Order! I have to inform this House that I have received letters from Mr. Francois Jacobus le Roux and Mr. Thomas Langley tendering their resignations as Deputy Speaker and Chairman of Committees of the Whole House and Deputy Chairman of Committees of the Whole House, respectively.

Mr. Speaker, I move without notice—

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move without notice—

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move without notice—

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, as regards the business of the House, I wish to point out that the debate on the Second Reading of the Transport Services Appropriation Bill will be resumed on Monday, 8 March. In the meantime the House will follow the Order Paper, as printed, except that Order of the Day No. 3— Second Reading of the Labour Relations Amendment Bill—will stand over until Order of the Day No. 10—Second Reading of the Estate Agents Amendment Bill—has been disposed of. Order of the Day No. 7— Second Reading of the Broadcasting Amendment Bill—will stand over until Order of the Day No. 8—Second Reading of the Peninsula Technikon Bill—has been disposed of.

Mr. Speaker, before the adjournment of the House yesterday I was making the point that for people who are opposed to abortion this has become one of the real problems of the world in which we live. It is the dilemma, in other words, of accepting the incorrectness of the practice of abortion and then to try to deal with the extenuation circumstances in general. I think it is important that we should remember why people like me—as we in this party have a free vote on this Bill—oppose abortion in principle. We do so owing to our high appreciation of the value of human life.

In philosophical terms a concern about detention without trial and a concern about deaths in detention stem from the same principle from which stems a concern for the life of an innocent child. In my view, and in the view of all people who are in principle against abortion, I believe, to be concerned about the life of an innocent child in its mother’s womb is in principle the same issue as being concerned about somebody who is detained without trial or somebody who dies in detention. [Interjections.] It is for that reason that I believe one needs to take a stand in defence of this principle.

In this respect I should like to quote the words of one or two people who, I believe, put it more eloquently than I can. One of them is J. C. Willke, from whose book Handbook on Abortion I should like to quote. Talking about the permissive abortion laws in the Western World, he said—

This is the point I am trying to make. This is a momentous change that strikes at the root of Western civilization. The same point is also very aptly made by Mr. Ralph Potter, who says—

This is the point, the reason why abortion raises so much controversy in our societies.

I believe that at present our law is an attempt to hold the balance between giving legal effect to extenuating circumstances, which we deplore and we regret, while at the same time maintaining the principle that abortion is an offence against the values and the standards which are best and most decent in Western society. This problem of legal drafting and extenuating circumstances is nowhere better set out than in section 3 of the Act. If one looks at the statistics in regard to abortion provided by the Department of Health and Welfare one sees that 156 of the 347 legal abortions in 1980 were procured in terms of the permanent mental health provisions. We know that in Britain that provision which does not contain the word “permanent” is the loophole by means of which abortions have been procured. That is precisely why my colleague the hon. member for Houghton wants to have this provision amended. She wants more abortions in South Africa and easier abortions.

I do not want more abortions. I want fewer back-street abortions.

That is why people are concerned about this provision. In this regard, I believe that this provision should be seen for what it is. Many people have tried to suggest that the problem in regard to abortions is that they are very difficult to procure because one has to obtain four medical opinions before such an abortion can be procured. What in fact happens? A woman who believes that she has a valid reason for having an abortion goes to see her doctor. That doctor obtains a second opinion from a specialist who, in any event, most probably will consult another specialist such as a pathologist, a physician or a gynaecologist. Therefore, such woman already has three opinions almost right away. Then, of course, there is the question of the superintendent of the hospital which is not really at issue here. Therefore, on analysis, the argument that such a woman has to endure a long and difficult period of waiting proves to be nonsense.

There is another point I wish to raise and I think perhaps the hon. member for Houghton should also consider this. There should be some proper psychiatric follow-up in respect of those who have actually had abortions in terms of the mental health provision. I believe that if women claim mental health problems in order to have an abortion, these cases should be followed up. If these people are not cared for I do not believe that this is consistent with decent medical practice. I am sure that the hon. member for Houghton will support me when I say that there ought to be a proper follow-up in respect of women who have an abortion in the normal course of events but particularly in the case of those who have an abortion on the grounds of mental health problems.

Some arguments on abortion become tied to the frontiers of science and this creates real problems. For example, every day in the news we read about test-tube babies. Here again we have a problem in the practical sense. I think that this is a question which those people who support abortions should consider. What happens if instead of a woman having an abortion—and this can happen soon—the embryo is removed and put into a test-tube and is in that way preserved or allowed to grow? That mother then has a choice either to allow the child to live as a test-tube baby or to have the child aborted and put to death. This will create real moral problems.

You are using very emotive terms.

Well, Sir, there are emotive terms being used on all sides, such as “back-street abortions”.

That is not emotive, that is a fact.

That is a fact, but many of them are hygienic. In Australia, embryos have first been deep frozen and then thawed out and this sort of thing could raise more problems for us in the present situation. Mr. Justice Kirby, chairman of the Australian Law Reform Commission, had the following to say in a recent BBC Panorama Programme—

The point is that if one is going to tie an argument on what one’s view of life is and what is abortion, to scientific issues such as when does life begin or should one use prostaglandin pills, etc., one could argue until the cows come home. The real issue is what is one’s views on human life and how does one see it. That basically is a religious decision, no matter what one’s religion may be. That is why, whether one is Muslim, Jewish or Christian, one will find that serious religious people are opposed to abortion on that basis.

I believe, as I have said at the beginning, that this is a sensitive, complex issue, even with those people who support abortion. I believe we all share one thing in common, and that is that we need more statistics, more facts. The fact that there are abortions happening in the country, is a matter of grave concern to us. It is a relief to know that we are beginning to get more reliable information on the whole question.

As I have also said earlier, I shall support the Bill. Again I want to remind hon. members that this side of the House will not be voting under the Whip, but on an individual basis.

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful that the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North supports the Bill in principle. However, I find it anomalous if he starts off by alleging that a very strong religious connotation is attached to the entire spectrum of abortion, sterilization, the foetus, human life and the killing of a human being, and then, while proceeding on this assumption, makes use of the Bill—I actually want to say misuses it—to venture a tremendous leap and arrive at detention situations, and then hurl all kinds of accusations around to the effect that certain deaths do in fact take place as a result of detention. In this way he found one pretext after another in his effort to get at the Government.

That was not what I said.

The hon. member does not grasp the essence of the legislation. What is in fact involved in the statutory provision we are considering here this afternoon is, in the first place persons who are not responsible for their actions. This afternoon I want to refer to such people with the greatest understanding and compassion. We are discussing mentally retarded persons who conceive; in other words, in whom conception takes place. However, they are not aware in the full sense of the word, of what has happened to them. Persons who are not responsible for their actions are driven, in the first place, by desires that are stronger than their own ability to differentiate between right and wrong. That is why, in my opinion, an implicit understanding for this situation is inherent in this Bill. As a result of this there has been a shift in emphasis so that it is not a criminal offence that is involved, as was the case in previous legislation, but the consequences of the situation that arose. The Government is now considering what to do when the problem arises of a person who is not responsible for her actions finds herself in such a predicament, and how that person may best be helped, physically, psychologically and spiritually. That is why I say the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North has not the vaguest idea of what we are discussing this afternoon, because the major difference between the two is that every person in a detention situation is there as a result of a conscious decision. That person has for example, decided to support a certain group, or to commit a certain offence and as a result he finds himself in that situation. He is absolutely responsible for his actions in the situation in which he finds himself. However, the hon. member said here today that it is the fault of the Government that people in detention commit suicide. The hon. member has no idea of what is involved here. If he wants to talk about detention he must choose another occasion to do so.

You did not listen to my speech at all.

What is involved here is understanding for a situation where a shift in emphasis occurred from a situation previously considered to be a criminal offence to the present situation which is accepted as a consequence of the offence. Both from the medical and the judicial angle the good of the people concerned must be ensured. We have the greatest compassion for these people, and for their families and friends.

If one refers to previous legislation one sees that for a long time now, provision has been made for this kind of situation. The first legislation in this connection which I could find was legislation dating from 1886. This gives hon. members an indication of how far we have come in this respect. The 1886 Act was a law passed by another régime in the then Transkei. As far as the Republic is concerned, Act 38 of 1909 contains a provision to the effect that in the Transvaal no publicity was to be given to this matter. It was only in 1973 that this social problem received serious consideration, because prior to 1973 virtually no abortions or sterilizations took place. I feel this is a malady of our times, a phenomenon that has become so common place, as a result of the pressure of materialism and for various other reasons, that at present approximately 200 000 abortions are being procured annually among all population groups in South Africa, and it will be of no avail to begin with the symptoms—the abortions themselves. We must give attention to certain value judgement—religious, ethical and normative—within our social structure. In general that is where we must seek answers to the problem.

I am grateful that I am able to say here this afternoon in this House that all my colleagues on this side of the House agree with me that there are certain concepts and principles one must adhere to, and that we wish to adhere to and that the Government does adhere to when it pilots legislation through this House to make provision for specific situations. I think what is involved here is our view of human nature. Our view of human nature is that man is created by God and that he is therefore a responsible being who must account for his deeds. If we are agreed in principle on this matter, if our point of departure is the same, we can look at the problematical situation and ask ourselves certain questions. We can ask what our view is concerning the foetus and what our view is concerning man as a sentient being, and also what our view is in connection with man, who on the grounds of the sixth commandment, must account for his deeds if he takes another’s life.

This afternoon I want to point out a few principles to the hon. members and draw certain conclusions. I do think it is of great importance that I point out, before I sketch a few guidelines—because the previous speaker referred to this and I am sure the hon. the Minister will react to what he said that if a patient receives medical treatment through the accepted channels and an abortion or sterilization takes place, that patient is seen as a total person. It is not merely a woman, a girl or an older woman who fell pregnant, and as a result of certain events an abortion or sterilization must now take place; it is far more than that. It is not only a medical action that is taking place. The patient as a total person is also considered, and we know that man consists of more than just a body. He also has a spirit and a soul. For this reason it is a feather in the cap of our health services that they have recently placed tremendous emphasis on psychiatric nursing, psycho-therapeutic treatment and psycho-analysis. The very best methods in the world are being applied in our own hospitals and institutions. For this reason if such patients are treated through the correct channels the treatment offered is total; not just an abortion or a sterilization operation as such, but it is followed up to see whether there are any side effects. Only a small percentage of these 200 000 cases per year get to see a surgeon. The vast majority never see a doctor. These things take place in back streets. I also want it placed on record here that it has never been the policy of the Government, and it never will be, to agree to a law that makes abortions on request legal. This is so because of the conception we have of human nature, one which has a very strong fundamental Biblical slant.

I now want to return to certain remarks by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North. He spoke about the psychological effect that abortions could have on people. I do not think that sufficient attention is being given to this facet. Let us consider the general symptoms that arise, and here I am not referring to the mentally retarded. I am excluding this category. We have already spoken to people who are not responsible for their actions in a certain situation. I am talking about people who are responsible for their actions and who have taken a conscious decision to have an abortion or sterilization. Serious depression generally occurs in women who have undergone an abortion at some stage or other and it can become so bad that suicide is not excluded. In fact, many cases of suicide occur as a result of a state of deep depression which followed on abortions which women allowed to be carried out on them. The highest percentage of suicides, for example, occur in women between the ages of 20 and 24 and these are— interestingly enough—in the two countries where the abortion rates are the highest in the world, namely in Japan, a totally free State in the economic and in the political sense of the word, and Hungary, a country behind the Iron Curtain, a dictatorship. The point I want to make is that it does not matter under what system one lives. If you resort to having an abortion it affects you as a person, whether you live in a free system or under a dictatorial system. The effect remains the same. I am referring specifically to Japan and Hungary here. A feeling of guilt is another very usual phenomenon which occurs. Fifty per cent of women who had abortions display subsequent deviations from the norm.

This afternoon I want to state that no woman who undergoes an abortion is completely free of the less serious to serious psychological problems which arise as a result of such abortions. Abortion takes place among believers as well as non-believers and affects all classes. It is not something that only occurs among rich people or among poor people, but it is a situation which occurs throughout the entire population. If one were to ask why the reaction to abortion is so vehement, I can just mention that 70% of all women to whom this question was put, believe that the foetus is an individual human life from the beginning. In Japan, owing to their religious convictions, it is viewed in such a serious light that all natural disasters such as the regular floods and earthquakes that devastate that country, are believed to be punishment for the abortions that take place in their country. Buddhist monks regularly hold services to comfort the souls of the millions of aborted foetuses. If I say that in South Africa with its small population more than 200 000 abortions take place every year, hon. members can imagine for themselves how many abortions take place in Japan with its huge population, lack of space and the tremendous pressure under which the population there lives.

An inordinate number of neuroses as a result of abortions are not an unusual phenomenon, but a normal occurrence. It is also important to note that many women who underwent an abortion with the approval and the knowledge of their spouses, eventually develop an aversion to the husband they used to love. In her subconscious the woman indirectly accuses her husband of being responsible for the conception and therefore for the abortion as well. She transfers the guilt to him and in her subconscious an estrangement begins to develop between her and her husband. For the sake of the total picture, for the sake of the balance of the argument, I want to add that the figures indicate that in the case of more than half of the women who were in favour of abortion on demand—and there are hon. members in this House who subscribe to abortion on demand—their relationship with their husbands deteriorated or even disintegrated after abortion. For this reason I repeat that irrespective of the system or structure within which one lives it is eventually the human individual who is in the centre of the situation. A certain view of human nature is held and as a result of this, because man has a body and soul, certain reactions come into operation, and however one approaches the issue, it has a strong effect on one.

It may well be asked what the results of abortion are. In the first place abortion frustrates a women’s desire to be true to her own nature. A woman wants very much to be a mother. She considers this to be her highest calling. As a result of abortion she now feels thwarted. This is the worst form of self-frustration. The closest bond imaginable in the psyche of a woman is that between her and her unborn child. For this reason it is such a tremendous shock to any woman, no matter what culture she belongs to and no matter in what country in the world she lives, when this happens to her.

I wanted to lay down certain guidelines on the basis of the principles I set out at the beginning as being the principles we on this side of the House adhere to, but time does not allow me to do so. I want to mention, in conclusion, that we have great respect for man’s life and also for his death. We believe that man is created in the image of God, and he is a responsible being and that in this piece of legislation to an exceptional degree, provision is being made for that small group of people who are faced by the question of abortion because they are mentally retarded. I want to repeat that we feel the greatest compassion for those people, and a provision is therefore being inserted to the effect that they shall not be considered to be criminals, but that their situation is a consequential situation for which excellent provision is being made.

I therefore want to assure the hon. the Minister that I support this amendment which he has introduced in this House.

Mr. Speaker, basically one can, of course, support this Bill because it clarifies the situation in regard to abortions resulting from people being raped, from the practice of incest and from the fact that people are mentally defective. I think that there are, however, circumstances that should be borne in mind even when one is dealing with these particular cases. I say this because I want to make it clear from the outset that as a matter of principle I am very, very strongly opposed to abortion on demand. One has to be careful, with a Bill such as this, that one is not able to twist the law to achieve such an objective. Perhaps one could enlarge upon those particular aspects in the Committee Stage.

I do sincerely believe that in the case of rape it is reasonable to allow an abortion, because the woman who was raped had no say in what went on, since it was forced upon her. So there it is fair enough. In the case of incest it is again fair enough, because in incest there is the potential for producing subnormal children. In the case of mental defects, very frequently the person involved does not know what has happened to her. Certainly in many cases one could well find that the women involved have had attention forced upon them. So quite obviously in those circumstances it is fair and reasonable to allow for abortion.

In the legislation mention is made of a “permanent mental handicap”. I should like the hon. the Minister to give me a better definition of what is meant by “permanent mental handicap”.

It will not go away.

The hon. member for Houghton seems to know what I am going to say before I have said it. In that, she is rather remarkable.

You are so obvious, that is why.

I should like to know what is meant by “permanent mental handicap”. What would be the position, for example, of a person who was schizophrenic? Would that be considered a permanent mental deficiency? I merely raise that as a possibility, because many schizophrenics are, in fact, perfectly normal most of the time, exhibiting their malady only for very short periods, and genetically the condition is apparently not transferable. I therefore wish to ask whether a schizophrenic would be considered permanently defective. So abortion as a result of a person being permanently mentally defective should, I think, be approved by a panel of psychiatrists so as to ensure that it is not a game that is being played and that the person concerned does have a permanent mental defect. Again, whilst I sympathize with the woman who finds herself in the position that she has had a sterilization operation which has failed and has as a consequence conceived, I cannot but feel that this is an area that lays us open to the concept of abortion on demand. I realize that people have taken precautions and have done their best, but I still believe that a child is alive to all practical intents and purposes from the moment of conception. It is in my opinion rather unfortunate when a healthy woman who has been sterilized, or thought she had been sterilized, subsequently conceives. But in my opinion it is a sin against the human race to remove that healthy foetus.

I believe that the prime purpose of marriage is in fact to produce a family. I really do believe that that is the prime purpose. One has to be awfully careful that certain people who perhaps want the pleasures of married life but want to dodge the responsibilities do not get away with it. As far as I am concerned, if that does happen, that is the beginning of the end of any people. Once one accepts the principle of abortion whenever a person feels like it—this is unfortunately what easing of abortion laws has a tendency to lead towards—I believe it is the end of a people.

Going back just for a moment to the situation of rape, there was a very interesting case in the USA recently where a husband was taken to court by his wife who alleged that she had been raped by him. In other words, he had wanted intercourse while she had not and he had decided to enforce his marital rights as he saw them. The result was that he was taken to court. Now, what is the situation in this regard? They are legally married. Would that in the proposals before us constitute rape? This is a consideration. As I say, people do primarily get married to have children.

Personally, I am of the opinion that, if abortion is too easily obtained, this can only lead to a lowering of standards and of respect for family life. I may say that the only people who have seriously given consideration to abortion on demand are, as far as I can gather, the people of the Western World. It now seems to be a “big deal” in the West to ensure that one has an easy life and not too large a family and that one can enjoy one’s sex unlimited. I would say that this is unfortunate and I believe we should do everything possible to avoid this. It is part of the whole concept of life today that people should be allowed to do what they like, that they should in fact have unlimited freedom to do anything. I believe that this is what is ruining our so-called Western way of life.

I have here a document which was sent to me by an organization, ARAG, which says that the women who have unwanted pregnancies are obliged to resort to back-street abortions. Generally, it may well be true that if they have unwanted pregnancies they may want to have abortions, but I may say that there are alternatives. The first of these is of course a very simple one, i.e. do not get into the situation in the first place. If one does, then one still does not have to go to a back-street abortionist: One should take the consequences and bear the child. As far as I am concerned if one does not want the baby, that does not really matter; one can have the child because there are thousands of people who wish to adopt children. I do not think one should murder children when there are people who want to adopt them.

There are some people who believe that the proliferation of abortion will reduce the estimated birth rate in South Africa which will take our population to somewhere around 50 million at the end of the century.

In this regard, I believe, these people are really quite optimistic because as far as I can see the only effect this will have will be to reduce the White birth rate. If I understand it correctly, as far as the Black community is concerned fecundity is a sign of manhood. A man who is able to father many children has proven that he is really something of a man. Further, I think, lobola is again a system which encourages the birth of a number of children; female children, if at all possible. Whilst polygamy is accepted, I do not think that that is doing very much towards reducing birth rates. Finally in this particular regard, I believe that the system of migrant labour, a system which is prevalent in South Africa, also greatly contributes to the excessive birth rate. I believe that if one were to look at these various aspects that I have mentioned it would be far more effective than any reductions that would come about as a consequence of easing the system of abortion.

It is in marriage most of all that I object to abortion. I think that all of us here in this House know well enough that it takes two to make a child.

Oh, what a great discovery you have made! [Interjections.]

Why should the woman then have the sole right to decide whether an abortion should be performed or not? [Interjections.] Yes, hon. members may laugh at this. They may think I am joking. Why should the woman have the sole right to decide? That is what I want to know. The proponents of the idea that a woman should be able to do with her body as she pleases are entitled to their own opinion. That is all very well, but what about a married woman then? As I have said earlier, one of the prime purposes of marriage is to have children. What then of the husband’s wishes? Do the proponents of easy abortions believe husbands should mean nothing? Do they believe that if a husband wishes to perpetuate his name and his wife does not want to, she should have the final say in the matter? Do they believe that the sacrifices that husbands sometimes have to make should not be borne in mind?

There are a couple of points to which I should like the hon. member for Houghton to give specific answers; perhaps during the Committee Stage.

You will get your answers; do not worry!

The hon. member for Houghton believes that abortion should be freely available for older women or those with large families. Would she now be kind enough to tell this hon. House what the age is at which, she believes, an older woman should in decency stop having children? Or what is the size of the family of which the mother, in decency, should stop having any more children?

The woman has to decide that herself; not you!

All right, but I am interested in knowing, because the hon. member for Houghton believes that at a certain age and with a certain number of children a woman should have abortion freely available. Surely, the hon. member should indicate what she believes to be the age or the number of children.

Mind your own business, you ignorant little old man!

Much of what is contained in the Bill now before the House is obviously very reasonable and acceptable, and also common sense. I must, however, make it finally clear that I cannot support the concept of the murder of unborn children owing to the carelessness of people or the selfishness of parents.

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening since yesterday to this very interesting debate. At one stage I was feeling really very sorry for the hon. member for Houghton with all these hon. male chauvinists attacking her from all angles. Even from the rear there were people trying to push the knife into her.

