Mr. Chairman, this is really a one-clause Bill; this clause is the only one that matters. I may say for the information of the Committee that this clause extends the levy to women and also raises the maximum amount to be levied. Sir, we opposed this Bill at the Second Reading on principle. In principle we are opposed to a sectional tax of this nature. In 1952 this type of tax was introduced for the first time and we opposed it then. In 1957 the Minister of Transport himself said that this type of levy was not satisfactory, that it was not ideal, and that it was only to be temporary.

And you supported it.

We supported it in 1957 because there was a crisis. We supported it because the Minister of Transport had said that it was only to be temporary, and in order to avoid a crisis and to assist the Minister of Transport at the time, we supported the Bill, but the United Party has always been opposed to this type of taxation. I should like to remind the hon. member who interjected just now that when the Minister of Transport introduced his measure in 1957, he did so in a fit of pique; he was annoyed with the employers who had spoilt the bus boycott for him. He had appealed to them not to support the Bantu in their oppositoin to the increase in the tax, and when he introduced the measure, he himself said that they, the members of the Chambers of Commerce, had gone out of their way to support the Bantu by subscribing an amount of £25 000 to tide the bus companies over the period of three months, and because of that, he said, he was not going to be left with the baby. He therefore applied this tax to the employers, not, as I have said, as a permanent measure, but as a temporary measure. That was 15 years ago, and this Minister has not yet found a solution to the problem. We do not consider this measure which he has now introduced to be the solution. Therefore we are opposed to this measure, and we shall vote against this clause.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to pose a question to the hon. member for Transkei: Was the United Party opposed to a levy on transport all along? Have they always been opposed to it?

Yes, but do not go back to the 1946 …

No, Sir, we must have this on record. The United Party in 1957 supported this measure because, they said, there was a crisis.

That is correct.

Now, I want to pose the question in another way: Was there a crisis in 1944?

May I ask the Deputy Minister a question? Who was forced to pay the levy then?

I am asking: Was there a crisis in 1944?

No, but we did not expect that all employers had to pay.

Sir, if you go back and read Proclamation No. 228 of 3rd November, 1944, which appeared in Government Gazette No. 3412, you find that the Minister of Bantu Administration then passed regulations that a levy would be taken from the employers …

What employers did they take that from?

That was for the subsidization of the transport system in Pretoria.

But who paid that levy?

The United Party governed in 1944, and in 1944, in that Proclamation I just mentioned, the then Minister of Native Affairs proclaimed regulations with effect from 30th September, 1944, in terms of which employers of certain categories of employees in certain areas were compelled, in cases of increased travelling expenses, to pay such travelling expenses to such employees in full. Moreover, Sir, dismissal of employees with a view to evading this obligation was liable to punishment. In other words, this United Party, which now says that we have introduced a sectional tax, published a proclamation in 1944 which compelled an employer to pay the increased fares for his employees. If the employer were to dismiss his employees as a result of this he was liable to punishment in terms of this Act of the United Party. Surely this is not politically honest.

When was it implemented?

I have just given you the date.

No, not the date of the proclamation. When was it implemented?

Sir, the hon. member will not escape through that loophole.

Answer me.

I asked last night and now I ask the hon. member for Transkei again: Was the United Party opposed to a levy in respect of transport services throughout the entire period that it was in power?

Was it not part of his wages?

It was a special levy for transport services. [Interjections.] No, Sir, they will not get past this point. This United Party stands accused on two points: The first is that they moved an amendment to exclude the women only so that the industries can employ women in competition with the men. The United Party stands accused, in the second place, because they now say that they are opposed to a levy in principle, while they voted for this levy in 1957. At that time they agreed, and now they say that it was as a result of a crisis. Now I ask the hon. member: What crisis was there in 1944?

There was only a war on.

Sir, that hon. member says: “There was a war on,” but during the war the industries were able to make larger profits, and they could pay their employees more than when there is not a war on. So that excuse does not hold water either. They must not hide behind: “There was a war on.” In the United Party there is always a war on amongst themselves. [Interjections.] Sir, I see that Japie Basson is not here at all any more. By means of this objection which is now being raised by the hon. member for Transkei the United Party seeks to gain a short-lived popularity again by saying: “We are in favour of subsidizing the transport services.” This is on the instructions of the Federated Chambers of Industries which, as the hon. member for Newton Park said yesterday, sent them telegrams instructing them to do so.

Oh, they sent them to everyone.

They are now dancing to the tune of the employers who instructed them in this regard. Now they want to make propaganda for those people that they were opposed to this and they want to suggest to the housewives again that they are indirectly paying for this. I put it to you yesterday. The decent employers of domestic servants pay the servant and, in addition, take out the servant’s bus ticket because they regard this as part of the weekly or monthly salary, and I can mention thousands of cases such as this. The hon. the Minister said in 1957 that he regarded it as a temporary measure, and its temporariness is defined as something which will continue until the employers of South Africa, and the industries in particular, pay their employees adequate salaries which will make it unnecessary to subsidize them in this case. Until then it will be temporary, and now I invite the hon. member for Transkei again. Why does he not get up and say: We will oppose this thing the day when the employers pay their people enough? No, this case of theirs has no substance.

Before I call on the hon. member for Durban Point, I must draw the attention of hon. members to Standing Order No. 57, which provides that the principles of a Bill shall not be discussed in Committee but only its details. In accordance with practice I shall, however, allow a few hon. members briefly to state their objections to this clause, but I cannot allow a general discussion of the principles of the Bill in this Committee Stage.

Sir, the hon. the Deputy Minister’s problem is that he forgets he is half a Minister today. He thinks he is still at the back of the hall at a political meeting where he can ask questions and try to make political capital out of them. But here he is before Parliament.

†The hon. the Deputy Minister said last night that Gen. Smuts—and he used the words “General Smuts”—introduced a levy on employers in 1946. That is what he said.

Are you running away from it?

No, I am dealing with the words of the hon. the Deputy Minister and I am testing his credibility. Now I challenge the hon. the Deputy Minister, firstly to show that the United Party or Gen. Smuts ever introduced a Bill or an Act to place a levy on employers and secondly …

You are not even convincing me.

I have no need to convince people who do not have the mind to be convinced. There are certain minds which you cannot reach by any means.

