficient if he consulted a quorum of the executive committee. Sir, that would give a different picture to the whole clause. Here we have a Bill where there has been co-operation between us, almost from the beginning to the end, and now right towards the end of the Bill we have this difference of opinion, and I think it is altogether wrong in a matter such as this where we are dealing with the health of the people and knowing full well that emergencies may quite easily arise. We know what is happening on our borders; there may be an infiltration of people into our area without proper control. I do not know whether cholera is going to come in, or smallpox, with all the refugees that are arriving here. I know quite well that the Minister has to act quickly. I know what the emergencies can be. There may be a disaster and he may want emergency powers, but how long does it take to phone up three or four people, or five people and say: “This is what I intend doing; do you agree with me?”. It will give a different tone to this whole Bill.

That is why I have framed the amendment as it appears here. It seems to me the hon. member for Rosettenville agrees with this, i.e.—

I anticipated that this had to happen.

I wish the hon. the Minister would add “and agreement with”. Then I would be satisfied. But I am not satisfied just with consultation, because there might just be four or five members, the quorum of the executive committee, and they may say that they do not agree with what the hon. the Minister wants to do, but he goes ahead and does it all the same. So he still retains dictatorial powers. So, as far as I am concerned, I can only accept that limitation in regard to the executive, the quorum of which is five, if the Minister would add “and agreement with”. Otherwise I shall have to vote against it.

Sir, this is a very important clause. Already expressions of dissent have been made as strongly as possible. Whilst some concession is offered, I still believe that it would help enormously to get assurances, and not only personal assurances because this is a Bill which will become an Act of Parliament and it is not good enough for us to get the personal assurances of the particular incumbent at the moment. It would help enormously, I believe, and it would make it clear that this is no expression of a lack of confidence in the Medical Council. Sir, the Minister gives one example in defence of the new power he is taking unto himself. He says that there may well come a time, in four or six months’ time perhaps, that an extension of medical training or a crash programme has to be instituted. This, Sir, is not a good example, if I may say so with respect. This does not happen overnight. One does a great deal of research and survey work and one examines the conditions and then comes to the point of view where obviously an intensified programme of development is required and one would have every opportunity for consultation. Obviously, if it is going to be the development of the profession, if it is going to be an extension of medical services, no reasonable council is going to turn away from that. I just wonder what else is in the mind of the hon. the Minister when he asks for this kind of power. Until such time as one could have the assurance that there would be the agreement of this council, which is there to control, to help, to assist and to guide our paramount object, namely the care of the people of South Africa, and not merely to control its own profession, I hope very much that the Minister will agree to the insertion not merely of consulting but also in agreement with.

First amendment moved by the Minister of Health agreed to.

On amendment moved by Mrs. H. Suzman,

Question put: That the words “(2) The Minister may” stand part of the Clause,

Upon which the Committee divided:

Tellers: J. M. Henning, J. P. C. le Roux, N. F. Treurnicht and A. van Breda.

Tellers: C. W. Eglin and R. J. Lorimer.

Question accordingly affirmed and amendment dropped.

Second amendment moved by the Minister of Health agreed to and first amendment moved by Dr. E. L. Fisher dropped.

Second amendment moved by Dr. E. L. Fisher negatived (Official Opposition and Progressive Party dissenting).

Clause, as amended, agreed to (Official Opposition and Progressive Party dissenting).

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments.

Business suspended at 12.45 p.m. and resumed at 2.20 p.m.

Afternoon Sitting

Report Stage taken without debate. Third Reading

Mr. Speaker, I move—

I rise really to express my disappointment with the Minister that right at the end of this non-contentious Bill, as it appeared to be, he failed to accept the amendment with the result that the Bill now appears to give him dictatorial powers. That is the one thing I would like the House to know, that we do not like it. We are against this sort of provision, where one man can virtually rule as he likes and can make his own arrangements on these vital matters. The second thing I want to say is that I want the House to know that we on this side are against discrimination in any shape or form. We do not like the discrimination which could occur under one of the clauses of the Bill, and that is the one where unqualified people would be allowed to practise in one area of the country but not in another. I want to repeat what I said in the Second reading, that those people who are not fully qualified should not be allowed to practise in the Republic, and if they are going to come here without the proper qualifications, we, the people of this country, should make provision for them to become qualified as quickly as possible. If they have degrees from other countries which are not accepted here and on examination we find that they are reasonable degrees, then it is the duty of the Minister to make provision for these people to go to the university immediately to qualify up to our standards. This will be one thing which will help to reduce the shortages that we have at the moment in our medical profession. Time and again I have asked in this House for the universities to be open to all people who want to go there but time and again that has been refused. When we come to this Bill here, which we are passing now, we find that because of shortages, and for no other reason, the not properly qualified person is going to be allowed to practise in some parts of this country and not in others. I emphasize this because I think it is a dangerous principle and we on this side of the House are against it.

The other provisions of this Bill as it has passed through the Committee Stage will, I think, have to be amended again in the near future, and not in years to come. But we will be prepared to go with the Minister and see how it is working, and when the amendments come we will have an opportunity to criticize them. Otherwise this Bill has great merit. It will do, I think, what it originally set out to do, i.e. to put education in health matters on a proper footing; it will encourage the universities to uphold the very high standards in the professions of medicine and dentistry and in psychology; it will give an opportunity for the psychologist to be properly recognized, and over and above all that, I hope the hon. the Minister will find that this Bill will once and for all do away with quackery in this country. That is a cancer which is growing from day to day and I think it is high time that we put a stop to it.

The Progressive Party has made its views clear on the Bill which is now before us for Third Reading. I just want to add a small item which I ought to have drawn attention to during the Second Reading. That is that in clause 37 where it refers specifically to psychologists. If one looks at clause 37(1)(iv)(cc), it says that persons not registered as psychologists and who supply or sell any medicine or treatment shall be subject to certain conditions. The impression might be gained that registered psychologists then can do this very thing and it may be that one can tidy this up a little in the Other Place to make quite sure that there is no doubt.

We have accepted the principle of this Bill. We have emphasized its merit. We regret, of course, with the hon. member for Rosettenville, that some of the amendments we have placed before the hon. the Minister have not been accepted, and in particular we refer to clause 61. However, we recall that the hon. the Minister himself has pleaded that this Bill be given a chance to be tried out, and certainly we regard that as reasonable. He has also stated that it is quite likely that further changes may be necessary in the near and in the distant future. We hope that when these changes are considered, the hon. the Minister will look again at some of the amendments we have proposed, and particularly look again at clause 61.

I regret, of course, that the hon. member for Rosettenville does not feel quite happy about the final decisions taken on this Bill, but as someone who has read this Bill intelligently, I think he knew from the outset which principles were involved, also in regard to clause 61, which grants powers which have not existed before. I tried to explain this. Although I did not furnish a great many examples, he himself quoted some examples to support me in that respect. Well, I take it he will appreciate that, judging by what has happened in the past, it will seldom be necessary to apply powers of this nature and that, as it were, they will merely be standing on the Statute Book perhaps to be used very seldom. I can assure him that one does not use powers of this nature lightly, and I am therefore providing for consultation, as he will be able to see, with those who have to advise me in matters of this nature.

†I can also tell him that as far as unqualified people are concerned, provision does exist for people to obtain registration in South Africa. We cannot close the door to these people, and we decided long ago that these people may practise in certain circumstances, but that we must lay down certain rules and regulations.

*A person is not allowed simply to enter the country and to practise, but we afford him the opportunity to obtain registration. We cannot close the door to these people and, as the hon. member will notice, provision is being made in clauses 24 to 27 for these people to be able to obtain the necessary qualifications so that they will ultimately be allowed to register as practitioners. If the hon. member refers to the supplementary health professions, I may tell him that a registered person in the supplementary health professions is allowed to practise in any part of the country. But there are also areas where there are no qualified persons available in the supplementary health professions and where certain persons, who have not yet qualified, are, in fact, practising and we cannot take their livelihood away from them, because, after all, they are rendering a service there. That is why we are providing for prescribed areas. I think we actually agree with one another as far as this matter is concerned.

†The hon. member mentioned that this Bill, when it becomes law, may eventually prove to be effective in enabling us to crack down on quacks. We do not want any more quackery as far as the scientific treatment of mental and physical illness is concerned. We cannot completely eradicate it, but at least I think that under this measure we will be able to go a long way towards eradicating it.

Sir. I also want to thank the hon. member for Pinelands. I think his attitude so far has been very constructive, although I do not agree with him as far as certain of these clauses are concerned. I can assure him that it is not my intention in any way to abuse the powers which have been given to me, especially the powers in clause 61.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, after yesterday’s display of consensus by all sides of the House as regards the principles of the various Bills affecting medicine and ancillary services, I must confess that I became perturbed and suspicious about the contents of these Bills. After all, when members of the Progressive Party support a Bill introduced by the Government, one must really make sure that the Bill is actually going to have the effect that it purports to have. I consequently again went through these Bills with a fine comb in order to allay my suspicions and fears and came to the conclusion that, incredible as it may seem, sound sense still prevails even amongst members of the Progressive Party. However, Sir, I was again sadly disillusioned this morning.

*Mr. Speaker, this Bill is ushering in a new era for the pharmacy profession. It is a very important milestone in the history of this profession. It is now giving this profession a status and an authority structure of its own and is giving substance to the fact that pharmacy is infact, a professional discipline in its own right, and when we take into consideration that these are highly trained, well-grounded people, who have had four years of training, it cannot be otherwise. Sir, this fact was recognized as long ago as 1927 by the then Minister of Health, Dr. Malan, when he was pleading the case of the then Medical, Dental and Pharmacy Act for the umpteenth time in the House of Assembly; he stated it as follows—

It is very clear from this quotation that even at that time pharmacists were regarded as having a professional discipline of their own and the prospect of having their profession regarded as a protected profession existed for them even then. Although, under the compulsion of certain circumstances, section 76 of the then Act was placed on the Statute Book to enable wholesale concerns, for various reasons, to conduct the practice of dispensing medicine here in South Africa, it was apparently never the intention, when this section was adopted in the form in which it was contained in the old Act, that people who had not been trained as pharmacists should also be allowed to own shares in retail pharmacies, but the effect of this section was that it then made it possible for untrained people to get a grip on the profession. It is interesting to note that, although there is a consensus in regard to this Bill among all the members of the House, this was not the case in 1928. In 1927 the then Act was approved up to section 75. Because section 76 was so contentious, it was only placed on the Statute Book the following year. The effect of section 76 was to make it possible for persons or bodies corporate without any pharmaceutical qualifications to own shares in retail pharmacies as long as a registered pharmacist was in charge of such a pharmacy. Any person could therefore open a pharmacy, even though he was a layman. Since that time members of the pharmacy profession have adopted a critical attitude towards this provision since they have felt that they, as a scientific discipline, have a right to protection, and they ought also to have a right to practise their profession exclusively. The pharmacists feel that the situation as it was injured their professional status and their integrity. The profession has been exploited by people whose sole motives were financial gain. Nor, under those specific circumstances, was the profession as such able to come into its own as one of the most important links in a comprehensive health service. Under those circumstances, in terms of section 76 of the Act, pharmacists were subjected to improper pressure from their shareholders as well, and they were unable to uphold their ethical codes in the proper manner. I want to refer to an interesting case in this regard, a case that illustrates what I mean. It is a case which was recently brought before the Pharmacy Board. The owner of a pharmacy, who was not a trained pharmacist, together with his managing director, who was a trained pharmacist, were summoned before the Pharmacy Board. I quote what was said about this in the South African Pharmaceutical Journal of June 1974—

Sir, this shows you the type of situation that may arise when the managing director is not in complete control of the policy of a pharmacy and when he is only in control of activities as a pharmacist. This kind of improper situation arose under the old Act.

The pharmacists also have other objections in regard to the situation in which they have found themselves in terms of section 76 of the Act. They feel that, in the past, their training was not utilized effectively in the preparation of medicines in the highly scientific profession to which they belonged. The policy was determined and indicated by outsiders. In fact, these people became pill dispensers and ordinary salesman. Since 1969 already this profession has been advocating that pharmacists should have the right to protection, since they were being threatened even at that time, by certain supermarket chain stores that had expressly stated that they would establish pharmacies in these supermarkets, would dispense medicines, etc., even on prescription, and would supply them to the public when requested to do so and would offer them at discount prices.

In general they would have applied the same aggressive sales methods one encounters today in chain stores of this nature. It would have meant a complete lowering of the standard of the dispensing of medicine as well as a debasement of the status of these people, who are, in fact, highly trained. Medicine cannot be labelled with the same tag as groceries or clothing. It is something which is bought for a specific purpose and ought, furthermore, only to be released to the public under certain circumstances. Medicine can never serve as a “traffic generator”, to use a term which is generally accepted among chain stores. Pharmacists are people who have received thorough training. They have to complete a scientific, specialized course. Their knowledge is specialized, both as regards the preparation and the application of medicine. They are, therefore, professional people in the full sense of the word, and that is why they ought to receive the protection which is now being ensured for them in this Bill. The profession ought to be a closed one. In fact, provision is also being made for that in the present Bill. In addition the practice of pharmacy ought to be limited to pharmacists alone. It is unfair to expect them to compete with general dealers, chain stores, and so on.

In the last few years it has, indeed, happened that pharmacists have been compelled to turn their pharmacies into supermarkets. I do not want to acquit them of the charge, Sir; there were also those who exploited the situation. It is a pity that this happened, but there were many of them who were compelled to do so by the pressure of economic factors. As the Minister said yesterday in his Second Reading speech, we had pharmacists who were selling refrigerators, stoves and even motor cars in their pharmacies. That is a highly undesirable state of affairs which will, it is hoped, be remedied by this legislation. The Bill is now making it possible for the profession to set its house in order. I want to make a very urgent appeal to the pharmacists. They have now succeeded in convincing the Government to draw up a measure to protect the profession. Since the first steps are now being taken to make this a closed profession, I want to make an appeal to the pharmacists to set their house in order and to return to the old, traditional pattern of pharmacy, and to put a stop to the sale of all manner of things which do not belong in a pharmacy.

Such as toys.

Yes, the hon. member for Houghton is now mentioning toys. This is one of the things which one most certainly does not expect to find in a pharmacy. This Bill is giving the pharmacist his rightful place in the health set-up of the country, so that he, too, can make his meaningful contribution to improving the health of our nation. A very important element of a pharmacist’s services is wholehearted and cordial co-operation with medical practitioners. I want to plead that the excellent relations which have existed up to now should, in the interests of our people and of patients, under no circumstances be disrupted. The pharmacists can play a very important role if they dedicate themselves to the task for which they are equipped. They form an important link in our health services. They could for example, render a very important service at the level of family planning in which they are, in fact, already engaged. Because of their training and an exacting course in hospital administration which they also take, the prospect is already being held out to them that a stage may be reached where some of them may also be placed in charge of hospitals. This is a very fine development for these people, considering the shortage of medical practitioners to do this particular job.

We recognize that there are still certain bottlenecks which are making things difficult for this profession. They are agitating to have certain bottlenecks removed, but this Bill is at least making it possible for a start to be made. I believe that these bottlenecks which still exist could easily be eliminated by means of co-operation and by displaying the necessary goodwill. I want to refer to a few of these bottlenecks. There is, for example, the uneven distribution of pharmacies, especially in our cities. In this way one finds an unnecessary concentration of pharmacies in the city centre while there are fewer of them on the outskirts. In the rural areas, in our smaller towns, there is a serious shortage of pharmacists. I want to make an appeal to our pharmacists to visit these small towns, too, and investigate the possibilities there, for I believe it is possible for a pharmacist to make a proper livelihood at any of these places if he dedicates himself to that task for which he has been trained.

The pharmacists wanted us to write into this Bill that the Pharmacy Board should be afforded a measure of control over the situation of pharmacies. I feel that this is a totally erroneous principle and that it should rather be tackled and rectified in some other way.

There is, of course, also the other bottleneck that the pharmacists are eager to have the monopoly of the sales of all medicines and they also want to see the right which enables doctors to dispense medicines and supply them to their patients terminated. This matter has certain merits, but I believe that with the necessary discretion, persuasion and consultation with the medical profession this bottleneck as far as they are concerned could also in due course be eliminated.

Suffice it to say that, with this Bill, a firm start is being made in enabling pharmacy to develop as a closed professional discipline. Like any new Act, this Bill, too, will probably demonstrate its deficiencies in practice, but I nevertheless believe that when pharmacists evince the will to cooperate, to do that for which they are equipped, to dedicate themselves to the task for which they are trained and to develop their professional status themselves, they will not find the Government unsympathetic when they make representations to remove the bottlenecks to which I have already referred, as well as any others there might be. I welcome this Bill very sincerely.

Mr. Speaker, I have very bad news for the hon. members on the other side of the House.