The hon. member for Houghton pointed out that there would be a free vote on this Bill on the part of the PFP. Right at the beginning she unfortunately did not qualify. I presume she was only referring to abortion when she stated that the PFP had no policy. I take it she was only referring to the issue of abortion. [Interjections.]

Do you have any other policy apart from your R20 a month policy? [Interjections.]

Be it as it may, the hon. member for Houghton said she was only expressing her own points of view on this matter. The hon. member for Houghton also referred to the fact that in the seven years that have elapsed since the previous abortion legislation was passed there has not been a commission of inquiry to investigate the effects of the previous legislation.

The hon. member mentioned a number of interesting points. She said that at the Baragwanath hospital there was need to liberalize this legislation because so many back-street abortions were being done in, I presume, Soweto. I think that the hon. member for Brits has stated the Government’s attitude in this regard very clearly. We do not intend to liberalize abortion in this country as long as we are in power.

At this rate it won’t be too long!

I want to tell the hon. member that we are not interested in doing this because we have seen what has happened in this regard in other parts of the world. We believe that abortions should only be permitted in exceptional circumstances. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North made an interesting point. He said that this legislation had achieved a certain balance between what should not be done and what may be done within reasonable parameters. Those were not his exact words but that was what I understood him to say. I have stated in previous debates in this House that we are not interested in liberalizing abortion in this country, whatever the feelings of the hon. member for Houghton may be. I respect her feelings in this regard. If that is the way she feels about this matter, I respect her feelings. However, that is not the way we approach this matter. We will not liberalize abortions in this country because nowhere in the world where this has happened has it been of any value either spiritually or morally to that society. Although a number of countries may be mentioned in this regard, it is a known fact throughout the civilized world that liberalizing abortion has not improved things in those countries at all. In fact, for a certain period in those Western countries, in Sweden and also in Great Britain, it only made matters far worse. They now find themselves in the position of considering charging extra fees in respect of people who come from other countries to Great Britain, for example, to procure an abortion. This has apparently become quite the fashion throughout Europe and other parts of the world on the part of women seeking abortions.

I do not want any misunderstanding in regard to this legislation. This Bill was introduced to rectify a few problems that have arisen especially in regard to women with mental defects. I mentioned this fact during my Second Reading speech but it was not referred to again during the debate by any hon. member except the hon. member for Brits who put the matter very clearly indeed. He pointed out that this provision only deals with a certain group of people, especially those classed as imbeciles or idiots in previous archaic terminology. We have now improved that terminology by referring to these people as having permanent mental defects. I say this too in reply to the hon. member for Umbilo. This is a special group of people whom we are dealing with. This does not mean that we are now opening the door in respect of any person claiming to have a mental defect.

Another interesting question was raised, namely what if such a person is married? It is very important for us to realize that these people whom we are discussing are people who are unable to appreciate the outcome of their actions. Because of this, they obviously cannot get married. If a person is married and is perhaps involved in a motor-car accident and then experiences problems, that person falls into another group entirely. In such cases a psychiatrist would assess the extent of mental damage and such a person could then procure an abortion legally in terms of one of the three provisions which we mention here. However, as I say, here we are dealing with a group of people who are unable to consent because they are unable to appreciate the effect of their actions. Therefore we are providing that they can be examined by two doctors, not necessarily including the District Surgeon. We are also trying to effect improvements in regard to cases that are not reported to the police. Ultimately the magistrate still has to decide. Therefore, it is not being left in the hands of these doctors to decide whether an abortion should be procured or not.

*I think the hon. members who have taken part in the debate should realize that no new principle is being introduced into the Bill in this regard. All that is happening here is that the previous legislation is being improved. Nor do I intend having new principles incorporated in the legislation. When the Bill was published, we considered certain aspects. We considered whether an abortion could perhaps be carried out if pregnancy occurred after someone had been sterilized for the purposes of family planning or for some other purpose. Such a clause was included in the published Bill, but after publication we received several representations concerning the entire matter. Once again it became clear that the South African community—and here I include religious leaders and other community leaders—are not prepared to agree to the legislation being extended.

A second aspect which should also be clearly stated is that the degree of opposition we have encountered to the proposed provision is such that I recommended to the Cabinet that we should not continue with the provision. We are speaking about an extremely small number of people, but if we permit this, then we shall be opening the door to the liberalization of abortion in South Africa. We are not prepared to go further than the present legislation. The hon. member for Houghton will simply have to take it from me that we are not prepared to go further than the provisions of the existing legislation. However, we shall improve them.

†We shall improve it where we can, because in terms of our programme of rationalization, if we have to make any improvements in an Act, we take the whole Act from top to bottom in an endeavour to bring about all the amendments which are deemed necessary. We do this instead of coming piecemeal every session with odd amendments.

*The hon. member for Brits gave hon. members virtually my entire answer. He spelled out the policy of the Government and pointed out, for example, that after the 1973 legislation, certain events had occurred, and that at the present time the materialistic side is focused on to a greater extent. With regard to those matters which people are now seeking to rectify, as it were, by means of abortion on demand, he said that it was pointless beginning with the symptoms; one should start elsewhere. The symptom is really the result of what has gone wrong. I want to state very clearly that it is not the task of the Government alone to look after the spiritual and social side of the welfare of a country; we also need the total assistance of our religious communities. For example, there are the various women’s associations and several other associations, but that is not enough either, because we need the entire society. We cannot pass legislation which will frustrate the aim of the society, in that all kinds of new principles are introduced in legislation which could be dangerous if abortion on demand were to get a foot in the door in any way. I think the hon. member for Brits put this very clearly. While he has elucidated the principles, I want to say that abortion on demand has never been the policy of the Government. We regard life as sacred, and as he put it, we have respect for the life of a person because he has been created in God’s image. I think that is putting it as clearly as possible.

However, we also have a responsibility towards that small group of people who have no alternative but to make use of legislation such as this. In fact, there are only three provisions in terms of which abortion can be legally obtained.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North made a very good speech. Only now and again did he get on the wrong track and say something about detainees. However, I shall not argue with him on that score. In my opinion he is still young and he is still learning, he is learning too slowly, though, because when we are speaking about abortion and he makes such a good speech about it, he should not spoil it with something which hon. members are making a political football of in this House. He really said many things about which we are in full agreement, but on which he and the hon. member for Houghton differ. However, as the hon. member for Houghton said, these are matters about which their party permits free discussions, because the party has no definite policy in that regard.

The hon. member quoted from various books. He also mentioned that 5% of the abortions carried out in America were carried out due to rape and congenital handicaps. The remaining abortions are carried out as a result of a liberalized policy with regard to abortion. He mentioned that only 29 000 are carried out in our country, according to the year book. This shows that although opportunities exist for carrying out legal abortions, the so-called back-street abortions still take place.

†These one we will never be able to stop. Even in countries where the most liberal type of legislation is in force, the back-street abortions still take place. They have not disappeared. In fact, in Sweden and England one still have vast numbers of these people attending hospitals.

There are not vast numbers.

It is therefore not just a question of waving a wand and creating a completely liberal type of abortion Act because of which one will then find back-street abortions will disappear and enable us to live in a sort of Utopia. Not even the females of the world will be able to live in that kind of Utopia. The hon. member gave his view on abortion, which he said was basically one’s view of life. I wholeheartedly agree with the hon. member on that point.

*The hon. member Mr. Vermeulen made a serious speech about certain matters yesterday. He referred to the essence of the matter when he said that we were concerned here with an improvement of the Act. A decision must now be made with regard to the terms “idiot” and “imbecile”. The hon. member summarized the matter very well by considering the offences not as criminal offences but as the consequence of the deed. I think that the point raised by the hon. member is a very interesting one—viz. that the reasons why this improvement is being affected are humanitarian ones. It is definitely not the intention to introduce any possibility of a liberal connotation. I want to thank the hon. member for his contribution and I am sure that it helped to clarify the matter.

†The hon. member for South Coast took the same line and talked about the attack on life. He gave his personal views and said that he was against abortion on demand. In fact, I think he put it even more strongly than that. He seemed to be against all forms of abortion. He maintained that there was life from the time of conception. These are matters which I do not want to go into today because we are actually dealing within a fairly well demarcated area.

The hon. member for Umbilo who spoke this afternoon said that he would support the Bill but that some matters would need clarification. I have already clarified one or two matters. The hon. member said that we should be careful to ensure that this Bill does not go anywhere near making abortion more liberal. He talked about permanent mental damage. I have tried to explain that we are dealing with two special categories, viz. idiots and imbeciles. The hon. member mentioned the example of schizophrenic. Schizophrenia is not a permanent mental defect, it is a mental illness and therefore does not fall within the ambit of permanent mental defects. In fact, a schizophrenic is sometimes quite normal on one day and on the next day completely abnormal. There is the very good example of the old story of Jekyll and Hyde as well as others. The hon. member said that people get married primarily to produce children. I do not quite agree with him on this point, but that is not relevant to the Bill and I will therefore not discuss it any further. I think people get married because they want to live in a certain union. If one is fortunate out of this union children will be born. That does not mean to say, however, that people must irresponsibly reproduce merely because of the fact that they are married. That is where the basic problem within many of our population groups lies. That is why we are trying to put family planning in its proper perspective so that people can actually try to plan their families and decide whether they want one, two, or perhaps 10 children, if they can afford it. They must at least be well-fed and well-nourished and must not want for the necessities of life.

There is not one married couple in this country who cannot make use of the services of family planning, either through their private doctors or otherwise. If they have had enough children it is up to them to decide. They can be sterilized, which is one alternative or else they can go to the clinics and be assisted to have, if they are fortunate enough, the number of children whom they think they will be able to educate, feed and clothe. That is responsible parenthood. I think that was what the hon. member for Umbilo was getting at. He was suggesting that one should rather promote a preventative type of outlook where people can join the system of family planning. One should encourage them to do this.

There is no argument about that.

We are talking about married people at the moment. One of the amendments that the hon. member wants to move in the Committee Stage will actually make it easier for married females to have an abortion.

When they are mentally defective, like several members in this House.

The hon. member for Umbilo also referred to one or two points which he regarded as the causes—migrant labour etc. I do not think that I shall reply to that today. I think his speech was good enough and we must not spoil it now by having a fight about the causes. I am here to try to get rid of a problem, not to create more in this particular legislation.

*I want to convey my sincere thanks to the hon. member for Brits once again for his contribution. He made a few statements which set out very clearly the policy of this side of the House. There must be no doubt that this party that is in power is not interested in liberalizing the abortion legislation or permitting abortion on demand. All we shall do is attempt to improve the legislation as it stands at present, in order to help people who cannot really decide or think for themselves. This is the most important amendment in this Bill.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Instruction

Mr. Speaker, I move—

1. (a) the definition of “unlawful carnal intercourse” shall include carnal intercourse with a girl under the age of 16; and
2. (b) the circumstances in which abortion may be procured shall include those of—
   1. (i) a mentally retarded woman; and
   2. (ii) a woman who had received a sterilization before the beginning of her pregnancy.

I move this instruction because I am informed that the amendments that I have placed on the Order Paper for the Committee Stage will not be in order unless the instruction is accepted. I should like to point out to the hon. the Minister and other members of this House that in agreeing to the instruction they will not be agreeing to the amendments. That will come later when we are able to discuss them in detail in the Committee Stage. Therefore, giving permission for this instruction to be accepted will not mean that anybody has committed himself to accepting the amendments that I have on the Order Paper.

Secondly, where I ask that this instruction be accepted so that the amendments can be discussed, I should like to point out to hon. members in this House that I am not asking that abortion be made compulsory, because that appears to be the general attitude of hon. members in this House. What I am asking for is that women be given the right to decide whether or not they wish to go ahead and bear children, not that abortion be made compulsory, as appears to have emerged from some of the arguments used by some hon. members here.

The acceptance of the first portion of the instruction will mean that we will broaden the definition presently contained in the Bill. What I am asking for is simply that the definition be taken back to the original definition that appeared in the 1973 Bill which was submitted to the Select Committee, which afterwards became a commission of inquiry consisting, as I have pointed out, of 10 male members without a single female member on that commission. All it means then is that we must go back to that definition and allow girls who become pregnant when they are under the age of 16 to obtain an abortion through the normal procedures. In other words, they still will be required to go through the procedures of having two doctors certify the abortion to be necessary, a third doctor to perform the abortion, a fourth doctor, the superintendent of the State institution, to give his permission, and maybe even a magistrate to determine that the girl is indeed under the age of 16. These are therefore still very cumbersome procedures but at least this will place such a person in the same category as those people who are able to have abortions if they have become pregnant as a result of rape or incest—and I should like to know how the hon. member for Umbilo feels about those cases—and also in a case where a woman’s life is in danger or where she has permanent mental damage which, of course, is something no psychiatrist will ever certify and it is therefore an impossible situation.

Sir, asking for this means that I am, in fact, making this Act consistent, because at the present stage the Immorality Act makes it illegal for a male to have carnal intercourse with a girl under the age of 16. He is committing an unlawful act and therefore the consequences of that act should be that a girl who falls pregnant as a result of unlawful carnal intercourse with a male, should be allowed to have an abortion. I cannot understand why the hon. the Minister does not, in fact, accept this. In this regard I think the hon. the Minister is under a misapprehension, because when we debated a previous amending Bill in 1979, he is on record in Hansard in column 5329 on 30 April 1979 as saying—

Maybe a case could be made out, but it is not in the Act. If the hon. the Minister feels that there is a case to be made out medically for a girl who is under the age of 15—15 being the age of consent to marriage in this country; it was reduced some years ago from the age of 16—to be aborted, I should like him to explain it. I do not know what he means by that. If a girl aged 12 can fall pregnant—and indeed we have cases of girls aged 12 who have fallen pregnant—I cannot understand why he does not put it in the Act. It is not in the law at present. The Immorality Act does not cover the case of a girl under the age of 16 who becomes pregnant, although having carnal intercourse with such a girl is an unlawful act. It is just not logical. Not that I expect an awful lot of logic from men these days!

Chauvinist!

This particular plea may at least touch the heart of certain men who have daughters under the age of 16. After listening to all these glib words and the moral rectitude that we have heard this afternoon, there, but for the grace of God, goes the daughter of anybody in this House! There should therefore be some consideration given to those cases.

It is not an unusual thing for a girl of 16 and under to fall pregnant. I have obtained some recent figures from Groote Schuur Hospital and, as far as abortions for Black people are concerned, 22% were for girls of 16 and under. There were six out of 155 in the case of Whites, 61 out of 1 103 Coloureds and 66 out of 236 Blacks who fell into this category. That is a high percentage and I am therefore not just talking about the odd case. There are a large number of people involved.

I hope the hon. the Minister is listening to me as I am trying my best to persuade him, and I hope he is persuadable.

You are whispering in my ear.

Well, he himself believes that there is a case to be made out, but I do not know where he gets the idea “medically” from, because there is nothing in the Act that allows for a girl under the age of 16, per se, to be included on medical grounds. So that is the first thing.

The second instruction refers to the mentally retarded woman, and here there are two changes that interest me. The one involves the removal of the word “permanent”, because again it is very difficult for doctors to decide on the permanency of a defect, and the other important thing is that a woman can apparently have an abortion if she is mentally retarded and has conceived out of wedlock. This is certainly the case according to the Afrikaans text of the Bill, but not according to the English text. As I said in the Second Reading debate, I cannot understand why it is considered that marriage would make a mentally defective woman more capable of understanding the responsibility of parenthood than would be the case if she were unmarried. It is no good telling me that the father would look after the children, because in most cases the father is away at work all day, and of course I have to point out that we have very many cases in South Africa of one-parent families, in fact thousands upon thousands, particularly amongst the Black people in this country. So that argument would certainly not hold good. I therefore ask the hon. the Minister to give serious consideration to this matter. It certainly is not a question of “liberalizing”. Let us take that terrible bogey-word “liberalizing” out of this argument. I am sorry I ever introduced it during the Second Reading debate. I used it with a tiny little “1”, and I simply meant that we are progressing in the direction in which all other countries are progressing, and not only the countries of the West, as that honourable but somewhat ignorant member for Umbilo said. In Japan abortion is available on demand, and Japan is not a Western country. In China, if my memory serves me correctly, one is not supposed to have more than three children. In fact, one gets fined heavily if one does have more than three children, and one is not allowed to have children until one is 30 years of age, which obviously reduces the number of years during which a woman can produce offspring.

You are quite right.

Well, then that hon. member knowingly gave the House the wrong information earlier on, and that makes it even worse.

That does not mean that they have abortion in China. They are not allowed to have children until they are 30.

Let me tell the hon. member that they do have abortion in China. The hon. member is ignorant of the facts.

Take a slow boat to China. [Interjections.]

The third part of the instruction I wish to motivate is, to my mind, the most incredible one of all—cases of failed sterilization. It was contained, as the hon. the Minister said, in the original Bill that was circulated for comment. He said the churches and everybody else came out against it. What, however, about the doctors? I mean, does he not take any notice of the views of his own profession? The gynaecologists are in favour of it. There was an inquiry conducted by the South Africa Institute for Sociological, Demographic and Criminological Research. It conducted an inquiry and found that 66% of gynaecologists were in favour of permitting abortion in cases of pregnancy after failed sterilization. It is obvious that if a woman goes to all the trouble of having herself sterilized, and then has the misfortune to fall pregnant, she should surely be allowed to have an abortion. I mean, she has gone to the utmost limits—short of castrating her husband—to see to it that she does not fall pregnant. [Interjections.] Not a bad idea, in some cases. I therefore cannot understand why the hon. the Minister will not re-insert the clause that was contained in the draft Bill.

Yesterday I received a letter from Dr. Sallie Woodrow, who is honorary secretary of the Association for Voluntary Sterilization of South Africa. I shall only quote certain paragraphs from the letter, but I can assure the hon. the Minister that I am quoting perfectly in context. The letter reads:

She goes on to say something which I certainly did not know and which I imagine that many hon. members in this House also do not know. She states that—

Does the hon. the Minister know that?

Yes, of course.

If he does, why did he not put failed sterilization back into the Act if voluntary sterilization is the most popular means of family planning? The hon. the Minister is in favour of family planning and I am in favour of it too. I have never ever suggested abortion as a substitute for family planning. I suggested it should be an additional means to be applied in certain cases. I made very clear the cases I meant. Apart from other considerations, I believe it should be left to the woman herself to decide, but for the information of the hon. member for Umbilo I think that, if a woman is over the age of 40, which is already a danger period for bearing children, and she has her family of three or four children and decides she does not want any more, that is her business and she should be allowed to go ahead and have an abortion.

I do not know whether the hon. the Minister has received this letter too, but Dr. Woodrow says the public are entitled to know why this enabling paragraph was removed from the draft amendment Bill. I should like to know that too, because just saying that the churches did not like it is, to me anyway, not sufficient reason. I should like some good logical medical reasons and demographic reasons why this should not be allowed. The hon. the Minister has not given any such reasons. He just runs away as soon as he gets an unfavourable response to any Bill. It is a great pity that other hon. Ministers do not for instance take notice of what the Indian community feels about the Group Areas Act and what the Blacks feel about the pass laws and on the strength of that say: “No, no, we cannot go ahead with this, because the people to whom this applies do not appear to like the Bill”. This Bill does not apply to the churches, but to the women of South Africa.

I have received letters from many associations—I can produce the letters here—in which they express themselves in favour of this country moving in the direction in which not only the Western World is moving but also the Far East for that matter. I quoted them the other day. There is the National Council of Women, ARAG naturally since that is an abortion reform organization, Business and Professional Women and the ACVV and others which want an inquiry into the workings of the Act. The hon. the Minister still has not explained why he has not had an inquiry after seven years to see how the Act is working. I think it very important that we have this inquiry because the figures in this regard are quite alarming. Admittedly, I cannot say with certainty that these are all the result of self-induced abortions, but when one gets a figure of 36 000 abortions, 33 000 of which were septic abortions, I think one is entitled to assume that the majority of these cases were self-induced abortions—I say the majority, not all. Those are very alarming figures. The latest figure is 30 000 of which 27 000 were septic abortions. As I say, those are very alarming figures. One has only to go to hospitals like Baragwanath Hospital which has two emergency wards working every weekend on these cases, the King Edward VIII Hospital about which the hon. member for Umbilo ought to know something, and Groote Schuur here in Cape Town to know what the situation is as far as septic abortions are concerned.

Once again, I ask the hon. the Minister to consider accepting this instruction. I obviously realize he is not in any way thereby committing himself to accepting the amendment I want to move. By the way, the amendment was perfectly in order when I moved it in 1975. I have not yet discovered why it should not be in order in 1982, unless the rules of the House have changed materially.

Times change too.

To the best of my knowledge the rules have not changed, and that hon. member knows less about it than I do. I should like the hon. the Minister please to consider accepting this instruction and I ask hon. members of the House to support the instruction so that we can have an intelligent, logical and, shall I say, good-tempered debate about this very sensitive subject.

I shall support you.

I thank the hon. member for Umbilo for that.

Mr. Speaker, I have no objection in principle to moving such an instruction. I do think however, that the hon. member for Houghton has already had an opportunity of giving us an interesting, logical and calm review of the points she wants to raise. Therefore, although I have no objection in principle to the matter being discussed again, I think once is enough. In view of what the hon. member for Houghton has said, I shall not be supporting the instruction. [Interjections.]

I do think, however, I shall motivate and give my reasons.

Wait, I am going to fix you up. [Interjections.]