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

I am trying to, Sir. I challenge the hon. the Deputy Minister to give me any case where by law or by proclamation any levy was laid on any single private employer by the United Party or by the United Party Government. Now I want to give the hon. the Deputy Minister a brief lesson on the history of this matter. He was playing “quiz kid’ ’last night, but we are not like the hon. the Deputy Minister. We do not pick up a point and, knowing nothing about it, answer wildly. I said last night that I honestly knew of no case where a private employer was made to pay a levy. Then the hon. the Deputy Minister grabbed it: he fell right into the trap. I wanted to check the facts, and I have checked the facts. Firstly, does the hon. the Deputy Minister know that in 1944 there were six independent operators who only in 1944 became PUTCO? It was only late in 1944 that they combined to form PUTCO. The hon. the Deputy Minister said last night that PUTCO had been subsidized by Gen. Smuts and I say that that is not true. [Interjections.] I say it is untrue and I challenge the hon. the Deputy Minister to prove that PUTCO received a subsidy in 1944 from the United Party or Gen. Smuts’ Government. What happened then? PUTCO was formed in 1944. They took over with a fare of four-pence at the time, but they had a problem and the Johannesburg City Council paid a subsidy out of revenue to retain the fare temporarily at fourpence as it was.

But the Johannesburg City Council was Gen. Smuts’ lackey.

That was not a tax on employers. What we are opposing is a tax, a sectional tax on a group of people. Later, in 1957, commerce paid the famous contribution to which the hon. member for Transkei referred. This was not a levy. The hon. the Deputy Minister has certain facts jumbled up in his mind. He has been fed a bit of information by somebody who has been digging in history but he has not been able to understand what went on. What happened was that the Transvaal Provincial Administration, this city council of Pretoria, that hon. Minister’s own South African Railways and Iscor—all State organizations—paid a temporary subsidy, not in 1946 as the hon. the Deputy Minister said, and not in 1944, but in 1947. They paid this temporary subsidy for nine months. At the end of the nine months payment of that subsidy was stopped.

Did they not pay a contribution?

This was not done in the manner in which the hon. the Minister of Transport acted. The hon. the Minister of Transport introduced a temporary levy, said that it would be temporary and then kept it going for 15 years. The United Party keeps its word. [Interjections.] Ask Mr. Pienaar, ask the hon. the Minister of Health; the United Party keeps its word. It said that there would be a temporary subsidy and it was temporary and then it was stopped.

I challenge the hon. the Deputy Minister to deny that that was the only subsidy received by PUTCO from the Government or from Government-controlled institutions such as Iscor, the Railways, the provincial administration and the city council of Pretoria, a Nat-controlled city council.

But is the city council of Johannesburg Nat-controlled? [Interjections.]

In 1946 there was no subsidy, there was no levy …

Oh, but you make fools of yourselves!

In 1952 we restated our opposition to the principle of a sectional levy and our opposition now comes back to the same thing. We believe that the Consolidated Revenue Fund should pay what has to be paid. City councils, and various firms too are subsidized in the event of temporary emergency. Does the hon. the Deputy Minister say that these are voluntary subsidies from empolyers? He accepts the principle. We have accepted that in emergencies you can do certain things. However, in terms of this clause a sectional tax is to be imposed permanently by Statute. I challenge the hon. the Deputy Minister to deny what I have said and to produce evidence that any levy, other than that levy which was paid by Government institutions for nine months, was ever paid under a United Patty Government.

Mr. Chairman, we have already accepted the principle embodied in this clause, and I am going to vote against it in the Committee Stage as I did in the Second Reading. However, I got no answer, except a very discourteous one from the hon. the Deputy Minister, when I asked him at the earlier stage of this debate to give me some information about his plans for the long-term solution of the transport crisis and for the provision of transport between the non-White areas and the industrial areas throughout the country. This is an expedient which can only help to a very superficial extent, but the hon. the Deputy Minister knows that there are inter-departmental committees which are supposed to have been studying the transport problem for a very long time. This Committee has had no information whatever as to the progress of those inter-departmental committees. I also think that he could at least give this Committee some information as to the amount that he hopes to raise from this levy, and to what extent that levy is going to contribute to the over-all subsidization that is already taking place from various other sources. We know, for instance, that the central Government is to some extent subsidizing the railways between the non-White areas and the White areas. We know that the municipalities are giving part of the profits that they make from the sale of beer to the subsidization of transport services between the urban areas and either the homeland and/or urban township. We also know that 80 per cent of the profits on hard liquor are spent on either subsidization of housing or the subsidization of transport. We know that many of the local authorities are making what is laughingly called …

Order! I cannot allow a general discussion under this clause. The hon. member must come back to the details of this clause.

What I am trying to work out, and if the hon. the Deputy Minister will give this Committee the information, is what additional amount he has to raise by means of this levy so that subsidization from other sources may not be necessary. I am asking him that question.

Order! The hon. member is not in order now.

Very well then, I shall simply reiterate that I am intending to oppose this clause, because I believe it is all part and parcel of the general policy of the Government to move people far out and away from their places of work and at the same time to limit their opportunity of earning. Therefore, although I agree with the subsidization, I do not agree with this method of subsidization.

Mr. Chairman, I shall give a very short reply to the hon. member for Houghton.

Make it courteous.

Last night I gave the hon. member a courteous reply when I gave all the facts in connection with the inter-departmental committee. I stated to her what long-term system was being worked out by the inter-departmental committee. Therefore I do not know how she can accuse me of being discourteous to her.

*As regards the other aspect, I am not going to reply to that, because it lies outside the scope of the clause.

Then the hon. the Deputy Minister would be out of order.

I just want to refer back to what was said by the hon. member for Durban Point. He wants to tell this committee that I misled the Committee. Let me tell him now that Government Notice No. 1914 of 10th November, 1944, as it appeared in Government Gazette No. 3414, was a consequence of Proclamation No. 228 of 1944. It stipulated, inter alia, which employers had to pay such increased costs according to existing wage structures. Government Notice No. 439 of 28th February, 1947, as printed in Government Gazette No. 3772, and Government Notice No. 747 of 11th April, 1947, as printed in Government Gazette No. 394, dealt with the extension of the areas which were originally laid down in Government Notice No. 1914 of 10th November, 1944.

Accept my challenge.

He tries to speak of “temporary”, but in 1947 a “temporary” Government was in power, which only remained until 1948. Their present proposed policy will probably be just as “temporary”. I want to ask this Committee on which grounds regulations can be promulgated in the Government Gazette compelling employers to pay a levy, and which employees qualify for that subsidy, as well as which categories of employers qualify for it. This was the policy of the United Party, because if it had not been their policy they could not have published it in the Government Gazette in order to obtain the necessary power to levy these amounts on employers and to stipulate which employees were to receive it. I am not concerned with the individual cases here, because in this legislation it is a principle that is at stake. The principle is whether employers should pay a levy or not. The United Party introduced a levy on employers.