Are you going to support this Bill as well?

Yes, I am afraid so!

Despite the remarks of the hon. member for Cradock, I want to say that the Progressive Party approves the principle of the Bill as published in so far as it effects the much needed consolidation of the laws applicable to the practice of pharmacy and indeed the recognition of pharmacy as a profession with an independent identity and its own legislation and governing body.

Why it should come as such a surprise to hon. members on the other side that the Progressive Party should speak constructively, I fail to understand. The history of the party is quite clear. Where we have been convinced that there is something wrong with a Bill or practice of a law, we have stated it clearly and unequivocally.

Like your party’s policies?

When we are convinced that it is good for the benefit of the country and even for the United Party, then of course we have acted constructively. In parenthesis, I want to say that the hon. member for Hillbrow—I am sorry that he is not here—should know that any theologian studies philosophy and of course has to do a great deal of work in psychology as well.

It is quite clear from his own remarks and attitude that he is suffering—and he will know a great deal about this—from the whole question of rejection. This is quite understandable in the light of recent events. It is hoped that the Pharmacy Board will be able to maintain and enhance the repute and the esteem which their members deservedly enjoy in the opinion of the general public. There can be no doubt whatsoever that the pharmacist performs a most valuable service, both that of administering and that of counselling in society at large. The confidence and responsibility it implies necessitates the strictest ethical and professional controls which we believe the Bill which is before us now makes possible.

There is, however, one aspect of the Bill which causes us some concern, if we understand it correctly. This relates to the underlying intention of the amendment to clause 22 as proposed by the hon. the Minister. This amendment appears to have been drafted in response to representations made by the Pharmaceutical Society. I want to say very clearly that it is the right of any society or any group to make representations to any Minister. This is understandable and it happens all the time. I am not disapproving of that whatsoever. But it is in my judgment directed towards a principle which has not existed in any prior legislation, namely to preclude persons other than registered pharmacists from acquiring an interest in the practice of a pharmacy.

The hon. member for Cradock referred to the present role of a pharmacist and has made some comments about that. I want to approach the same problem from perhaps a slightly different direction. It is well known that a large number of retail chemists carry out their business as companies and that many of these companies have directors and shareholders who are not themselves pharmacists. This has always been the case and it is not even proscribed in the proposed legislation, provided that the managing director and the person in charge of the individual pharmacy is a registered pharmacist. But if the amendment of the hon. the Minister, is adopted and the principle thereof extended to include both shareholders and directors, I think a very undesirable situation may well develop.

I refer to the effect which the creation of what might be termed a professional cartel would have on the ever-increasing cost of living and the cost of drugs and related products. It is well known that in many countries, notably Britain and America, we have seen the development of the supermarketing principle in pharmacy. Whilst one of course must sound a note of caution in this regard, one must also acknowledge that it has made some contribution in arresting the cost spiral and introducing economies of scale and efficiency. I think one must recognize that the practice of pharmacy is a professional anomaly in that no other professions, doctors, psychiatrists, lawyers, are permitted by law or the tenets of their professional societies, from carrying on business as limited liability companies.

I think the reason is twofold; firstly, in order to preserve the principle of unlimited liability as it affects the professional man and secondly, to preclude persons other than those subject to professional restraints from exercising influence or benefiting in any way from a profession of which they are not members.

It is well understandable that the advantages to the pharmacists include the limitation of personal liability and some tax advantages and they would not want to lose any of these. The fact that I have referred to it as a professional anomaly arises from the very reason that the practice of retail pharmacies is on the one hand a profession and on the other hand a trade. I say it is a trade because basically it is a retailing operation. Nowadays, as the hon. member for Cradock has rightly pointed out, it involves the merchandising of a large range of products other than pharmaceuticals. I think it would be true to suggest that there is no substantive—I stress the word “substantive”—difference between a pharmacist who sells general merchandise and a general merchandiser who sells pharmaceuticals with this one very strong qualification. Of course it is important that the department which is responsible for dispensing and those functions which fall within the professional ambit should be under the personal continuous supervision of a qualified pharmacist. No one would every dispute that.

Why?

If the hon. member does not understand it, he obviously knows nothing about professional standards or ethical conduct.

Are you now the new leader of the Progressives?

I feel that it is not only desirable but even perhaps necessary that other than strictly pharmacists should have the opportunity to sell the kind of products which now fall under the ambit solely of the pharmacists. I say that only because it may well have the effect of reducing—I repeat “may well have the effect of reducing”—the costs as they are now borne by the general public. I am not for one moment denying the invaluable role and function of the local pharmacist. There is and always will be place for him particularly in the rural and suburban areas. However the restraint upon the ability of supermarkets to enter the field, albeit under very strict professional control, must be seen as contra-productive in the battle to contain inflation.

It has already been made clear by the hon. member for Rosettenville that we already have a great number of pharmacists and that the number is still increasing. It may be that the introduction of this kind of change would lead to a widening of the field, although still under strict professional control, and that this could assist the numbers of pharmacists who are coming forward and who would not otherwise have been able to set up business. Many pharmacists are undergoing very severe economic problems simply because there seems to be more pharmacists than are necessary to go around. That at least seems to be the impression and that certainly is the position in relation to the information I have received.

If we can look at the example which obtains in other parts of the world and not constantly be so turned in on ourselves, it may be that we shall learn that we can assist. After all, as the hon. the Minister of Health said when he was speaking about the previous Bill, our concern is not with a small number of people; but of paramount importance is the individual, the patient, the person who in the end stands to benefit from the best possible distribution of the available medicine and drugs. That is the only point I am trying to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister.

I repeat that the Progressive Party in terms of its normal practice, constructively supports this Bill which we believe is right in principle.

Mr. Speaker, my position today is precisely the opposite of what it was on the day I made my maiden speech. I am now speaking immediately after the member for Pinelands and I must say that on this occasion he has touched the strings of my heart. In the light of the praiseworthy attitude the Progressive Party has adopted over the past few days, I just want to assure the hon. member for Pinelands that I am not going to speak about heart attacks today, nor about bats. I shall forgive the hon. member for Houghton her rather silly comment.

As far as this Bill is concerned, it is clear that in the first instance there is consensus in this House concerning the principle of the matter. There is also consensus outside the House, and this includes the pharmacists themselves. I have here an article dated August 1974 by the Pharmaceutical Society of South Africa entitled: “Points of view in respect of draft legislation concerning pharmacy.” In it they say the following concerning this particular Bill (translation)—

Thus there is consensus both in this House and among the pharmacists. This Bill, of course, affects the pharmacists in the first instance. Permit me, Sir, to mention a few figures just to give us a clear idea of what is really involved, from the financial point of view and from the point of view of numbers. According to the report of the Commission of Inquiry into High Cost of Medical Services and Medicines of 1962, there were 2 950 pharmacists in 1960 and according to the yearbook I have here, there were 4 536 registered pharmacists in 1973 —an increase, therefore, of about 54% in 12 years. There were 1 831 students in 1973, too. In 1973 the sales of the top hundred ethical products i.e. those which sold the best, came to R25 million. Ethical products can only be bought by prescription and as hon. members know, there are hundreds of such preparations. In fact, I do not think I am lying when I say that there are thousands of preparations. Of course, they are not only sold by pharmacists in pharmacies; these figures include the hospitals. In the case of antibiotics alone— and that does not include injections—sales amounted to R6,3 million in 1973. In the first three months of this year the sales of the best product came to R1 036 977. This product is an ordinary sedative pill or sedative preparation. Financially there is, therefore a great deal at stake, too.

In the nature of the matter, this legislation primarily affects the pharmacists but the hon. member for Rosettenville also pointed out how important this legislation is in that in point of fact, it affects the entire population. In spite of this consensus, a somewhat preposterous b’ow was dealt this Bill, particularly in that it was said with reference to the Health Bills that these various pieces of legislation, taken as a whole, supposedly envisaged a number of underground things. Bearing this in mind and in spite of the consensus here, it would perhaps be of use to make a few remarks about the real necessity for this legislation. In the first instance I want to do this by dipping briefly into history. An article by Prof. C. H. Price of Rhodes University appeared in the South African Medical Journal. The subject was “The Origins of Medicine at the Cape of Good Hone”. Strangely enough, these academics write a summary first and then the article. I shall quote the summary first—

That was the position. You know, of course, that Jan Van Riebeeck was a doctor who exchanged his profession for that of a merchant, because then, as now, it paid better. His ship’s surgeon was Adriaen de Jager, who is also referred to in this article. His daughter died en route to the Cape. On the ship, too, were the following —and this is important as far as pharmacy is concerned—

The hon. member, who spoke about the poor handling of medicine a while ago, will probably appreciate this—

So the article continues. Eventually he deals with the position of the pharmacists. There was total confusion in that respect. He talks about the position in England at the time—

That was the position in England in about 1806. When the second English take-over took place, the position at the Cape was the following—

The Governor then appointed a commission. He took all the pharmacists and doctors and divided them into three groups: Firstly, “physicians”, secondly, “surgeons”, and thirdly, “apothecaries, chemists and druggists”. I quote further—

That was in accordance with The First Medical Proclamation published in the Cape Town Gazette, volume II, No. 67 of 25 April 1807. I want to quote a final excerpt to show how the position in England subsequently changed—

And now a final quotation. It is interesting to note that someone practised down here in Loop Street as well. As I said, they were classified in 1807, and one of them was a certain Dr. Liesching—

These are the “physicians”—

He had two sons. He trained the one as a doctor to take over from him at 60 Loop Street, and he trained the other as a pharmacist to take over from him at 61 Loop Street. So much for history. This shows on the one hand that pharmacy and medical science were still developing, and that this was causing problems. On the other hand, however, it is very clear too, that the fact that there was no control or legislation was also partly responsible for the problems. Allow me just to quote a few further examples of how essential control still is today The hon. member for Fauresmith quoted many interesting and rather laughable examples of these 66 medicines which were for sale. I too want to quote a few examples from this document I have before me, for a specific reason. One I want to quote is: “How many wives have you? Three or four? Yes, they are now going tq stop fighting with this wonderful medicine at only R6.” Then there is No. 32: “A medicine to prevent witchcraft at R20”. I mention these two examples in support of the information at my disposal to the effect that this notice has been sent more specifically to Black people. Please note that I say “Black” (Swart) people, not Schwarz people. It is sent to them in particular because they are uninformed people. This is being done, therefore, to exploit the uninformed. In other words, control is necessary. The argument that one can choose what one wants to buy and to whom one wants to go does not, therefore, apply, because they are exploiting the uninformed. After all, I personally would not buy this medicine, but uninformed people would. Another example I want to mention is No. 24: “We also provide a good medicine for women who want to double their monthly period, for R4.” Then too there is a medicine for people who suffer from bilharzia, for R3. In other words, there are not only the ridiculous preparations like the one which is the best medicine for love between boys and girls until death. Medicines are also being offered for real diseases, gynaecological problems and really dangerous diseases such as bilharzia which are very difficult to treat. [Interjections.] They dispense these, too. Thus they are not only breaking the law in their ridiculous or ignorant way, but are also professing to be able to act in a sphere which really requires intelligence and knowledge. In this report by the South African Co-ordinating Consumer Council I see that certain preparations such as “a medicine for noises in the head”, a “membrane reorganizer” and “medicine to expand the personality and thwart damaging witchcraft” have been brought to the attention of the authorities. This may be a reference to these quoted documents; I do not know. The fact remains that these things are abused if there is no proper control. I shall not quote any more from that list. I think I would be chased out of the House if I were to specify for whom No. 44, “Medicine for people who are mad”, is intended. Nor do I want to quote from yellow documents, because I find that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout is allergic to yellow paper. This document concerns the wonderful power of a certain form of matter known as water. This is not so dangerous, but things like this are really extremely ridiculous. I repeat that unbalanced people are the very ones who may be caught by this kind of joke. Nor do I have anything against people such as naturopaths. They say specifically that one must eat well and healthily. I have nothing against that. I said that the first time I entered this House. But that is not all they say. They say that that is all that one need do. I have before me a letter from Mr. Morris Krok. As it happens, he too is from Natal. He is one of these naturopaths and he says—

And so he goes on. The danger does not consist in stating that a person should eat healthily. The danger is that scientific facts are simply reasoned away. I repeat that it is the unbalanced and the uninformed who will have to be protected against this kind of practice.

In the third place, allow me to express a word of well-meant criticism of the pharmacists. I have the greatest appreciation for and a high opinion of most pharmacists because I have worked with them for years. However, just as is the case with members of Parliament, advocates and doctors, not all pharmacists are little winged angels. I just want to mention one specific instance where I think this still-to-be-established council could play a useful role. This is the question of substitution, i.e. where a doctor prescribes a certain medicine and the pharmacist sends a different one. One reason for this, of course, is when the manufacturers of the medicine i.e. the factory the wholesale firm and the pharmacy itself all belong to the same people and they of course want to get their products sold. I prescribe penicillin A, for example, and they supply penicillin B. To a certain extent one can understand this. One cannot expect a pharmacist to keep all the kinds of specific medicine in stock. Here in the cities, however, there is no problem as far as this is concerned because he can very easily obtain medicine which the doctors do not often prescribe. We know the doctors also have their whims and fancies and do not necessarily prescribe today what they prescribed yesterday. However, this problem is easily surmountable, particularly in the cities. This substitution does in fact take place. I have received complaints in this regard and I myself have experienced it here in the Cape. I have here an article in the 25 May 1974 issue of the South African Medical Journal. The article is really about television, but the principle being laid down here is valid in this respect as well. It reads as follows—

I also want to quote from the Report of the Commission of Enquiry into High Cost of Medical Services and Medicines (RP. 59—’62). On page 119 of this report the following is stated—

Further down they say the following—

One cannot say that beefsteak is, after all, only beefsteak. The beefsteak could come from a fine young heifer or from a skinny old cow, it could be old or fresh and it could be burnt or it could be properly prepared. The mere fact that a medicine is penicillin or that a piece of meat is beefsteak, is not enough. Even the outer covering of a capsule can determine how the contents of that capsule are released. The mere fact that a medicine contains penicillin is not enough. I just want to express this piece of well-meant criticism. I think that this malpractice or abuse which is taking place, whatever the reason may be, the practice of substitution, of not supplying what the doctor has specifically prescribed, even though the generic name does appear on the bottle, should be investigated by the Pharmaceutical Council.

I want to conclude. I know that pharmacists are professional people and that they are also, of course, scientists. I just want to quote this excerpt concerning science as evidence of how I see this Bill how I see the pharmaceutical profession and how, in my opinion, we should approach this Bill. I think we could apply this principle to politics, too. I think that the hon. the Minister of the Interior described politics as the science of the possible, therefore politics can also be a science. I again quote from the South African Medical Journal of 22 December 1973. The heading is “True and Pseudo-Scientists”. It is stated that—

You see, it is just the other way round—

Sir, I say that we should apply this to this Act, and I think that politicians can apply it in the same way. I should like to congratulate the hon. the Minister and his department on a good piece of legislation which will serve a good purpose, particularly if we approach it in this spirit.

Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to the hon. member for Krugersdorp, to some of his lighthearted humour and to some of the more serious remarks and the accusations which he made. I want to suggest to the hon. member for Krugersdorp that if he has any fears in regard to the practice of substitution in so far as pharmacists are concerned, he has a duty, a very responsible duty as a medical man, to leave no stone unturned to place those facts before the South African Pharmacy Board. I hope that he will do that. Sir, I served on the South African Pharmacy Board as an elected member for close on ten years. I cannot remember the number of instances of substitution which were brought before the attention of the board, but I think I could count them on my fingers. I do know that the South African Pharmacy Board takes an extremely serious view of substitution, and I trust that the hon. member for Krugersdorp will lend his full co-operation in reporting any situation where he feels that there is the slightest hint of substitution.

*Mr. Speaker, may I say that I appreciate the contribution and the support of the hon. member for Cradock.

†I appreciate very much the sympathy and the understanding which he has for the problems which beset pharmacy. He has made certain suggestions and I think he has made them in the right spirit.

Then, Sir, I want to come to the hon. member for Pinelands. I believe that there are some inaccuracies in what he said. I hope to deal with some of them and to put him right in the course of my speech. May I say at the outset that it was not representations solely from the South African Pharmaceutical Society which resulted in the Bill now before the House. This is a matter which has been very close to the heart of the South African Pharmacy Board for many years, in fact since the early forties, if my memory serves me correctly. They have consistently raised this matter, and Minister of Health after Minister of Health sought to relieve the present situation that exists in so far as the ability of an unregistered person to associate for gain with a professional individual, is concerned. I want to say to the hon. member for Pinelands that if he had read the Bill and the original Act as well as he read his speech, he would have had a clearer picture of the intention of this Bill. If I may tender some further advice to the hon. member for Pinelands—and I do it in all charity—I would suggest to him: Shoemaker, stick to your last.