I do want to motivate why I will also not support the amendment of which notice have been given. There are three legs to the contents of the instruction. The one I would support is that one should allow someone who is mentally retarded to procure an abortion, personally I cannot quite understand why, in view of the fact that sterilization is allowed to be performed on a mentally retarded person in terms of the existing legislation, an abortion could not be procured on the same terms and conditions. That is not quite clear to me. Perhaps the hon. the Minister could explain it more clearly. He could perhaps also explain to us why the Afrikaans word “buite-egtelike” is being used in this regard in the Bill.

Yes.

The other two matters are also obviously matters of grave concern. I do not have any daughters but I am quite sure that if I were to have a daughter who were to find herself pregnant at a young age—under 16 years—it would be a matter of great pain and great concern to me. My own feeling is, however, that unless there is any physical danger to the girl in question it is better in those circumstances for someone to bear the consequences of his or her actions. Apart from that, that still unborn child could mean much to some other family if it should be put up for adoption. With Black children it is of course not so easy. Although, with the system of extended family life, Blacks adopt children very easily, those children are sometimes not so easily cared for by their new Black mothers. I believe that that is why this hon. Minister, as Minister of Health and Welfare, should devote a great deal of attention to that particular problem.

I cannot see why and how one can logically support the procuring of an abortion on a healthy woman who is about to have a healthy baby, even though she may be only 15 years old.

Well, she may be 12 years old.

If she is 12 years old, and there is any threat to her physical or mental health, she could procure an abortion in terms of the existing Act. [Interjections.] If a girl is not mature enough to have a child without her physical or mental health being adversely affected, she can obtain an abortion. If, however, she is physically capable of having a child there is no reason why that unborn baby should be aborted.

The third reason relates to the question of failed sterilization. This is clearly a very serious personal problem for the woman in question. There are many families, however, in which there have been “laatlammetjies” or afterthoughts. In many instances it has been a great shock to those families when these babies suddenly arrived. Later on, however, those children can become to them a great source of joy. I think we can all think of families like that.

If the woman’s physical life is in danger she can procure an abortion. I do accept though that it is a very difficult personal situation. If failed sterilization should, however, be allowed as a reason, the next logical thing will be that failed contraception will have to be allowed as a reason. Then we will ultimately find ourselves in a situation of abortion on request. I cannot see that some such specific minor matter could be a basis on which an abortion should be allowed. Although I do not object in principle to the instruction, I do, however, in view of the fact that we have had a full debate on all these issues, intend not to support the moving of the instruction because I do not believe there is any point in debating the whole matter again during the Committee Stage.

Mr. Speaker, I want to make it clear right at the outset that I will ask the House to oppose this instruction moved by the hon. member for Houghton. There are a number of reasons for this. In the first place, by seeking to introduce the provisions of the instruction into the legislation, one is seeking to change the complete character of this legislation. The hon. member is seeking to introduce matters to be discussed at the Committee Stage which will change the whole character of the legislation. All these matters have been mentioned here—the question of a child under the age of 16, the question of a woman with a mental defect and the question of pregnancy after sterilization. I have considered all these matters but I have had overwhelming support in opposition to these provisions from church bodies and even from very prominent gynaecologists and their associations. I can show the hon. member for Houghton the letters I have received if she wants to see them. These people may not form the majority of an association but the fact remains that they are opposed to this. As I say, if one looks at what is being requested here, one sees that this will change the whole nature of the legislation. How on earth can we discuss such a vitally important matter as this in a brief debate during the Committee Stage? This is one of the most sensitive aspects contained in our legislation. I do not think that one should try to have these amendments inserted in the legislation in this way. I want to point out to the hon. member that when I stated in 1975 that people had to qualify medically, it was quite obvious what I meant. When one reads section 3 of the Act dealing with the circumstances under which an abortion may be procured, we find that these include circumstances where the continued pregnancy endangers the life of the woman concerned or constitutes a serious threat to her physical health, where the continued pregnancy constitutes a serious threat to the mental health of the woman concerned, where a serious risk exists that the child to be born will suffer from a physical or mental defect, and so forth. Those are all the medical reasons that apply whether a woman is under 16 or over 40 years of age. Therefore, I do not think it is necessary for us to provide just because a person is under 16 years of age that an abortion can then be procured.

May I ask a question?

Certainly.

Mr. Speaker, if that is the hon. the Minister’s attitude, then why do we have the Children’s Act? That Act protects children in respect of any actions in which they may have participated until the age of 18 years. As I say, if that is the hon. the Minister’s attitude, then he should do away with the the Children’s Act.

I do not think that that would really solve the problem because the Children’s Act has never been able to prevent girls under the age of 18 years falling pregnant. In this legislation before us we are dealing with the result of something that has already happened. All we are trying to do is to improve the terminology in respect of certain provisions. We are not making provision in this legislation for the liberalizing of abortion. I know that the hon. member for Houghton does not like that expression but that is the term that is used all over the world.

I don’t mind; it is you who minds.

What I stated in 1975 is included in this legislation at the moment. That was what I meant by mental condition. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North has already mentioned this. A person can procure an abortion if she complies with one of the provisions of section 3 of the Act.

I cannot quite understand the argument of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North. The hon. member has said that in principle he is not opposed to the hon. member for Houghton being able to proceed with her amendments.

The instruction, not the amendments.

The instruction. Well, it still does not make sense if the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North is prepared to allow the hon. member for Houghton to move her instruction but is then going to vote against all her amendments. As I have said, that will be tantamount to changing the provisions of this legislation completely. By seeking to change the legislation in the manner contained in the instruction of the hon. member for Houghton one is actually liberalizing abortion to which the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North is completely opposed.

The instruction is to the effect that certain amendments be considered, and I shall vote against it.

Perhaps the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North does not wish to hear these arguments again. That is his personal view but it is not mine. I like to listen to the hon. member for Houghton because I find what she says very interesting. The hon. member for Houghton again raised the question of Baragwanath and King Edward. The hon. member suggested that we should have a special provision which would be applicable to Baragwanath and King Edward.

That is not correct.

Well, actually I only wanted to make sure, because I was under the impression that that was what she wanted.

There was a discussion about sterilization but I do not think I should like to get involved with that topic at this stage. The question was put if I was aware of the fact that throughout the world this was regarded as part of family planning. If the hon. member would care to look at the department’s report she would see what is already being done in so far as voluntary sterilization goes. This is an important point: Voluntary sterilization is being done to an increasing extent in this country because we have managed to break through to the female public—no the male public—and they realize now that they can plan families on practically a permanent basis once they have decided that they have enough children to look after. I am now referring to all our population groups. We have achieved success on a large scale on behalf of the families, because a healthy family ensures a healthy mother. This is one of the-main themes which we hear throughout the world today in an endeavour to propagate family planning.

Family planning is not aimed at reducing the number of people, but it ensures a healthy family and, flowing from that, a healthy mother. That is the important aspect. If one wanted to do something in this regard, one should rather propagate sterilization in the case of people who have decided that they have enough children, whether they have one, five or eight.

*Consequently I want to suggest that this House rejects the instruction.

Question put,

Mr. Chairman, I move as an amendment—

Mr. Chairman, in the title of this Bill reference is made to two Acts, namely the Abortion and Sterilization Act and the Immorality Act. I move this amendment just to make it clear that the Act referred to in the fifth line of the title is the Abortion and Sterilization Act and not the Immorality Act.

Amendment agreed to.

Title, as amended, agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill, as amended, reported.

Third Reading

Mr. Speaker, I move, subject to Standing Order No. 56—

Mr. Speaker, we have no objection to the Bill being read a Third Time. However, I should just like to express my grave disappointment at the Minister’s attitude and again ask the hon. the Minister to consider an inquiry into the working of the Abortion and Sterilization Act of 1975.

Mr. Speaker, although the hon. member for Houghton did scold the men now and again, she adopted such a good-natured approach to the whole matter that I shall consider her proposal. However, that is as far as I can go, namely, to consider whether I should consider what she has proposed.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Chairman, during the course of the Second Reading debate I raised the issue of the fine being increased from R1 000 to R10 000 for people involved in work which is specifically designated for architects. I indicated that I considered this to be unreasonably high and in fact related it to the fine for the defaming of the symbols of the State. I indicated that I felt that to equate the two was unreasonable. I accept, and I accept without any reservations whatsoever, that architectural work is responsible work and that if one has irresponsible people doing architectural work they can in fact endanger lives. I do not argue with that point at all. I believe it to be true. However, I do not think that it is a question of intimating that the person who is doing this sort of work can afford to pay this fine because he is making a lot of money illegally, because if one equates a fine to the amount of money that a person is earning, then one might as well say that with regard to road traffic there should be differential fines for a person who drives an expensive car and a person who drives a cheap car. This is an argument that was put forward to me some time ago when I raised the point that people were making so much money out of the illegal architectural work that they were doing that the fines had to be high. I know that fines are intended to be deterrents up to a point but I cannot help but feel that this is taking things to extremes. Therefore I move—

1. (1) On page 11, in line 5, to omit “ten” and to substitute “five”;
2. (2) on page 11, in line 27, to omit “ten” and to substitute “five”.

Mr. Chairman, I listened very carefully to the arguments advanced by the hon. member for Umbilo, but I regret that I am not in a position to accept his amendments. The hon. member will know that in terms of section 7(3)(c) of the principal Act certain work is reserved for architects. Any person, be he a natural person or a company who purports to be an architect and who performs work generally reserved for an architect, shall be guilty of an offence.

It is not necessary to point out that he is not being accused by the Council for Architects. They have no authority over that man as he is not a registered architect. This man is found guilty in a court of law and the maximum fine is R1 000.

There are instances of certain individuals, in most cases companies, who have certain allied professionals on their staff, among others perhaps a very competent draftsman but not a qualified architect. These people command a very high fee indeed as the hon. member who has an intimate knowledge of the construction industry knows. These people can command a fee of R50 000 or more, and therefore a fine of R1 000 is no deterrent whatsoever.

There are certain instances where we have the same companies or natural persons committing the same offence time and time again. Drastic steps must be taken to curb this practice and in our view a sufficiently high fine will be the best deterrent. The Council for Architects specifically asked us to increase the fine from R1 000 to R10 000, and I therefore regret that I cannot accept the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I have a measure of sympathy with the arguments that the hon. member used, to the extent that whatever the level is, there is a degree of arbitrariness about it. That, I think, one has to concede. The hon. member tried to draw a comparison between a fine in this instance and a fine for desecrating the South African flag. There is a fundamental difference. This is a fine that is imposed because one is deliberately breaking the law in order to make money. One is breaking the law in order to earn fees and therefore the fine has to take into account the advantage derived from breaking the law. One can take as an example the case of a man using a boat to take out crayfish off Clifton beach. He is in fact trying to enrich himself. Although it is a relatively small transgression, he runs the risk of losing his boat. It can, in fact, be confiscated.

I have worked on this clause for a considerable time to see how it can be amended and I think that the fine should actually involve a forfeiture of fees. If a person earned RX illegally, there should be a forfeiture clause. I think it would be appropriate if such a clause could be inserted. I do not believe that a man should be entitled to break the law to earn, say, R30 000 and that in such circumstances a fine of R10 000 is excessive. What could be done is that the fine relating to the breaking the law could be kept down to R500 or R1 000, but added to that there should be a forfeiture of those fees that were earned by adopting an illegal practice. I have looked at this, and I realize that is is very difficult. If this were an obligatory fine, I would certainly vote against it, but this happens to be a maximum fine which may sometimes apply in a case where the fee earned is very much greater than the R10 000. To the extent that people are breaking the law in order to enrich themselves, the fine should take into account the enrichment which they gain as a result of breaking the law. I agree that the R10 000 fine is arbitrary. In certain instances I presume that it will only be applied at a level of R500, but to the extent that somebody may break the law in order to earn R50 000, this penalty of R10 000 is actually far too small. One therefore has this problem that the fine is of an arbitrary nature but, taking into account the extent to which people can enrich themselves by breaking this particular law a fine in the range of between R1 and R10 000 seems to be reasonable to act as a deterrent so as to prevent people from enriching themselves unlawfully. So while there is a degree of arbitrariness about it, I believe that, taking the prevailing circumstances into account, the figure of R10 000 as an upper limit is not an unreasonable figure, especially if one bears in mind the fees that people can obtain by acting in conflict with the law.

Mr. Chairman, I am afraid that I cannot happily accept the argument put forward by the hon. the Deputy Minister—although of course one has to accept the result—because I still feel that whilst a fine is justified, in fact an increase in the fine, putting it at this figure makes something of a mockery of our relative system of punishment for various crimes. My actual problem is the relationship between the amount of this fine and that of fines for other offences that could well be infinitely more dangerous infringements of the law.

The point raised by the hon. member for Sea Point, who referred to the fact that a person taking crayfish illegally could well have his boat confiscated as part of the punishment, is of course something entirely different and does not have to affect one or more individuals’ livelihoods. It is more a part of the nature conservation concept. So I do not really think that that is a very good argument to use. There the penalties have had to be made very harsh for the sake of promoting nature conservation. It is not, however, a question of ensuring that one gets R10 000. If a man has walked to a certain spot and is catching fish with a rod and line, or something of that nature, that is in fact what would be confiscated. He would, of course, also be subject to a fine which is of a punitive nature but does not involve a ridiculously large amount of money. It does not, for example, bear any relation to other normal fines levied for other crimes. I do not believe that a person should be allowed to get away with this, and I do believe that an increase in the basic fine is justified. That is why I have moved that it be increased from an amount of R1 000 to an amount of R5 000. I still believe, however, that the figure of R10 000 is an unreasonably high figure that is not consistent with the relative fines imposed for other crimes.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Umbilo argues from the premise that crime is a relative matter, and I agree with him. There are relative differences, even in the commission of similar offences, and therefore we are merely imposing a maximum fine and leaving it to the discretion of the courts to decide on the question of the degree of relativity involved.

Amendments negatived (New Republic Party dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Since the Quantity Surveyors’ Act, 1970, came into operation on 1 March 1971 it has been found necessary only once to amend the Act, namely in 1979. It has now however become necessary to consider further amendments, and I wish to explain the reasons for the proposed amendments.

In order to register as a quantity surveyor, an applicant has to comply with certain requirements, one of which is that he must ordinarily be resident in the Republic of South Africa. An applicant who is not ordinarily resident in this country may, however, apply to the council for temporary registration which is valid for a period of twelve months only. On expiry of this period he has to renew his application. In practice it has been found that the restriction placed on non-residents serves no useful purpose and causes unnecessary administrative work for the council. In particular, quantity surveyors residing in the independent national states, which previously formed part of the Republic, who also practise in the Republic are affected by the restriction. It has accordingly been decided to do away with the requirement regarding permanent residence. This is in fact in line with other professions, such as surveyors, where the statutory provision in this respect has already been repealed.

*Hon. members will also notice that the insertion into the Act of a new section, concerning the practise of the quantity surveyors’ profession by companies, is being envisaged. This aspect is in fact already being controlled to some extent by the regulations promulgated under the Act, but it now appears that, because of the lack of specific authorization in the Act, the legal validity of the regulations concerned is in doubt. It is generally felt that this is such an important provision that it should rather be fully regulated in the Act, and this is in fact the objective of the new section 22A. The wording has, of course, been cleared with the Registrar of Companies and is quite reconcileable with the provisions of the Companies Act, 1973.

It has also been found necessary to increase from R1 000 to R10 000 the fine which may be imposed when a person who is not registered as a quantity surveyor, for reward, performs work reserved for quantity surveyors, or pretends to be a quantity surveyor.

The other amendments are mainly of a consequential nature and are largely self-explanatory.

Mr. Speaker, we shall be supporting this Bill. Clearly, the quantity surveyors’ profession is an important profession in the building industry in South Africa. It has a vital function in controlling costs and escalating costs and in preparing bills of quantities. In that respect it is particularly important, although for the quantity surveyors nightmarish, to have them with us in these days of inflation.

With reference to the Land Surveyors’ Act, the Architects’ Bill which we dealt with previously and this Bill, it is interesting—the hon. the Minister also referred to this—that the de facto situation in South Africa is that the relevant people in the former parts of South Africa now called independent States are in a sense included in our professional bodies. The S.A. Medical Research Council Amendment Bill discussed earlier this week also dealt with the situation. From our point of view it is a pleasing fact and a statement of the basic unity of the former parts of South Africa with South Africa. I am sure that that trend will continue.

The question of an increase in the penalty was debated in the previous Bill, the Architects’ Bill. We now have coming into existence what are often called interdisciplinary practices, i.e. people who offer turnkey operations in that they are engineers, architects and quantity surveyors. Unfortunately, sometimes people in these circumstances do not have the proper qualifications and draw large fees when they are not really entitled to do so.

Also in this respect, I believe, it is important to protect the public. In large buildings, for example, it is very important that the standards of safety and construction should be maintained. For that reason it is important to protect those professions which have special skills which our society needs. It is, of course, also important that we should remember that this is a maximum fine, and that it could well be only a fraction of the fee that someone could gain by pretending to be a quantity surveyor.

Finally, it is important to note that we are now bringing into the Statute something that has already been recognized in regulation. That is that quantity surveyors, whether practising in partnership or as individuals, can form a private and limited liability company.

We have much pleasure in supporting this Bill. I must make it clear, however, that although we do have a quantity surveyor on our side of the House, it is not quite appropriate that he should speak to the Bill. In view of the fact, however, that my father is also a quantity surveyor, I am the next best appropriate person to address myself to this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North for his support of this measure. The fact that this is only the second time that this particular piece of legislation is being amended, I believe, bears testimony to the excellent way in which it was drafted in its original form.

*The hon. the Deputy Minister has sketched the scope of the legislation. I should merely like to dwell on a few aspects. In the first instance, I want to refer to the removal of the requirement that a person who wishes to have himself registered as a quantity surveyor in the Republic, must ordinarily be resident in the Republic. This will obviate problems which are being experienced at the moment, when quantity surveyors perform work across State borders. It is, in my opinion, an essential amendment in view of our developing economy and the interdependence of the Republic and these States, which inevitably bring about heavy commercial traffic across these borders.

As has already been stated, the provision that quantity surveyors may now conduct their practices in the form of companies, will remove the legal uncertainty which has prevailed up to now with regard to this aspect, and secondly, will bring this profession into line with similar professional practices in which this kind of modus operandi is used with great success. Since a company, unlike a partnership, continues to exist regardless of a change in members, there could be many advantages for the company concerned as well as its clients, as a result of such incorporation. When a partner resigns, for example, the partnership as such as dissolved as a legal entity with the concomitant costs and the potential problems with regard to who takes over the responsibility of the partnership, but a company as such continues to exist as a liable legal entity, and this therefore offers a greater degree of certainty to people who transact business with the company concerned.

The further provisions that only registered quantity surveyors may be shareholders in such companies, and that such shareholders remain responsible for the commitments made by their company during the term of office of these shareholders, offers, offers further protection to everyone who conducts business with this practice.

A final amendment, which the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North also referred to, is that which also relates to the Architects Act. This analogous provision in both pieces of legislation has been criticized by the hon. member for Umbilo. This is the increase of the maximum fine from R1 000 to R10 000 in the case where a person who is not registered as a quantity surveyor, practises as or professes to be a quantity surveyor. Apart from the fees which are charged by these people, the aim of this penal provision is twofold; firstly, the protection of a highly specialized profession and the qualified persons who practise it in order to maintain the high standard required, and secondly—closely allied to this—the protection of the public who are entitled to these high standards. Considering the extent of the harm which may be done to an individual if or unqualified person should perform the work of a quantity surveyor for him, an adequate deterrent is essential. A maximum fine of R10 000 is definitely not exorbitant, especially when seen in the light of sometimes astronomical amounts involved in large-scale developments. As was indicated by the hon. the Minister with regard to previous legislation—I think that the problem which the hon. member for Umbilo experienced with regard to the relative seriousness of the offence which the fine would create, is solved by the fact that it is indeed a maximum fine and there is no obligation on the court to impose a specific fine, but that the court has the freedom to adapt it according to the seriousness of the violation.

For the most part the remaining clauses consist of technical corrections and corrections of terminology, consequential amendments and certain changes of procedure as, for example, in clause 10, which permits the serving of a summons by means of registered post, instead of in the old, often time-consuming way. All these provisions will assist in the smooth functioning of the legislation in practice. This side of the House therefor has pleasure in supporting it.

Mr. Speaker, we on these benches will support this Bill. However, I want once again to raise the question, which was also referred to by the hon. member who has just sat down, of the fine of R10 000. I believe that even more so in the case of quantity surveyors than in the case of architects this is an unreasonably high fine. As I indicated in my speech on a previous Bill dealing with architects, I can appreciate the positive dangers that can arise and to which the public can be subjected in the event of certain work being done by an unqualified architect. However, in this particular Bill, the same sort of danger is not involved because, although the responsibilities of a quantity surveyor are considerable, they are purely of a monetary nature and, as such, do not endanger the public. As has already been indicated, they do deal with very large sums of money. There I agree. Some of these building projects are massive. In fact, over the past 30 years I have dealt with many of these myself and, I might add, have had considerable dealings with quantity surveyors. As any quantity surveyor will know, a contractor is his natural enemy right from the word go because they never can agree on the figures at the end of the contract. However that is not my reason for objecting to the fine of R10 000. We on these benches sincerely believe that this is an excessively high figure. However, in view of the fact that the hon. the Deputy Minister has made it very clear that he is not prepared to reduce the amount, I do not wish to waste the time of this hon. House by moving an amendment at the Committee Stage.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the hon. members of the various parties wholeheartedly for their support of this Bill. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North pointed out that the only quantity surveyor in this House, is on that side. It struck me that the hon. member, who made a very good contribution on previous legislation, did not speak on this measure. I do not know whether the hon. member felt that he might have to declare his interest, that his days in this Parliament were numbered and that he did not want to talk about a profession here which he might have to practise again soon. I am saying this in a lighthearted vein, by the way.