Mr. Chairman, with your permission I just want to reply to the case put here by the hon. the Deputy Minister. He went back again to the proclamation of 1944. If I could just have the hon. the Deputy Minister’s attention, I want to ask him whether he would not be willing to help me by telling me whether he agrees with the specific principle of the Proclamation of 1944.

No, that was your principle. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman …

You are very sensitive about it. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, my point is precisely this … [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member may proceed.

Mr. Chairman, my point is precisely this, that the hon. the Deputy Minister quoted the proclamation of 1944 with approval and wanted to suggest in this House that he was dealing with exactly the same principle in this Bill.

That has nothing to do with it. The United Party introduced the principle of levies. [Interjections.] You cannot get away from it.

Order!

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Deputy Minister merely has to admit or refuse to admit to this Committee that that specific proclamation of 1944 referred in the first place to Government institutions, semi-Government institutions and local bodies and that, in the second place—this is now the most important—that proclamation referred to …

Employers.

Yes. Mr. Chairman, if the hon. the Deputy Minister would only give me a chance. The money which the employer had to pay was part of the salary or wage of the employees. I have not read the proclamation, but if I am right, I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister this afternoon whether he does not agree and why he does not get up and say that the employers of South Africa should increase the wages of the employees by these amounts. Why does he not say so? No, he dare not say it, because the United Party was dealing with an entirely different matter in 1944. In 1944 it was a question of the correction of wages and salaries as a result of an increase in transport costs. Now we are dealing with a levy which will be used to subsidize the bus companies and which does not directly affect the employee at all.

In the second place there is the question of 1957. I think the hon. the Deputy Minister has now yielded this point to us, namely that the Bill which was before the House in 1957 was a quite exceptional matter. It was a critical moment. It was a punitive measure which was introduced by the hon. the Minister of Transport at that time.

No, it was not a punitive measure.

Yes, it was. Hansard says so and the hon. the Deputy Minister agrees with us there. Now I challenge the hon. the Deputy Minister to show me where the Minister of Transport ever said that the temporary measure would be abandoned the moment that salaries were sufficiently increased. I challenge him to prove it to us in this Committee. This is a friendly, respectful challenge to the hon. the Deputy Minister. The Government is making a permanent measure of what they called a temporary one.

I shall leave it at that. I am opposed to this clause and to this levy, because it should be levied by way of a Government tax. The second reason why I am opposed to this levy is because it results in unnecessary indirect and direct costs and because those costs will all be passed on to the consumer in South Africa. Thirdly, I am opposed to this specific clause because it will only mean that the consumer will eventually have to pay the levy even though the clause provides that it is to be levied on the employers. Fourthly, this levy will also promote an increase in the cost of living. Fifthly, this clause runs counter to the whole management of finance in South Africa. For these reasons I am opposed to the approval of this clause.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Deputy Minister has refused to answer the challenge or the question I put to him. I asked him to name one single employer who was made to pay a levy by a United Party Government for transport, other than Government institutions.

Order! The hon. member is out of order. I cannot allow the hon. the Deputy Minister to reply to that, because then he too will be out of order.

With respect. Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Deputy Minister made a statement here …

Sit down!

Order!

Mr. Chairman, may I deal with you and not with these acting chairmen? The hon. the Deputy Minister made a statement here and I contradicted it. I then asked him to give this Committee certain facts relating to this particular clause. These may influence us in our attitude to this clause. However, the hon. the Deputy Minister cannot do so …

Order! I have already given hon. members on both sides the opportunity to discuss this, but in actual fact it was out of order. The hon. member cannot continue discussing it now, and must abide by my ruling.

I accept that. May I then place on record that the hon. the Deputy Minister is unable to reply to those questions.

Mr. Chairman, in the first place, I cannot allow the hon. member to place on record what he has just said. In the second place, you will not allow me to make a Second Reading speech. What this Committee should take note of, is the fact that it was published in the Government Gazette that a levy system was imposed on employers to subsidize their employees to get to their places of work. This is a fact, and I do not want to take it any further than that. I shall not take it further, but this hon. member wants me to mention a specific case. But an Act does not deal with individual cases, and every case is analysed on its merits.

Order! The hon. the Deputy Minister is out of order now.

That is my problem. The hon. member for Maitland challenged me to show where the hon. the Minister of Transport had said that this levy would only remain in force as long as salaries were inadequate.

I did not say that.

This hon. member maintains that the Minister at no stage said that the levy had to be paid because salaries were inadequate, and that if salaries were adequate, the levy would not be necessary.

Who said that?

Minister Ben Schoeman, the Minister of Transport, said that.

No!

Of course. He said it last year during the Budget debate. I shall quote verbatim what he said. He said—

We are speaking about 1957.

During the Second Reading debate the hon. member for Tygervallei and I pointed out that the hon. the Minister said in 1957 that it was a temporary measure until such time as these people were paid salaries which would make it unnecessary.

Mr. Chairman, in replies by the hon. the Deputy Minister last night and again this afternoon, we had two examples of the lowest form of cheap politics that are being played by that side of the House.

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

The hon. the Deputy Minister suggested that we had moved the amendment in respect of the levy on Bantu female workers merely to allow for the introduction of more Bantu female workers in city areas, and that we wanted them to work here at a lower wage rate. That is the depth to which that hon. Deputy Minister sank yesterday afternoon. He was almost at that low level again this afternoon.

Order! I am not going to allow a repetition of the Second Reading debate on this clause.

With respect, Sir, I abide by your ruling. I accept it. [Interjections.] If I could only get a little bit of quietness on this side, I could hear what you are trying to tell me. It is impossible for me to hear a word of what you are saying. You are trying to say?

The hon. member must abide by my ruling.

Mr. Chairman, as I indicated, I am quite prepared to abide by your ruling. I am trying to abide by your ruling. I am dealing with the provisions of the clause. [Interjections.] I hope you can hear me above the noise which is going on behind me. Then you might understand that this is exactly what I am trying to do. I am trying to deal with the provisions of this clause as they stand in this Bill. We have here a provision whereby the hon. the Deputy Minister is now asking this Committee to approve of a levy to be raised from employers of Bantu women in certain areas. But the hon. the Deputy Minister repeats over and over again that it is a temporary measure which will apply until such time as the wages are high enough to allow these people to pay for their own transport. We have accepted that long ago. We have told him so. But we have also placed on him and his Government the responsibility of seeing that those wages are high enough. The Government has the power to raise those salaries.