Sir, this Bill marks the end of 46 years of association, under the Medical, Dental and Pharmacy Act between the medical, dental and pharmaceutical professions. We know that the Second Reading of the Medical, Dental and Pharmacy Bill has already been approved; we know that the Government intends that this Bill should receive the approval of the House, and we know, too, that the intimate relationship which has existed between the medical practitioner and the pharmacist will still be retained. Although they will operate under separate measures, this relationship will still be retained under the Drugs Control Amendment Bill which will be coming before the House very shortly, because both professions are intimately concerned and involved and will have their responsibilities under the provisions of the Act. I believe that this relationship between the prescriber on the one hand—the medical practitioner—and the pharmacist and dispenser on the other hand will therefore be maintained and I hope that it will be maintained to a greater degree for the protection of the public in so far as the use of drugs or the abuse of drugs is concerned.

Now I would like to identify myself with my colleague, the hon. member for Rosettenville, in the laudatory remarks he made in connection with the presentation of this Bill. I want to express my congratulations to the hon. the Minister in that he happens to be the Minister who after years and years of attempts has been the Minister to present this Bill to Parliament. Then I want to associate myself with the remarks of the hon. member for Rosettenville in so far as the Secretary for Health and his very hardworking and loyal staff are concerned. I believe that they have done a very good job to the best of their ability. They have shown patience almost, sometimes, beyond endurance. And I know, speaking on behalf of my colleagues, that we are grateful for that understanding, sympathy and patience and we thank them publicly for it.

Sir, one of the first things that strikes me is that at long last the term “pharmacist” becomes a legal term. We have used this term for years and years, but the legal designation of a pharmacist was a chemist and druggist. Now when this Act is passed, the term “pharmacist” will be recognized as being correct in the legal sense.

That is better than “pill-pusher”.

Yes, it is far better Sir, the main principle of this Bill, as I see it, is to place pharmacy on a par with other professions, members of which for years by law have enjoyed protection which precluded them from associating for gain with people who were not registered in their professions I mention as examples architects, attorneys, medical practitioners, dentists and advocates. In the legal profession, for example, it is not even possible for an attorney to associate directly for gain with an advocate, nor is it possible for a medical practitioner to do so in so far as a specialist is concerned. But in the Medical, Dental and Pharmacy Act as formulated in 1928—and the section has been there for all these years—provision existed whereby the device of the formation of a corporate body enabled under certain conditions an unregistered individual to associate for gain with a registered person. I am very gratified to know that this Bill, while it protects in full the vested rights of those who have been able to operate on this basis—and I am referring solely to the practice of a retail pharmacy—has now reached the stage where it acknowledges that the pharmacist also has the right to enjoy the privilege or the right which the other professions have enjoyed for a long time.

Sir, I want to deal with some of the main principles of the Bill. I have dealt mainly with the implications of clauses 14 and 28 and I do not intend to enlarge upon that, but there is one point I wish to make. I repeat that this Bill will not provide the pharmaceutical profession with a power base for creating a monopoly over the supply and the dispensing of medicines with a resulting increase in price to the public of the dispensed medicines. There is nothing in this Bill which will allow this position, and may I say, in addition to that, there has been and still is machinery which will control this particular aspect of any price increase. So those people who feel that the price of medicine is unduly high would do well to go back and examine the findings of the Snyman Commission of 1960-’61, in which the commission accepted the fact that the profits made on medicine were normal in relation to the normal profits enjoyed by sales of other commodities. But the position we have to bear in mind is that first of all, right in the beginning, in so far as imported medicines are concerned, the Government still takes a slice of the cake, because certain medicines and medical products which are imported, because they are not available in manufactured form in South Africa, are subject to customs and excise. My information is that at least R1 million per year is gathered in to the Treasury through the Department of Customs and Excise in respect of customs and excise duty on medicine. I know that the Snyman Commission suggested that this should be done away with. I can appreciate that there are many administrative difficulties in implementing that recommendation, but I believe it is fair to put on record that this is one of the causes, that at source, medicines are subject to customs and excise duty. We are also to a certain extent at the mercy of certain overseas manufacturers. One only has to refer to a recent case in Britain where a certain well-known pharmaceutical firm was charged with overcharging on two of the best known tranquillizers and probably the most used tranquillizers in South Africa. I want to repeat that this Bill will not result in an increase in the price of dispensed medicines. This Bill nowhere confines the distribution of patent medicines solely in the hand of pharmacists. There again any suggestion, any accuzation that this legislation will have that effect, I believe is unfounded and false.

I emphasize once again that the provisions of the Bill in regard to the association of a pharmacist with an unregistered person are restricted to retail pharmacists. I emphasize again that the vested rights of those already established are guarded in the Bill.

It is interesting to see that in 1928 there were 340 pharmacies and in 1974 there were over 2 500. It is also significant to know that in the last year or so there has been a reduction in the number of pharmacies because some have closed down. I believe in the main this has been due to economic reasons. I want to take it a little further. I want to refer to a Human Sciences Research Council survey on the profitability of professions. The survey was entitled “Wage Structure of Professional Male Workers as at 1971”. It may be of interest to this House to realize that in the list of 13 professions examined, pharmacy came 10th in the wage structure.

I now want to refer briefly to clause 3 of the Bill which is headed “Objects of the board” and particularly to paragraph (a) which reads—

I believe that I am absolutely right in saying that organized pharmacy represented by the statutory body, the S.A. Pharmacy Board, on the one hand and the Pharmaceutical Society of South Africa on the other, is more than willing and ready to play a greater part in achieving this object. However, although pharmacists have this comprehensive five years’ training which equips them for such participation, I believe that they will find that their contribution will be limited until such time as the State is prepared to consider some further protection. I do not believe that this Bill alone can give the pharmacists sufficient protection. I do not believe that this Bill carry out purely a professional calling in life. I believe that most professionally-minded pharmacists—I believe that they comprise the majority—would willingly forgo many of the things which today they are forced to merchandise, if they knew that they would have the sympathetic understanding of the Department of Health and the State as such.

I want to deal briefly with the constitution of the board. It has undergone certain changes and we see that among the five members to be appointed by the Minister provision has been made for a non-registered person or layman. Personally, I welcome this provision, because it leaves the selection of that person in the hands of the Minister. It means that if he feels that a member of the public, a lay individual, will be able to play a meaningful part in the deliberations of the board, he can appoint such a person and if he feels that the Pharmacy Board would benefit by the appointment of a legally trained person, he has the power to appoint such a person. We have had the debate about the composition of the Medical Council and the number of elected persons. I do not wish to protract this particular debate. All I wish to do is to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister to the fact that the number of elected members, namely six pharmacists, stood in the original Act of 1928. It has remained unchanged. Whereas there were then approximately 1 500 chemists on the register, today there are more than 4 500. So there has been a three-fold increase in 45-odd years and there is a body of opinion which feels that the varied interests of pharmacy would be better catered for if the number of elected members was increased to eight. I take this matter no further because I realize the implications in regard to the State President and other possibilities.

There is one point of criticism in the wording of the new Bill, namely in clause 5(1)(a)(ii), which provides that “one shall be a pharmacist who is an officer in the service of a provincial administration”. I think the reaction of organized pharmacy to this is that pharmacy should be allowed to decide who should represent them and that the board should not be allowed to become a sectional body. It is of interest to note, if one takes the present composition of the six elected members of the South African Pharmacy Board, that they are not all retailers. As far as I know at least two have no particular retail activity. I believe the pharmacists of the country are in a position, to a large extent, given the powers, to elect what could be regarded as a best man government.

I want to come back to clause 6(4). I raised the matter with the hon. the Minister yesterday and pointed out to him that as far as I knew this provision which lays down a penalty not exceeding R1 000 for anyone who commits an irregularity in a board election, was never in the original Act and it does not appear to me to have been discussed before it was included in the Bill we have just passed. As far as I am aware there have been no representations from pharmacy for this particular clause. From my own experience, having had some intimate association with three Pharmacy Board elections, I am not aware of irregularities which justify the inclusion of this clause. I want to suggest to the hon. the Minister that if there are grounds for including it in the Bill, well and good. But if there are, then, I suggest it should also be embodied in the Medical, Dental and Supplementary Health Service Professions Bill when it comes to be debated in the Other Place.

I want to deal briefly with clause 29. Clause 29 deals with the penalties for professing to be or practising as a pharmacist while unregistered. Here we find that the clause itself lays down a fine not exceeding R500. The fine for a person practising as a medical practitioner or as a psychologist while being unregistered is R500 and/or imprisonment of up to 12 months. I believe that the importance of this clause in so far as anybody who wishes to masquerade as a pharmacist is concerned, is just as great as in the other Bill and I want to suggest to the hon. the Minister that attention should be given to standardizing these penalties. The hon. the Minister is aware that I intend to move amendments in the Committee Stage which I believe will bring into line the question of the penalties so that where provision for imprisonment exists at the moment, it should also apply in the Pharmacy Bill.

I want to come now to a matter which I find rather worrying. Clause 29 deals with the question of the armed forces. I am glad that the hon. the Minister of Defence is here because I know that he demands a high standard of the men in the services. I accept that he does everything possible to see that the handling of medicines and drugs is under strict supervision. However, I am not happy with the present situation, nor was I happy with the Act as it stood. Section 92(2) of the Medical, Dental and Pharmacy Act refers to the question of military and naval institutions and the employment for the dispensing of medicines of members of the military or naval forces who have undergone training herein, and who are considered by the Minister as being competent to dispense medicines in such institutions or units. As I read that particular section in the Act, I understood that the Minister of Health would be responsible for the training or at least that it would be subject to his approval. However, when I asked the hon. the Minister of Health a question in 1971 as to how many members of the armed forces had been considered by him to be competent to dispense medicine in terms of section 92(2) —the section to which I have referred— each year for the preceding five years for which figures were available, I got the following answer. I may hasten to say that I am not referring to this hon. Minister, but to his predecessor. The answer was that it was not possible to furnish figures but that the training course was adequate for the purpose of section 92 of the Medical, Dental and Pharmacy Act in respect of members of the armed forces. I must admit that I found the answer a little vague and I addressed a question to the hon. the Minister of Defence. I asked him what the extent was and the duration of the training period of those who undertook the supply of medicines. Furthermore I asked him to give me the minimum age and educational standard required for those who underwent training. The reply was that the training comprised two months intensive training in forensic pharmacy, elementary dispensary, elementary pharmacology, prescription interpretation and pharmacy management, followed by approximately three years on the job training. I cannot find fault with this in times of emergency and in times of war, but we are not always at war and the personnel in the army are not the only ones who receive medicines in these circumstances. As far as I am aware the families of the personnel receive medicines in these circumstances. I believe that to say that the average age of the person who performs these duties is 22, is satisfactory, but I do not believe that a standard VIII education which was the answer given me, is adequate. I think one must take into consideration that a pharmacist, before he can handle these drugs, has to undergo five years’ training. Four of these years of training he spends at a university; in other words, the equivalent of an honours course. Returning to the Act which lays down that the dispensing shall be conducted under the supervision of a medical officer, I do not believe that this is adequate in times of peace. Clause 29(3)(d) makes an exemption. It states—

I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he would not consider two minor amendments. The first amendment is to accept the principle that there should be supervision by a medical practitioner or a pharmacist, if they are available, and that there should be a form of training which is prescribed by the hon. the Minister of Health. I do so because I believe that this particular clause has been the subject of discussion and concern by organized pharmacy itself.

I should like now to deal with clause 29(2).

It is not the Committee Stage now.

No, but I have to refer to these things because they are going to be accepted in principle. I wish to deal with them because I believe that here again an important principle is involved. Clause 29(2) does not specifically authorize a pharmacist to sell medicines or advise patients on the use of such medicines. I believe that this is something which organized pharmacy would welcome in this particular Bill. It is something which has been an inherent right and function of the pharmacist to perform and I believe it should be specifically defined in this Bill.

In so far as clause 36 of the Bill is concerned, I would like to ask the hon. the Minister if during the Committee Stage he could give some clarification of it.

I come now to the question of clause 49, dealing with the regulations. I believe that here, save in a matter of urgency, three months’ notice should be given by the hon. the Minister and/or the Pharmacy Board of intention to promulgate any regulations in terms of this clause.

May I say in conclusion, that some pharmacists of older vintage will probably view the demise of the Medical, Dental and Pharmacy Act, as we know it, with a certain degree of nostalgia; but I believe that all pharmacists look to this Pharmacy Bill as pointing to a new era in the professional status of pharmacy in South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, everyone has now had his say and I do not think it is necessary for me to deal in great detail with everything that was raised here. We are dealing with the principle, and I accept that we all agree on that. In the words of a very esteemed deceased member: “Peace has been breaking out all over” during the last two days.

I agree with the hon. member for Rosettenville when he says the purpose of this Bill is to place the pharmacy profession on a very high level, to render it some protection and to give this profession some definite guidance since the profession, over a great many years, did not know in which direction it should move. I listened to the suggestions put forward by the hon. member about the College of Pharmacists, and so forth. These are matters one may consider at this stage, but he cannot expect me to reply to them now. The hon. member for Cradock made a fine contribution, especially when he indicated in which way the pharmacy profession could do justice to itself. He also dealt very briefly with section 76 of the original Act, which formed the subject of discussion by the hon. member for Pinelands. I shall deal with the hon. member for Pinelands straight away, and I should like to tell him that section 76 of the existing Act of 1928, when the pharmacy profession had not developed to any marked extent in South Africa, was meant as a kind of concession to people outside the pharmacy profession to get it off the ground. People in a corporate body were, therefore, allowed to have interests in pharmaceutical enterprises at board level, because there were simply not enough of these people. However, that time has passed, and today we have too many pharmacists. I want to add further that it is not necessary for wholesale pharmacists to be included under these specific restrictions. On the contrary. Under clause 14 we are providing for the wholesalers or large companies to continue to have other persons on their boards of directors. However, as far as the retail pharmacist is concerned, I think it is only right that, in order to protect pharmacists, we should now lay down this requirement that only pharmacists are allowed to be directors when running retail pharmaceutical enterprises. Then there is one further point of importance. In terms of section 76, the directors of pharmaceutical enterprises in the past included persons who were laymen. The pharmacist who was supposed to be the managing director, was able sometimes to plead not guilty to unethical conduct on the part of a board member who was not really a pharmacist and who was, therefore, not subject to the disciplinary measures of the Pharmacy Board. These are matters we have to put right.

I think there are no substantial grounds for his fear concerning the higher prices of medicine that would supposedly result from this. In this respect we may, in particular, keep in mind the fact that in terms of clause 42 of this Bill, it is laid down that pharmacists, just as in the case of the medical practitioner in terms of section 55 of the Medical Practitioners’ Act, are not allowed to charge excessive prices. They are also bound by rules of ethics and I am not sure at all that these rights we are granting will necessarily lead to a sudden increase in the prices of medicine. In any case, this is a matter we are watching all the time and which all of us are greatly concerned about. The inquiries conducted into private hospitals have already, as far as I am concerned, brought this matter to the fore. In any case, we shall constantly have to give attention to this matter concerning the enormously high cost of medicine in future.

I want to associate myself with the appeal made by the hon. member for Cradock that our pharmacists, especially where they are offering their services in great numbers, should also think of the rural areas. The protection we are going to give them will help them also to make a better living in the rural areas. The problem today is that the pharmacist is disappearing from the rural areas altogether. I, therefore, want to associate myself very strongly with this appeal.

I should like to thank the hon. member for Krugersdorp for his contribution, as well as any of the other members who have spoken. I want to cut this discussion short now. There is no point in going into all the aspects that were raised here. I want to support the hon. member for Berea in expressing his appreciation towards the Secretary and the personnel of the Department of Health, who have, in a short period of time, worked very hard and for long hours in order to draw up this Bill for us so that we are able to pass it here today without a great deal of criticism being voiced against it.

†People do not always realize the dedication, the extra work and the pressure from all sides that these people have to cope with and cushion, because they are the buffers in between. The Minister sometimes heavily rely on them to relieve him of some of the afflictions that goes with this job.

*I want to put it on record that I am particularly grateful for the splendid co-operation I have received, not only in respect of the previous Bill, but also in respect of this Bill. I have listened to the suggestions of the hon. member for Berea, who dealt fairly extensively with the matters he raised. However, as we are concerned with principles, we can deal with them more fruitfully during the Committee Stage.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Although this is very peculiar, I should nevertheless just like to say that the title of this Bill reminds me of the joke about a clergyman who had to baptize a child by the name of Albertus Jacobus van der Merwe van der Westhuizen. When he came to the fourth name he said, “Give me some more water, please.”