I thank the hon. member for East London City very cordially for his contribution. It is clear that he has an intimate knowledge of the Bill and that he has studied it thoroughly. He made an excellent contribution.

†I thank the hon. member for Umbilo for his contribution.

This Bill is very similar to the one we have just discussed, but as has been mentioned by hon. members, there are certain differences. In the Bill which we have just discussed there are certain amendments which have not been included in the one now under consideration. The reasons for this is that the different boards are very jealous of their autonomy and individuality. The result is that the one does not want to be a carbon copy of the other. The two Bills can therefore not contain exactly the same amendments. On certain points, however, the boards have been ad idem, and I now refer specifically to the proposed raising of the fine from R1 000 to R10 000. They have been in agreement on that score in requesting that the fine be raised.

I think the hon. member for Sea Point would find the suggestion of the hon. member for Umbilo rather abhorrent that a quantity surveyor’s work is not quite as responsible as that of an architect, and therefore the fine should be less. I am not going to argue on that score; I merely want to say here we have two professions which are maintaining an extremely high standard and of whom we are justifiably proud.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Education in the Republic today enjoys a very high priority mainly for the following reasons: On the one hand there is the ever growing awareness on the part of the peoples of our various communities of the need for formal education and training in order to prepare themselves more fully for the increasing opportunities and demands in the labour field. On the other hand highly skilled workers are the core group responsible for initiating and sustaining development and growth in the country, economically and otherwise. The training of this group is the primary task of universities and technikons. In view of the fact that economic growth depends on education and training, it is of utmost importance to accelerate the education and training of our own people to fulfil the needs in the labour market and thereby reduce the demand for skilled workers from abroad and our dependence in this regard.

It is of the greatest importance that all population groups should have full and equal opportunities to participate in the development process to the full extent of their abilities and to benefit accordingly. The Bill before the House deals with the technical education of the Coloured population group, and I consequently wish to set out briefly the way in which Coloured technical education has developed in order to indicate the necessity for the proposed Bill which seeks to create an autonomous technikon.

The first classes for Coloured apprentices were introduced at the Cape Technical College in 1925. Numbers grew to such an extent that in 1935 the Cape Vocational School was instituted as a branch of the Cape Technical College in order to train apprentices. For 30 years the Vocational School was responsible for the training of apprentices and providing courses in commercial subjects, needlework and home economics. The 18 apprentices in 1925 grew to 700 in 1962, and at that stage nearly all apprentices came from the Cape Peninsula. Whereas in 1925 apprenticeships were limited to the building industry, by 1966 almost all trades were open to Coloured apprentices. The majority of apprentices during this period, however, had not made satisfactory progress in the theoretical side of their training. This state of affairs can mainly be ascribed to unsatisfactory accommodation and the practice whereby apprentices were allowed to attend classes on one day per week only, a system which was followed at that time. As a result, few apprentices obtained the N.T.C. certificate.

When technical education was taken over by the former Department of Coloured Affairs, the requirements for technical training were recognized, and the Peninsula Technical College was established on 9 April 1962. Initially this college occupied hired accommodation until January 1967, when it moved into its own premises in Bellville South. Meanwhile the enrolment of 700 apprentices in 1962 had increased to 1 200 in 1966. In order to allow justice to be done to all facets of their theoretical training, it was decided at that stage to separate the training of junior and senior apprentices. The senior apprentices were admitted to the Peninsula Technical College, while a second technical college, the Athlone Technical College, was instituted to accommodate the junior apprentices. In 1972 the Peninsula Technical College was upgraded to a College for Advanced Technical Education in accordance with the national pattern adopted at that stage. As an outcome of the report of the Committee of Investigation into the Training, Use and Status of Engineering Technicians in the RSA, the technikon concept found favour and the Peninsula College for Advanced Technical Education has been known as the Peninsula Technikon since September 1979.

*Mr. Speaker, the facilities available for the technical training of Coloured people are the following: 7 high schools offering technical subjects; 6 technical colleges, 2 in Cape Town and one each in Port Elizabeth, Johannesburg, Durban and Kimberley, with satellite campuses at East London and Pietermaritzburg; 3 technical institutes, basically technical colleges erected in co-operation with the local industrialists, one each at Okiep, Atlantis and George; 2 training centres for artisans; 1 training centre for seamen; 1 college for printers, and then the Peninsula Technikon.

Because of the limited demand at the other centres for the training of senior apprentices, only a few courses are offered there, while the Peninsula Technikon is equipped to accommodate the great majority of the courses. The post-matric training is provided in four schools or sections, i.e. teachers’ training—commercial and technical; engineering and construction; scientific and paramedical, and commercial and managerial. The enrolment in the various schools in 1980 was as follows: Engineering and construction, 634; teachers’ training, 222; science and paramedical, 332; and commerce and management, 883, amounting to a total of 2 071. The stage has now been reached where the Peninsula Technikon as a tertiary institution can no longer be administered under the Coloured Persons Education Act, 1963 (Act 47 of 1963), and therefore provision is being made in the draft Bill for this need.

Mr. Speaker, the Peninsula Technikon is as yet the only technikon for the Coloured population group, and therefore there is no need at this stage—I want to emphasize this—for an umbrella Act in terms of which other technikons can be established. In this Bill, the Peninsula Technikon is being authorized to establish satellite campuses elsewhere, and depending on the development of these satellites, further technikons will be established. Therefore a need may arise at a later stage for an umbrella Act, which will then receive attention.

Another aspect I should like to refer to is the fact that at the moment the Bill only provides for partial autonomy for the Peninsula Technikon. However, it is the intention with the Bill to enable the Peninsula Technikon to acquire the necessary expertise as soon as possible and to obtain its own funds so that it will be able to be fully autonomous, like other technikons. The Government is accordingly prepared to expand the campus of this technikon at Government expense in the near future. Therefore it will not be necessary for the technikon to contribute to the expansion from its own funds. I may just mention, by way of information, that the planning of the campus to accommodate 8 000 students, 4 000 of whom will live on the campus, has reached an advanced stage, and the cost is estimated at more than R100 million.

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this Bill before us today, the Peninsula Technikon Bill, is to up-grade the existing vocational school and to grant it greater autonomy than it has had up to now, although, as the hon. the Minister has pointed out, that autonomy is not as wide as it may become in the future. We support both those objectives and therefore we will support this Bill at the Second Reading although there are certain aspects that we will want to look into further at the Committee Stage. We also welcome the announcement by the hon. the Minister of the large sum of money that is being voted to expand and upgrade the facilities at the technikon.

I think it has now become common cause in South Africa that the need for skilled manpower is enormous. I do not plan to belabour the statistics that are available because many of them have been mentioned, but I think one particular statistic highlights the position once again. That is that it has been estimated that to achieve a 4,5% growth rate—which is what we need to provide employment for the people coming onto the labour market over the next 20 years— we need 23 000 skilled workers per annum, but we are currently producing only 10 000 per annum. When it comes to technicians, we need 9 500 per annum and we are currently providing only 2 000 per annum.

To the extent that this Bill will assist to improve the situation, we welcome it. Equally to the extent that this Bill will assist young people to further their education and improve their educational and career prospects, we also welcome it. However, at the same time we wish to record our grave disappointment at and strong opposition to the continued entrenchment of the enforced racial exclusivity of this and other educational institutions.

Given the situation in this country in which we have an acute and growing shortage of skilled manpower, given the drastic effect that this shortage has on the economic growth of the country, on unemployment and on inflation, given the effect of these three on the quality of life of the people as well as on the social and political stability of South Africa, given also the comments and recommendations of the De Lange Committee, given the expressed wishes of the so-called Coloured community and given the difficulty in meeting the financial demands of education and the need to use to the optimum all the available resources, given all this, one would have thought that the Government would have taken this opportunity to loosen its ideological iron grip on technikons. However, it has chosen not to do so, irrespective, I may say, of the cost of not doing so to South Africa. It is only members of this party who hold those views. I should now like to quote a few things from the De Lange report on what that expert commission had to say on matters related to this field. Firstly, what does it have to say in connection with the demand for education? On page 25 of the report it states—

It then lists a number of factors, one of which is the following, and I quote—

Then, as far as policy guidelines are concerned, the De Lange Committee has this to say as a proposed policy guideline. I now quote from page 212—

Does the hon. the Minister agree with that proposed policy guideline of the De Lange Committee? It is a perfectly clear and straightforward one, yet this Bill does not abide by it.

When one looks at the whole question of separate departments and segregated institutions one realizes that they constitute a waste of the taxpayers’ money at a time when we are told to tighten our belts. When one looks at the inefficient use of the best qualified people, the best qualified lecturers and instructors …

How can you say that they are inefficiently used?

I say this because if one segregates the various institutions of higher learning on a racial basis one is going to use the best manpower inefficiently. There is unnecessary duplication of facilities. At some institutions there is not enough demand for certain faculties and there is more than enough at others, yet we continue to duplicate. Even on a lower level, not quite related to education, we incur in a place like the Western Cape unnecessary travel expenses which is contrary to the claims as to the need to conserve fuel that are continually made by Ministers. People criss-cross the Cape Peninsula and other parts of South Africa to go to institutions because they are racially segregated. The separate departments and institutions are a source of serious discontent among all groups other than the White group. They are not only educationally irrelevant, they are also inherently discriminatory. It is all very well for the hon. the Minister—and I quote from his speech— to say that it is of the greatest importance that all population groups should have full and equal opportunities to participate in the development process to the full extent of their abilities and to benefit accordingly. That is a fine statement with which I agree, but it is certainly never going to apply in practice as long as one has separate education departments and separate institutions for different races.

I refer again to the De Lange Committee and I quote from page 89, paragraphs (e) and (f), under the heading “Shortcomings identified in the system of education management in the RSA”, where it is stated—

That is what we are talking about when we talk about scarce resources, skilled labour and tertiary institutions of learning. I quote further—

In terms of autonomy in regard to the admission of students, I think we are entitled to ask the hon. the Minister whether he agrees with the De Lange Committee in that regard.

Continue with your speech, I shall reply to it later.

I am posing a fairly straightforward question, using the exact words from the report, and I would have thought that the hon. the Minister could easily have replied “yes” or “no” or “maybe”.

The answer is maybe.

The answer is probably maybe. I had hoped that after the events of the past seven days, we may have got a “yes” answer today, even if we could not have got it seven days ago.

In regard to the management of education, the recommendations of the De Lange Committee are as follows in relation to the first or central level—

Further in the same paragraph they say—

If the resources that we have for education are limited—and this is not an ideological point that is being canvassed in this section; one is talking about a straight matter of economics—may I ask the hon. the Minister whether, on an economic basis, he agrees with this comment or not? Again the clock is more interesting than the question.

The hon. member is being stupid. I will reply to the debate.

It will be very interesting to hear whether we get a specific “yes” or “no” to these questions or whether we get a roundabout story.

Are the De Lange Committee’s comments not to the effect that the Government is not using its resources optimally and that it is actually wasting money? That is putting it more bluntly and in less academic language.

That is your interpretation, not the De Lange Committee’s interpretation.

Is the hon. member for Mossel Bay suggesting that if one does not use resources optimally one is not wasting money?

Carry on.

Is he suggesting that the possibility exists that one could under-utilize one’s educational resources and yet not waste money?

They are merely talking about the healthy sharing of facilities.

You set up your own targets, shoot them down and then you think you have a good argument.

The hon. member interjects while I am speaking, but when I react to his interjections he gets upset. If he has a question that he wants to ask me, he is very welcome to do so. The hon. member must not try to make out that these are trick questions. I am asking him to respond to direct quotations from the De Lange Committee’s report, drawn up by people appointed by the Government to serve on this body.

The hon. the Minister has said that education in the Republic today enjoys a very high priority. On page 214 of the De Lange Committee’s report we find the following recommendation in regard to priorities—

Those include the view that the educationally irrelevant inequalities that are evident in the provision of education should be identified as clearly as possible and eliminated through educational reforms. That is the view of the De Lange Committee.

Finally, let me refer to the question of the priorities set out in this very extensive report, and I quote from page 216—

That is a clear-cut recommendation. I therefore hope that in regard to this Peninsula Technikon—though preferably in general— the Government will accept that recommendation, and I hope that in reply to this debate the hon. the Minister will refer to this matter, and I say this because he has chosen not to do so in his speech. This is a priority, and I want to know who is opposed to that recommendation. Could the hon. the Minister tell us whether he is in favour of this and whether there are other people in his party who are also in favour of it, for surely this is a golden opportunity to set the ball rolling, to take urgent action, as has been recommended by the De Lange Committee, without interfering with the rights of any people?

It is sad for South Africa that with all our opportunities, and bearing in mind all our problems, we are still being forced to pay the high price of apartheid in human and financial terms. Today we welcome the proposed formal upgrading of the Peninsula Technikon, but we regret the fact that it is another day on which an opportunity has been missed to reap enormous benefits in terms of the goodwill that could be generated between the various races of this country.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens has indicated that his party will be supporting the Second Reading of this Bill. I venture to say, however, that with the type of support one has had for this Bill from the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens, one hardly needs opposition.

The hon. member quoted at length from the report of the De Lange Committee. The hon. member does not seem to appreciate, however, that the De Lange Committee’s report does not support his obsession with racial integration. The De Lange Committee merely pointed out the necessity for the optimal use of our manpower resources, and this Bill specifically gives expression to the Government’s realization of this very fact.

Not fully.

The hon. member for Cape Town Gardens made certain suppositions, then attacked those very suppositions, and thinks he has scored a point in showing those suppositions to have been false. Those suppositions were so patently false, however, that they needed no argument to show them to be false. The hon. member argued for instance that if one does not make optimal use of one’s funds, one is wasting money. That is so patently true that it needs no argument. The hon. member has, however, dismally failed to show that in this Bill that is what we are doing. What he was therefore saying was totally irrelevant to the debate on the Bill before the House.

*There is an expression that summarizes this very well. The hon. member set up his straw dolls, and now when he knocks them down himself, he thinks he has scored a point. However, in actual fact he has not said anything of any value in connection with the Bill before the House.

After all, one cannot quote extremely long passages out of a report like that of the De Lange Committee, which is a well-founded report, and then simply make a logical jump and allege that it endorses one’s standpoint.

The illogical jump.

Yes, the illogical jump. I actually wanted to say the jump in logical debating.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question?

No, Sir. The hon. member has had enough time. He asked enough questions and the questions will be answered by the hon. the Minister.

Are you afraid he may give a different answer?

Just give me a chance.

Order! Did the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens say that the hon. member for Mossel Bay was afraid to reply to a question?

I asked whether he is afraid that he may give a different answer to that of the Minister.

The hon. member must withdraw that.

I withdraw it, Sir.

I just want to tell the hon. member that in this party we have discipline and we have manners.

We have not seen much of discipline lately.

Nor do members on this side of the House try to lead their party from the back benches as the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens is doing. We have leaders who can speak for themselves. We do not push them where they want to go as members of the official Opposition do.

Who is talking from a back bench now? [Interjections.]

What is one of the most important challenges with which we in South Africa are faced today? I want to allege that one of our most important challenges is to maintain the standards of the First World in a geographic section of the Third World. In order to succeed in doing so, it is of the utmost importance that we should make the optimal use of our available manpower.

If the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens has listened attentively to the Second Reading speech by the hon. the Minister, he would have been able to conclude from it that the number of apprentices of the population group in question had in fact increased during the years of NP government. I want to allege that no Government has ever done as much as this Government has done to develop the potential of members of other population groups as well as the White population group in the country so that they can make a meaningful, positive contribution towards the infrastructure for the development of this country. The Bill that we are discussing at the moment, is nothing but a continuation of the steps that have been taken over the years by this side of the House and by this and former NP Governments in order to create opportunities and facilities for people of other population groups to equip themselves so that they too can make their contributions towards the development of our country for the benefit of all its people. That is why it is pleasing that the official Opposition has indicated that they will in fact support this legislation. It is just a pity that we have now had these jarring notes from the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens. The Government will continue to create facilities for the various population groups because the Government is not obsessed with race, as the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens is.

Duplication has become an obsession for you.

This Government recognizes the just claims of members of all population groups to facilities for equipping themselves and improving their abilities.

During a recent visit to New York I saw the credo of Rockefeller chiselled into a block of granite in the Rockefeller Centre. In that credo he says the following, inter alia—

It is just a pity that that is not part of your policy.

This Bill under discussion is a speaking example of how the opportunity is being offered to members of the specific population group with which this legislation deals, to work out a better living for themselves by improving their own capabilities. That is why we on this side of the House are pleased to support the Bill under discussion.

Mr. Speaker, we in these benches will support this Bill because it very definitely produces an additional advancement facility for the Coloured community. It is, however, with a certain amount of regret that we feel that we have to support it in its present form because clause 2(4) clearly stipulates that it will be a racial institution. I do not wish to become involved in the argument engendered between the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens and the hon. member for Mossel Bay. We in these benches believe, however, that when it comes to the stage of tertiary education, not only is it desirable but, in the interests of the country, it is virtually imperative that this should not be on a racial basis. We believe that multi-racial facilities are highly desirable and, as I say, imperative in the interests of the people who are receiving this education.

May I ask a question?

Very well.

Mr. Speaker, could the hon. member for Umbilo tell us, in terms of tertiary education, how the local option rule applies? [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central asked if I would answer a question. I naturally anticipated that it would be an intelligent question related to the subject under discussion.

But what do you expect from the intelligentsia on that level? [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I regret to say that that question does not relate to the subject which is before us now. Therefore I cannot answer it. [Interjections.] The point I am making, however, is that we in these benches believe it is desirable to have tertiary education open to all. The reason for this is very simple. As soon as these people have finished their tuition they go out into the world where they have to work with all and sundry. As a consequence of having been trained in a purely racialist organization they are not familiar with the people of other communities. This is one of the reasons. Another reason is that there is a certain suspicion engendered against the other communities by people who have undergone racially separated tertiary education. There is no doubt about it that the technical institutions do provide a wide range and variety of personnel who day by day work alongside their racially different counterparts who are doing the same work at the same rates of pay and in the same conditions. So we firmly believe that this should be the case and that tertiary education should be open. We are, however, obviously going to support the Bill because it is providing additional facilities for the Coloured community. I realize that elsewhere in the Bill there is a clause—I think it is clause 12(6)—which permits of the hon. the Minister giving authority for others than the specified race group to attend, but I cannot help but feel that it would have been a far better Bill had there not been this mandatory closing to the one community.

There is only one question, and I shall ask it now rather than to wait for the Committee Stage, because possibly it will save time. I refer to clause 14(2) which provides—

I can appreciate the generality of this particular reason. If a person living a long, long way away, it might be difficult for him to attend, but if a person lives reasonably close to the technikon, that might not be the case. I should like to get an appreciation as to whether this provision could be invoked and is likely to be invoked even in the case of a person who lives close to the technikon.

Apart from that we shall support the Bill and we hope that some day these facilities will be available to all on an open basis.

Mr. Speaker, I find it very strange that the hon. member for Mossel Bay said, when my hon. colleague referred to the De Lange report and asked very important questions emanating from it, that these were straw dolls that were being set up. I cannot quite understand this and I believe that we should have some clarity about exactly what the reports are suppose to do. One can assume that the Government saw the need for obtaining certain guidelines, and I am also pleased that when we have to judge legislation regarding education in this House, that we have those reports as a guide.

The straw dolls come into question when he tries to apply the report to the Bill.

Everything that has a bearing on education, must be tested against that background at this stage. Therefore we must look at those reports. We have had the Riekert, the Wiehahn, the Retief and the De Lange reports that gave all of us in this House objectives which we can use to measure manpower requirements. It also gave the guidelines that are necessary for education and training in order ultimately to utilize that manpower. We agree with this.

However, there were other reports, too, such as the Steyn and Rabie reports, that were also supposed to lay down certain guidelines and criteria for the House. However, there is a difference between the two groups of reports, because we see a difference in reaction on the part of the Government with regard to the reports. I should say that the first group of reports—that is the Riekert, the Wiehahn and the De Lange reports, for instance—are reports of a technical type. They are quantitative in nature and very objective. In their case the matters at issue are predictions of manpower requirements, for instance in order to be able to maintain certain growth rates and to guarantee employment for the growing population.

The De Lange and Retief reports then deal with the education and training facilities on the basis of correct numbers and teachers, classrooms, finances, etc. to prepare each child so that he can take his place in the community, do his share and also gain personal fulfilment. The second group of reports was quantitative in nature and subjective, and in the nature of things there were considerable differences of opinion with regard to them, as we saw last week. These dealt essentially with subjective realities. I always find it strange that we on this side of the House are continually being accused of not seeing the realities of South Africa.

Order! The hon. member must come back to the Bill before the House.

The reports that have a bearing on education, are the De Lange report and the De Vries report. The De Vries report deals with Black technical training in particular. The findings of these reports were very objective and in each case coincide with the view that the Opposition has been holding for years. That is why I find it very strange that we on this side of the House are always being accused of not understanding the realities of South Africa.