Order! The hon. member may not discuss wages under this clause.

We leave wages alone, then. Let us come back then to the specific example about which I asked the hon. the Deputy Minister yesterday during the Second Reading debate.

Order! The hon. member is trying to evade my ruling now.

No, Sir. With respect, I am coming with a completely new point … [Interjections.] Sir, how many chairmen have we in this Committee? It is impossible for me to hear you with all the chairmen I have on my left.

Is that a reflection on the Chair?

No, Sir, I am not reflecting on the Chair. I am reflecting on members on my left who cannot behave themselves.

Order! I want to appeal to hon. members to give me an opportunity to listen to the hon. member. I want fewer interjections now. The hon. member may proceed.

Mr. Chairman, I am trying to advance a new argument within the ambit of the clause as it stands in the Bill. Yesterday, during the Second Reading debate, I put certain questions to the hon. Deputy Minister about the application of the provisions of this very clause, and with regard to the areas where he can apply them and how. In this connection I would draw your attention to the fact that we are now applying all the provisions of the Act as it stands today to employers of Bantu women and to Bantu women employees. I would submit that what I am going to say, is within the ambit of this clause.

Read the original Act and you will know what areas.

Now, Sir, that is fine. It is exactly what the hon. Deputy Minister said to me yesterday. But I want to say that yesterday the hon. the Deputy Minister only gave me a quarter-truth, not the whole truth. When I asked him about Hammarsdale, he said he could and would subsidize the transport of the Bantu living in Mpumalanga township who are employed in Pinetown and Hammarsdale.

On a point of order, Sir, is the hon. member allowed to say that the hon. the Deputy Minister told only a quarter-truth—

Less than that.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that.

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw that word.

The hon. member for North Rand must also withdraw what he said.

I withdraw it, Sir.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, must the hon. member not apologize as well?

Order! The hon. member may proceed.

Sir, may I put it this way, that at best the hon. the Deputy Minister could not have understood the question I put to him when he said in his reply to me that they could be subsidized in terms of the Act. At best, he himself has not read the Act or understood the Act, because he said that those workers could be subsidized. I want to ask him specifically whether he will subsidize the transport of workers from Mpumalanga township to Hammarsdale.

He is not listening.

He is not even listening, Sir. He is talking to the hon. the Minister of Defence.

I gave my reply last night.

The reply which the hon. the Deputy Minister gave me last night was incorrect. Am I permitted to say that?

Can he remember what he said last night?

The reply that he gave me was incorrect, as he will find when he reads his own Act, because the Act reads quite specifically that the Bantu Transport Services Account—

I was at pains to explain to the Deputy Minister that there is no urban local authority, and this is why I say that the answer which he gave me was incorrect. He was not right, Sir, and this is the whole point.

Order! The hon. member’s speech is a continuation of the Second Reading debate.

With respect, Sir, in terms of this amendment we are applying all the provisions of the Act to the employers of Bantu females, and this is what I am dealing with. There are nearly 5 000 Bantu females employed at Hammarsdale. The trouble that we had at Hammarsdale with the bus boycott could have escalated into anything. The whole issue there necessitated police protection. It is to prevent just such a further uprising that I am asking the hon. the Deputy Minister to apply the Act if he is able to do so. He tells me that he is; I sincerely hope he is. I hope he can prove to me that he is right and that he is able to subsidize this bus transport, and in fact I hope that he will now get up and tell me that he will subsidize those Bantu, because this does not only apply to Hammarsdale; this is one isolated instance; it applies to the Swartkops location outside of Pietermaritzburg; it applies to the Inanda location outside of Durban; it applies to many of these rural Bantu townships which have sprung up as the result of Government policy. I am prepared to concede to the hon. the Deputy Minister that the transport of any of those Bantu who are employed in urban areas can be subsidized, but there are many thousands of them who are not employed in urban areas. Sir, I submit that their transport should be subsidized as well, and this is why we moved as an amendment yesterday that this transport system should be subsidized from a general revenue fund and not from a discriminatory tax.

Clause 1 put and the Committee divided:

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

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

Clause accordingly agreed to.

Title:

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

Agreed to.

Title, as amended, put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the Bill before the House now contains a definition of a “declared area”, which states that it is a “declared area as defined in section 2 (1)”. This in effect means an area which is declared as such by the Minister.

I think it is important for us to know what the hon. the Deputy Minister has in mind, and what tests he will apply in this regard. Let me tell him what my problem is. If one takes the position in Port Elizabeth, one finds that there is a totally Coloured passenger bus service from Gelvandale to, say, Port Elizabeth North, the industrial area. If one takes the position in Johannesburg, one might well have a bus service which starts from a Coloured area, passes partially as an entirely Coloured service and then becomes a White service. In the Cape Peninsula one might well have a service from Athlone to Mowbray, which would link with the train service and which would be entirely Coloured, but at the same time there would be a service to convey Coloured persons from the Bellville South area, through the main roads of Vasco, Bellville and Parow to the industrial areas of those particular suburbs. What I want to know from the hon. the Deputy Minister is this: Is this Bill intended to deal with and to subsidize exclusively Coloured bus services within a particular area, or to subsidize services …

Or even exclusively certain routes, yes.

Yes, or exclusively certain routes. That is where I find a difficulty. Mention is made in the Bill of a “declared area”. Perhaps the hon. the Deputy Minister could help me, but I cannot find any provision whereby he can restrict this to particular routes within a defined area. I think the Minister’s problem is limited to certain particular concentrations of Coloured persons all over the country. One wonders just how this is going to work, and I would appreciate it if he would indicate to us what would be the yardstick to determine that a particular area should have a subsidy for the purposes of this Bill.

I just want to refer to the definition of “adult Coloured person”, which means a Coloured person who has reached the age of 18 years.

What clause are you dealing with?

I am dealing with clause 1. This Bill only applies to what is defined as “adult” Coloured persons or adult Indian persons or specific groups of them. According to the Bill such an adult Coloured person or Indian must be a person who is 18 years old. Now, my problem is this, that there are thousands of Indians and Coloured persons who start work when they reach the age of 16 years. Is it the intention of the hon. the Deputy Minister not to subsidize such Coloured or Indian workers, i.e. in the case of individual compensation for these people? It seems to me that if these people are going to be compensated individually, this group of between 16 and 18 years of age will be excluded altogether, and there are thousands of Coloureds and Indians who work and fall within that age group. In the second place, the Bill provides for another method in terms of which the bus company as such will be subsidized. In the case of the bus company only being subsidized in respect of adult workers, it will mean that the bus company will have to differentiate.