Sir, this is a Bill with a very long name. This Bill is consequent upon the reviewing of the Medical, Dental and Pharmacy Act of 1928. After the Medical, Dental and Supplementary Health Service Professions Draft Bill was published in the Government Gazette on 10 August 1973, bitter …

Have some water.

After it had been published in the Government Gazette, bitter reproaches were levelled at the S.A. Medical and Dental Council and the medical profession, i.e. inter alia, that the council and the profession—

1. (a) sought to prohibit all other forms of health care so as to create a protective field of employment for medical practitioners; and
2. (b) sought to protect the income of medical practitioners against competition from homeopaths and other practices of that nature.

I should like to make it very clear today, so that there may be no trace of suspicion in this regard, that neither the council nor the medical profession had anything to do with the publication of the provisions of the draft Bill in question. What did happen was that the department decided at the time to review the Act and asked the council for proposals on the wording of the proposed reviewed Act. The council merely consolidated those provisions of the existing Act which relate to the professions in question, and submitted them to the department for consideration. In other words, if it had depended on the council, the status quo would have been maintained. The accusations directed against the council or the medical profession are therefore devoid of all truth.

The ludicrousness of these charges are reflected in the fact that the medical profession will do anything in its power to lighten the burden of the medical practitioner so that he may have more time at his disposal for meeting the tremendous demand for the services of medical practitioners. As an example of this I may just say that there are approximately 28 supplementary health service professions.

The fact of the matter is that the department considered the proposals put forward by the council and came to the conclusion, in the light of the large number of prosecutions that had been taking place in recent years, that there were major deficiencies and loopholes in the existing provisions of the Act in terms of which persons could practise a health profession without being subject to any control. In order to eliminate these loopholes the department adapted the provisions and apparently did such a good job that hysterical attacks were made on the council and the medical profession.

The department was faced with the following dilemma. Firstly, it was aware of the loopholes in the Act permitting of possibly unacceptable practices. Secondly, the Act empowers the council to register any person practising some health profession or other and to control such a profession. Thirdly, there is no other statutory provision in terms of any such profession may be controlled, and, fourthly, the council has consistently refused to register homeopaths, naturopaths, osteopaths and herbalists and to control these practices.

Under these circumstances the department confined itself to the existing legislation as its point of departure, and decided to smarten it up and publish it for comment before giving attention to any further legislation. After the publication of the draft Bill in question, the Secretary for Health specifically drew the attention of the Medical Council to its provisions and implications, inter alia, to the fact that homeopaths, naturopaths, osteopaths and herbalists would be prohibited from practising, and he requested the council once again to reconsider their position. The council subsequently decided once again that, in the public interest, it did not see its way clear to registering these practitioners.

This decision by the council can easily be interpreted as hostility to these practices, all the more because the council furnished no motivation for its decision. But in looking at the position in practice, as it exists in South Africa at the moment, one has great appreciation for the standpoint of the council. Firstly, one finds that there is no recognized basis of training for per sons pursuing these practices. Training takes place on a haphazard basis and is chiefly in the hands of private enterprise. Officially there is no control. No particular standard is being maintained. On the contrary, as far as this aspect is concerned, the position is so critical that a few years ago a certain institution informed the per sons studying there that the certificates obtained by them did not comply with the standards laid down, and that such persons had to take further courses.

As far as the examining process is concerned, the position is pathetic. It is well-known fact that some persons received their diplomas along with their lectures. Furthermore, it is also known that the examination paper set by a certain institution was left unchanged for eight consecutive years. It is also known that some persons received diplomas without having had access to a lecture.

As far as the courses as such are concerned, training is taking place either on a full-time or a part-time basis, or by correspondence.

Secondly, there is a tremendous controversy amongst the practitioners themselves about method to be applied. The methodology employed is that of adiothesis, which is condemned in strong terms by one group. The well-known “black box” is used in certain circles, which is condemned in strong terms by other practitioners. It has been ascertained that in cases where the so-called “black box” was used, the wires in the mechanism itself had not even been connected. In other cases a hair of a patient is “analysed” so as to determine the physical condition of the patient, and in other cases people’s palms are read.

Thirdly, cognizance was taken of the fees charged for services. It often happens that a person pays R30 up to R40 for a single visit to a practitioner. Remedies supplied to the patient, which cost the practitioner less than R1, are often sold to the patient for R10.

If regard is had to the above facts, it is very easy to understand why the Medical Council, which is held in high repute both internationally and in the Republic, has consistently refused up to now to register these practitioners and to control their practices. In making the above comments, I am by no means trying to suggest that all the practitioners are unacceptable for the purpose of rendering service. For those who have sufficient knowledge, who are honourably practising their profession in accordance with acceptable ethical norms, I have nothing but the greatest respect, and I realize that they are rendering a service required by certain members of the public.

In the light of the above facts and as a result of the fact that the council did not see its way clear to exercising the necessary control, the department arrived at the conclusion that separate legislation relating to these professions was an absolute necessity. In this regard I should like to add that persons pursuing these practices and organizations representing such persons have for several years been exerting themselves for the introduction of statutory control of all these practices.

Concerning the introduction of statutory control of these practices. I should like to clear up an illusion which prevails in certain circles. In criticizing the Medical, Dental and Supplementary Health Service Professions Draft Bill, opponents hysterically referred to its being contemplated to infringe the rights of the individual to decide for himself what type of treatment he wants and to restrict services rendered by medical practitioners to the so-called “allopathic” method.

Firstly, it is a well-known fact that there are indeed medical practitioners in South Africa who are practising homeopathy side by side with their “allopath’c” practice.

Secondly, the object of any measures of control are by no means to create job reservation for a small group of people. On the contrary, the specific object is to ensure that any person offering his services at a charge will have attained a minimum acceptable standard of knowledge so that the person paying for such services may be protected—in other words, so that the consumer may be protected. Within this framework and the control of persons who are practising, any consumer is free to choose the pracitioner he wants to consult.

Mr. Speaker, this type of control is the only protection which the State can offer its citizens, and if the State should fail to do so, it would be guilty of criminal negligence because the professions involved truly hold the life of the patient in their hands.

In the inquiry which the department in stituted into possible measures of control, the department also had a look at the position overseas. It was ascertained that in Germany, which is considered to be the source of homeopathy, homeopaths are permitted to practise under licence under strict conditions. The conditions concerned provide, inter alia, that the homeopath may not make use of any method giving a patient the impression that he is a medical practitioner; he may not perform an operation and he may not advertise. In France it is laid down that before a person may practise as a homeopath, he has to complete the basic course in medicine successfully, after which he may study homeopathy. Great play has been made in certain homeopathic circles of the fact that a homeopath is also a health adviser to the royal house in Britain. What these people omit to add however, is that Britain requires a person to be medically qualified before he may practise homeopathy—in other words, these persons are practising under the strict requirements of the British Medical Council.

During the course of the talks which the department had with the respective representare organizations, each of these organizations clearly intimated separately that they themselves were dissatisfied with the standard of training found in South Africa. One organization went so far, in its constitution, as to provide that after the commencement of the Act no person would be allowed to become a member of the association and to practise as a homeopath unless that person had an M.B. Ch.B. degree. Another organization made a point of stipulating that persons wishing to qualify as homeopaths had to undergo training in the basic sciences first. As I have already indicated, there are tremendous differences among the organizations representing practitioners and among practitioners themselves on the methods and practices applied and pursued by practitioners. These differences are so big that one group virtually refuses to speak to the other group. Accusations concerning malpractices and unscientific methods and techniques have been levelled back and forth. On certain matters there is unanimity, namely—

1. (a) the raising of the standard of training;
2. (b) the application of a uniform code of ethics; and
3. (c) statutory control of persons who are practising in order that these persons as such and also the public may be protected.

Out of this chaotic state of affairs the department is expected to create order and the State to act as arbiter and to determine by statute what is right and what is wrong. The solution of the problem could very easily have been merely to provide that any person wishing to pursue these practices was to have a medical degree. However, the result would have been that virtually all persons practising at present would have been prohibited from practising, and consequently people making use of their services would have to do without such services.

Consideration was given to the possibility of establishing a statutory council to control these practices. However, as a result of the chaotic posit on that exists at present, the auestion that arises is who can be appointed to such a council in order to control these practices to everybody’s satisfaction. In this case there is the further problem that except for the knowledge which is in fact available about the characters of persons, it is impossible to evaluate their professional competence.

It has consequently been decided to leave control of these professions in the hands of the persons practising them, and to create an instrument by means of which they themselves can sort out the existing chaotic state of affairs and place these professions on a sound basis. Until such time as this takes place the position is being frozen, and the rights of persons practising and studying at the moment will be protected on a basis similar to that of chiropractors. In addition to this, these professions are being given the instrument of placing these practices on a sound basis by means of rules.

Now I should like to deal briefly with the provisions of this Bill. In the definitions clause the word “Association” is defined, and, as is apparent from the rest of the Bill, the association plays a very important role in the procedures that are prescribed. Consequently I want to explain the association somewhat more fully.

This association was established recently as a result of co-operation among the three largest associations. Up to the beginning of this year there was an association with head-quarters in Johannesburg. It was an association which acted in a terribly militant manner, a phenomenon which in effect was strange in the sphere of health. In the credit of certain leading personalities in the association I want to mention that they were aware of the shortcomings and deficiencies and the maladministration of the association’s affairs which was taking place. When, after many attempts, these persons could not succeed in placing the association on a sound footing from within, they established a new association which, since January, has grown from eight members to approximately 280 at present. I should like to record my appreciation of the positive steps taken by these persons to place their professions on an ordered basis. This association sought co-operation with two other older associations, and now they consist of 500 persons. The three associations are still differing amongst themselves on details, but they have now been consolidated into the South African Homeopathic Association. Each association feels that it can manage its own affairs more effectively at this stage, but the South African Homeopathic Association will act on their behalf in external matters. Since the Homeopathic Association represents by far and away the largest number of practitioners in the Republic, it has been decided to designate this association in the Bill to carry out certain functions in present circumstances. In terms of this the affairs of the professions will be controlled and ordered by the practitioners themselves.

At this stage you are probably asking yourself this question: What do naturopathy, osteopathy and herbalism have to do with homeopathy, since the name of the association is the Homeopathic Association? There people have informed me that each of these four is actually a branch of homeopathy, and that all of them have been trained well enough in it so that all of them are in actual fact homeopaths.

Clause 2 provides that only a person whose name appears on a list kept by a designated officer and who has been so informed in writing by such officer, may pursue the practice in respect of which his name has been entered on the list. Any person who pursues one of these practices and whose name does not appear on that list, shall be guilty of an offence.

In clause 3(1) it is being provided that the names of all persons—

1. (a) who are practising in the Republic at present;
2. (b) who are South African citizens practising elsewhere at present;
3. (c) who are South African citizens studying at present; and
4. (d) who comply with the residence qualifications for citizenship, are still studying at present, and acquires citizenship within two years after the commencement of this Bill,

will be entered on a list, on condition that the association makes a recommendation in this regard by virtue of—

1. (a) the training such a person has received;
2. (b) his character; and
3. (c) his proficiency in one of the two official languages.

The latter is considered to be important. Communication is important, and the practitioner should be able to communicate with his patient.

In subsection (2) it is provided that a person’s name shall be entered provisionally on the list if the association is of the opinion that such person does not comply with the required standard of training. While being provisionally entered on the list he will be able to practise, but if he fails to comply with the conditions, his name will automatically be removed from the list. This will ensure that the vested interests of persons are protected.

Provision is being made in subsection (3) for appeal to the Secretary for Health for such persons who are dissatisfied with a recommendation by the association or a decision by the designated officer, and subsection (4) confirms that the provisions of subsection (2) shall mutatis mutandis apply in respect of persons lodging appeals.

Subsection (5) specifies what particulars are to be entered on the list.

In contrast with the Chiropractors Act, it is being provided in clause 4 that the association may, with the approval of the Minister, make rules in terms of which the practices of persons whose names have been entered on the list may be regulated, and prescribe the remedies which such persons may prescribe to their patients.

Clause 5(1) prescribes the acts which may not be performed by a person whose name appears on the list. Paragraphs (a) to (e) merely confirm the existing practice. Paragraph (f) is supplementary to the provisions on psychologists. Paragraph (g) has been inserted so as to prevent a patient from being under or being given a wrong impression. Paragraph (h) has been inserted to prevent unethical conduct and also to prevent what did in fact happen in the past from happening again in the future. In this regard I just want to mention that, inter alia, it has been brought to our attention that a person who was receiving medical treatment for a heart condition was advised to throw his medicine away and to use natural remedies instead. Paragraph (i) imposes a prohibition on the advertising of the services of any person, a provision which is in keeping with provisions relating to all professions.

Subsections (2) and (3) deal with penalties. A distinction is being drawn between the penalties for contraventions under subsection (1) and the penalties for contraventions of a rule. The penalty for a contravention of subsection (1) comprises a fine of R200 or imprisonment for a period of four months or both such fine and such imprisonment, as well as the removal of such person’s name from the list. The penalty for a contravention of a rule comprises—

1. (a) on a first conviction, a fine not exceeding R50;
2. (b) on a second conviction, a fine not exceeding R100 or the temporary removal from the list of the name of that person;
3. (c) on a third conviction, the removal of that person’s name from the register.

Clause 6 provides that the provisions of the Medical Bill shall not prohibit those practitioners whose names appear on the list in terms of this Bill from pursuing their practices.

In clause 7 the onus of proof concerning contraventions is regulated. Section 98(2) of the Medical, Dental and Pharmacy Act, 1928, empowers the Minister to issue a licence to a Bantu person to practise under the provisions of Chapter XIV of Law No. 19 of 1891 of Natal, or under the provisions of Proclamation No. 7 of 1895, amongst the Bantu in Zululand as a medicine man or medicine woman or as a herbalist or midwife. This power is now being incorporated in clause 8 of the Bill.

As is apparent from the above, the implementation of this Bill will be in the hands of the representatives of the practitioners themselves. A major onus is therefore being imposed on the association and the professions, and the future role which the professions may play, their development and their eventual position in the health set-up in South Africa will depend on what is achieved by means of this instrument which we are giving to them. The Government is quite prepared to reconsider the provisions of this Bill at a later stage should this be justified, but then the professions must put their own house in order. The requirements laid down inter alia in this regard are (a) that an acceptable standard of training be created; (b) that auackery be stamped out and that the professions be founded scientifically; and (c) that practices be pursued in accordance with acceptable ethical norms—in brief, that order be created out of the existing chaos. The future of these practices are consequently in the hands of the practitioners themselves.

In conclusion I want to inform you that this Bill was not made known in advance. However, the principles of the Bill were discussed beforehand with the representatives of the three largest associations, which have now federated, and they intimated that they would support it.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister has given us quite a survey of what he intends to do about homeopaths, naturopaths, osteopaths and herbalists. He has gone into great detail for our benefit and I am pleased that he has done that, because I am sure that most of us here this afternoon really do not know what a homeopath is, what a naturopath is, or what osteopaths and herbalists are. Actually, as far as I know, one runs into the other and they do one another’s work. What work that is I do not know. I have never been able to define what a homeopath is and I do not know how the Minister is going to be able to control these people effectively unless the registrar who is going to have the job of tallying and controlling these people is a very strict individual. If he does that effectively we know that a little sanity will be forthcoming from the chaos that is presently being created by these various different practitioners. Another chaotic position I know of is that there are two groups of homeopaths or naturopaths or osteopaths who have their own organizations. They look upon each other with great suspicion. Which one is the better group I do not know, but I have spoken to members of both and neither has really impressed me. Some have the ability of appearing more sincere than the others, but whether their ability is better I do not know. I agree with the hon. the Minister that we must make every effort from now on to try to phase this sort of thing out. Let us rather encourage these people who want to help and want to do homeopathy as it is practised in England to have a very good basic knowledge of medicine and surgery. I asked one of these people something about anatomy, but he had no idea whatsoever of what I was talking about. He did not know what the word physiology meant. But he told me, and he was quite sincere about it, that he uses a stethoscope. I am not too sure that he knew on which side the heart is. But the same individual said to me that if I would come to his office he would show me what a successful practitioner he is, because on his shelves he has samples of the cancers he has taken out of suffering people. How can you have these people running around taking money from the gullible and practising so unscrupulously? I am pleased that the hon. the Minister has introduced this Bill and we on this side of the House will of course support it.