The Bill before the House deals specifically with technical tertiary education. In the nature of things this is professionally orientated training and sometimes in-service training as well. It deals with training people to enter the manpower structure at a high level. Regardless of what the Government has tried to do in the past, it is a fact that these people who are now returning from various bodies, will have to work with one another as colleagues shoulder to shoulder and on an equal level, sometimes even in higher positions than those of their White colleagues. These are the realities that the future holds for South Africa in the technical sphere. Therefore I find it extremely strange that apprentices, Black, White, Coloured and Asian, are being trained on the same shop floor and write the same test, but that in terms of the Bill before the House computer technicians, commercial artists, electro-technicians and other people on a high technical level, may not undergo training together. They encounter one another for the first time in adulthood and then we expect them to know one another and be able to co-operate with one another in the same working environment. That is not all. Not only are they kept apart in their educational direction, but these bodies are also being administered by three separate Ministers. For instance, it is extremely difficult to obtain statistics on exactly what is happening in the sphere of technical education because one has to study four annual reports which do not follow a constant pattern with regard to statistics in order to enable one to draw comparisons or form an impression.

That is too much to ask of you.

It seems to me as if it is not a case of rationalization, but much rather a case of racial nationalism. [Interjections.]

As hon. members can see, it does not look like a total strategy. Just as the Government is trying to divide and rule, just so is it the aim of those who are involved in the total onslaught against us to keep people apart so that they can rule. It is a great disappointment to me that the Government does not have the courage to grasp this opportunity to begin normalizing higher technical education at least. The recommendations in the Retief report as well as those in the De Lange report were very clear and straightforward in this regard. My hon. colleague quoted from the De Lange report, and I do not know whether I am setting up a straw doll now, but the Retief report states straightforwardly—

This is as clear as it can be. However, are we going to have an answer to this through this Retief report, that dealt specifically with the subject? Are we going to hear it or are we not? Must the whole country remain silent as soon as certain right-wing groups make noises?

Here we see in The Citizen of 24 February: “Teacher-Government row looms”, and from the Transvaal Teachers’ Association we hear that it “ … has rejected the aspects of the Human Sciences Research Council”. Then we read: “One of the main fears of the conservative Afrikaans-speaking teachers is that the HSRC recommendations, if accepted, could pave the way to eventual racial integration in education”.

To what clause of the Bill are you referring now?

Order! The hon. member must come back to the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, let me then return to the Bill and say that it deals with tertiary education. In this regard the Retief report has given very clear guidelines to the Government. I therefore want to ask the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs to what extent he is going to accept the recommendations contained in the Retief report and the De Lange report, as the elimination of job reservation, for instance, has been accepted too. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, in reply to the argument that we are now hearing from that side of the House, viz. that we on this side of the House are obsessed with racism, I can say that this has nothing to do with racism; we are not doing this because of an obsession with racism. It is simply that the argument has such a hollow ring—it is like an echo of the job reservation issue. If we ask for the technikon to be opened, it is refused and we are told that it is our ultimate objective to achieve political integration. The same has been said about job reservation, but what did we hear yesterday? We read the following in Die Burger—

Therefore it is going to happen. The Government has a chance now and we want them to grasp it.

On this note I therefore want to say that we support the legislation, because it promotes the status of the existing institutions. However, at the same time I also want to address a warning to the Government that this in itself is going to make new demands on the technikon and in particular it is going to point out that in terms of the Government’s current policy, it will have to be guaranteed that the “separate, but equal” test will be successful.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Greytown tried to tell this House something. I do not want to be unkind to him, but I could not make out what the hon. member was trying to say. He spent five or ten minutes raising objections and he concluded by saying: “On this note I support the Second Reading of the Bill.” What nonsense! No one in his right mind could understand what the hon. member was trying to tell us. I want to appeal to the hon. member if he wants to take part in the discussion, to discover the gist of the matter himself and to find out what is actually involved. Then he can confine himself more specifically to the subject and we can then conduct a debate. I honestly cannot reply to what the hon. member said.

I now come to what the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens had to say. A mistake we could make in our debates in the months and years that be ahead would be to quote the De Lange Report out of context. It has been stated repeatedly, also by Prof. De Lange himself, that the De Lange Report must be seen in its entirety. I want to reiterate that one of the greatest dangers would be to quote a sentence or a paragraph from the report out of context because then one would fall into the same trap the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens fell into. He quoted various passages from the De Lange report and I need only quote a single passage from it to show how the hon. member was caught in a trap. He referred, inter alia, to page 212, paragraph 5.5.2, under the heading “Proposed Policy Guidance”, which reads—

I shall return to this in a moment.

Of course the Government has always bound itself to this with regard to educationally irrelevant grounds in respect of colour, but when an educational principle was involved the Government has a specific standpoint, in line with what the De Lange report says here. In addition, the De Lange report goes further and speaks of “available educational opportunities”. The legislation before us in fact seeks to afford a specific population group the opportunity of attending a technikon. There are already technikons for the other groups, for example the White group; in other words what the hon. member read out here has already been complied with. I therefore, do not understand the nonsensical argument the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens raised here.

Are all faculties available?

I want to go further and tell the hon. member something that I think we should all take cognizance, namely that the Government accepted the eleven fundamental standpoints contained in the De Lange report, but within the framework of the specific premises of the Government. I can quote this. In paragraph 3.4 on page 3 of interim memorandum on the report, it is stated that—

[Inaudible.]

That hon. member must not continue to make a fool of himself. He has already had his chance. Paragraph 3.5 on page 3 of the interim memorandum on the report reads—

If the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens and the official Opposition do not understand this, they will continue to have their noses bloodied by the same arguments in these debates because the Government intends as far as possible to give equal education opportunities to the various population groups at the pre-primary, primary, secondary and tertiary levels. This legislation is proof of that. It is an historic event that this legislation has been submitted here today to make provision for a technikon for a specific group, with specific privileges, as appears in certain clauses in the Bill, but subject to the consent of the Minister concerned that other groups may be admitted.

I take great pleasure in supporting the legislation. I think this is a particularly important day for education at technikon level for the Coloured community.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to thank hon. members for their support of the legislation which is now under consideration. However, you will allow me, Sir, to make a general remark. Some hon. members have a curious way of conveying their support and expressing it in words.

The hon. member for Cape Town Gardens quoted certain recommendations from the De Lange report. In the first place, it was out of context, and in the second place, he put certain questions to me which I have to answer, and I want to mention a few of these. The hon. member said that the De Lange Committee pointed out that optimum use was not being made of highly trained people in education. However, does the hon. member not agree with me that this happens in White institutions as well? After all, it is a fact that many people argue that the duplication of faculties at the various universities means that trained people, who are in short supply, are not properly utilized. If we have to debate these questions, I ask in all fairness why we have to omit an important facet, something which inevitably leads one to conclude that the hon. member finds it difficult to digest the facts.

It is over five years…

There was a time when the policy which the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens is now advocating was applicable in respect of primary, secondary and tertiary education. In fact, it was applicable for a longer period than the education policy of this Government has been applicable. So the test we have to apply, after all, is to ascertain which policy led to a higher standard of training of the various population groups. Under which policy did education become available to a larger part of the population, quantatively speaking? Allow me to test this in the case of one particular province.

†I should like to refer to the province of the hon. member for Umbilo. There was a time when the Provincial Administration of Natal was responsible for Coloured and Indian education.

That was long ago.

Yes, of course it was long ago, but what happened in terms of education of all the groups, taking into account the funds that were available to that province? Hon. members need not accept my evidence on this; they need not accept me as a witness. They can take the Indian people of Natal as witnesses and ask them what they thought of the system as it applied at that stage.

How much money was available?

That is not the point. The point I am trying to make is whether that province, when they had the power, had allocated available funds fairly and squarely. I submit that they did not do that. I do not believe, however, that we will get very far with recriminations in this regard.

Tell us about Black education in Soweto.

With due respect, Sir, this Bill does not deal with that.

How satisfied were they with your education system? [Interjections.]

I should like however, to take this matter further and deal with the question of open tertiary institutions. What do we find? The failure rate of other groups at White institutions is higher than that of the White group. Moreover, it is also higher than the failure rate at the old ethnic institutions.

I should like to point out something else. It is quite clear that the increase in numbers at universities, particularly as far as White students are concerned, is dropping. Because of the fact that the financial formula for universities is also dependent upon the number of students enrolled, people are admitted to these institutions solely on the basis of financial considerations. I believe the time has come to give very serious attention to the question of the financing of these institutions.

*If the financing formula for certain universities in this country had not been based on student numbers, I believe that they would have excluded those students. [Interjections.] It is time all of us in this House expressed our aversion to this sanctimonious behaviour which professes to be in the interests of the students, while it is actually nothing but a method of obtaining financing, and that is a fact. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Cape Town Gardens asked me—and I should like to answer his question—whether I agreed with the finding that these highly trained staff members were not being properly utilized. My reply to that is “yes”. That is my direct reply to him. What I reject, however, is the suggestion that this is the result of an education policy involving separate institutions. [Interjections.] Is it not a fact in our country that one of the factors inhibiting progress in many fields where reform has to take place is in fact the lack of experience, on the part of other population groups, of specific positions, including managerial positions? Let us just check the facts for a change when debating matters of this kind. Can hon. members tell me whether there was ever a university head before 1948 who was not White? Was there ever a head of any tertiary institution he knows of who was not White? And today? Today some of our highly trained people of colour are employed in the academic institutions of this country. I receive a deputation from one of those institutions which is coming to ask me for a medical school. Would hon. members argue that I should say “no” if I can say “yes”? [Interjections.] That hon. member must please give me a chance. I did not interrupt him when he was speaking.

You did.

With all due respect, I did not, and that is the truth. I was not even prepared to answer his questions.

You sat with your back to him.

No, that is not true. The hon. member discussed the De Lange report out of context, as the hon. member for Virginia and the hon. member for Mossel Bay pointed out. [Interjections.] Then he asks what the standpoint of the Government is. However, why does he omit to mention the fact that the Government has already taken a stand on the De Lange report? Why does he argue on the basis that the Government has not yet taken a stand on the report? Surely that is not correct. In fact, such a suggestion is untrue, and the hon. member knows, if he wants to show any knowledge of education, that the Government has issued an interim memorandum dealing with precisely those subjects which he questioned me about.

I quoted from it.

Therefore I want to ask that hon. member a very reasonable question. Why are we debating on this basis? I have no objection whatsoever if the hon. member disagrees with me, but what I do object to is the fact that the hon. member disagrees with me by ignoring the factual basis of the argument, because I do not think we should be guilty of such behaviour in this House. What are the facts?

†I want to quote from the interim memorandum issued. The hon. member for Virginia referred to certain parts of that memorandum, but in response to the issues that have been raised by the hon. member I want to refer to the details. Firstly, it is said that the Government accepts the main recommendations provided they are not seen in isolation.

The principles, not the main recommendations.

I am talking about the principles now. I go further. On the very issues on which the hon. member sought a reply from me, replies are given in this memorandum. If he had taken the trouble to read them, he would have known that.

I have read them.

He says he has read them. Then I believe his crime is worse because then he committed it with full knowledge. The Bible says that he who knowingly commits an offence will be punished more severely than he who did not know.

I want to quote paragraph 3 on page 3 of the memorandum. As I have said, the Government accepts the principles provided they are not dealt with in isolation. The memorandum then goes further—

I concede immediately that the hon. member may disagree with these guidelines. In fact, he does. The point I am trying to make is that the questions he put have been answered already. However, it seems to me that for the record I had better answer them again. Paragraph 3.1 reads—

*What the hon. member and his party want to ignore is that while we agree that, as an ideal objective, the quality of education should be equal for all, and that it should also meet the quantitative needs, there is a fundamental difference of approach between the hon. member and this side of the House, i.e. with regard to the philosophical content of education. That is what is at issue.

There used to be the same difference about job reservation, power-sharing and sport.

With all due respect, no one really knows what the hon. member for Greytown wanted to say. I do not think he knows either. I am replying to the questions of the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens. If the hon. member does not want me to do so, he should say so.

†I quote further—

Which has nothing to do with a Coloured technikon.

But, Sir, large sections of the De Lange report to which the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens referred in this debate equally do not affect the technikon at all. Maybe he should give an indication of whether he subscribes to this principle for education. It would be very interesting to hear. Paragraph 3.3 reads—

There again, the hon. member may disagree with this. That is his right. The point I am trying to make is that the questions have been answered already. I read further—

Business suspended at 18h30 and resumed at 20h00.

Evening Sitting

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I just want to say, in reply to the question asked by the hon. member for Umbilo in connection with compulsory residence in hostels, that the guidelines are those he indicated.

†The idea is not to force all students to make use of the accommodation. The hon. member will understand, however, that provision has to be made for hostel facilities. Therefore the available hostel facilities have to be occupied. It would naturally be senseless to impose an obligation on those students living in the vicinity of a technikon to live in hostels. I hope the hon. member is satisfied with this reply.

Finally, I want to refer to only one further matter. That is the observation made by the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens in respect of the amount of R100 million that has been voted for the new technikon. What I have indicated is that the planning of the technikon is under way but that the money for the building thereof has not been voted as yet. That will only be considered if and when the planning has been finalized. I do not want any misunderstanding in that regard.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

In the first place … [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, the hon. member Prof. Olivier seems to have problems.

No, nobody has any problems. We merely want to surprise you.

Yes, we want to.

Do those hon. members want to surprise me? They should not tell me they are going to support this Bill. [Interjections.]

No, you are being over-optimistic again. [Interjections.]

I really do not know what the hon. members are up to, Mr. Speaker. It seems that the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens also wants to say something. I already know that what he says will be as meaningless as the speech he made earlier. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, allow me in the first place to explain briefly why I consider this legislation necessary, and to give hon. members some background information that I personally consider to be important.

I believe hon. members will agree with me that a modern, viable, developed State requires a refined technical infrastructure to be able to meet its own requirements and to supply and export marketable products. This infrastructure needs an adequate supply of suitable technology manpower to operate it. Although in the short term it can be tempting and often also advisable to rely on imported technological know-how and manpower, I think this is short-sighted and could be dangerous and even destructive in the long term. In the long run every developed State must be as self-sufficient as possible in the operating of its infrastructure and, even more important, it must create a climate and an atmosphere for indigenous technical renewal. In the nature of things, the Republic of South Africa is particularly vulnerable in this regard. Of course I need not mention that if we are unable to achieve the greatest measure of independence or self-sufficiency our position could be adversely affected in that it could leave us even more vulnerable.

A technological infrastructure at a high level depends ultimately and primarily on the natural sciences, and therefore on the natural scientists themselves. Unfortunately it is true—and many hon. members are probably aware of this and also deeply concerned about it—that the natural sciences profession has lost ground, particularly over the past two decades. This profession no longer gets its rightful share of the best brain power in our country. At the same time I believe one is justified in asking why this is so. When we consider professions that require at least four years and frequently even seven or eight years of study at a university, there seem to be various professions for which the same sort of intellectual talents are needed as are required for natural scientists. The biggest and best known of these are medicine and engineering. Of course there are many others as well. Now these two professions— and many of the others as well—are controlled and regulated by councils established in terms of legislation; in other words there are specific laws governing the entry into and pursuit of these professions. However, there is no corresponding legislation for the natural sciences profession. The Government considers this to be a tremendous shortcoming. Natural scientists themselves agree with the Government in this regard.

I believe the need for statutorily controlled professional registration of natural scientists is further emphasized by the increasing number of intermediate areas in applied science where registered professional practitioners, for example engineers, medical practitioners and veterinarians—carry out the same and equivalent tasks and pursue the same and equivalent professions alongside unregistered persons, for example geologists, physicists, chemists, biochemists, animal scientists, etc.

While both the public and the persons engaged in these professions enjoy statutory protection in the case of registered practitioners, this does not apply at all to the natural sciences profession. This deficiency has led in all manner of ways to a lack of appreciation for the natural science professions, resulting in a diminishing interest in these professions, as is clearly apparent from the steadily decreasing number of persons graduating with a view to pursuing one of these professions.

I believe that at this particular juncture and in the near future there will be key developments in such fields as the provision of energy, the benefication of minerals, the production of food and others of equally vital importance, and the key role played by natural scientists in these developments must be protected and recognized.

As far as the background to the introduction of the Bill is concerned, I only have the following to say. The success of the Professional Engineers’ Act (Act 81 of 1968) further accentuated certain of the problems that were being experienced, and as a result the merit of registering natural scientists has been debated within the ranks of the Joint Council of Scientific Societies since 1968. This council, which can speak authoritatively on behalf of virtually every section in the ranks of natural scientists, is undoubtedly the only, the final and the most important mouthpiece of the natural scientists in South Africa. It is the mouthpiece of virtually all qualified natural scientists, organized into eleven main societies and twelve affiliated groups.

After discussions with representatives of the South Africa Council for Professional Engineers and the Federation of Societies of Professional Engineers in 1974, it was decided in 1975 to conduct an opinion poll among natural scientists on the question of professional registration. Such an opinion poll was conducted in 1976, with an overwhelming vote—approximately 90% of the 2 582 persons who reacted—in favour of professional registration.

After comprehensive preliminary work and negotiations with interested parties, the joint council then drew up a draft Bill. The then Minister of Environmental Planning and Energy who was responsible for dealing with matters pertaining to science, deemed it desirable to appoint an interdepartmental committee, under the chairmanship of the then Scientific Adviser to the Prime Minister, to advise him on the Bill.

That committee found that the proposed legislation would promote science and research in the RSA over a wide front and therefore recommended that it be introduced. Then the Cabinet Committee for Economic Affairs decided in September 1980 that the draft Bill should be published for comment, and was subsequently published for comment in the Government Gazette on 14 November 1980. Among the comments received there was overwhelming support for the Bill, and constructive proposals to improve it, which have received attention in the interim and are incorporated in the Bill before this House.

Several of the clauses of the Bill are aimed at protecting and safeguarding the public. We must bear in mind that our society is relying, to an increasing extent and over a wide front, on sophisticated technology. Under such circumstances there are ample opportunities for the misleading and deception of the general public by persons and even organizations who, in the absence of legal control measures and under the banner of natural scientific and technical expertise, offer all kinds of products and services where real scientific and ethical norms do not apply.

As a result innocent people frequently suffer losses, and the image of natural science and technology is marred. Considering the RSA’s economic and development needs, this is something that cannot be countenanced here.

There are many fields in which it is essential that only the greatest degree of natural scientific expertise and honesty ought to be evinced in the supply of products and services to the public. In agriculture, for example, the formulation and evaluation of chemicals and biological products such as vaccines which, together with genetic manipulation or breeding, form the basis for efficient production, should be placed in the hands of registered scientists to prevent exploitation of the public as a result of insufficient knowledge, incompetence and often sheer dishonesty.

The prevention of pollution resulting from the excessive use of chemical and biological preparations, or as a result of using incorrectly formulated products according to prescriptions, is only possible if the responsibility for the recommendations can be laid at the door of registered scientists.

There is the extremely responsible task of being able to ascertain accurately the residue from chemical substances which results from the spraying of crops to control diseases and pests and being able to make recommendations so that the public is not regularly exposed to harmful quantities of such substances.

I am only mentioning a few aspects, but I can assure hon. members that there are innumerable fields where it has now become necessary for the public to be protected against malpractices and exploitation by making statutory provision for the registration of natural scientists.

The Bill also makes provision for the regulation of the natural sciences profession. Natural scientists themselves must have a significant share in regulating and controlling their profession, as well as in decision making on matters affecting the quality of the profession. This already applies in the case of similar professions such as engineers and medical practitioners.

Various groups of natural scientists who pre-eminently pursue professions that, to a greater or lesser extent, overlap or are allowed to the professions of registrable groups can, in their own right, make out a good case for legislation that is applicable to this specific group only. These professions include animal scientists, medical physicists, engineering geologists and the like. It would be confusing to allow separate legislation for professional registration for each group. It is more logical to make provision in a single, co-ordinating Act for all groups of natural scientists, but in such a way that each group can efficiently arrange and organize its specific affairs within the framework of that Act. The Bill in fact makes provision for this rationalization from the outset.

You will therefore realise now that in the case of natural scientists it was extremely difficult to draft a Bill meeting all these requirements. The terms used had to make an adequate distinction between the existing professions such as medicine and engineering on the one hand and natural scientists as a fairly heterogeneous group on the other. It was impracticable to deal specifically with every discipline in the field of natural science. In a Bill such as this one simply cannot categorize the various fields of activity in the natural sciences. It would call for long and complex wordings and definitions.

I must point out to hon. members that the Bill is not unique or without precedent. The fact of the matter is that the Professional Engineers’ Act of 1968 served as a model. There are many points of similarity between that Act and this Bill.

In general the Bill makes provision for the establishment of a council, which will be known as the South African Council for Natural Scientists. This council will, inter alia, be responsible for—

1. (1) the determination of minimum academic qualifications and practical experience to be complied with before the profession may be practiced;
2. (2) the registration of those persons who comply with the above, which serves as proof and assurance that they are in every way suitable to practice that profession;
3. (3) the determination of a professional code with which persons must comply while engaged in their profession and penal sanctions for non-compliance with such a code;
4. (4) the determination of the professional fees which may be charged in the conducting of a private practice; and
5. (5) defining the work reserved for those persons who owing to their academic training and experience are properly equipped to perform it.

Consequently the actual function of the proposed council is merely of a co-ordinating and controlling nature; on the one hand to protect the public, and on the other hand, and equally important, to regulate the profession and to ensure and promote quality.

In general I feel that the Republic and scientific practice in the Republic will be served by the proposed Bill and will benefit from it. It must also be borne in mind that no individual will be compelled to register and that within the framework of the legislation provision is still being made for the greatest possible individual and institutional freedom.