No.

But in what other way can it be done? Surely, the bus company does not have a separate bus for workers under 18 years of age and another one for workers over the age of 18 years. This clause does not mean a thing unless a distinction is made between tickets for persons under the age of 18 years and tickets for persons over the age of 18 years, so that the bus company is able to keep a check on and give an account to the State on the transport it provides and the number of people who have been transported. I should like to have an explanation from the hon. the Deputy Minister.

I shall reply to these two gentlemen simultaneoulsy. In the first place, where we refer to the areas, the declared areas, in the Bill, it means the area in which the employers are from whom a levy will be required. For example, let us take the Cape Town municipal area; all the employers within that area will have to pay this levy. This is how it is going to be applied in practice—and here I am dealing with the hon. member for Maitland straight away. You see. Sir, it is the National Transport Commission which, in the first instance, has to recommend to the Minister which area has to be declared. In the second place, it is the National Transport Commission to which appeals will be lodged when the local Road Transportation Board grants increased fares or does not grant increased fares. Increased fares applied for by bus companies do not apply to the whole of the area. The area is divided into routes and it makes no difference whether the company transports children or adults on those routes. The company’s bus service on that route operates at a loss. This matter will be thoroughly investigated by the quantity surveyors of the local Road Transportation Board or the National Transport Commission before an increase in fares is granted. When this happens the bus company concerned approaches the National Transport Commission and informs the latter that it is not allowed to charge increased fares on a particular route because the local Road Transportation Board has found that the people concerned are not in a position to pay those fares and that its services on a specific route are being operated at a loss. It is then for the National Transport Commission to decide, and the account applies exclusively to that controlled area. It cannot be transferred to another area. The National Transport Commission then decides to what extent the bus company concerned will receive a subsidy in respect of passengers.

Which passengers?

For those passengers it transports on that route.

Mr. Chairman. I am grateful to the hon. the Minister for what he has told me. I want to take this a little further for the sake of clarity. Assuming a company operates a bus service throughout the Cape Town municipal area. At the present moment it operates as a whole except that there are certain subdivisions into areas but not entirely down to cost per route. There are certain costs which are of general application to the whole of the operating field. As I understand the Minister—and I hope that he will reassure me that this is so—there will be a check up by the local transportation board in the first instance on the actual costs or specified routes …

They are busy at present.

An advertisement is again to appear of an application.

Yes.

I appealed to the hon. the Minister before and I said that I did not belive that this matter could now be sorted out on the normal procedure that had been adopted before by the local transportation board of calling for a public hearing and saying: “Finish and klaar; you have ten days wherein to lodge objections. You must appear three days later and argue your case.”

I hope that this is going to lead to a subdivision into areas. There are certain areas which I believe pay a higher contribution to the general revenue of the bus company than other routes are paying. Let me take the routes which are exclusively or mainly used by Whites. They already pay an extra one cent per journey for the benefit of the apartheid bus. The Whites pay an extra one cent. Will the White user get the benefit of not having to carry any load in so far as the cost of the bus services for the Coloured and Indian persons are concerned?

Naturally.

I hope it will happen and I hope that the indirect result will be that the declared areas will become declared routes and that the subsidy will go to those routes. In certain areas the municipality does in fact subsidize the White pensioner as they get old-age pension and free travel rights. I take it that these are the sort of things that can be introduced when this Bill is of full application. The hon. the Deputy Minister said “naturally”. That will mean that the White bus user will not be expected to subsidize the non-White bus routes.

That is so.

I just want to make sure whether I understand the hon. the Minister correctly. Now, it is clear that the employer pays the levy only in respect of adult workers.

Eighteen years and older.

But all the Coloured and Indian employees, irrespective of their age, whether they are 16 years or 21 years old, travel at the reduced fare. For argument’s sake, where we are dealing with a Coloured person who is 17 years and 11 months old, a premium of 80 cents is levied on him immediately, compared with his colleague who is his fellow-worker and who is 18 years old. If he is 17 years and 11 months old the firm pays nothing. It will therefore pay the firm to appoint a younger man. Is it correct that you place a premium on the younger employee? It may well happen.

I think the hon. Committee must accept that one has to have an age limit. If this age limit were to be 14 years, the same argument could have been advanced. I have to have an age limit somewhere. I cannot get away from that. The hon. member must accept that when we are dealing with a Coloured family comprising male and female members, who are essential workers in an industrial area, it does not mean that they are the only people who travel by bus. The children also travel by bus. Industry has the advantage of having a Coloured family in that area to do the work.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 2:

Mr. Chairman, I asked the hon. the Deputy Minister a question yesterday during the Second Reading. Unfortunately the hon. the Minister did not have the time to deal with all the matters which were raised. I asked him whether he felt that this Bill could be of practical application and whether he felt that this Bill, when passed by this House, could be applied in regard to subsidies. I raised with the hon. the Deputy Minister yesterday the pending application affecting the whole of the Cape Peninsula for both Whites and non-Whites. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister can assure me that no hasty decisions will be made if there is to be an investigation into particular routes in regard to this application. After all, once this legislation is applied, funds can be made available for the current financial year. They do not have to be from the date on which a certain happening takes place. I raised this yesterday, but as I have said, the hon. the Minister did not have time to reply to my query. I want to ask him again whether there will not be caution in the application of increases now at the costs of the passengers when that increase, if it is found justifiable, can be met on the subsidy basis and not by an increase against the passengers and users of the bus services.

Mr. Chairman, this Bill can only be applied after it has been promulgated and after it has been signed by the State President; in other words, it can only be applied as soon as I have the machinery to collect the levy, etc. At the same time I want to assure this Committee that the local Roads Transportation Boards and the National Transport Commission, which is an autonomous board, are at present investigating the whole cost structure …

The whole?

Yes, the whole cost structure of the operators. They will take cognizance of every factor before the increase is decided upon.

Mr. Chairman, I anticipate that they will take cognizance of every factor before an increase is decided upon. If an increase of revenue is necessary it can be met in two ways. The one way is to increase the bus fares—in other words, to get it from the users—and the other is to get it by way of a subsidy. That is a point in regard to which I asked the hon. the Deputy Minister to use his …

The hon. member has voted against this subsidy and I do not have the money yet.

No, I do not want to be mistaken. The hon. the Minister must not play politics. We have not voted against the subsidy.