The first difficult job that I see that the hon. the Minister will be faced with is to try to get these two main organizations together so that they will both be satisfied with the register that the Secretary for Health will have to keep. I have seen some of these individuals and I do not envy the Secretary his job. Secondly, to restrict them as this Bill is doing, is a good thing, but to make sure that these restrictions are observed, is difficult. You cannot look at or inspect 300 to 400 homeopaths a day. They are going to carry on as they have been doing. Hon. members know that bad habits die very, very slowly. With this Bill there is at least a start to eliminate malpractices. I wish the hon. the Minister every success in his efforts to do so. The prohibitions which are applied by this Bill are most important indeed and the hon. the Minister probably knows as well as I do that some of the examinations that these people undertake during the course of their day’s work are examinations that should not be done by people who are not properly qualified to do them. Some of the diagnoses which are being made are quite incorrect. Some of the treatment could be disastrous. I refer particularly to the attempts by these people to make themselves out to be people who can cure cancers miraculously. The unfortunate person does not only pay one visit to the herbalist, the naturopath or the homeopath, but they have to come back time and again. Some times months go by before the patient eventually gives up trying to be cured by these people and goes to a medical man. Sometimes it is too late for a medical man to do anything. We must try to stop that. How the hon. the Minister is going to do it. I do not know, because nobody will be able to no into a homeopath’s consulting room and watch him so as to find out whether or not he is prescribing for a malignant growth. He will merely say that it is not a malignant growth and he will get away with his cancer treatment. He will say that it is just a lump and that the patient need not worry about it because it will disappear after his treatment. We are going to have to deal with clever people. They are smart and they know quite well that it is the easiest thing in the world to get a certificate of homeopathy as long as they have a few rand to pay for it. There is one school in Cape Town that will give you a certificate for R100, from what I have heard. The same school, if what I hear is correct, is doing very well out of the gullible Bantu. These fellows who get these certificates go out into the locations with a bag of medicines which they buy from the person who issues the certificate. The certificate is then put into the suitcase and that then is the proof of their high standing in the profession. Then they sell these medicines. They can cure anything with their bag of tricks. I wish the hon. the Minister luck if he thinks he can stop this practice. I think he has a big job on his hands. I think the penalties must be imposed very strictly indeed. I want to say to the hon. the Minister that this register must be a very important instrument of control. I cannot stress that strongly enough. If that register does not control those who do not have sufficient education or training, we will be in exactly the same position as we are today. I would suggest to the hon. the Minister that he encourage these people firstly, to put their house in order and secondly, if possible, to establish a college of homeopathy as is established in London today. He must not issue a certificate of any kind either unless such a person has passed through that college. He must make it an intensive course. The sooner this issuing of certificates of all kinds is stopped, the better. With those few words I want to say to the hon. the Minister that we on this side of the House will help him not only to pilot this Bill through its various stages but to try to put this chaotic state of affairs in order.

Mr. Speaker, listening to the hon. member for Rosettenville, there is one thing I can say with certainty, and that is that he would be an utter failure as a homeopath, an osteopath or a naturopath because we who have a scientific background and are dealing here with legislation concerning a matter in respect of which there is no proven scientific background on which to base anything, are unable to understand anything of the sort and never have been able to recognize or understand it. Here we have before us legislation which has a non-scientific basis. We need to ask ourselves why these people still exist and why it is accepted that these people do in fact fill a certain gap and have a certain function in society. One way or the other, all of us, whether through one’s family, through a friend, or even through a colleague, know of some person who, under certain circumstances, still goes back to the mystic, the mysterious, the kind of practice which is not scientific, where he could possibly be helped. Repeatedly we have cases where the person first goes through the scientific process, but later accepts that scientifically based science is not going to provide him with a solution. If he does not find a solution, he wanders around and eventually makes his way to the homeopath, the osteopath or the naturopath.

Or the bone-thrower.

Yes, or to the bonethrower. It is quite human for a person to react in this way. We shall always have those people with us. For the most part I see this legislation in this light, i.e. that in the first place it is legislation which protects the public against possible exploitation and harm. That is why the most important facet of this legislation comprises the provisions of clause 5. We shall always have these people with us, but by stipulating all the offences they may not commit in the Bill, we are protecting the public. That is the task of the State at all times. I just want to refer to one of the facets of this in respect of which we must take vigorous action in all respects, namely the case of a person, whether he is a homeopath or whatever, who lets it be known that he can treat cancer. In such a case we cannot act vigorously enough. I agree with the hon. member for Rosettenville—these people say it is not cancer; they say it is an abscess. He then continues to treat the patient until later on he finds that he is making no progress and goes to the medical practitioner. Unfortunately it is then too late to do anything for him on a scientific basis.

We should not be too quick to condemn the significance of herbal medicine. The hon. member for Berea will agree with me that herbs were the origin of pharmacy. I can mention many examples of this. For example, there is one medicine which is used a great deal and was discovered by accident, namely penicillin. Penicillin was used as an old farmer’s remedy in the form of the mould in bottles of preserves. It was usually skimmed off and placed on serious wounds, and it helped. But no one knew that it contained penicillin, with its exceptional healing functions. It was only by accident that it was later, only recently, discovered. There are many more of these herbal remedies. I remember that when I was a child my mother gave me a dose of very strong rue. It really helped for influenza. Within an hour or two one’s fever is broken. I know of many other instances, too, although we have never been able to determine their scientific basis.

I do not want to speak for long. I just want to mention that I am in agreement with the hon. member for Rosettenville in seeing difficulties in respect of clause 4. I do not know how these people are going to manage to raise their standard if they do not have a seientific basis. Nor do I know how they will ever manage to determine what remedies they may use. All this Bill can do is to apply to them the Drugs Control Act and thereby prohibit them from using certain remedies because we know that they are harmful. What they do in fact use is their affair, but the way in which they are going to manage and organize this, will possibly only be determined in future.

We should also take note of another profession which is not scientifically based nor is it mentioned here—possibly it will have to be raised at a later stag;—namely that of acupuncture. This involves sticking needles into people for various complaints. This is something which has for centuries been practised quite effectively in the East, and they still stand by it. It is a fine, elevated art, but a scientific basis to determine that it works in a specific way has not yet been established. That is why we understand why the hon. member said that not one of these people has a minimal knowledge of the anatomy or the physiology of the human being. We have to just accept this and bear with it, as long as this legislation performs the two basic functions, firstly, of protecting the public against harmful usages—and this is done thoroughly in clause 5—and, secondly, to give these people a chance to put their own house in order, to compile a list of their own people and to attempt to determine and maintain a certain standard. I want to let that Bill suffice. This Bill is good start. I am pleased that the hon. member states that this legislation may possibly be reformed in the future and that we shall possibly have to take stronger action, but for the moment we cannot go much further than that.

Mr. Speaker, I have embarked on an extensive investigation of what we intend doing to create chaos out of order in respect of this matter and I can agree with everything the hon. member for Rosettenville and the hon. member for Brentwood have said.

We do indeed have a chaotic situation. It is a situation which we do not understand very well. We must, however, try to create some order out of this scientific chaos that exists. They know about the scientific aspects. I do not. We still have to learn and we must make cautious progress. Let me tell the hon. member for Rosettenville that we have dealt with the cancer quacks. We have ample legal provisions to handle these people. I therefore do not think he need worry about these people. We have two main organizations, as he so aptly put it, but we have also succeeded in getting them to federate. There may be small splinter groups but I do not think there is any organization of note at the moment which will give us any trouble.

May I ask the hon. the Minister whether he was expressing Government policy when he said his purpose was to make chaos out of order?

I am so glad I can express my thanks to this member for correcting me on this matter because as far as the Government is concerned, it is just the other way round. If I said that, let me correct myself. I am of course a little pressed for time. Let me correct this then by saying that we intended creating order out or chaos.

Never apologize for being honest.

The Government is usually creating order out of potential chaos, and in most instances that potential chaos lies with the Opposition! The provisions mentioned by the hon. member are very important. I think we must keep these people under the control of the department for the moment, as they are at present. What we do is to freeze these practices because we want to provide a better scientific basis for them to operate on. We also control their eithioal codes, even the fees they prescribe. If the hon. member has any sympathy with us, he can at least acknowledge that we are definitely trying to create, as I have said at the start, some order out of the existing chaos. I do realize that the position is a little chaotic at the moment.

*I have almost finished, but I should just like to thank the hon. member for Brentwood, too, for the fine contribution he made here in respect of a matter which we cannot simply view lightly. These homeopathic remedies and practising of this profession have their origin in the distant past. To many of us sitting here these things have had some significance in the past. For that reason it was important to me as a scientist not merely to go and say that because these people do not operate on a scientific basis, we simply cannot recognize them as the Medical Council says. I know that many of these people have done no harm over the years. On the contrary, in the past many of them did many good things for people. I want to grant them that recognition. However, we must all declare ourselves prepared to be regulated and controlled in some way or other if we want to practise and pursue a profession from which we want to make a living and for which we are taking money from the public. That is exactly what we want to do here. This is legislation which one should, in a certain sense, regard as emergency legislation, as temporary legislation, for the Medical, Dental and Supplementary Professions Bill has been drafted so effectively, if I may put it this way, that these people will be out of work if we do not make provision for them. That is what we are doing now.

In conclusion I just want to express my sincere thanks for the contributions made here and the spirit in which hon. members approached this Second Reading.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Clause 3:

Sir, may I just put a question to the hon. the Minister in regard to this clause? As I understand the clause, it means that from now on no newcomers will be admitted to the group of people who have up to now pursue these particular practices. I just want to say that I received quite a lot of objections concerning the matter from my constituency. If my interpretation is incorrect —and I am really basing my interpretation on what the hon. member for Rosettenville said earlier—namely that these practices will have to disappear, then I want to ask whether the hon. the Minister could give an indication of what needs to be done to ensure that people who are interested in this profession may still be admitted and under what conditions this may be done.

Sir, I refer the hon. member to what I said in my Second Reading speech under section 3(1)—

If there are persons who feel that their names should have been entered, they can appeal if the officer to whom is entrusted the task of entering their names, does not do so. In other words, the hon. member’s deduction is correct when he says that we are freezing the profession to a certain extent. In other words, a number of additional people could be included as a result of the fact that they are at present engaged in qualifying themselves by means of study abroad, if they are South African citizens, but on conditions which we still have to work out, conditions which will be based on the practice of homeopathy, of which we have had very clear indications, in the overseas countries to which I have referred. In France, such a person is required to have a degree in medicine. Certain requirements have been laid down in Britain and Germany; in some cases these people have first to undergo the basic scientific courses. In other words, we at least want to give these people who practise this kind of thing, a scientific basis. That is the general idea underlying this, and in the meantime these people are to come up with proposals on how we can bring this about, and then they will have the co-operation of the department. It is not the intention to abolish the practice in its entirety because any doctor who is qualified today, can practise homeopathy if he wants to, but then he is bound by the ethical codes of the Medical Councll.

Sir, could I ask the hon. the Minister whether my interpretation is correct, namely that those who are training now and those who are practising now will be entitled to practise if they reach the standard laid down by the association which is now to be formed? If one talks about phasing out, it automatically means that this profession, as it will now be established under control, cannot be phased out for the next 30 or 40 years, because students coming into the profession now can be expected to carry on for at least another 30 years, so that part of it falls away. I hope that my interpretation is right—and the Minister must tell me if I am wrong—that it is during this period, which some people call the phasing-out period, that the new generation of homeopaths will come into being with a much higher and a much more stable standard of education than that of those people who are actually going out of the profession.

It is a kind of federal policy.

Sir, may I just put a question to the hon. the Minister in connection with this clause as well. Inter alia it also deals with the question of advertising. The custom at present is that anyone practising professions of this kind, advertises at his consulting rooms by putting up a nameplate stating his name and title. If a person who had obtained a doctor’s degree in another profession were to put the word “doctor” on his nameplate, even though he were to add “homeopath”, he could perhaps be suspected, under this Act, of misleading the public. Could the hon. the Minister just give us an indication what the position would be in that regard?

Any person who has obtained any degree at any institution which has been legally established—a medical degree, for example, or an M.A. or a B.A.—may at any time state this on the nameplate in front of his house. The name of a person who wants to practise homeopathy must be entered on this list, whoever he may be, i.e. whether he is an ordinary medical practitioner or a doctor in languages, or if he has an M.A. in psychology. He must be entered on the list, because we want to bring these people together; we want to create order out of chaos, as one would like to do in respect of the Opposition as well.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 8:

I should like to deal with one matter under clause 8. The side note to clause 8 says that this clause deals with Bantu medicine men and herbalists. The Minister in his Second Reading speech referred to the fact that this particular function was carried out under section 98(2) of Act 13 of 1928, i.e. the Medical, Dental and Pharmacy Act. Obviously the power will now be transferred to the Minister through the new Bill before the House. I want to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to two facts.

In the original Act it refers to “medicine men and medicine women, herbalists or midwives”, and then it goes on to refer to the question of the renewal of licence. I wanted to try to get some clarity on this, so I addressed a question to the Minister of Health on 4 February 1972, asking how many medicine men, medicine women, herbalists and midwives were practising in terms of this very old legislation of 1895, in terms of the Medical, Dental and Pharmacy Act, and I was told that no records in respect of any categories of persons mentioned by me were kept by the Minister’s department. Then I asked how many licences had been issued, and I was told that 841 licences had been issued since the coming into force of the Act in 1928 and up to December 1971. Then I was told that 816 had been refused. But although the Act provides for renewals, the Minister replied that no record of renewals was kept by his department. My point is that I should like the Minister, if possible, to clarify what the intention of his department will be in future now that this particular provision has been removed from the Medical, Dental and Pharmacy Act and placed in this particular Bill.

I have a certain amount of concern about this. I want to quote very briefly from the reprint of an article entitled “The African nyanga and the Church”, from which it would seem that certain churches are concerned about the nyangas, and as I understand the term “nyanga”, it is somebody who deals in medicine. The article by Mr. Motswana asks, first of all, how one qualifies to become an nyanga. He says there are three ways. The first way is by inheritance, i.e. one takes over from one’s father or one’s parents and learns from them to be a medicine man. The second one I find a little disturbing. It says there that one can take a course and learn about various medicines which one’s tutor shows one and tells one about. Then in the second instance it says—

Sir, that may sound rather amusing, but let us continue with the quotation—

I am serious about this business because I feel that the time has come for some indication to be given as to what the attitude of the department is going to be towards this class of people. If we take just broadly the number of rural Africans in South Africa, there must be 10 million of them who could, under circumstances, use the services of these various medicine men, nyangas, sangomos, medicine women, etc. I should like to have some assurance from the hon. the Minister that this matter will be gone into thoroughly by his department and that some sort of standard will be adopted because he has said quite clearly in so far as the other professions named in the Bill are concerned, that the Bill seeks to control and to limit their practice. I believe that the time has come when consideration must be given to some form of control which will curtail the activities of people of this nature.

Mr. Chairman, this matter raised by the hon. member for Berea is, of course, a difficult one. This kind of right derives from a number of old Bantu customs. It comes from the previous century. The position at present is that one can never determine the border-line between doctors and herbalists, between the person who is on a par with the homeopath and the other who misleads the public. This whole matter is bound up with Bantu tribal customs. We are concerned with this to the extent that when a Bantu Affairs Commissioner or the Police and, in addition, the chief of the tribe, recommend that such a person is a good nyanga and that there are only one or two nyangas in the community of about 40 000 people living in the area, we can more or less determine whether there will be sufficient people who will go to the nyanga or if there are sufficient medical practitioners. After all these factors have been taken into account I can give the necessary approval. In any event I have to give the matter my personal approval.

The hon. member having said that the principle of the Bill concerns control, we can investigate the keeping of registers for these people. However, I want to warn the hon. member that we should not go into this too deeply. Before we have the full cooperation of these people and their tribal chiefs, and before they themselves are convinced that this matter be more closely investigated and that more control should be exercised, we should not begin to exercise control from without in arbitrary fashion. We should first, therefore, make quite sure that we have their full co-operation. This is a deeply-rooted tribal custom. If aspects of witchcraft do occur, however undesirable these may be, we can do nothing about them unless they amount to crime. We know that there have been many crimes in this connection, but there are measures to combat this. When crime does not take place, our hands are tied, to the extent that these people must first be convinced from a higher level and by their own people that an improved form of control is necessary. If this were to happen, we should be able to help, but we shall not be able to wield the big stick and tell them what to do. Up to now, notwithstanding the interesting things quoted by the hon. member, I myself have not received major complaints of these nyangas doing a lot of harm. I must say this in all honesty. If cases do occur and they are brought to my attention, it is the duty of my department to see to the matter.