Mr. Speaker, this is one of those Bills to which the Opposition has devoted a considerable amount of time in analysis, research and discussions with people who are interested in the particular provisions it contains. At this stage, as we enter this debate, we find ourselves not finally persuaded that we should proceed with this Bill in the form in which it has been presented to the House. We listened with particular attention to the hon. the Minister, because we were hoping that he would come with a few decisive phrases and arguments which would push us, to put it this way, into the approval camp.

As I have said, I have listened to the hon. the Minister as he delivered a kind of “mother love” speech. We all want more scientists and we all want South Africa to be more independent in this field, but we were unconvinced by the arguments he put to us.

I want to refer to two of those arguments. The one is that “die beroep oor die afgelope twee dekades besig is om te kwyn en dat die oplossing daarvoor formele registrasie vir die beroep ingevolge hierdie wetgewing is.”

*That is a superficial approach to the problem. Reference was made to the medical and engineering professions. However, if the hon. the Minister were to analyse these two professions, he would come to realize that in the years 1976, 1977, and even 1978, those professions, too, were declining. There was a major exodus of doctors from South Africa. In 1976 and 1977 there was a drop in the number of practising doctors. That had nothing to do with registration, but with circumstances. As far as engineering is concerned, there was also a drop in the number of practising engineers in those two years, not because they were registered or not registered, but because economic circumstances were such that the profession became less attractive. The same applies to architects and quantity surveyors. People could not be found to enrol for the course in quantity surveying because the whole building industry was going through a quiet period. In other words, we are dealing here with a cycle phenomenon and not merely with the registration or non-registration of those who practise a specific profession. Even in the engineering profession, where everybody is registered, there has been a decline in the number of civil engineers and an increase in the number of chemical and electrical engineers. They are all registered. Why, then, is there a decline in the one group and an increase in the other? It is because there is a natural demand, because the nature of society and the economic circumstances are heading in a certain direction. Consequently there is a growing demand in that particular sphere and a decline in the other. Therefore, I do not want to suggest that the formal registration of a profession does not entail certain superficial benefits, but registration in itself is not the solution which will end the decline in the number of people who show an interest in that particular profession.

†Secondly, we were hoping that the hon. the Minister would, by way of a number of specific illustrations, point out to us the dangers that had already been experienced by the society because of the presence of what he calls “’n gebrekkige kennis”. It is one thing to say in theory that there may be problems because of the fact that there is a “gebrekkige kennis” in a certain technical field, but when one is going to start a legalized profession, when one is going to put restrictions on people practising in a certain field of activity, then I think it is necessary to produce very concrete examples to show how the public has been prejudiced in the past because of the lack of that profession. I do not think it is good enough to say that it might happen in the future. In fact, for the past 40 years we have been involved in the process of industrialization and in the process of a technological revolution. So the hon. the Minister should say that experience has proved that there are dangers, there are problems and that the public is prejudiced. So far, other than saying “miskien sal gebrekkige kennis tot probleme lei”, the hon. the Minister has not given us concrete illustrations from the past to indicate that the absence of this formal, legislative registration is a factor that has added to the problems of the public. We do have problems about this, but we were hoping that he would present two or three decisive arguments. I ask him to think again. Perhaps in the course of this debate he will sharpen up his arguments and still advance arguments that will persuade us to support this Bill in a positive way. At the moment we do have a certain amount of sympathy for a group within the field of natural scientists who have worked hard and lobbied hard for this Bill. There is no doubt that among people who see themselves as professionals in the purified sense there is a desire that this should succeed and we do have a certain degree of sympathy for these people. However, there are many other questions that we must ask ourselves. Is the area of natural science an appropriate area to create a formal, legally recognized and protected profession in the same way as it might apply to much more limited professions such as architects or engineers whose functions are clearly defined? Therefore we ask ourselves: Is the best way of promoting natural sciences in South Africa the promotion of the interests of the natural scientists themselves or, more particularly, to take the interests of society into consideration? Is the best way of regulating the activities of natural scientists according them formal, statutory recognition which on the one hand, we concede, does confer on these people a formal professional status in law? However, it also puts them under statutory control. It does create a series of inhibiting structures and it places them under the control and restriction in a legal sense of councils and finally of the Minister. When it comes to the definition of natural sciences I want to ask any of the hon. members sitting opposite whether they can define what the natural sciences are. Can they define natural sciences in law and then make it an offence for people to operate outside of that law? The hon. the Deputy Minister himself is a natural scientist. At any rate, he is pretty close to it.

Which one?

The hon. the Deputy Minister of Finance. He is in this field.

An unnatural scientist.

Perhaps he is an unnatural scientist. I do not know whether he is a realist or a fundamentalist. I argue as a professional man. Is the best way to promote the interests of the public and of the professions generally to cast them in the mould of a legislative control situation or to allow them to set up their own bodies and to create their own standards and their own procedures? I raise this not because I want to have a party-political debate but because it is in my view a very real problem that we have in South Africa. On balance we on this side of the House would in general argue in favour of the greatest degree of freedom and flexibility for and of control by a particular profession of its own activities, instead of having legislative control over professional societies. On balance we would prefer to see the development of professional associations which are learned societies. While the law can always impose minimum standards, it cannot impose competence or even standards of competence on a society or a group of people. What it can impose on them is minimum standards of qualifications, e.g. matriculation, B.Sc., or whatever it may be, but that is not a measure of competence. The danger—and I only put it as a danger, although there are plus factors—of regulating a professional society by way of legislation is that while you state the minimum standards of education, perhaps you lose the incentive within that profession to attain higher standards of competence and excellence. Because it is protected by minimum standards and the closed shop that operates around it, there is always the risk that that particular profession will not strive towards the ultimate standards of excellence. There is a difference. The hon. the Minister shakes his head. He can shake his head until it falls off, it will not make much difference.

Rather than be insulting, why don’t you sit down?

I think the way the hon. the Minister shook his head was insulting. The hon. the Minister should know that even within the natural science profession, my profession, there is a genuine debate as to whether the best way to regulate the profession is by way of statute or by way of regulation within that particular profession. It is a genuine debate that is taking place. I think one must accept that there is a difference of opinion and it veers from one side to the other. In general we would say that the profession and society are better served by the minimum amount of Government interference and Government regulation, although we do concede that the formal accolade of being a registered profession in terms of the law does give a certain stature to a profession in the eye of the public. However, giving them that stature in the eyes of the public does not necessarily improve their quality or their standard. There may be a difference between the stature as perceived by the public and the competence and performance of the profession itself. I raise that as a general argument or debate, and we say that on balance we come out in favour of less regulation rather than more regulation.

We now turn from the general to the specific. In terms of the natural sciences, is this the type of activity within our society that seems to be best suited for more regulation or less regulation? Looking at the broad scope of activities within our society, it appears to us that the work of the natural scientist, which is by nature scientific, if one wants to use that word in its rarified form, is the kind of work or activity that will be less responsive to control and more responsive to the freedom of association that exists within a society. While in general we believe in less rather than more control, when we look at this particular field of activity—and I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he can define this field of activity, which is absolutely critical—we believe on balance that it is a field of activity where private initiative, the individual’s personality, provides the driving force in many of the developments, and should therefore be under less rather than more control.

I do not want to be harping on history, but I do want to put a question to the hon. the Minister. Would the industrial revolution, which did not only involve scientific discoveries, but also the application of science in a technological society, more likely have taken place if there had been rigid Government control and minimum standards set?

But in all fairness, where do you see a provision for Government control?

This is cast within a legislative framework in which the State, via its advisory committee, sets the minimum standards. All we are saying is that the industrial revolution …

But surely you have not read the Bill. The State is not setting the minimum qualifications.

Do not interrupt him.

Did the hon. the Minister hear what I said? I said it is the State, in consultation with its advisory body, which it appoints. All I am saying is that the industrial revolution took place—and I think the hon. the Minister will agree that it was a good thing!—yet it did not require statutory bodies to control the scientists or the technology that flowed from it. Let us take the present era as an example. The present era of technological advancement is taking place in South Africa and throughout the world, in spite of an absence of this formal, recognized, legislated professionalism amongst scientists. The hon. the Minister is free to agree or not, but the reality is that all the progress that has taken place inside and outside South Africa has taken place in spite of the fact that we do not have this legislation. So all we say is that given the realities, South Africa—and the rest of the world—seems to perform pretty well in spite of the fact that it has not had this particular form of legislation for the natural science profession.

This brings me to the third point I want to make. We find it difficult to get from the hon. the Minister, the Bill or even any persons generally who have an intimate interest in this Bill, any definition of what the work of a natural scientist is. In our view it is quite easy. Although the Architects’ Act does not define what an architect is, in the public’s mind there is a very clear definition. In fact, if one consults the regulations one sees that the architectural profession is one involved in the design of buildings or the supervision of the construction of buildings. It is a clear-cut definition. If the hon. the Minister therefore wants us to accept this Bill, what we are asking is whether he could give us the draft regulations that would define the work of the natural scientist? I am not putting this in the form of a “strikvraag” to the hon. the Minister. I put the question because, although we have been closeted with people intimately involved in the natural sciences, we have been unable to get, from them or anyone else, a definitive statement illustrating what the work of a natural scientist is. What we are being asked to do in this Bill is set up a Council for Natural Scientists, to reserve work for natural scientists and to create a profession of natural scientists, but we are unable to find anybody, inside or outside this House, who can define the work of a natural scientist in crisp terms. I think that the fact that there is no crisp definition simply points to the fact that natural science is, in fact, a fairly vague area of activity which does not lend itself to crisp, sharp, professional definitions. I therefore hope that before he ends off the Second Reading debate, the hon. the Minister will tell us what he has in mind in connection with the provision that states that he may reserve certain work for natural scientists, without necessarily committing himself to these regulations. What we cannot be expected to do, however, is to approve of the setting up of a Council for Natural Scientists when the hon. the Minister himself is not in a position to indicate to us what the kind of work or area of responsibility is.

This brings me to my next point. Whatever the pros may be in support of any piece of legislation that sets up a professional body, the cons are that people are limited in what they are free to do, and we suspect that the effect of this legislation, read in conjunction with the intention that it should not only be for people who are professional consultants, but should follow up professions or trained people right into the sphere of commerce and industry, is going to be to inhibit and limit the normal activities of people who have either the competence or the qualifications.

What worries us about this particular Bill and this concept is that the work of the natural scientist today is not seen by us or by the hon. members opposite as a strict professional activity. It involves a degree of training which then might take them into the profession of consultancy but which might also take them into the selling of hardware or fertilizers or the manufacture of deodorants. In the case of an architect one can define his function. The quantity surveyor’s function is clear. The engineer’s function is clear. However, I ask the hon. the Minister to define the function of the natural scientist. He will see that the man who is trained as a natural scientist is fully integrated into the total economic structure of South Africa. In that sense we think this measure is going to be an intrusion. It is going to apply regulations and the limitation of activities not only to people who practise a profession that is defined but also in the whole manufacturing field, the selling field and the agency field. We should like to know from the hon. the Minister how far it is intended that this legislation should go.

If it is possible to define the profession so that it is clear that it is a separate profession with a defined area of activity, we would be sympathetic to the creation of some new statutory body, although in the main we believe that statutory bodies do not necessarily produce the results they are intended to produce. It is, however, going to affect the researcher who works for gain. It will affect the consultant, who has a fairly clear-cut professional function. It will involve the agent and the employee and it will involve the manager of a one-man business. On what has been presented to us, we cannot be persuaded that this profession has reached the stage where its own activities to form itself into a professional association now warrant that the State should build on what has been created before in order to establish this profession. If one looks at precedents, I think the hon. the Minister is aware that nowhere else in the Western World that we know of is there provision for such a kind of association under the law. We are not arguing that that necessarily means that it is wrong. All we are saying is that, if we take into account the problems of other industrial countries, nowhere else in the world have the industrialized countries found it necessary to make a profession out of the natural scientists.

Secondly, it is easy to advance the argument that the engineers were established as a profession in 1968 and the architects and quantity surveyors in 1970. I think the hon. the Minister is, or should be, aware that those professions which became legal professions in 1968 and 1970 had actually been operating as professions for decades before that. For decades before there was the Institute for Civil Engineers. It was a clearly recognized body. It had status and stature and it was recognized by the Government and local authorities. All that happened was that the engineers themselves, having developed their profession to a certain stage, were then persuaded that legal authority should be given to their profession. The same applies to the architects and the quantity surveyors. The architects’ and quantity surveyors’ professions were established under the Architects and Quantity Surveyors (Private) Act of 1927. From 1927 through to 1970 there was a clearly defined profession with a professional code of conduct and there were certain restrictions on people practising architecture and quantity surveying. So, all that happened in those cases was that the professions, having been established in their natural right, asked the Government to give them legal authority. That is not the case in this field. There is not a profession as such as natural scientists. There is not a code of conduct or a code of ethics. There is not even a definition of what this is. My advice, quite frankly, to people who want this Bill is that they should first go about establishing a professional code, showing that there is a need, a desire and a will to establish a profession before they ask the Government to create by legislative means a profession which does not exist at this stage.

We are not unsympathetic towards the development of a profession of natural scientists, but what we cannot be persuaded of on the basis of the evidence before us is that it is warranted at this stage. Objections have been received by us from commerce, industry and mining and also from individuals within the profession. Certain other people are neutral towards this. I understand that the Commission for Administration is not excited about this. It stands neutral towards it. The Committee of University Principals is neutral towards this. In other words, there is not a general feeling from society and from the people affected that this is an exciting step forward.

We do not want to be dogs in the manger. We do not want to see this thing dropped. We think that, in consultation with the professions and all interested people, this could move ahead. We do not believe, however, that it is appropriate that we should adopt the principle that it should be established now, and certainly not in terms of the legislation now before the House. Therefore, in order to try to help the hon. the Minister to get some movement in this field, to encourage those people who want to establish a profession, who want to see that this is done in the interests not only of the profession but of the society at large as well, I move—

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Sea Point has proposed that the Bill under discussion be referred to a Select Committee. However, I am sure that he is very definitely aware of the fact that for 14 years it has been the dream of the Joint Council of Scientific Societies to place this legislation on the Statute Book. It is an objective that they have been striving for. It is an objective for which they have worked very hard. Thousands of natural scientists have worked very hard on placing this legislation on the Statute Book, and this evening they are seeing that objective being achieved. Therefore, I am afraid that the hon. member for Sea Point’s attempt to have this Bill referred to a Select Committee, could only bring about a further delay in the final promulgation of this legislation.

The hon. member contended that there was no evidence of a similar statutory control measure with regard to natural scientists anywhere else in the world. He may find it interesting to learn that at the moment the natural scientists of Britain are looking very carefully at how this legislation is being piloted through the House in South Africa. They are extremely interested in it, and I can assure the hon. member that they hold exactly the same ideas on the subject.

The hon. member for Sea Point said that he was not really denying that there could be certain advantages attached to the establishment of this legislation. On the other hand he is apparently not exactly happy about the idea that it is in fact going to be done. Then he expects the Minister to define “in crisp terms”, as he puts it, what a natural scientist is and what his functions entail. If he cannot do so himself, how does he then expect the hon. the Minister to do so here? Why do we not leave it to the natural scientists themselves to do so in their own relevant council, together with all the other interested bodies and persons? We can refer to this aspect once again during the Committee Stage. However, I propose that their code of conduct, as well as this definition that the hon. member is asking for, be formulated by the natural scientists themselves.

Objections were in fact raised with regard to the Bill that was published for commentary, inter alia by the South African Federated Chamber of Industries, the Chamber of Mines of South Africa, the Association of Chambers of Commerce of South Africa, the Agricultural Economics Association of South Africa, which is a trade union itself, belonging to the Joint Council of Scientific Societies, and then, as I have already said, fairly neutral standpoint was adopted by the Commission for Administration. The objections that were raised by these bodies and persons—and which I believe have also been partially endorsed by the hon. member for Sea Point tonight—can be summed up by saying that this Bill provides for too many restrictions and too much control. This is more or less what it is going to amount to with regard to the entire work sphere, definition and so on with regard to natural scientists. However, we can point out a few specific objections that were in fact raised and to which one should give very thorough consideration.

The first is that there are no proven requirements for the registration of natural scientists. The second statement that is being made in order to support the first objection, is that the objectives of other similar laws have not been achieved. The institution, the professionalization of other professions, such as engineering and architects, has not achieved the goal that was set out. In the third place it is being contended in general— I think that some of the other hon. members of the Opposition will probably refer to this more specifically—that it is contrary to the objectives of minimum government and deregulation.

It is also being contended that it is contrary to a system of free enterprise, private initiative and free competition. Another objection is that it seems as if it could be a type of guild dating from the Middle Ages; in other words, a type of secret clique of witchdoctors that could develop amongst the natural scientists. [Interjections.]

Another objection is that the Bill will bring about estrangement between graduates on the one hand and technologists and technicians on the other.

I want to look at a few of these objections. Some of my hon. colleagues will elaborate on some of the other objections. In the first place I want to point out that the main objective in introducing the Bill is to grant credibility to the natural scientist and his profession. This is a very important objective that must be strived for. In the nature of things it is also very important for the natural scientist.

In the second place the Bill envisages the development of a code of conduct that will grant status to the profession. The code will be introduced by way of proclamation in the Gazette. The hon. member for Sea Point wants the hon. the Minister to spell out the code of conduct in question tonight, but I am just going to refer to a few of the provisions in the Gazette in connection with professional engineers so that the hon. member may know in which direction the Council for Natural Scientists will be moving—

Further to this we could perhaps consider whether it would be to the benefit of the public as a whole and the community in general. I read further—

1. (1) Hy moet die openbare veiligheid en belang behoorlik in ag neem.
2. (2) Hy moet sy verpligtinge teenoor sy werkgewer of kliënt op ’n bevoegde en bekwame wyse en met volkome getrouheid en eerlikheid nakom.

These are some of the ethical rules that apply to professional engineers—

1. (3) Hy moet hom so gedra dat die waardigheid, status en goeie naam van die professie hoog gehou word.
2. (4) Hy mag nie ingenieurswerk doen/ onderneem wat van so ’n aard is dat sy opleiding en ondervinding hom nie vir die uitvoering daarvan bekwaam nie.
3. (5) Hy mag nie ’n wanvoorstelling van sy eie akademiese of professionele kwalifikasies en dié van sy kollegas gee of toelaat of sy/hulle aandeel in enige ingenieurswerk oordryf nie.
4. (6) Hy mag nie sonder bevredigende redes berekenings of dokumentêre of ander getuienis wat benodig word vir verifikasie van sy werk vernietig nie.
5. (7) Hy mag nog persoonlik nog deur die tussenkoms van ander op ’n onbehoorlike wyse poog om raadgewende werk te verkry of kliënte of potensiële kliënte vir die verkryging van sondanige werk by wyse van kommissie of andersins te betaal of aan te bied om aldus daarvoor te betaal nie.

The codes of conduct are therefore specifically aimed at placing the ethics in the profession in question on a high level such as this. It is also aimed specifically at enhancing the status of the profession. This is being done for the sake of science itself and is not so much aimed at the staff, which could be the case in some trade unions.

The number of natural scientists in practice is on the decline today. I want to quote a few figures with regard to agricultural scientists in order to give an indication of the degree in which the decline is taking place and mention the percentage of the total number of students who achieved a B-degree in agriculture in 1960 in comparison with the figure for 1979. In 1960 B-degrees in agriculture comprised 4,7% of all degrees granted by South African universities, and that figure has decreased by almost half, to 2,5% in 1979. In 1960 the percentage of masters’ degrees in agriculture comprised 9,5% of all masters’ degrees granted in South Africa, as against only 2,7% in 1979. One could also quote other figures in this regard in order to indicate that exactly the same situation prevails in other branches of the natural sciences as well. In addition, it is also true that the quality of the brain power of those studying in the natural sciences is on the decline, relative to other directions of study. Some of my colleagues may perhaps quote specific figures in this regard. However, what bothers us most of all is that the quality of the brain power of the lecturing staff is definitely on the decline as well.

In one of its memoranda that it has submitted, the Chamber of Mines says that there is a critical shortage of natural scientists in the mining industry and says—

The objective of this Bill is in fact to reverse that situation. The Bill is also attempting to increase the number of students studying the natural sciences by making it more attractive to them to enter the natural sciences. In doing so, we want to attempt to combat the acute shortage that is being experienced in all sectors of our domestic economy today.

The statement was made in the debate that the Engineers Act did not achieve its objectives, that the memoranda that have been received, proved the very opposite. Although thus far only approximately 1 000 engineering degrees have been granted in South Africa, there are already 10 000 registered engineers at the moment. This figure also includes technicians and technologists. I hope the hon. member for Pretoria East will be able to quote more specific figures in this regard. The engineers—Prof. De Vos in particular—are highly satisfied with the progress that has been made with regard to the engineering profession, particularly in the sense that the engineers who are practising, can also be utilized in teaching posts at universities. Therefore, people who are in private practice are being utilized. Nor do they necessarily have to be attached to a university on a full-time basis. As a result of this the quality of the inputs by lecturers has increased considerably and the critical situation that prevailed in that regard, has been relieved considerably.

One must very definitely take into account the fact that the spheres of education and teaching have specifically been excluded from the provisions of this Bill. The natural scientists are not entirely happy about this, but they feel that it is a tremendous gesture on their part towards the Chamber of Mines, mining and other sectors of the economy. I am not referring to basic research only, but to applied research and evaluation as well, and in the sphere of education not only to teaching and lecturing, but to guidance as well.

Furthermore, it is provided that natural scientists who are attached to the Public Service and universities do not have to register, whilst existing companies will be granted at least five years to register their natural scientists.