We do not have this money yet.

But this particular Bill provides that there can be an appropriation by Parliament from the Consolidated Revenue Account. The subsidy for which provision is being made can come from two sources. The one is the “heffing” or the levy, and the other one is a vote from Parliament. We do not oppose the question of a subsidy, but I want to say to the hon. the Minister that I hope again he will use his influence with this board not to hasten, if they find that an increase in bus fares is necessary, to apply it to the users when the operating company can perhaps be met by way of subsidy or in terms of this legislation.

I have taken note of your request.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 3:

Mr. Chairman, it is not my intention to conduct a debate on the Second Reading: in any case, you will not allow it, Sir. We have made it quite clear why we are opposed to the principle of this clause. We believe the subsidy should be made available by Parliament out of the general funds of the Government. This must be done openly and for all to see so that everybody will know what amount is being granted, and we believe it should not be levied upon the workers on a sectional basis. However, the principle has already been accepted. We are opposed to this and we are therefore opposed to this clause as well.

†There would have been certain items of detail which one would like to have asked the hon. the Deputy Minister. For instance …

Why don’t you ask him then?

Because I know that I will not get a reply and that I am wasting my time. However, I am going to have a try. The hon. the Deputy Minister said that he used as a basis for this clause certain regulations of 1944 and 1947. I would like to ask him to read us the regulation which is the counterpart upon which he has based the wording of clause 3 (1) and clause 3 (2). I would like to hear from the hon. the Deputy Minister how subsection (3) (1) and subsection (3) (2) compare in wording with the regulations which he quoted to the House in regard to another measure which he said justified him in saying that this side of the House should support this measure. I would like him to show us how we should support it on the basis of a previous regulation. If the hon. the Deputy Minister has regulations before him, he should be able to quote them to us. If he has not, he has no right to use them as an argument against this. I would be very interested to hear whether the hon. the Deputy Minister can in fact quote to us from these mystic regulations and show us how they compare with these clauses. If he cannot we shall be justified in proceeding with our opposition, we shall vote against this clause and we shall be consistent with the attitude we have always taken, namely that the employer should not be taxed by means of a sectional tax.

Mr. Chairman, it is no use the hon. member’s trying to make political capital out of this matter. The hon. member, right at the outset, put words into my mouth that I did not utter. I never said that we used the regulations applicable from 1944 to 1947 as a basis for this clause.

As justification.

The hon. member used the word “basis”. I never said that we used it as a basis. The basis of this clause is embodied in the Bantu Transport Services Act. I merely quoted those regulations to point out that the United Party, as far back as 1944, had no fundamental objection to a levy in principle and subsequently accepted it in principle and promulgated regulations.

Clause 3 put and the Committee divided:

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

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

Clause accordingly agreed to.

Clause 6:

Mr. Chairman, we are not lodging an objection to this clause. Had our objection to clause 3 been successful we would then have moved to delete clause 6 (1) (i), but in view of the fact that clause 3 has been adopted, I merely want to emphasize that our non-objection to this paragraph of clause 6 is consequential on having lost the division on clause 3.

Mr. Chairman, I would simply like to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister a few questions. According to this clause there will be a separate Coloured Transport Account and a separate Indian Transport Account. I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister how he intends to manage these two accounts if the transport service concerned transports both Indian and. Coloured passengers? In other words, if the transporter is carrying both race groups, from which account will the funds be drawn? From the Coloured or the Indian account?

Furthermore I want to refer the hon. the Deputy Minister to subsection (5), which provides that the money obtained from one particular area cannot be applied to assist in another area. I would like the hon. the Deputy Minister to explain to me what happens when one particular bus service not only picks up passengers of both race groups but also serves two different areas or more.

Mr. Chairman, it is a simple arithmetic question. There is a levy account for Coloureds and a levy account for Indians of a certain area. When the same transport company provides transport for Indians and Coloureds on the same routes the Transport Commission will debit to the Indian and Coloured accounts according to the ratio of Indians to Coloureds. That is the first point.

Secondly, the separate account is similar to that which we have in the Bantu Transport Bill. We provide that the levies collected, for example in Pretoria, cannot be used in Johannesburg, or those collected in Johannesburg cannot be used in Cape Town. It is for that specific area only.

I would like to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister what procedure he is going to adopt to distribute the subsidies to the different bus companies. Is a company which is carrying more passengers, going to get more? Is he going to pay cash?

Again it is an accounting matter.

Is he not going to subsidize the user by giving him his ticket at a lower price?

It is done in the same way as with the Bantu transport system at present.

How is that done?

Mr. Chairman, surely hon. members who have been in this House for so long and have opposed this Bill to the extent they did, should know that when a bus company is not allowed to charge its bus users higher fares and the statements of account reveal that it has consequently suffered a loss, the bus company may be subsidized in that respect after the matter has been thoroughly investigated. Surely the hon. member has seen statements of account of several cases of this nature.

Clause put and agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, please permit me by way of explanation to point out to you that I said at the Second Reading debate of this Bill yesterday that the amount contributed by the Central Government was R202 million. In actual fact it is R106 million. The R96 million is already included in the R106 million, and should not be added to it again. I just wish to rectify this, so that the figures may be correct.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

We have had the opportunity for several years now to experience the workings of the system of national service, and I think we have reached the stage where we can effect certain improvements from the lessons we have learned. Organizationally, we have also been placed in a better position to deal with certain problems we originally had and which we will now be able to deal with more easily. Experience, which is always the best teacher, has taught us certain lessons, and we are trying to incorporate these in this proposed measure.

This Bill relates mainly to the national service system, and it is provided mainly in clauses 1, 3, 5, 6 and 9. The past four years have afforded us the opportunity of testing in practice what we are proposing in these clauses, and we are of the opinion that what we are proposing to this House are improvements. Nevertheless I am prepared, as I have informed hon. members opposite, to move, after the Second Reading has been accepted, that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee in order to ascertain whether more improvements cannot be effected, and in the second place to provide an opportunity of consulting certain Defence Force Heads and Sectional heads on any problems hon. members may be experiencing.

I now want to proceed, in the limited time at my disposal, to deal with a few of the most important clauses.