Clause agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, when the debate on this Bill was adjourned last week, I was indicating to the House the importance of the constitution of the joint committee that is to be established in terms of this Bill. This pension scheme for non-Whites of the Railway Administration will be breaking new ground for these people and it is therefore important to see to it that the joint committee that is to be established is also representative of the non-White staff, so that the interests of those people for whom the pension scheme is to provide benefits, will be looked after. I also drew attention to clause 3 which provides for the making of regulations. The entire pension scheme will be based on the provisions of these regulations. These regulations are to be promulgated by the Minister in consultation with the Railway Board. There is no reference to the regulations being amended or altered in any way without the prior consultation of the joint committee which is to be established in terms of clause 2 of the Bill. It is therefore important that the non-White staff are fully conversant with their entitlement in terms of this scheme. When one looks at the position as far as the White railway employees are concerned, one knows that when amendments take place they are circulated in the General Manager’s circular. In most instances the information is then reproduced in Salstaff Bulletin, the official magazine of the salaried staff association of the Railways, to ensure that these people are fully conversant with amendments that take place from time to time. I therefore believe that it is important that these regulations be framed so that the non-White employees are able to understand them and that their representatives are able to understand them so as to ensure that they are fully aware of what they are entitled to receive by way of benefits.

The hon. the Deputy Minister, in introducing the Bill, did give a brief outline of what he had in mind with regard to the administration of this pension fund. One or two of these items deserve further comment. It is important to follow the provision that has been made to see how it compares with the pension scheme for non-White employees in the Government service. This House, a few years ago, passed legislation in relation to this scheme. There are certain provisions in that legislation which I understand will also be included in this pension scheme. I refer particularly to the five-year qualifying period. The hon. the Minister indicated that persons would qualify for membership of this pension fund after a continuous period of five years’ service in the Railway Administration. The hon. the Minister also indicated that those persons who had more than five years’ service but less than ten years would be required to undergo a medical examination. Thereafter, once the fund had been established, all persons joining the fund would be subject to a medical examination. The hon. the Deputy Minister also indicated that those persons who had been in service for more than 10 years and who were under the age of 60 years would qualify for membership of this proposed pension fund. This would immediately bring into being a group of persons who would be the first contributors to this fund. The hon. the Deputy Minister said this would entail approximately 67 000 people. However, there appears to be no provision to assist some of the people who might wish to back-date pensionable service. Indeed, if one looks at the framing of the clause which deals with the regulations, it appears that it might be prohibited in terms of the regulations to permit people to back-date their pensionable service. I think that this principle which is involved is important, because if we look at the Superannuation Fund for the White servants of the Railway Administration we see that many of these people have taken the opportunity to back-date their service to the age of 18 years when they have been in the service of the Railways for a long period. This has meant a considerable improvement in the final pension benefit which is paid to these people. I believe that the hon. the Deputy Minister should consider providing in these regulations for persons who have been in the service of the Railway Administration for more than 10 years to be able to back-date at least a portion of that service. I suggest that the hon. the Deputy Minister should consider allowing these people to back-date pensionable service by a period of five years if they are in the financial position to do so. I think the older slaff should be given an opportunity to back-date a portion of their 10 year period of service in the Railway Administration. The question of providing a scheme to meet the needs of the present employee and the past employee is indeed important. I believe that the contributions which the hon. the Minister has mentioned are certainly higher than the contributions which are paid into the compulsory savings fund. The hon. the Deputy Minister mentioned the compulsory savings fund because it is obviously possible that Coloured, Indian and Bantu servants will be now required to make contributions to this pension fund. The hon. the Minister indicated that the savings fund will become redundant with the establishment of the pension scheme which is now before us. However, the fund will obviously have to continue in order to pay out those persons who have contributed to it and who resign or terminate their service because of ill-health, reorganization or something of that nature. As far as that fund is concerned, the contributions were made by a certain category of persons or persons earning a certain wage. The contribution in regard to this group of persons was initially 1½% and was then increased to 2%. In the scheme that is to be introduced now the rate of contribution is evidently going to be 4½%. Consequently these people will find that they will now be called upon to make a higher contribution, a contribution of 4½% as compared with the previous contribution of 2½%. I hope that the hon. the Deputy Minister has given consideration to this aspect so as to ensure that these servants will in fact not be worse off as far as their net wages are concerned. The hon. the Deputy Minister also indicated that this is going to be on a rand for rand basis and we certainly welcome that provision. It is specifically mentioned that regulations can be made for different classes of persons. This raises the question of the position of those persons who are earning certain wages at the present time. One of the provisions of the compulsory savings fund was that Coloureds earning more than R61.10 per month, Indians earning more than R44,20 per month and Bantu earning more than R42,90 per month were required to contribute to this savings fund. There is also the question of whether there is going to be a certain wage or salary basis laid down for membership of this fund. I hope that the hon. the Deputy Minister will be able to assure the House that this will not be so and that all the non-White servants, irrespective of their rate of wages, will be entitled to belong to this pension fund.

When one looks at clause 3 of the Bill which deals with the regulations, one notices that provision must be made for those persons who resign and become entitled to resignation benefits. The clause does not appear to provide for a refund of these contributions. If one looks at the compulsory savings fund, one sees that a refund of contributions was subject to compound interest at the rate of 4% which was subsequently increased in July 1970 to 5%. This aspect is an important one in view of the fact that quite a large number of employees do resign from a pension fund. It is important for them to know what their entitlement is on the basis of resignation or abscondment. As I understand it, the position in the Railways is that there is quite a large number of absconders, particularly among the non-White employees. It would appear that there is no provision made in these regulations for a refund of these contributions and for the basis on which a refund of these contributions will be made. As we see this scheme, it is to the benefit of the non-White employees to ensure that they realize that they are making contributions and that they will qualify for certain benefits. I believe that the qualifying period of five years is a necessary one since obviously the largest number of resignations come within the first five years of employment in many instances. If the period were less than five years, there would be greater administrative difficulties and certainly an increase in the volume of work in regard to the administration of this fund as a result of earlier resignations.

Briefly then, we believe that this Bill is an important one. We believe it is right that these people should enjoy the benefits of a pension fund. We hope that this fund will be a success and that from time to time it will receive the attention necessary to meet the changing circumstances as they arise. We know that many pension schemes after only a very short period of operation find it necessary to amend their rules and regulations. As far as this Bill is concerned, there are powers governing the regulations that are provided for in the Bill. We hope that careful attention will be given to the progress of the fund and to the practical implications of the proposal now before this House so as to ensure its success for the benefit of the non-White employees of the Railway Administration.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to associate myself with the hon. member for Umbilo in welcoming this Bill as an important step forward for the Black and Brown South Africans who work for the Railways and who are covered by this Bill. I shall not repeat what the hon. member on my right has said about the five-year qualification, but I agree with his comments in that regard. The hon. the Minister obviously appreciates the underlying reason for this Bill, namely, the recognition of the importance of these people in the functioning and operation of the Railways. It is in order to provide for them, to give them motivation and to increase the stability of his work force that such a Bill is required. As far as it goes, this is to be welcomed. However, this Bill in some ways does not go really far enough and will not meet that particular problem. The hon. the Deputy Minister will bear with me if what I say in relation to this Bill also has a wider, general application to those who are employed in the Government service. I hope that he would consider this question with some of his other colleagues.

The hon. the Deputy Minister has informed us that the contribution will be on a R-for-R. basis. I would have thought that the whole underlying tenor of this measure would be an attempt to match what is offered by other employers to employees —Black, Brown and White—in this country. I am sure the hon. the Deputy Minister is aware that, whereas the R-for-R basis used to be a reasonable basis, it is no longer the case. Other employers, particularly in private enterprise, go much further. They go well above merely doubling the contribution made by employees. Furthermore, the trend is in this direction.

As I have said, this is also a recognition of one of the other realities of economic life in South Africa, namely that pensions in a monetary sense must keep up with inflationary times. The hon. the Deputy Minister is as well aware as I am that they always tend to fall behind. We are not alone although we are particularly bad in this respect. Private enterprise, especially insurance companies, have one very great advantage over a pension fund such as the hon. the Deputy Minister is proposing and, indeed, those applicable throughout the Government service. That advantage is that they still have some flexibility, in the sense that they are still allowed to invest a portion, above what is prescribed, in forms of investment other than those which are laid down in clause 9 of this Bill. For instance, private enterprise pension funds are entitled to invest 50% of that which accrues to them in other avenues of investment. I am talking, of course, of the book value of the assets. This is extremely important, because if you take any reasonable period of investment, fixed interest as a whole has tended to prove to be a loser when it comes to a pension fund. The importance of a pension is not only to give a person a form of enforced or voluntary saving; it is also in the hope that the assets will increase up to the time one retires. The public pension funds and, indeed, private pension funds, are significant holders of Government stock. If you look at the quarterly review issued by the S.A. Reserve Bank, particularly at the table 5.54 you will see, if the figures are correct, that roughly speaking they are a very large source of funds to the Government. This is borne out when one looks at the total market for central Government stock unexpired, which is furnished in a previous table. This is important, too, because one must remember when one considers a pension fund, that the rule of thumb is that, if you can raise the yield accruing on the fund by 1%, it makes it possible for the overall benefits on average for each of the pensioners to increase by 20%. This is an extremely important factor when one considers what has happened in the past to Black, Brown and White pensioners of the railways. Some of them are getting what can only be described as completely unacceptable levels of pension. The important point here, too, to bear in mind is that the rate of interest of the yield which is available on Government stock tends to be kept on an artificially low level. This is a corollary of the fact that these other institutions, apart from the Government, which is totally investing in them, have to invest about 50% in them. This becomes even more important when you look at the current yields which are available on other avenues of investment in this country. I have, for instance, simply looked at the Financial Mail of today—Friday, 13 September—to ascertain average yields which are currently available. When you look at that you see that the average dividend yield available for instance, in South African industrial shares, is at the present point in time 9%. The earning yield which gives some idea of the scope for improvement is of the order of 20½%. This must be borne in mind and the position must be looked at in comparison with what is available from Government stock, which is of course fixed. On top of that, we all know that the rate of inflation is about 12% and still rising. While one accepts the fact that it is a great improvement to have a pension fund for people such as are specified in this Bill rather than not to have one, it is also in one sense a self-defeating exercise. Here you have a pension fund, the funds of which can only be invested in Government stock, which is kept artifically low and therefore reduces the benefits which would otherwise be available, but equally important, is not even matching the rate of inflation. They have no ability to step outside that in order to accumulate dividend income which is rising or capital which could always be sold to make up the yield. In this sense, while it is to be welcomed, it seems to my mind not to be going nearly far enough. I would have thought it to be as much in the interests of the Railway employees as it is in the interests of the Post Office employees and indeed of all those who are in Government service, and also in the interests of those services, that pension funds should be made comparable with those that are offered by large employers outside of Government service. It will go a long way towards solving the staff problem that exists in regard to the Post Office and, I think, to some extent in regard to the Railways as well. It will also go some way towards stilling the cries about poaching by private enterprise, because it is clear that if people can get better terms and conditions and benefits, they will leave the Government service and go into private enterprise. I would suggest to the hon. the Minister that he might consider raising this matter with his colleagues on a broader front because it could possibly obviate the necessity for the proposal made by the hon. member for Sunnyside that people should be forced by legislation to work for the Government. That kind of fantasy is really quite ridiculous.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank hon. members on both sides of the House for the constructive debate they have conducted on this very valuable piece of legislation.

I want to reply briefly to a few questions put to me by hon. members opposite. When we debated this Bill last week, the hon. member for Durban Point put certain questions to me which I now want to reply to in brief. He asked me what I would regard as a realistic growth rate for the fund. He also brought the Superannuation Fund into it and was of the opinion that it would be an unhealthy state of affairs if this fund were to display the same tendencies as the Superannuation Fund. In the first place I want to say, that I do not regard the position of the Superannuation Fund as being unhealthy. I do not think his comparison is fair. I want to tell him that a growth rate of approximately 2½% in respect of the present fund is regarded as being a realistic growth rate to keep the fund solvent in the light of the contributions which are paid into it. As the surpluses accumulate, it may in the course of time be possible to grant better benefits and possibly to lower slightly the contributions to the fund. At this stage 2½% is regarded as being a realistic figure. The hon. member further pointed out that, although the pension a person receives might be sufficient at the time of his retirement, it would, with the passing of time and the depreciation in the value of money, and so forth, become insufficient. He suggested that we should also take this fact into account in the calculation of pension benefits. Other hon. members also referred to this, and my reply in this regard may also be regarded as a reply to their argument. I want to put it in this way, that although it is agreed in principle that the depreciation in the value of money should be taken into account in the calculation of pension benefits, it is more preferable for these adjustments to take place from time to time, on an ad hoc basis. In a year’s time inflationary tendencies can become the opposite. One cannot satisfactorily determine these things beforehand in order to lay them down either in the form of legislation or in the form of regulations; they still have to be considered from time to time, on an ad hoc basis, because the inflation rate does not follow a fixed, constant pattern, and that is why it is necessary for the Administration, which in any event accepts responsibility for this Fund, to make adjustments from time to time as and when they are required.

The hon. member also raised the question of members’ contributions. I want to assure him that it will not mean an additional expense or a diminished income for them. It is the policy of the Administration, in determining salary and wage adjustments which are based on the rise in the cost of living, to give constant attention, too, to the pensioner’s position in that same pattern.

Will increased deductions be attendant only on wage increases?

Yes. I can give the hon. member the assurance that this will be the case. After the institution of the contributory fund they will not receive less. The hon. member for Umbilo raised the same point; this therefore answers his question as well.

Sir, both the hon. member for Durban Point and the hon. member for Umbilo spoke about the representation of the non-White staff groups on this joint committee, and asked what sort of representation they will enjoy. At this stage it is the intention that the Director of Non-White Affairs will provisionally be a member of that committee and manage their interests. I might just add that it has come to my attention that the non-Whites in the Public Service do not have a direct say in the administration of their pension fund either. This Railways Pension Fund will therefore be in agreement with that of the Public Service.

But why not?

I am saying “provisionally” since there are a considerable number of reasons why it is not practical at present. It is not necessary to go into those reasons now. I do not think it is relevant here, but it is simply not practical at the moment. At the moment, in our opinion, the most practical regulation in the interests of the employees of the Railways is that they shall be represented by the Director of Non-White Affairs. As far as the deductions are concerned, I have already said that they will not receive any less.

†The hon. member for Orange Grove has made certain suggestions to me. He suggested, for instance, that consideration be given to the question of bettering the Administration’s R-for-R contribution. The hon. member for Johannesburg North has now raised the same question. Sir, the position is that with the introduction of the new Railways and Harbours Superannuation Fund for Whites, the same principle applies. The Administration contributed on the R-for-R basis. It was only recently decided to increase the Administration’s contribution. The present ratio is 1,75 to 1. If the same basis of contribution were to be applied in the case of the proposed new pension fund for non-Whites, I can assure the hon. member that the cost would be completely exorbitant. The procedure whereby the Administration contributes on the R-for-R basis is in any case in conformity with the procedure prescribed in the Government Non-White Employees Pension Act at the moment, and I think it would be unwise to deviate from that principle.

The hon. member also expressed the hope that regulations would be framed in such a manner as to allow all permanent employees membership of the fund. May I just reiterate the position as I have set it out in my Second Reading speech. Firstly, membership will be compulsory for all non-White servants except what we call togt labour, i.e. temporary Bantu labourers from outside of the Republic. Membership will be considered only after five years of continuous service. It will be applicable to persons who join between the ages of 16 and 45, and membership will, of course, be subject to the production of the required certificate, as set out in the Act. The hon. member has also suggested that the qualifying period should be less than five years. I dealt with that fully in my speech, but I can again mention that the same procedure is followed as in the case of the Government’s pension fund for non-White employees. It also applies there and therefore this is in conformity with what is being done there.

The hon. member for Umbilo last week made certain suggestions and expressed the hope that consideration would be given to the transferability of persons coming from the employment either of the provincial administrations or another recognized pension fund administered by the Government, if they wish to join this fund. I should like to draw the hon. member’s attention to clause 12(2) of the Bill which sets out this position. I am sure I can put his mind at rest as far as that is concerned. As far as the rest of the remarks made by the hon. member for Umbilo are concerned, I wish to thank him for his positive contribution and his suggestion and I can assure him that when regulations are framed under this legislation, his remarks in this regard will be borne in mind. We can then see how many of his positive suggestions can be applied in practice.

Lastly, the hon. member for Johannesburg North touched on a subject which, strictly speaking, is not within the scope of this Bill and therefore is not my responsibility. If he could perhaps take this up with the hon. the Minister of Finance at some appropriate time, I would be very happy because I would be relieved of that duty. I cannot therefore answer him fully on that particular point. I just want to refer to one of his other remarks. He referred to the unacceptable level of pensions generally in this country. I can only say this to the hon. member, that as far as our Railway pensioners are concerned, the department undertakes very considerable responsibility for those pensions. It has always done so throughout the years. One principle which I think requires praise is the fact that a minimum income has always been guaranteed for Railwaymen. Over and above the minimum pension, a minimum income has always been assured, and I can assure him there is no better controlled or better administered fund than the Railway pensioners’ fund, and we hope that this new fund which is being established by this Bill before the House, will be similarly accepted by the pensioners of the Railways and that it will in time earn the same sort of praise which we have had in respect of the other fund.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Clause 2:

I am sorry, but I cannot accept the reply of the hon. the Deputy Minister in regard to the issue covered by clause 2, i.e. the question of the joint committee. The Railways have set an example to other Government departments, followed now by the Post Office, in their attitude towards their non-White employees. They have set an example by using them in higher skilled occupations and now they are coming with a pension scheme for those people. I do not accept that there is no one amongst the 115 000 non-White employees of the Railways properly qualified to represent them on their own committee dealing with their own pension fund.