The other argument was that graduates and technologists would become estranged, but it is true that provision is being made in the Bill for the introduction of control boards that will liaise very closely with technologists, technicians and diplomats and that will also involve the other groups that are very closely involved in the discipline of natural science, such as is the case with engineers.

In conclusion I want to say that the Bill is specifically aimed at serving the discipline of natural science itself and is not necessarily aimed at the members of the profession and the improvement of their conditions. It has a bearing on an increase in the quality of research and information that is being carried out in South Africa in many spheres and it is definitely not a selfish objective in itself. That is why we are pleased to support the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, as was mentioned by the hon. member Dr. Odendaal, this legislation has been gestating for the past 12 to 14 years and, as far as one can see, it is about time a decision was taken one way or the other.

As far as we in these benches are concerned, we looked at various angles, and among others was the question of whether the people involved in the professions wanted to have this controlling body. I have made inquiries from the people who are promoting this Bill and it appears that there was in fact a ballot in respect of these various professions to the effect that roughly 90% of the people concerned were in favour of this particular Bill going through.

When one listens to the hon. member for Sea Point, one begins to have doubts as to the professional status of the people involved. I have had a further look and, bearing in mind the discussions I have had with several top academics in the particular field relating to this Bill, I cannot help but feel that to cast any doubt on the professionalism of the type of people who are involved here, is to say the least a little derogatory and unnecessary because these people who are proposed as members of this organization are highly professional people with possibly a higher degree of professionalism than the members of many other professions that presently have councils. I remember that we recently created a professional council for valuators. If one is to start trying to compare the professionalism of valuators with the professionalism of these people, then one cannot help but feel…

And quantity surveyors.

Yes. There is no doubt about it that the people concerned are professionals. I asked this question when I was speaking to the people concerned: What is the primary objective, the primary intention behind this Bill? Is it to create a more positive state of professionalism? These are highly important professions that we are talking about, but numerically they are individually very small professions. There are not huge numbers of them as there are in the case of architects, quantity surveyors, engineers, doctors, etc. They are very important professions, but in numbers each one of them is relatively small. Quite frankly, I think it is rather a brilliant idea to have a number of the professions put together in one council rather than to have a proliferation of councils for the various smaller professions.

It must be quite obvious from what I have said so far that we are going to support this Bill. I am perfectly well aware that there have been objections from Assocom in respect of people involved in these various professional occupations on in-house work, as they refer to it. I obviously have a certain sympathy for the attitude of Assocom and I am rather averse to supporting closed-shop principles anyway, but in a case such as this I nonetheless still believe that there is merit in proceeding with this Bill because some fo the occupations that should be covered by these professions are not covered in commerce and industry, to the possible detriment and hazard of the populace at large. I could mention chemists, for example. There are many firms producing chemical products of one sort or another that do not have properly qualified or properly registered people of their staff. In fact I was given to understand that about 18 months or so ago there was a very serious explosion in a chemical factory on the Reef where three people were killed, including the proprietors of the business. Perhaps sometimes people should be protected from themselves. In a case such as this I would suggest it is so. Again, in so far as physicists are concerned, I do not think that anybody can query that physicists constitute a very valuable sector of the community. There are a relatively small number of them, but they are in a position to do enormous good or enormous damage. I believe that professionalism and professional ethics in this profession are vitally important. One could in fact in this way go through the whole list of these various professions. In so far as the attitude of Assocom is concerned, I must confess I did some heart-searching on the issue because, as I said earlier, I am not over-enamoured of the closed-shop principles. However, on balance I feel that, on behalf of the hon. member in my party, I must support the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the idea that the Opposition has left us with is that a powerful trade union of scientists is suddenly going to arise here. Surely this is the impression that has been created now, as if it were a monstrosity. Nevertheless I recall that not long ago there was a great deal of praise on the part of the Opposition for the idea of trade unions when the labour laws were regulated afresh in this country. I am amazed that sounds of this nature are being heard from the Opposition side, viz. that the scientist, who mans a very important sphere in the country, cannot regulate his profession in such a way that he can enjoy protection and receive the benefits to which he is entitled. The purpose of this legislation is to regulate the place of the scientist in society, and this is a step that has been awaited by scientists for some time. Some of these aspirations have already been fulfilled, because certain facets of the scientific profession have already been given legal protection, including the medical practitioners, veterinarians and engineers, but the establishment of this protection caused the scientific professions that not fall under it, to end up in an awkward position, inter alia, because the protected professions are more attractive to the young people. Young people must make a choice, and if they have to make a choice within science itself, they emphasize the aspect of professional protection. Although the numbers of the students have decreased, those who have entered scientific professions, have turned largely to the protected professions. However, this phenomenon does not affect the young people only. Those who have already qualified, in the unprotected spheres of science have changed to spheres with professional status, because they were able to benefit by it. As an example I can mention the man who has gained a B.Sc (hons.) and a M.Sc. degree. When he had to enter the professional world, he began to make calculations and the result was that he registered as a first-year medical student. When he was asked why he was doing this, his reply was: “In my direction there is not such a good financial future for me in the years that lie ahead as there is in this profession.” This man made a choice and chose the protected directions.

What was wrong with that?

On the surface there was nothing much wrong with it, but because some of the scientific brain power is being siphoned off to the other professions, the scientist is being adversely affected indirectly, because many trained people are leaving the profession, and there is no longer the necessary flow of people to the unprotected branches of science. However, I do not want to dwell on this for too long, because in itself it is a wide field.

Among other things hon. members on the Opposition side asked why the animal scientist, for instance, should be protected and pointed out that he can indeed act freely. The hon. member for Sea Point had a great deal to say about this and I was rather amazed at some of his remarks. For instance, he asked whether it was necessary to protect the public in this sphere. The scientist who goes to work for a public company, must subject himself to certain conditions of service, and in order to keep his job, he must comply those conditions. However, the ethical aspect of his discipline does not come into question, and the aim is to build this into the legislation, viz. that the scientist should have a sense of responsibility towards the work that he is doing, work for which he has been trained and in which he has become skilled. This legislation is now preventing the scientist from abusing his discipline at the cost of the public. For example, just look at how many people walk their dogs in the afternoons in Sea Point. They are beautiful dogs and they are fed on food that is freely available. However, have hon. members seen how many dogs’ hairs are to be found on the carpets in the sitting rooms of those houses? Have hon. members seen the patches or marks on the skins of those well-cared for dogs? What is the cause of this? Three-quarters of these types of products that are on the market, do not comply with the nutritional requirements for such animals. The advertisements for those products are merely advertising tricks, but due to the fact that there are certain scientists who have had a share in it, or who were obliged, due to their conditions of service, to comply with their service contracts, nothing is done about it. Therefore, the ripple effect extends very far and affects the public.

Let us take another look at the picture. Let us take agriculture as an example and look at the sale of plant remedies, fertilizer or many other products. I could mention several of them. How many times does it not happen that science is used deliberately—by the private sector—merely to sell a certain product on the basis of skill, regardless of the consequences thereof? I am thinking for instance of remedies that were readily available in the past, remedies that contained organo-phosphates that has a long lifetime. These organophosphates are quite innocently sprinkled around in order to kill insects, or to treat whatever, and when it rains, those ingredients wash away and land in rivers which transport them to the sea. In the sea they are absorbed by plant organisms or by microscopic marine organisms and they are then ingested by fish. We in turn eat the fish, and these organo-phosphates build up systematically in our own systems until a critical point is reached. Surely the scientist has a responsibility here. He is aware of this, but at the moment he cannot do anything about it. However, this legislation also makes it possible for him, because it places an ethical responsibility on him. Surely it is better to place the responsibility on the man who works with it than to have to prohibit certain anomolies by regulation in the end, because then it would be said again that this was intervening in the free market mechanism.

I am thinking for instance of the fact that it is being said that there is no legislation for regulating the scientific profession elsewhere. However, I do not care whether there is no such legislation elsewhere. Hon. members of the Opposition have become so accustomed to looking beyond the borders of our country to see how things must be done that they forget that we can do many things ourselves and that people from outside our country come here to see how we do these things. It is no use saying that there is no such thing over there. It is not what is happening over there that is at issue. What is at issue is what is happening in this country, and the scientific professions in this country are suffering. The status and survival of the researcher in this country is at stake, after all. Has anything happened in any sphere in this country to which the scientist has not contributed something? Can hon. members mention a single example? However, now that the scientist wants to give effect to the regulation of his profession in future, it is being said that it is a “closed-shop” situation. It is being said that a position of power is going to arise which is going to curtail the free economy. All that is happening here, is that the scientist wants the right to do the work for which he has been highly trained, or for it to be done by a similar person who has the necessary qualifications to do so. If the scientist cannot regulate his affairs from within his own ranks, surely it is ultimately going to be regulated by means of a trade union approach. Then he would be doing so from a position of necessity and not on his own initiative. Surely then he is going to compete. There is no competition at issue here. The scientist is not very interested in this type of competition for better conditions and salaries. It is secondary. His first priority is his discipline because he loves it, because he wants to work in it and because he wants to establish in practice the skill that he has built up in it. He wants to ensure that this skill will not be abused and he wants to stop people who are not skilled enough, from taking this knowledge and creating the wrong image which could lead to science as such being given a warped image in the eyes of the young people.

There are various other aspects. The profession of the natural scientist must not simply be viewed as part of the system. Science is the base of our system and it is in the process of being regulated. The hon. member opposite said that he does not know how many people there are who are interested in this issue. I want to quote the example of the animal scientists. The animal scientists have formed an association, the S.A. Association for Animal Production, and that association has a total of 700 members. On the basis of its own concepts and with its own regulations that association has registered 150 of the 700 as professional animal scientists. Do hon. members now expect, as the hon. member for Umbilo pointed out, that each facet of science should have its own trade union, its own approach and its own law? Surely this would give rise to an impossible situation in the country. The fragmentation and segmentation of science as such has already begun. Surely it would lead to an untenable position which might give rise to arguments between statutory councils at a later stage about exactly what falls within which sphere. It is better for science to control the entire sphere of the natural scientists through an overhead council, as is being envisaged here.

Nor will they be autocratic decisions that will be taken. After all, the decisions will be taken in co-operation with people in the profession, the trainers in the profession, the universities, the technologists and technicians and the technikons. All of them are represented on the Council. After all, decisions will not be taken summarily and regulations will not suddenly appear in the Gazette to the effect that this and that can be done by certain people only. Surely it will be sorted out and figured out, submitted to the Minister and evaluated by the Minister with advice from other bodies and persons. Possibly it will be referred back to us again to be studied again. In this way well-considered decisions will be made.

The responsibility for this legislation rests upon us in the House today and I can say that if this legislation does not go through, science in this country is going to suffer. We are so dependent on science in this country that we cannot allow it to suffer. The spectres that the hon. members opposite are seeing, are spectres that come from elsewhere. They do not come from science. Science does not want to abuse this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. the Minister and other speakers have already indicated, the Bill before the House envisages the creation of a statutory council representative of all natural sciences. I think it is important to note that all natural scientists are involved. The basic motivation for this is the furthering of the status and prestige of natural scientists, the regulation and protection of the professional fields of activity of natural scientists, the ensuring of high standards of training and practice and accordingly, of course, the protection of the public. These are of course praiseworthy objectives in all circumstances and the question we are now debating, because we agree that these are praiseworthy objectives, is only the extent to which this Bill before the House will achieve those objectives or one of them. In a technical legal sense, and in principle too, of course, the Bill is based on already existing statutory councils for professions such as those of engineer, architect and so on. Accordingly the question which now arises once again is the extent to which the position of these professions is comparable with that of the natural scientist.

†In the first instance I think one should point to the fact that the other professions are very clearly defined and clearly circumscribed. The other professions also consist of a group of people who render a particular and a clearly defined service to the general public. Natural scientists, in a wider and more general sense, in terms of this Bill, are a very wide group of people representative of a variety of very specialized disciplines in the natural science field. Whether a combination of this wide variety of scientific disciplines is going to function in a sensible manner is, in my view, a cardinal question which one has to answer if one wants to approach the legislation now before the House in a sensible way. I can understand—and we on this side of the House are certainly sympahetic in our approach to this matter—that certain scientific disciplines would want to have a body—elected, appointed or otherwise—which can act on their behalf, which can establish order in their profession, which can set standards and exercise discipline, and which can also bargain on their behalf. When a variety of groups of disciplines are combined, however, in one statutory body for this purpose, the possibility arises that internal conflict can occur in that professional body, internal conflict among the different professional disciplines, the various scientific disciplines, jointly represented by this professional body. The greater the variety of scientific disciplines represented by that one body the greater the possibility of internal conflict becomes.

*This of course also increases the possibility that the envisaged council, as representative of the interests of natural scientists, could be counterproductive. A possible analogy would be the position of a professional body which represented, say, both architects and engineers. This is of course a purely hypothetical case which I am using as an example. Nevertheless, these two professions are in fact very closely related, in purely scientific terms. However, we are aware that a debate is in progress between those two professions, and that there are many members of both those professions that probably tend to call into question each other’s right to exist. In my opinion, a debate of this nature among professional people who in fact represent the interests of that specific profession is absolutely fatal. It is fatal if one considers the so-called “bargaining position” of such an organization. There is another example I could mention. How would a council which simultaneously represented advocates and attorneys, operate? Once again there are two professions, the training requirements for which are virtually the same. The two professions co-operate in the same field, but nevertheless they are two professions in which there is a certain degree of jealousy and, in addition, the one profession contends that the other profession is slowly but surely losing its right to exist at this stage. The one profession is therefore questioning the right to exist of the other profession. Would one council, statutory or otherwise, be able to represent meaningfully the interests of advocates on the one hand and attorneys on the other? My answer to such a question is that I very much doubt whether this could be the case. We must bear in mind that in a case of this nature such a council would not operate as a party in a dispute between one profession and another, but would act as arbiter. Moreover, it could often happen that the council would have to act as arbiter in a dispute between the parties between which there was a conflict while they were being served by that same council. I think that this is most certainly a real possibility which we shall be faced with if the Bill is placed on the Statute Book. It is a possibility which could mean that the legislation could in effect be counterproductive.

The hon. member Dr. Odendaal raised a few points and, among other things, asked why the council could not proceed, after being established, to work out definitions and deal with the problem referred to by the hon. member for Sea Point and others on this side of the House. He also wanted to know why the council could not answer the questions put by the hon. member for Sea Point after it had sat down and discussed this matter, and why it could not lay down clear guidelines as to where and in what field a certain discipline of natural science could operate and where not. In this regard I wish to put a counter question to the hon. member. He is now asking why we do not leave it to the council which is to be established to do this, but I now ask him why this function has thus far not been performed by the voluntary organization.

This is an aspect which causes us on this side of the House grave concern, because it is a question to which we should like a reply. We should like to know exactly what they have in mind and how they envisage this council will operate. One does not, of course, expect the hon. the Minister, hon. members or the organization to commit themselves absolutely and lay down absolute guidelines as to how the council is to perform its functions in the future, but I do think that in considering a Bill of this nature it is meaningful to determine what the probable circumstances will be within which the council will operate, how it is likely to approach certain problems and what the probable consequences will be.

†Another aspect which bothers us particularly is in regard to the comparison that has been made between the position of natural scientists and that of the more closely defined professions like the engineering profession. The percentage registered professional engineers in private practice is considerably higher than the percentage of natural scientists, in a wider sense, in private practice. In my view there are ample reasons to believe that this substantial difference could well have an effect when a council such as the one envisaged in terms of the Bill comes into operation. I can hardly accept that when only 5% of the registered members of a profession are in private practice, they can be effectively represented in bargaining situations by an organization which to the extent of 95% consists of people who are not in private practice. This is another aspect that bothers us a great deal.

The hon. member for Prieska and the hon. member Dr. Odendaal made mention of the importance of natural scientists in this country and particularly of how much more important they are going to become in due course. We have no difficulty in accepting this.

*We know how important they are and that they are going to become increasingly important. However, the problem is that the connection is not explained. We on this side of the House are well-informed in this regard and we understand the problems that exist, and would like to help in this connection, but our problem is that it has not yet been indicated to us how this council will operate or even how the council would go about settling problems. That is the aspect that troubles us. We are concerned about the possibility that the council may in fact be counterproductive.

The argument in respect of an improved status for the natural scientists has also been advanced. I must say that I am extremely sceptical about this argument. I cannot accept that mere registration can afford status to anyone. I find it very difficult to believe that the aspect of registration plays any role in the choice of profession of a prospective university student or anyone who is on the point of entering a new profession. I fear that we on this side of the House have difficulties with this kind of argument. For these reasons, and also for the reasons indicated by the hon. member for Sea Point, we have difficulties with the Bill. We are unhappy about the Bill, but precisely because we are sympathetic as regards the problems that do exist and the motives of those who initiated the Bill—we realize that they wish to do something about the situation and we should like to assist them in that regard—we do not simply reject the Second Reading, but instead request the hon. the Minister to seriously consider referring the matter to a select committee. We believe that if it is in fact referred to a select committee, there will be no reason why the amended Bill should not come before this House again before the end of the present session. In that case the House will have more well-considered legislation before it and hon. members will have more information at their disposal whereby to assess the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege for me to associate myself with my hon. colleagues on this side of the House and to grant my support to the Second Reading of this Bill. I also want to mention the really balanced speech that the hon. member for Umbilo delivered. I can find very little fault with his speech.

I am in the position of being a professional engineer and, like two of my other hon. colleagues on this side of the House who have already participated in the debate, I was trained as a natural scientist and would have been able to register in terms of the proposed legislation. Therefore I think that we on this side of the House know what we are doing when we support this legislation. I do not want to devote my entire speech to a reply to the yapping from the other side of the House, because it is very clear to me that those hon. members do not know what they are talking about.

If one poses the question of what a natural scientist does, I pose another question to counter that, viz. what does he study at university? Surely it is clear that a chemist enters that discipline for which he has been trained at university. Similarly a physicist practices what he has been trained for at university. The same applies to the other branches of natural science as well. If the hon. member wants a definition of chemistry and physics in a few sentences from me, I cannot give it to him. If he has no knowledge of this, he should rather leave it in the hands of people who know something about it.

I want to devote myself to the speech that I have prepared.

It is a privilege for me to support this Bill. It is definitely a great day for natural scientists in South Africa and it is a privilege for me to be able to be a member of the House tonight on the occasion of the Second Reading of the Bill. This legislation that we are discussing tonight is the fruit of 10 years’ work. These were 10 years in which the profession of natural science in its organized form in South Africa took an in-depth look at whether such a law was necessary. They started looking at this, as the hon. the Minister said during his Second Reading speech, further to the success of the Professional Engineers Act (Act No. 81 of 1968). I worked together with scientists teams that have included engineers and some of them would have given anything to be able to register as professional engineers. When the Professional Engineers Act was passed, scope was left for people who were involved in work of an engineering nature. Those scientists who had any claim whatsoever to the requirements for registration, broke their legs to register. Why? The Professional Engineers Act does not oblige engineers to register. It is only those people who are in private practice who have to register. Of the 10 000 professional engineers that are registered at the moment, a mere 10%—about 1 000—are in private practice. The other 9 000 did not have to register. Why then did they register? A total of 85% of the engineers who qualify for registration in this country have already registered as professional engineers. The Professional Engineers Act meant tremendous progress for the engineering profession. That profession has made tremendous progress in various spheres over the past 14 years. I want to mention one of them. It has a bearing on the training of engineers at university. Without detracting from the autonomy of universities, I just want to say that the South African Council for Professional Engineers, in co-operation with the Federation of Associations of Professional Engineers nevertheless has a say in the courses that the engineers follow, to the great advantage of the profession.

The Bill before us is practically identical to the Architects Act, the Quantity Surveyors Act and the Professional Engineers Act. To tell the truth, many of the clauses are absolutely identical and simply have the words “natural scientist” instead of “professional engineer” for instance, in that Act.

The main objective of this Bill is to regulate the profession and to protect the public. In this regard I refer to the thesis of Dr. J. B. Z. Louw entitled “Owerheidsbeleid enadministrasie van Universiteite in Suid-Afrika, 1978.” Dr. Louw is now employed in the Department of National Education. He makes the following allegation on page 306, whilst discussing the existence of such professional councils. I quote—

I should like to endorse this.

The work of the natural scientists is definitely different to that of other professions. I think the main difference between the work of a natural scientist and that of a medical practitioner, for instance, lies in the fact that the average medical practitioner has direct contact with the public every day, whilst the natural scientist—let us take a chemist who works in a laboratory as an example—is not in direct contact with members of the public when he carries out his work. However, society is influenced by the results of that work. All hon. members of this House share in the benefits of scientific work. For instance we simply have to look at the lights shining so brightly on us here.

I now come to certain aspects of the Bill that is before the House. First of all, with regard to the protection of the public, I refer to clause 7(2)(b), at the bottom of page 13, which reads—

Therefore it is the protection of the Public that is at issue here. I should like to quote for hon. members from a memorandum by Prof. J. J. Dreyer. He is a member of the S.A. Nutrition Institute. He says—

I want to quote another paragraph from Prof. Dreyer’s memorandum. He says—

A second aspect that I want to elucidate, is the prescriptions of the Bill with regard to the fees of natural scientists as contained in clause 7(3)(b). Subsection (3) reads—

1. (b) prescribe the tariff of fees according to which a natural scientist may calculate the amount chargeable by him in respect of the rendering by him of professional services in private consulting practice.

I want to draw attention to the words “in private consulting practice”. The Council for Natural Scientists that is being established here by legislation, does not lay down any prescription with regard to the salaries of scientists in the Public Service or at universities, for instance, but simply with regard to people in private practice. The hon. member for Green Point indicated that in his opinion this would affect approximately 5% of the profession. Only about 10% of all engineers are in private practice today.