Clause 1. Clause 1 deals with an important improvement in regard to professionally trained citizens. In spite of the policy of the past two years of granting postponement of training only to students in medicine, pharmacy, dentistry and veterinary science, a considerable number of students in other professional directions, to whom this concession was also granted attended universities. As I shall explain later, these numbers will increase considerably in future. The Defence Force cannot use all the professionally qualified citizens who may become available annually for national service, for an uninterrupted period in their professions. Since their services in their respective professions will be required in time of emergency or war, they must undergo basic military training and gain professional experience in matters relating to the defence of the Republic. They may gain this professional experience with various other organizations in a Government context. Their services with such organizations will, at the same time, contribute towards overcoming the manpower shortage there and in this way facilitate the performance of tasks related to defence. The number of persons who will be involved here, will be minimal—it may increase later in certain categories—because this only applies to professions for which a category exists in the South African Defence Force and in which there is a surplus of national servicemen available.

Professional units?

Yes. Furthermore, such a member may be used only in his profession outside the Defence Force and then only in a Government context or in institutions directly related to the Defence Force.

The conditions of service of those who are to be allocated to other State Departments or institutions, will, as the clause provides, be prescribed by regulation. The regulations have not been formulated as yet, but it is being envisaged to deal with them more or less as follows. I am not saying that this will be the specific pattern, but it will be the approximate pattern. After completion of their basic military training of six weeks and after selection by the South African Defence Force for its own professional needs, they are allocated to a particular institution for the remainder of their compulsory service and their further military training is postponed. In case of a refusal to serve outside the Defence Force, the postponement is cancelled and ordinary national service is then applied. After the prescribed service has been completed outside the Defence Force, exemption from further national service is granted and the national servicemen involved are placed on the Citizen Force Reserve. As soon as a national serviceman commences his service in the Public Service, he becomes a civilian Public Servant to whom the Public Service Act and regulations are applicable. (This is a condition laid down by the Public Service Commission and I do not think we can avoid this.) With other, he will be an ordinary civilian employee. His new employer will be responsible for his administration, remuneration and discipline. The conditions of service of national servicemen serving as professional officers in the Defence Force compare quite favourably with their counterparts in the Permanent Force. They receive free accommodation, food, clothing and medical services. Employers will be required to provide these services or to offer compensation for them so that the principle of equal treatment is maintained.

In the Permanent Force?

I am referring to persons rendering service corresponding to that rendered by Permanent Force officers. It will be decided in consultation with the Public Service Commission.

Furthermore, the clause provides for the allocation of non-professional national servicemen to subsidiaries of Armscor, such as Atlas, the Lyttleton Engineering Works, Pretoria Metal Pressing Works or Naschem, in order to provide for a great need for unskilled White labour there. The main task of these undertakings is to manufacture armaments for the Defence Force and therefore we have the greatest interest in their proper functioning. Because the work is of a routine nature and requires little skill and training, it has been found that national servicemen with low educational qualifications, may be used to great advantage in this direction. In time of war, manpower will have to be allocated to the factory and those with previous experience and who have been placed on the Citizen Force for all purposes and are only rendering service outside it. The Defence Force Reserve, may be earmarked for this purpose. In contrast to the professionally qualified national servicemen serving outside the Defence Force, these persons remain effective members of the Citizen Force for all purposes and are only rendering service outside it. The Defence Force remains responsible for their remuneration, food, clothing, discipline, etc., but the utilizer of their labour will have to compensate the Department for that. In addition these national servicemen undergo at least basic military training.

Clause 2: The special uninterrupted service which may be required from members of the Citizen Force on the authority of the Minister, in the interests of the South African Defence Force or in the public interests, is for a period not exceeding two months in their service period of 10 years. In the light of the prevailing threat, and taking into consideration the Republic of South Africa’s extremely extensive borders which are difficult to defend, the number of trained national servicemen at our disposal is not sufficient for the task. The utilization of troops on the border means that they must be transported over large distances—mostly by aircraft. It would be unpractical and shortsighted if, under special circumstances, they could not be liable to serve for longer periods than two months. I repeat “under special circumstances”. Since the Defence Force has a large number of Citizen Force units at its disposal, and, as I shall explain later, commandos as well, it is not foreseen that every member will be called up for this service annually for it will be possible to use units on a revolving basis. This procedure has this advantage that it avoids the proclamation of a state of emergency and formal mobilization—which may have extremely disadvantageous political and economic results—in the case of less serious threats. In this regard we should bear in mind what I have often said in this House, and which is accepted by experts today, namely that we are dealing with revolutionary warfare and that new situations have arisen which one cannot always cope with by proclaiming states of emergency. Because one has to cope with particular types of revolutionary warfare, one must also have more flexibility in one’s actions than the present Act allows. Although, on the face of it, a tremendous burden is being placed on members of the Citizen Force by this provision, this will not be the case in practice, but it is necessary to make provision for any eventuality.

Clause 3: The period of service of national servicemen in the commandos is being reduced from 16 years to 10 years. This proposal entails that national service in the Citizen Force and commandos will be of equal duration, and should meet with general approval from the public. This provision alleviates the position not only of future members, but of serving members as well.

Clause 4: (a) In the years since the introduction of the commando system, for national servicemen as well, experience has shown that in practice this system is not very satisfactory. The first period of service is too short for the proper training of a member of a commando. On the other hand, the 16 year period of service is so long that it leads to dissatisfaction. When the system was introduced, the Defence Force did not have the training facilities and manpower to place service in the commandos on an equal basis with service in the Citizen Force, but as you know, we have now made considerable progress with the facilities at the military training school and are now able to provide much better training. The initial training period of the commandos is being increased from a period not exceeding 90 days to a period not exceeding 12 months, and the former 15 periods of 19 days each are being reduced to nine periods not exceeding 19 days each, with the proviso that no person is liable to render service for a period exceeding 16 months in the aggregate. This is as in the case of the Citizen Force. The intention here is that the leaders element in the commandos, as in the Citizen Force, should complete 12 months’ service in their first year while the privates should complete nine months. I know that hon. members on both sides of this House, and also as the public outside, sometimes feel that we could reduce the period of nine months for the privates, as far as infantrymen are concerned. I concede that it may be possible to reduce their period by a month. But then we must take two other aspects of this matter into consideration. The first is that if we were to reduce the period, we would have a period in which we would, in effect, not have a force under arms. Can we afford to have such a situation in South Africa? In the second place, if we were to reduce the period of nine months and shorten the period by a month or six weeks, we would, in effect, be obliged to establish another force, a professional force, which would cost us a tremendous amount in housing and additional expenses. Both those alternatives should be taken into account when advocating a reduced training period. Furthermore, the leaders in the commandos will be required to attend a number of proficiency courses lasting 19 days while in the remaining years they will be liable to only ten days per annum. The liability in respect of privates will be limited to ten days per annum. It is envisaged that members of commandos should be made to undergo the same training as Citizen Force infantrymen. The advantages of this are that treatment will be on a more equal basis and in particular that it will bring about a greater measure of flexibility, because commando national servicemen and Citizen Force infantrymen could then be readily transferred from one place to another as they moved. This is a very important factor for good organization, as hon. members will accept. At present members of most Citizen Force units are distributed all over the country which makes mobilization and administration extremely difficult. It will also lead to a better-trained commando member and a better distribution of manpower between urban and rural commandos and Citizen Force units. The Army’s need for Citizen Force national servicemen is increasing annually so that the remainder available for commando service is shrinking steadily. The Danie Theron military training school has housing facilities and training staff to cope with 1 200 commando members at the same time, apart from offering short courses. The intention is to give commando members an intensive training course (lasting six months and then to use them for guard duty elsewhere for a period of three months. With four intakes of 600 per year, that objective will be achieved. If a greater number are available they may be trained, without any inconvenience, in a Citizen Force infantry unit. The extended initial period of service will only be enforced with effect from 1st January, 1973, and in addition, only in respect of those who commence their service in the commandos on or after that date. Persons who have already commenced their service before that date are not liable to this, because it is a first period of service liability, and in addition the South African Army cannot handle the large number of serving members for such a long period.