The Minister did not give us any reason. He only said that for the moment, for the present, for certain reasons, it has to be done this way. I think he owes this House much more than only that he “for the present” cannot accept it or “for certain reasons” cannot accept it. I hope the hon. the Minister will give us those reasons. If they are practical reasons, then we will listen to them, but merely to say he cannot introduce it, seems to me to be totally unacceptable. I take it no further until the hon. the Minister has had an opportunity to reply.

Mr. Chairman, the non-White and especially the Bantu works committees existing at the moment, are a number of regional committees divided into smaller committees scattered all over the country. To unite them into one joint committee or a limited number of committees able to appoint a representative in an orderly manner for the type of representation advocated by the hon. member is not practical at the moment. Until such time as the internal labour pattern, with which the Railways deals from time to time and which receives attention, has been finalized, it is not in the interests of these people themselves, because one will not be able to get orderly representation. It would not be good policy to create a cumbersome body in which the number of regional committees are individually represented. It is purely for practical considerations and orderly internal labour arrangements that it is not practical at the moment. When these arrangements have been finalized, we shall be able to reconsider the matter. That is why I use the word “temporary” advisedly. If other labour patterns develop or other labour arrangements are made in order to be able to create a logical representation, this will happen. The regional committee system as it functions today, however, does not lend itself to this type cf representation.

Mr. Chairman, is it not possible to give representation to the body representing clerical staff, for example, and not necessarily to regional bodies throughout the country? There should be a body in which leading persons can play a role. Even if such a body is not representative of the staff throughout the country, it will represent a part of the non-White labour force of the Railways. So there need not be representation for each region, but only for the group which is representative of the better trained and more responsible staff. If something like this were to be established, everyone would feel that at least he has someone there serving his interests. I think this is important. I am not concerned with the philosophy of politics now, but with reality. We want the workers to feel that it is their fund.

†They will then be able to say: “This is our fund; we have our people there looking after our interests.” Whether they represent them specifically or whether they come from all over the country, does not matter. We should create that feeling of belonging to the fund. We should get this off the ground with the right atmosphere behind it. I am not trying to play politics or even to look at it from a political point of view. It is the practical side of getting them to have confidence from the start, because even if they have only one or two representatives, they are represented.

Mr. Chairman, we are experiencing a little difficulty at the moment because we approach the matter from a practical point of view. It cannot possibly be applied at the moment in the form in which these people are represented in their various organizations. It is exactly for the purpose of getting this fund safely off the ground that we do not wish to have ad hoc adjustments afterwards as the fund goes along. We have therefore decided to appoint the official to whom I have referred earlier, on the committee to represent the non-White staff associations. After other matters have been settled, we shall be in a position to take a fesh look at this. If I were to apply in practice what the hon. member suggested, it would mean a constant adjustment, and this would create an uncertainty that would not be to the benefit of the fund and would not assist it to get off the ground.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to assist the hon. the Deputy Minister. As I see the position, the joint committee in control of the Superannuation Fund for White workers consists of representatives of the staff who make out 50% of the membership, while the other 50% of the members are appointed by the Administration. I can see the hon. the Deputy Minister’s problem, yet I think he shares our desire to get this joint committee off the ground in the best possible way. I have wondered whether he could not do one of two things. The first is whether he would not try to appoint a non-White, if he cannot be elected, in the same way as Whites are being appointed to the joint committee for the White pension fund at the moment. If he is unable to do this, I want to ask him whether he would be prepared to give us the undertaking that he will try as soon as possible to compose these joint committees in such a way that non-Whites will also be represented on them.

Mr. Chairman, I have no objection to the standpoint adopted by the hon. member for Maitland. In fact, I can give the hon. member the assurance that we shall think along these lines and that the matter will be studied in this way. I should prefer not to commit myself at this stage, because I do not want to arouse certain expectations which I cannot be sure of satisfying later on. For this reason I do not think it is fair to take the matter any further now. I just want to give the hon. member the assurance that we shall think along the lines proposed by him, and that as soon as it is feasible, this matter will receive further attention and we shall see what else we can do about it. At this stage, with the situation as it is, and with our desire to get a well-organized fund off the ground at an early date, we do not want to involve other matters which could impair the smooth functioning of this fund in any way.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 3:

Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister a question in relation to this clause. The last portion of clause 3(2) reads as follows—

Can I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister why it is necessary to do this.

Mr. Chairman, I think this provision is very logical. I cannot see why it should have been framed in any other way. If any regulations are made with retrospective effect the date in question cannot be earlier than the date on which this measure comes into operation. This is the positive part of the provision. I think the negative part then falls away. There is no reason why regulations should not be made with retrospective effect to a date on which this Bill will come into operation.

Mr. Chairman, my question actually relates to any future regulations being back-dated. If the hon. the Deputy Minister lays down regulations which he wishes to change at a future date, he may then back-date those regulations for as far back as he likes, at least to the date on which this Bill came into operation. Surely if a railway employee becomes a member of the pension scheme after five years of service under certain regulations, the power of the Minister to change those regulations subsequent to his membership of the fund is not a very desirable thing in principle. This is the point I was trying to make.

Mr. Chairman, I am afraid the hon. member is looking at this from the wrong end of the telescope. The important fact he should bear in mind here is that it is not possible to frame regulations with retrospective effect to a date before that on which the Bill came into operation. That is the purpose of this provision. There is nothing negative about it. It only gives the positive assurance that you cannot back-date regulations to a date before the date on which this measure came into operation.

Clause agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

As hon. members will have noticed from the explanatory memorandum which has already been tabled, the purpose of the Bill is to amend certain Acts which apply to the Railway Service. My remarks on the reasons for the proposed amendments will therefore be brief.

In so far as clause 1 is concerned the Railway Administration was, in terms of section 9 of the Railways and Harbours Construction Act, 1931, empowered to conclude an agreement with the owners of the private jetty and railway at Port Nolloth whereby it could contract to refrain, during a period not exceeding 20 years, from exercising the right to purchase these assets; this period was subsequently extended by legislation to 45 years and will expire on 5 August 1976. The owners of the jetty and railway, i.e. Consolidated Diamond Mines of South-West Africa, has approached the Railway Administration as regards its intentions with Port Nolloth harbour. In view of the small tonnages handled at the port there is no objection from a Railway point of view to the status quo remaining and to the period during which the Administration will refrain from acquiring the assets being extended for a further 20 years, thus enabling the company to plan for the future. The proposed amendment is aimed at obtaining Parliamentary approval for the proposed extension of the period.

The amendment proposed in clause 2 seeks to extend the area at airports in respect of which the South African Railways Police Force has jurisdiction. As pointed out in the explanatory memorandum, the jurisdiction of the Railways Police to perform police duties at airports is, in terms of the definition of “railways” in section 1 of the Railways and Harbours Control and Management (Consolidation) Act, 1957, restricted to that area within the limits of an airport which is used by the Administration solely for the purposes of its air services. Consequent upon the transfer to the South African Railways Police Force of police duties at airports that were previously performed by the South African Police, it has become necessary to also give members of the Railway Police legal authority to operate outside that area of an airport which is used by the department for the purposes of its air services. By the deletion of the latter part of the existing definition, as proposed, the Railways Police Force will be empowered to exercise authority in respect of the entire area within the limits of all airports in the Republic and South-West Africa.

I will now deal with clause 3. In accordance with Government policy which prohibits uneconomic portions of agricultural land being disposed of separately, small portions of railway land, which are no longer required and which adjoin agricultural land, are disposed of subject to the condition that the land shall not, without the consent of the Minister, be alienated separately from the transferee’s adjoining land. The relevant title deeds have hitherto been endorsed by the deeds offices concerned to this effect in terms of the provisions of the State Land Disposal Act, 1961. As railway land is actually alienated in terms of the Railways and Harbours Control and Management (Consolidation) Act, 1957, the validity of such endorsements in terms of the State Land Disposal Act was queried. To rectify the position it is proposed to augment the provisions of the Railways and Harbours Control and Management Act.

Clause 4 provides for the sale of liquor to Bantu on railway stations and also authorizes the sale thereof at restaurants in harbours.

In regard to the first-mentioned aspect, I should like to mention that in response to representations from the Department of Bantu Administration and Development, dining-room facilities have been provided at Pretoria station where visiting Bantu dignitaries can be entertained. In terms of section 94 of the Liquor Act, no liquor may be sold to Bantu at a refreshment room or bar on a railway station unless specific provision to this end is made in the Railways and Harbours Control and Management Act, 1957. The latter Act, however, provides for the sale of intoxicating liquor to Bantu on trains only. To legalize the sale of liquor to Bantu at dining-rooms or bars on railway stations, it is necessary to amend section 58(1)(b) of the Act as proposed.

It is the intention to call for tenders for the establishment of a licensed restaurant in Table Bay Harbour. Section 58(2)(b) of the Railways and Harbours Control and Management Act, however, precludes the sale of liquor at a place, other than a railway junction or an airport, situated outside an urban area. It is necessary, therefore, to amend paragraph (b) of section 58(2) of the Act to also provide for the sale of intoxicating liquor in harbour areas.

Coming to clause 5 of the Bill, it has to be explained that in terms of section 7(1) of the Railways and Harbours Service Act, 1960, a servant who is in temporary employment is, on termination of his employment on grounds other than disciplinary infringement, entitled to receive a specified period of notice or pay in lieu thereof. The period of notice is clearly defined and depends on the length of service. Similar provision is, however, not made in the Act for servants in permanent employment, but it has been the practice in the past to give such servants 30 days’ notice of the intention to dispense with their services. The purpose of this clause is to determine the period of notice a servant in permanent employment is to be given on the termination of his service on grounds other than disciplinary infringement.

The amendments dealt with in clauses 6, 7, 14 and 15 are consequential upon the amendment of the pension regulations arising from the decision to increase the annuities of Railway annuitants and widow annuitants from 1 April 1973 and to improve the pension benefits of Railway servants and their widows with effect from 1 December 1973.

In terms of the proviso to section 17(1) of the Railway Service Act a servant or, if he is deceased, his dependants may, in the case of accidental injury or death on duty of the servant caused by the negligence of the department or of a servant of the department other than the injured or deceased servant himself, claim an award from the Administration equivalent to the actual pecuniary loss caused by the accident, less the compensation payable in terms of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1941, and any other benefit, including insurance money or pensions, that may accrue as a result of the accident. The purpose of the proviso was to preserve to servants and their dependants the benefits of the latter Act and, at the same time, in the case of servants not otherwise covered thereby, to ensure that other and more valuable rights were not extinguished.

In the case of dependants the right that it was intended to preserve was the right to common law damages The common law was, however, amended in this respect by the Assessment of Damages Act, 1969, which stipulates that in assessing damages for loss of support as a result of a person’s death, no insurance money, pension or benefit which is due as a result of the death, shall be taken into account in any action. The proviso to section 17(1) of Act No. 22 of 1960, as it now stands, no longer achieves the purpose for which it was designed and is, in addition, at variance with the provisions of the Assessment of Damages Act. The purpose of the amendment proposed in clause 8 is, therefore, to bring the proviso into line with the provisions of the latter Act.

Concerning clause 9 I wish to explain that in terms of the warrants which lay down the procedure to be followed in awarding medals, decorations and bars to members of the South African Railways Police Force, such awards are made upon the recommendation of the Minister of Transport. On the other hand, section 20(2)(a) of the Railway Service Act, 1960, which deals, inter alia, with the disciplinary record of members of the Railways Police Force who become eligible for the granting of the awards under discussion, prescribes that these awards be made in the discretion of the General Manager of Railways. The proposed amendment is aimed at bringing the enactment into conformity with the provisions of the relevant Warrants.

Clause 10 of the Bill concerns the amendment of section 23 of the Railway Service Act to provide for the imposition of heavier punishment for driving a road vehicle under the influence of intoxicants.

In terms of section 140 of the Transvaal Road Traffic Ordinance any person driving a vehicle on a public road when the percentage of alcohol in his blood is not less than 0.08 is guilty of an offence and liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding R800 or, in default of payment, to imprisonment for a period not exceeding two years, or to both such fine and such imprisonment. Section 23 of the Railway Service Act stipulates that Railway servants occupying specific positions who are under the influence of alcoholic liquor or dependence-producing drugs while on duty, or any servant whose performance of his duties while in such a condition would be likely to endanger the safety of any person travelling or bring on railway or harbour property, shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding R400 or, in default of payment, to imprisonment for a period not exceeding twelve months, or to such imprisonment without the option of a fine, or to both such fine and such imprisonment. For the purpose of uniformity it is proposed that section 23 of the Railway Service Act be brought in line with the said ordinance.

The amendment proposed in clause 11 is of a consequential nature and authorizes the suspension of contributions to the compulsory savings fund for non-White Railway servants. Hon. members will recall that when the Bill seeking parliamentary approval for the establishment of a contributory pension fund for non-White servants was dealt with by the House this afternoon, it was intimated that consequent upon the introduction of the pension fund, contributions to the savings fund would be suspended and that the fund would ultimately cease to exist.

Clause 12 provides for the Railway Administration’s contribution to the Level Crossings Elimination Fund being increased from R1,5 million to R2,5 million per annum. The contributions from the Consolidated Revenue Fund and the National Road Fund are to be increased similarly.

The enormous losses sustained as a result of the loss of life and limb associated with level orossing accidents, can be arrested only by eliminating level crossings as rapidly as possible. As will be noted from the explanatory memorandum, the object of the amendment is to make provision for the increase in contributions to the Level Crossings Elimination Fund to meet the steep rise in costs and to permit of more crossings being eliminated each year.

In regard to clause 13 of the Bill, it is desired to explain that in terms of the provisions of section 3(2) of the Level Crossings Act three of the members of the Permanent Level Crossings Committee are nominated by the Secretary for Transport, one of whom shall be the Department of Transport’s representative on the South African Road Safety Council. Consequent upon the repeal of the South African Road Safety Council Act, 1960, and the abolition of the South African Road Safety Council, it is necessary to delete the stipulation referred to above.

Clause 16 provides for the validation of certain changes in conditions of employment in respect of which approval of the State President was not obtained within the prescribed period of three months from the date on which the staff were advised of the revised conditions.

Mr. Speaker, as became apparent from the speech made by the hon. the Deputy Minister, this Bill deals with a considerable number of divergent matters. To clarify the framework a little, I just want to refer to a few of the matters with which this Bill deals. It deals, for example, with the take-over of the private railway line and the jetty at Port Nolloth; it deals with Police control at airports; it deals with the uneconomic subdivision of land and with the provision of liquor to Bantu under certain circumstances. Then it also deals with pension matters and conditions of service, and then comes back to liquor and determines what alcohol content in the blood of a Railway servant renders him liable to action because he is deemed to have been under the influence of liquor. Lastly it also deals with the savings fund for non-Whites, with railway level crossings and the awarding of medals. I think that we have here what we could call a “pot-pourri”. This is indeed a very interesting Bill, and I should like to thank the hon. the Deputy Minister and the department very sincerely for the explanatory memorandum which was issued, and in which all these matters are summarized very concisely for us. One little question I would like to put to the hon. the Deputy Minister concerns the awarding of medals. I was wondering whether he could perhaps tell us how many medals have already been awarded to officials of the Administration to date. The official Opposition has no objection to any of the aforesaid matters. It therefore does my heart good, and perhaps, too, the heart of the hon. the Deputy Minister, at this late hour, to know that the Second Reading of this Bill has our full support. My hon. friend from Umbilo still has a few comments to make on pension matters. Any further observations or remarks will be made during the Committee Stage.

Mr. Speaker, we appreciate the fact that the Opposition also supports this Bill. It is quite correct that this Bill is intended primarily to effect amendments. It is actually a kind of omnibus Bill which contains a considerable number of amendments. One of the most important, for example, is being effected by clause 4. This deals with the elimination of an anomaly in respect of the provision of liquor to non-Whites. As the Act reads at present, provision is being made for non-Whites to be provided with alcoholic beverages on a train, although not at the terminals. Since South Africa, in the new circumstances, will be receiving more and more official visitors from overseas, and from non-White states as well, it is in my opinion correct that an amendment should be effected to create facilities, as provided in this clause, at Table Bay and in Pretoria. But I want to request the hon. the Deputy Minister to go even further and to institute an investigation into the provision of such facilities at the harbour terminal in Durban and at the Louis Botha airport. This airport is an international airport, at which visitors may call direct from overseas, and the same applies to the harbour terminal in Durban. Because provision is now being made for these facilities in Pretoria and in Cape Town because they are connections for international contact, I think it is right that Durban should also be considered in this respect. Very often we get the impression that, because Natal is so far removed from the line of transportation between Pretoria and Cape Town, that province is being overlooked. I trust that this will not be the case here.