With regard to the type of work that is being reserved for natural scientists, I want to refer to clause 7(3)(c) which reads—

1. (c) prescribe the kinds of work in connection with projects, undertakings or services of a natural scientific nature which shall be reserved for natural scientists.

On the strength of its own investigations the council can lay down prescriptions according to its own knowledge. I do not expect us in this House to have the knowledge to lay down such prescriptions, but we can in fact leave that task in the hands of the S.A. Council for Natural Scientists. There is a similar provision in the Professional Engineers Act. It is not easy to give a definition of exactly what engineering entails either. Society changes. 30 years ago I could have challenged anyone to give me a definition of an electrical engineer. At the time there was not even such a thing. Today electrical engineering is a vast industry. Definitions may change from decade to decade, and therefore I feel it is not advisable or necessary to give a definition of such professions.

As far as types of work is concerned, I also want to refer to clause 7(5). This reads—

Therefore there is also an exemption clause.

Then I want to draw attention to clause 7(1)(n) which provides that—

I want to refer in particular to the exemption of teaching and research work. This exemption was made further to representations from the Committee of University Heads. A similar clause does not appear in the Professional Engineers Act, and the Committee of University Heads admitted that the fact that it does not appear in that Act, does not cause them any problems. However, I believe that they also admit that they woke up rather late and did not insist on such a clause in good time. However, in this case they have insisted that teaching and research work should be excluded and we have done this, but it is a pity. However, the requirements of the university have been complied with and their autonomy will not be tampered with.

I refer once again to Dr. Louw’s thesis in which he says that there are already 12 professional and other councils in existence that recognize certain degrees and diplomas that the universities offer for the purposes of a specific profession. He goes on to say—

However, he also admits that the other councils have not infringed on the autonomy of the universities.

Clause 20(4) of this Bill provides the following—

Clause 20(1)(a) reads—

1. (a) for reward performs, except
2. (i) in accordance with the provisions of any other Act of Parliament; or
3. (ii) in the service or by direction and under the supervision of any person registered as a natural scientist in terms of any provision in section 18, any kind of work reserved for natural scientists under section 7(3)(c) … shall be guilty of an offence and liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding R1 000.

We find a similar section in the Professional Engineers Act, and it is also said in that Act that the section will not come into operation before a period of five years has elasped. However, 14 years have already elapsed and the hon. the Minister has not yet announced in the Gazette that the section should come into operation.

Why not?

Nor can I see that the similar provision would be put into operation at an early stage in this case.

The South African Council for Professional Engineers, in co-operation with the Federation of Associations of Professional Engineers, did a great deal to improve the status of the engineering profession. In this case the equivalent body is the Joint Council of Scientific Societies that will co-operate with the Council for Natural Scientists in order to regulate and improve the natural sciences profession.

I should like to draw attention to the situation in regard to the graduation of natural scientists at the moment. The hon. member Dr. Odendaal has already provided information here with regard to graduation in agriculture. I also have statistics at my disposal that were made available by the Science Planning Branch of the Office of the Prime Minister. The statistics have a bearing on the obtaining of first B-degrees in the natural sciences and covers the period 1960 to 1979. That period can be divided into three sections. The first was the period from 1960 to 1964 when more or less stable conditions prevailed. Then there was the period from 1972 to 1979 when the situation was stable once again.

However, in the interim there was a very rapid decrease in the students who studied in the natural sciences, expressed as a percentage of the total number of students at universities. In the period 1960 to 1964, a period of five years, 17,4% of all first degrees obtained at the universities were in fact degrees in the natural sciences. At the moment this figure is generally 10,5%. It therefore represents a decrease of 40%. If one analyses the figures further, one finds that the drop is to be found chiefly in the study of the basic sciences, mathematics, chemistry and physics. The percentage of first B-degrees with mathematics as major has dropped from 9,1% to 5,7% at the moment, which represents a drop of 40%. For first B-degrees with chemistry as major the drop was from 7,1% to 3,1%, a decrease of 60%, and for first B-degrees with physics as major the drop was from 4,1% to 1,0%, which represents a decrease of 75%.

To begin with, one of the main tasks of the Council for Natural Scientists will therefore be to see why, percentage-wise, so many students fewer study the natural sciences these days than was the case 20 years ago.

The statement is often made that the shortage of natural scientists is due to the fact that there are too few children who study science at school. I want to add at once that I cannot agree with this statement without reservation. If one looks at the statistics that the HSRC published in Report No. 0-94 of 1980, titled “Tendense in die getalle leerlinge wat natuuren skeikunde, biologie en wiskunde neem aan sekondêre skole vir Blankes in die RSA”, and this covers the period 1964 to 1977, one sees that a very large percentage of the children at school study science. One also sees that in general many more boys than girls study science. However, at universities today the situation is just the opposite. According to the above report of the HSRC 66% of all boys and 20% of all girls studied science in 1977. Therefore, percentage-wise there were more than three times as many boys as girls. On the other hand I can quote figures of students who are studying chemistry III at the University of Pretoria this year: There is one man for every two women. In chemistry III at the University of Stellenbosch there are 12 men and 15 women, whilst 20 men and 30 women are studying mathematics III. If so many boys study these subjects at school, the question is why they do not study these subjects at university as well. I feel that there are enough children studying these subjects at school.

Another parameter in this regard is the position of science teaching at school. For instance, there are not even enough science teachers entering the teaching profession each year to replace those who are retiring as a result of the age limit. Furthermore it is true that a tremendous number of natural science teachers are leaving the profession annually at the moment. To give an example I can point out that in 1980—this appears in a publication by Prof. Friedland—150 holders of teachers bursaries registered at the University of Pretoria. Only nine of them registered for physics I. If one applies the normal pass mark of approximately 50%, one finds that the University of Pretoria trained only four or five potential natural science teachers in that year.

The first council that will be established in terms of this Bill will definitely have a very important task. The first council for professional engineers chose Prof. De Vos as their president at the time. Prof. De Vos has actually devoted a large portion of his life, i.e. the past 14 years, to promoting the engineering profession.

I think that the Council for Natural Scientists has a very good chance of fulfilling the objectives that the hon. the Minister spelled out in his Second Reading speech, but then I also think it is very important that the natural scientists should find a person of the highest calibre who is fluent in both languages, who is acceptable to all the population groups and who has achieved a great deal in the sphere of natural science and is an expert in this field. That person must be prepared to sacrifice his career and to act as president of the Council for Natural Scientists for the following ten years or more, if possible.

I have elucidated only a few aspects of the Bill before us. I think it should succeed in the objectives and ideals that the natural scientists have laid down. Therefore it is a privilege for me to support the Second Reading.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say here and now that I have the highest appreciation for the dedicated and well-considered way in which those who have worked on this Bill for so many years have gone about it. As the hon. member for Sea Point indicated, our attitude to the concepts the Bill incorporates is by no means negative. I also wish to convey my appreciation on behalf of my colleagues for the opportunity we have had to hold lengthy discussions with the people concerned in the drafting of this Bill.

I am sorry the hon. member for Pretoria East saw fit to make the statement that we do not understand the Bill. I do not think the hon. member replied to any of the objections advanced by my hon. colleagues. I think I can assure the hon. member—with all due modesty—that we have a good grasp of the Bill.

I believe that most of the aspects which are really at issue were effectively dealt with by the hon. member for Sea Point and the hon. member for Green Point. However, there are still a few matters which I do wish to state very clearly. One of the main motivations put forward here by hon. members on the Government side and the hon. the Minister was that the registration for which provision is made in this Bill could in fact encourage a larger number of people to undergo university training in the natural sciences. In all honesty I want to say that that is an incorrect statement. The mere fact of registration will not attract people to universities. Other factors are also involved. Natural scientists cannot be conjured out of thin air. Clearly, natural science must form part and parcel of the person’s whole school training. Then, too, there is the question of what emphasis is placed on this aspect in the course of his school education. Then, too, there is the question of supply and demand and innumerable other factors which determine whether a student will study in a specific field—be it the natural sciences, medical science, the social sciences or whatever.

The fact that there is a register of natural scientists will exercise no influence on the number of people who apply to study in a specific field. In this regard, allow me, for example, to remind the House that we had an acute shortage of teachers some years ago. If special steps had not been taken to make the teaching profession more attractive, that problem would not have disappeared. Clearly then, the question as to whether teachers are registered or not, is immaterial. Therefore, when we discuss these matters, we really should not allow ourselves to be misled by that type of argument, which, I believe, lacks validity.

The second basic aspect to which reference was made here is that this Bill is essential in order to protect the public against irresponsible people who do all kinds of things that could lead, for example, to food poisoning, pollution—to use the hon. the Minister’s example—and all kinds of other things harmful to man, beast and the soil. Surely the answer is not that these conditions can be prevented by establishing a register for natural scientists. If memory serves, DDT, the use of which we have since rejected, was developed by natural scientists. Then, too, there have been remedies such as dieldrin, penicillin, thalidomide, etc. These remedies were developed by people who acted in their capacity as natural scientists. They were true natural scientists. Therefore, as the hon. member for Sea Point indicated, the registration of natural scientists is no guarantee whatsoever either of their scientific calibre or of their being, as natural scientists, unable to make mistakes. Therefore I should prefer us to refrain from using that argument as a justification for the introduction of this Bill. We can try to justify it on other grounds, but not on the grounds of the two arguments I have just dealt with.

In the third place it has become clear to me from, inter alia, the reaction from the hon. member for Umbilo that the argument advanced by the hon. member for Sea Point is not properly understood. We do not say that there are no natural scientists who are or can become professional. The issue here is that the concept “natural scientism”—if I may use the word—is not a professional concept.

That is really an ugly word.

Yes, correct. [Interjections.] I just hope that I am now bringing the concept home to hon. members. Look, there can be chemists in the field of natural science.

Repeat those words.

There can of course be chemists in the field of natural science, and then they have a specific profession, but I say that natural scientism … [Interjections.] … is not a profession. There is no such profession. One can say that engineering is a profession, but natural science as such is not a profession. That cannot be denied. One can say that chemists or physicists or geologists or zoologists or botanists can practise professions, but not natural scientists as a general group. There is no such thing.

Nor science-ists?

The hon. member for Umbilo and other hon. members also overlooked that problem.

Moreover, the success or otherwise achieved by the registration of engineers as a profession in terms of the legislation applicable to that profession, provides no guarantee or indication that the Bill ought therefore to be acceptable to us. I associate myself with what the hon. member for Sea Point said, and I wish to point out that in my opinion, it would be far better if each specific group of natural scientists serving the public in a particular profession were to have its own controlling body.

The hon. the Minister reacted very sharply when the hon. member for Sea Point said that to some extent, provision was being made here for State control in regard to this matter. The hon. the Minister made out that the statement by the hon. member for Sea Point was not correct. Such things are relative, of course, and one could say that in this specific field it may be so that the Bill makes provision for a lesser degree of State control than we have had in other cases. Nevertheless we cannot argue our way around the fact—I think the hon. the Minister will concede this—that in terms of clause 3, the Minister must appoint members of the S.A. Council for Natural Scientists. He makes the appointment, and he makes some of them on his own authority.

And in most instances?

I specifically said “some of them”. In any event, he makes the appointments. I also refer the hon. the Minister to clause 4, in terms of which he has the right to remove members from the council on the basis of his own opinion as to whether such a person is fit to serve on the council or not. I also refer him to clause 7 in terms of which the Minister must lay down the requirements for an association of scientists, and has the power to determine the tariffs of fees and has the right …

But surely I do not do that of my own volition.

That does not matter. I did not say the Minister did it of his own volition.

But the impression you are creating is that I do.

Look, all I am doing is to react to the hon. the Minister’s reaction to the statements of the hon. member for Sea Point.

The Minister also has the power to implement job reservation; in other words, to determine what kind of work will be done by a specific group of natural scientists. This is provided for in clause 7(3). I refer, too, to clause 12 in terms of which the Minister also has the power to appoint the members of the education advisory committee. Then there is clause 14, in terms of which the Minister lays down the period of office of members of the educational advisory committee. In terms of clause 18, the Minister prescribes by regulation what examination a person must pass in order to register as a natural scientist. Clause 25 prescribes the regulations which the Minister may make. Then, too, there is clause 30 which concerns the establishment of boards of control and the making of regulations. In terms of the provisions of clause 31, exemptions may be granted by the Minister. All I am saying thereby is that provision is indeed being made here for a high degree of ministerial control. We cannot get away from that. I am quite amazed that the hon. the Minister reacted so sharply to the statements by the hon. member for Sea Point, viz. if I understood the hon. the Minister correctly.

He must apologize now.

I repeat: We on this side of the House are not unsympathetic in regard to the Bill and the problems which the Bill tries to address. However, because we have real problems with the Bill—as regards the broad principles and much of the detail—I associate myself with the hon. member for Sea Point in his appeal that the matter be referred to a Select Committee for further consideration.

Mr. Speaker, just as hon. members on the opposite side of the House listened to me te see whether I could persuade them to support the Bill, I have now listened to hon. members opposite to see whether they could advance any reasons for me to support their amendment. I want to say at once that there are three specific reasons why I cannot accept the amendment, and those reasons are the speeches made by the three hon. members of the Opposition. With all due respect, Sir, the three hon. members said or asked nothing which they did not say or ask at the time of the discussion of the legislation on architects and engineers. None of the hon. members argued that there had been no need for that legislation. They argued instead that the engineering profession was a definable profession, one for which a definition could be given. In contrast to that, they said, the profession of the natural scientist was not definable. Consequently I find it strange that they opposed that legislation when it was before this House, even though it had in fact been referred to a Select Committee. What is more, the amended legislation, as proposed by the Select Committee did not differ very much from the legislation initially introduced. I also found it strange that the hon. member Prof. Olivier should say that they were not really opposed to the concept of legislation, but had practical problems. The hon. member Prof. Olivier supported the hon. member for Sea Point in his request that the legislation should be referred to a Select Committee. However, it seemed to me that the hon. member had not read the amendment of the hon. member for Sea Point properly.

[Inaudible.]

Please give me a chance to speak. I did not interrupt the hon. member.

Yes, you did.

The motion of the hon. member for Sea Point seeks to refer the Bill to a Select Committee prior the the acceptance of its principle. So on the one hand the hon. member Prof. Olivier was saying, in other words, that he had no objection to the principle, but on the other hand he nevertheless supported the argument of the hon. member for Sea Point, which in fact refers to the principle and not to the details of the Bill.

I said that I could understand the principle.

The hon. member said that he could understand the principle, yet he is opposed to the principle. That makes it even more inexplicable to me. The hon. member reacted to what he thought my reply would be to what the hon. member for Sea Point had said. However, the hon. member did not remember what the hon. member for Sea Point said. The hon. member for Sea Point spoke of a “State-controlled council”. In the legislation before us—as was also the case with the legislation in respect of the professional councils of other professions— the Minister concerned has certain functions to perform. He was therefore arguing on the basis of a completely false assumption. The hon. member for Sea Point said that, in the first place, I had furnished no examples and advanced no reasons to indicate that there was a need for this Bill, and that I had simply made a general statement that the protection of the public was essential. He went on to say—and I shall come back to this later—that unlike the case of other professions, more specifically the engineering profession, one in regard to which they also evinced opposition, we were unable to furnish the profession of natural scientists with a definition.

However, let us see what happened. After the draft Bill was published, comment was received from 43 individuals or organizations. Of these 43, five lodged objections to the measure. One of these five was the Commission for Administration, which is consulted on all proposed legislation which could have possible implications with regard to staff. The Commission did not oppose the principle of the Bill, but did question the need for it. I readily admit that.

Let us now see who the other four were, because this is quite interesting. The first one was the Federated Chamber of Industries, the second the Associated Chamber of Commerce, the third the Chamber of Mines and the fourth the Agricultural Economics Association, which was obviously a mistake.

The hon. member for Sea Point said that they had received representations from organized commerce and industry. I accept that. I think he will concede that they also received representations from the Federated Chamber of Industries, the Associated Chambers of Commerce and the Chamber of Mines.

But let us see what the essence of the objections in this connection were. In at least two of the cases no objection was lodged against the principle of the proposed legislation. I, too, received communications from these organizations. I think it is necessary, for the sake of the record, that I refer to the crux of these communications.

†I should like to refer to the point of view expressed to me by the Federated Chamber of Industries. The gravamen of their objection is apparent from the telex I have received from them. I quote the appropriate passage—

They then proceed to motivate this point of view. The hon. member for Pretoria East referred to the particular clause relating to this issue.

I should now like to deal with the representations I have received from Assocom, representations which I believe are equivalent to those received by hon. members on that side of the House. These representations come from their legal adviser. He comments on the proposed legislation as follows—

Let me say immediately that nobody has suggested—I am now reacting to what Prof. Olivier said—that the mere registration of professional people constitutes an absolute guarantee or safeguard. It does not apply to lawyers and neither does it apply to doctors. Surely the hon. member understands this? Nowhere has anybody argued the fact that he is replying to. In all fairness, I think the hon. member will concede this. However, to continue with Assocom, they say—

In other words, Assocom is not against the principle involved in this Bill. Assocom goes further—and here is an analogy to the argument of the FCI. It states—

In other words, again the objection is not to the principle but to the definition and the scope of the reservation. I say that we must discuss it then. We can discuss it in the Committee Stage, but it does not require by any yardstick that one must oppose the principle of the Bill. I have replied to these gentlemen and I have dealt in detail with their representations.

Let us for a moment consider the argument about the definition. The hon. member for Sea Point has used this argument and has tried to substantiate it by making reference to the engineers.

[Inaudible.]

But also the engineers. Let us see now whether there is any relevance in that argument. He said that to have one overriding professional council for the various disciplines would lead to internal conflict among them.

*As for the definition, in view of what seems to be a multiplicity of fields of activity, I want to concede at once, and I am consequently bearing in mind, that a relatively small number of basic disciplines are involved. The hon. member will grant me that. Apart from the diversity of activities a limited number of basic disciplines is involved, as hon. members on this side of the House argued. Although there is common ground between many of the applied disciplines—for example, microbiology, genetics, ecology, ethnology and so on—they are all branches of the biological sciences; regardless of the various fields of activity or study. In comparison with the engineering profession, which was used here as an example, it is thought that the fields of activity are comparable in their diversity, and not contrastable. The fields of activity are comparable with the diversity in the engineering professions, for example mechanical, civil, electrical, chemical, mining, aviational and industrial. For that reason I wish to suggest that this argument which the hon. members are using is not a valid one in this specific connection.

What they do is that they design and they supervise.

I am coming to what they do, because they are not designing and supervising the same thing, and that is the whole issue.

*The hon. member said that I should give further examples of ways in which the public were being detrimentally affected.

Give us a definition of the work.

As the hon. member for Pretoria East also said, the definition of an engineer was not the same ten years ago as it is today. Surely it is an on-going definition.

As a profession they already had a definition.

The same applies to the natural scientists as well, but this House is going to give them that specific definition. Surely there is no definition in the legislation.

The hon. member said that he wanted examples and argued that I had furnished no examples to substantiate the second leg, i.e. the need to protect the public. The hon. members for Prieska and Pretoria East, as well as the hon. member Dr. Odendaal, discussed this aspect. However, I shall mention a few examples for the hon. member because I think he is entitled to them.

I concede at once that I do not have a comprehensive survey at my disposal to enable me to furnish a reply this evening, but I shall nevertheless furnish a few examples. A year or two ago there was an explosion in a chemical factory in a certain town, and four people were killed. This factory was engaged in hazardous processes, but had no trained people whatsoever in its employ. In this case employees as well as the public were involved. In my opinion such conduct requires protective measures. In addition public health is jeopardized when untrained persons add certain substanced to food to improve the appearance, to act as preservatives, and so on. The food industry is one of our biggest industries, and the hon. member for Prieska emphasized this point.

Now I want to ask the hon. member whether it is not essential that the public should be protected in this connection.

A further example is the untrained distributors of herbicides and pesticides who are used by people to “research” their requirements, and to give advice. In a specific case the statistical basis for a field test, on which the recommendations were based, was entirely lacking. As a result of the injudicious, unnecessary and excessive use of these substances, farmers are suffering heavy losses, and a shocking number of people are losing their lives. Nevertheless the hon. member continues to argue that I did not make out a case for the need to protect the public.

I am going to furnish another example.

[Inaudible.]

I gave the hon. member credit for knowing about these things, but apparently I made a mistake, and I apologize for doing so.

A specific farmer in the Humansdorp district suffered damages amounting to R30 000 as a result of incorrect soil utilization, based on the advice of an untrained consultant. I therefore maintain that these and other examples adequately demonstrate that there is a need for legislation of this nature. However, there is another aspect as well. Various groups of natural scientists are of the opinion—and I should agree with this—that they are entitled, in their own right, to apply for legislation for the registration of each profession, and many of them have made a good deal of progress towards this goal.

I have never argued—nor am I doing so now—that registration alone is the alpha and the omega for ensuring that more people enter the profession. Of course that is not the case. For how long, however, were representations made by the teaching profession for the establishment of a professional council? And who of us ever denied that the registration, the provision of proper training and academic qualifications, plus experience in practice, did not enhance the status of specific professions? Frequently we are not dealing with income or even with working conditions. We are dealing with recognition of communities of a specific profession. The hon. member referred to the numbers of people who were being trained in the medical and other professions. He referred to people who were leaving the country for economic reasons. Of course that is true. However, those people left our country after they had been trained. Therefore it is no valid argument to suggest that the numbers dwindled as a result of their departure.