Another aspect which effects a very welcome change here is the increase is the amount which will be applied to eliminate level crossings. In clause 12 it is being provided that the contributions of the Railways, the National Roads Fund and the Consolidated Revenue Account, respectively, be increased from R1,5 million to R2,5 million. This represents an increase of 40%. This fund was established in 1961 with an amount of R500 000 from each of the bodies. Since then the amounts have been adjusted on several occasions. In 1972, for example, the amounts were increased to R1,5 million each. Now provision is being made for these amounts to be increased by a further 40%. The increase of 40% over the period of two years exceeds the rate of inflation over the same period, and will enable the Railways to make more rapid progress in the elimination of level crossings. In this regard I think it is fitting that an appeal be made to the public of South Africa to be more careful in regard to level crossings. It is of course impossible to eliminate all the level crossings at one go. I think that the attitude of South Africans is frequently characterized by unconcern. Perhaps they have driven over a level crossing once or twice without having seen any trains, and then they become completely oblivious to the danger which still lurks at such a level crossing. I think it is fitting that an urgent appeal be made to all South Africans who use the roads to take greater care at all times. At the same time we also accept that accidents at railway level crossings will eventually be eliminated only if the level crossings are changed to such an extent that it is no longer necessary for any motor vehicle traffic to drive across a railway line. We therefore appreciate this amendment, and we also appreciate the support we are receiving from the Opposition.

The hon. member for Maitland described this Bill as a pot-pourri, but I think it could well be described as a mixed grill. We on these benches have very little to quarrel with in the make-up of this mix. Thereby we are keeping up the good record of members in these benches for supporting Government measures. I see the hon. member for Rissik is very pleased by this comment.

Perhaps the most important clauses in this Bill are clauses 12 and 13. I am very pleased at the increase in the amount made available for the elimination of level crossings. Over the years we have had a succession of the most terrible level-crossing accidents. In answer to a question of mine earlier this session, the Minister told us that there were still approximately 3 380 unprotected level-crossings in the Republic, as against 116 protected level-crossings. The sooner the worst of these can be eliminated, the better it will be. We have felt for a long time that the Government was dragging its feet in tackling this problem, but it now looks as if it is being dealt with in a more determined manner, and this can only be welcomed. The R7½ million set aside for eliminating level crossings also copes with rapidly escalating construction costs, as the hon. the Deputy Minister has said. I hope that the permanent corntee dealing with level-crossings will bring new urgency to an old and very vexed problem.

Perhaps clause 4 deserves comment in that it is long overdue. The sale of liquor to Black people in the South African Railway restaurants as well as on trains is a facility which should have been made available a long time ago. I am pleased indeed that the hon. Minister has at last seen fit to bring this about. Like the hon. member for Klip River, I hope that this facility will be extended to various other areas. Clause 10, bringing the Railways into line with the provincial traffic odinances in relation to the percentage of alcohol in the blood stream to constitute drunkenness, is also welcomed. Certainly it is only logical that an engine-driver should not be allowed a greater intake of alcohol than the motorists. In fact, the responsibility of any Railway official on duty in terms of human lives is such that severe punishment is a necessary deterrent against drunkenness.

Sir, all in all, the Progressive Party agrees with the provisions of this mixed grill.

The hon. members who have spoken before me in this debate have spoken on various subjects concerning the Bill and the various provisions of the Bill. I wish to direct attention to the clauses of this Bill dealing with pension matters, clauses 6, 7, 14 and 15 in particular. This Bill gives effect to certain amendments which obviously are consequential to the amended regulations which have appeared in the Government Gazette, and if one looks on page 9, to clause 7, one will appreciate that the portion of this clause which is to be deleted deals with the calculation made for annuities payable in certain cases dependant upon the date of retirement and the granting of certain increases on a sliding scale from 15% to 5%, depending on the various dates that are shown in this portion of the clause. The Bill aims at deleting this basis of calculation and merely adding that the annuity payable in terms of this subsection shall be further increased in accordance with pension regulation No. 48. Consequently it is necessary for one to examine regulation No. 48 to ascertain the effect of this amendment now embodied in this Bill. I want to say that subsequent to the amended regulations, especially regulation No. 48, there have been a number of older Railway pensioners who have felt rather annoyed and neglected in view of the amendments which, according to the Bill, are effective from 1 December 1973. We know that there are to be increases in the contributions. If one looks at clause 15 one sees that the contributions for persons with back-dated periods of service are 4% if prior to 1 December 1973, and 6% if subsequent to 1 December 1973. So, obviously, these improved benefits are also to be met from increased contributions to the Superannuation Fund. This means that there is a large gap between the provisions for persons who have gone on pension since 1 December 1973 and those who have gone on pension prior to that date. Many of these pensioners feel that regulation No. 48, as it appeared in the Government Gazette of 17 May 1974, does not take cognizance of the fact that these older pensioners have helped and contributed towards the building up of this fund, paying in many instances a higher rate of contribution. Many of them who have been on pension for some years found, subsequent to their date of retirement, that the hon. the Minister reduced the rate of contributions to 4% instead of increasing wages and salaries. This is now to be increased to 6%. The point is that these older Railway employees made a substantial contribution to the financial position of the fund to enable the Minister to bring about the improvements which are provided for in terms of regulation No. 48 which is now to be written into this Bill that is before us. When one considers that there are about 40 000 Railway pensioners, including the widows of Railway pensioners, one finds that these people are now at a distinct disadvantage in view of the fact that the effect of this amendment is going to widen the gap even more between the amount of pension they were entitled to and are receiving at present in comparison with those who have gone on pension after 1 December 1973. I think it is important to draw the attention of the House and of the hon. the Deputy Minister to the implications of this amendment as it affects people who retired before 1 December 1973, and those who are subject to the improved benefits in terms of regulation No. 48. Let us look at a practical example. Let us take a person who retired on pensionable emoluments at a lower rate on 30 June 1969 after 41 years service in the Railways. For that particular post at that time, with a salary of R6 000 per annum, the average over the previous three years of his service was R5 825 per annum. This in effect meant that he qualified for and received a lump sum of R11 941. With the increase of 2% per annum compounded, as provided for in terms of the regulations, his pension has gradually been increased to an amount of R4 105 per annum. That is his annuity as at the end of December 1973. With these new provisions coming into force, the person occupying the same post, also with 41 years service and retiring on 31 December 1973, finds that this post is now at a salary of R10 500 per annum with the average emoluments over the previous three years amounting to R9 208. The calculation of his lump sum, taking his years of service into account, gives a figure of R27 307 and his annuity, commencing as I say from 1 January 1974, is R6 826 per annum. One can therefore see that one man receives a lump sum of about R27 000 while the other man receives only R12 000. Even with the 2% per annum compounded, for which provision is made, the pension of the one at the present time is R4 000 per annum as compared with R6 800 for the other—a difference of about R2 700 per annum. I think this indicates the tremendous disparity in regard to those persons who do not enjoy the improved benefits as provided for in terms of regulation No. 48 in the Government Gazette and those who do. I feel that this matter requires the attention of the hon. the Deputy Minister, and it is hoped that in considering amendmens to the various Acts and in considering amendments to the regulations, the hon. the Deputy Minister will give serious and sympathetic consideration to those persons who have served the Railway Administration well and have made their contributions to the healthy financial state of the Superannuation Fund. At some future date the hon. the Minister might be able to give some practical assistance to these people by seeing to it that they are sympathetically cared for when legislation is drafted at the time.

This is in effect an improvement and we on this side of the House obviously support any steps that are taken which are regarded as an improvement. In considering these improvements however, we must also take into account the position of other persons who are perhaps not going to enjoy the benefits of the improvements now before us to the same extent.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to congratulate the hon. member for Maitland on the new position which he holds. I take it that he is now the shadow Deputy Minister of Transport.

He is your shadow.

Yes, he is therefore in reality my shadow. If the shadow is as good as the substance, I think things will go very well. The hon. member asked me how many medals have been awarded. I regret that I am not able to furnish this figure off the cuff or readily obtain the information. However, I shall make an effort to obtain the information and convey it to him in due course in private.

The hon. member for Klip River addressed a request in regard to Louis Botha airport and the harbour terminal at Durban. He wanted the same facilities for making liquor available to non-Whites to be provided at those places as are being provided for in the Bill. We shall go into that matter and see what the position is. Again this is a matter in regard to which I am not prepared to provide an ex tempore reply. We shall look into the matter and I shall give the hon. member that information in due course. I just want to point out to the hon. member that his statement was not quite correct when he said that Natal was being overlooked. If he were to glance at the Brown Book of the Railways, and at the loans which are being provided for Natal in general and Durban in particular, I think he will have to admit that Natal is actually being favoured a little, in comparison with some of the other sections in our country.

†The hon. member for Orange Grove referred to the Bill as being a “mixed grill”. I can assure him it is a very tasty grill at that because it has been very well prepared. I shall continue to introduce good legislation and I hope that he shall continue to support it.

The hon. member for Umbilo referred to certain questions regarding pensions. I can only promise him that I shall make a careful study of his remarks. At a later stage we can then revert to it. I do not think that anything practical can at this stage be done about the position. I am grateful, however, that the hon. member supports the provisions in this Bill to alleviate the position of pensioners. I shall bear in mind his remarks on the alleged disparity in pensions in so far as the older pensioners are concerned. I can assure him that we are most sympathetic towards all pensioners in whatever position they find themselves. I can assure him therefore that his remarks will be borne in mind.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Clause 16:

Mr. Chairman, this is a hardy annual; we have it every year, because the Railways are unable to obtain the necessary approval of the State President for amendments to conditions of employment within the three months which they are allowed. As far as I know this has been going on since the beginning of time, but I do feel that if a three-month period is not enough, we should make it four months or whatever period is necessary rather than have this hardy annual of retrospective validation of regulations which become invalid every year. Why we do it this way I do not know. It means that every year the Railways break the law and then have to come along patching it up by way of validation. It means that every year I have to ask the same question which I am going to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister now: Will he give the assurance that none of the changes in conditions of employment which we are now being asked to validate acted to the detriment of the staff in any way whatsoever? Can he give the assurance that none of the changes harm the staff or weaken their position or are in any way detrimental to their interests?

Mr. Chairman, the only assurance I can give the hon. member for Durban Point is that no cases have come to my attention where there was any detrimental effect on any member of the staff of the South African Railways. If any case had come to my attention where this did in fact have detrimental consequences, I would naturally have mentioned the case, and something would have been done about it. However, I am not aware of any such case, and consequently I can give the assurance which the hon. member wants with a clear conscience.

Clause agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

As hon. members know, the Railways and Harbours Pensions Amendment Act, 1941, makes provision for the payment of annuities and gratuities to certain servants (White and non-White), and for the payment of gratuities to dependants of such deceased servants. This Act has now been revised in its entirety in view of certain amendments arising out of the decision to establish a contributory pension fund for non-White Railways servants—which was recently considered by the House—and with a view to the rationalization of procedures and formulae. An explanatory memorandum in regard to the proposed Bill has already been tabled, and consequently I shall deal only with those amendments which require further elucidation.

The first amendment to which I want to refer, is that in clause 2 which amends the provisions in section 2(1) of the principal Act. Hon. members will recall that when the Bill dealing with the establishment of a contributory pension scheme for non-White Railway servants was being considered, it was indicated that a qualifying period of service of five years was being laid down as a requirement for admission to the pension fund. As the principal Act reads at present, non-Whites who enter the Railways service after the commencement of the pension scheme, and become members of the fund after five years’ service will, in addition to benefits from the fund, also be entitled to the benefits offered by the principal Act. The object of the principal Act was to pay a gratuity or an annuity to certain former servants after years of faithful service because they had not had the opportunity of contributing to a pension fund. With the establishment of the pension fund for non-Whites this moral obligation of the Administration falls away, and to rectify the matter it is necessary to amend the principal Act in such a way that non-Whites who enter the service of the Railways after the establishment of a pension fund, and who after completion of five years’ service become members of the fund, shall not be entitled to any benefits in terms of Act 26 of 1941 in respect of the qualifying period of service.

The amendments which are being proposed in clause 3, relate to the simplification of the formulae in section 3 of the principal Act in terms of which annuities and gratuities are calculated. The existing formulae are cumbersome and entail unnecessary administrative work; the proposed formulae will, however, produce precisely the same result as the existing formulae. In terms of subsections 2(b) and (c) of the said section, a servant may request that a grauity be paid to him instead of an annuity. Since an annuity is more beneficial, such requests are only granted by way of rare exception and usually only in cases of serious illness or where circumstances make the cashing of pension orders difficult. It is frequently difficult to bring home to applicants the advantages of an annuity over that of a gratuity. In terms of the proposed subsections servants will no longer be able to claim a gratuity, but it will in future be possible for the allocation of such a benefit, instead of an annuity, to take place in the discretion of the General Manager of the Railways, or an official authorized by him to do so.

The payment of annuities to foreign Bantu, i.e. Bantu who were not born in the Republic of South Africa or the Territory of South-West Africa, creates problems since it is seldom possible to obtain information concerning the death of such annuitants upon their return to their countries of origin, or information concerning their dependants. In view of this the proposed subsection (3) provides that only gratuities are paid to servants in this category.

In regard to clause 4 it may be mentioned that when a servant who is entitled to a gratuity retires but dies before payment of such gratuity can be made to him, his widow or dependants may, in terms of section 4(1) of the principal Act, receive a reduced gratuity. It is, however, the practice to obtain ministerial approval in such cases to make it possible to pay the difference between the amount which the deceased servant would have received and that which is payable to his dependants on an ex gratia basis. Since the allocation of pension benefits to the widows or dependants is a mere formality in terms of section 4, it is the intention now to amplify the provisions of the section in such a way that it is possible to pay the full amount, in the discretion of the General Manager of the Railways or another authorized official, to the widow or dependants. Such a step will eliminate a considerable amount of administrative work.

The last of the proposed amendments with which I want to deal, are those contained in clauses 6 and 7. In terms of the provisions of sections 6 and 7 of the principal Act, application shall be made in a prescribed manner for the payment of a pension, and regulations may be made inter alia to establish local committees to consider the applications. However, it has for many years been the practice that steps are taken on an administrative level to pay pension benefits, and as a result local committees are no longer serving any purpose. The object of the proposed amendments is to provide that pension benefits may be paid out automatically on a departmental level, and that local committees be abolished.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House support the principle of this Bill. We believe it is necessary to improve and to streamline certain procedures which have been adopted. When these procedures are found to be cumbersome, they should be improved. We also wish to express our thanks for the fact that an explanatory memorandum was tabled for the Bill. The memorandum made reference to the fact that Act No. 26 of 1941 is being revised in its entirety by this Bill. There is one comment I should like to make in regard to this aspect. The 1941 legislation has obviously been on the Statute Book for a very long time and if you look at that Act and at the 1962 amending Act you will see that portions have again been re-enacted in this Bill. I think that the hon. the Deputy Minister should give some attention to this. In terms of the new section 3(2)(b), which is substituted by clause 3, a person who has served for a period of longer than 15 years, but less than 25 years, is entitled to an annuity or a gratuity. This gratuity is calculated to equal one tweny-fourth of his average annual emoluments during the last 10 years of service. In every instance, first in 1941 and then in 1962, this period was shown as ten years’ service. However, in the legislation of recent times this period has been reduced to three years. This can make a considerable difference when the average annual emoluments are taken over a period of ten years as against a period of three years. I hope that the hon. the Deputy Minister will give his attention to this aspect, because I am quite sure that a calculation, for the purposes of a gratuity, based on the average annual emoluments over a ten year period is now out-dated. If this Bill is to revise existing legislation, this particular aspect should also receive attention.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for Umbilo for his remarks and for the fact that he has supported this Bill. I give him the undertaking that I shall certainly make a thorough study of what he had to say about this particular aspect.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Third Reading

Mr. Speaker, I move subject to Standing Order No. 49—

Mr. Speaker, I hope that the hon. the Deputy Minister will do more than just consider the point raised by the hon. member for Umbilo, because this is a serious matter. It affects many people and I therefore hope that he will change this period in the Other Place to a period of three years, so that it is in line with other legislation of this nature.

Mr. Speaker, it is not my custom to make promises, but I undertake in this case to have a look at the remarks made by the hon. member for Umbilo.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.