In this regard I want to say a special word on behalf of the Permanent Force. It is often asked how the people are kept occupied and whether they cannot be kept more occupied. In this regard I merely want to say that in dealing with and discussing these matters, we should also take into consideration the obligations which we place on the Permanent Force staff. I want to pay tribute today to a Permanent Force staff which does not adhere to a working week of five days, but which in many cases sacrifices its week-ends in order to be able to fulfil these obligations properly.

In regard to subsection (4) (b), the same considerations apply as in the case of clause 2. Since the period of service in the commandos is also ten years now, an identical provision is being made and commandos will also render special continuous service for a period not exceeding four months annually.

I should like to make a few remarks now about the possible treatment of university students in future because this is not provided for clearly in the Bill. However, for the purposes of background, I feel I should furnish this information.

Under the existing dispensation, there are three ways according to which an intending student can complete his compulsory service: Firstly, national service in the Citizen Force immediately after leaving school; or secondly, national service in the Citizen Force after completion of his studies. However, this has been restricted to prospective doctors, dentists, pharmacists and veterinarians. In the third place there was national service in the commandos, In this case students completed their training during the university vacations and in this way they could proceed with their studies immediately and without interruptions. Experience has shown that a large percentage of students have preferred service in the commandos and that this state of affairs has seriously prejudiced the efficiency of the Defence Force. The Citizen Force is suffering from a lack of youth leaders, for under the present system the cream of the crop is being allocated to the commandos. Furthermore, urban commandos are being oversupplied because after completing their studies, these students settle almost exclusively in urban areas. The new dispensation, with an initial period of service of at least nine months, excludes attendance at university in the first year of service of a commando member. Furthermore, it is also intended to allocate all intending university students to the Citizen Force. This will eliminate the deficiencies in the existing system. Intending students will now be dealt with approximately as follows: As in the past, a national serviceman will have the choice of commencing his national service immediately after leaving school or completing his studies first. If he chooses to undergo his military training first, he is included in the January-intake, if possible, so that he need not wait longer than a year before commencing his studies. There is conclusive scientific proof that a student who has first completed his military training under the national service system, compares very favourably, if not more than favourably, with other students who have not undergone military training.

If he prefers to complete his studies first, his training is postponed. Students will be encouraged to make this choice. The Defence Force can then make much better use of him, especially in the professional categories where there is a great need for this type of person, for example doctors, dentists, lawyers, etc. In addition, his services can be used as envisaged in clause 1. Because of their greater maturity and more advanced age, the non-professional graduates (as far as the Defence Force categories are concerned) will provide ideal leadership material in comparison with the ordinary national serviceman, and in addition they may be used without serious hardship in the subsequent categories of the year where a dire shortage of leaders is regularly experienced.

As far as the manpower position in the Defence Force is concerned, no appreciable change is envisaged. The amendment to the Act affects only those students who intend studying for professions other than the medical, dental and veterinary science professions, of which the numbers amount to approximately 1 000. For the Defence Force, therefore, there will only be a temporary initial loss of 1 000 for the first three years, i.e. the present annual student allocation to the commandos.

Clause 5. This clause contains a mere rectification because members of the Citizen Force and of the Commandos are being allocated to a particular unit of the Permanent Force where they have to undergo their initial training and complete their service. Only after this service has been completed, are they allocated to a specific Citizen Force Unit or Commando of which they then remain members until the full period of service has been completed. Strategically, this is the most suitable, taking into account their place of residence.

†Clause 6 deals with the exemption. Service in the commando was regarded as a concession compared with service in the Citizen Force. A member of the commandos could not therefore, after having commenced his service, apply for exemption to the Exemption Board. As the proposed amendment places service in the commandos on a par with that in the Citizen Force, members of the commandos should enjoy a similar right of approach to the Exemption Board.

Clause 7 deals with the administering of funds. The existing section 87 (1) (d) provides solely for the control of funds collected and administered by members of the South African Defence Force (“Funds”) for the benefit of members of that Force and their dependants. “Funds,” like the S.A. Army Fund and various regimental funds, have already acquired fixed and other properties to give effect to their objects, e.g. the provision of recreation facilities for their members. In the case of the Army we have in our possession today certain land available near the Vaal Dam. The amendment envisages control also over such activities.

Clause 8 has to do with the right of the Minister to prohibit or restrict access to military property. Less serious infringements should, however, not be punishable with imprisonment and therefore provision is made also for a fine, which brings the section in line with the punishments prescribed by section 127 of the Act.

Clause 9 is a practical improvement. As explained in clause 4, it is intended to train members of the commandos in the same manner as infantry members of the Citizen Force. This will make it possible for members to be transferred from the commandos to the Citizen Force and vice versa, should circumstances require. Transfers are at present effected by the Registering Officer under the provisions of section 67 (3A), which, however, applies only to the initial allotment either to the Citizen Force or the commandos. After commencement of service, members fall under the control of the Chief of the Arm concerned. Under the new system a large number of transfers are expected which will place too great an administrative burden on the Registering Officer should every case be referred to him. This clause therefore authorizes the Minister or his delegate, e.g. the Chief of the Army, to effect the necessary transfers as circumstances may require.

Clause 10. I wish to deal with clause 10 as quickly as possible, but this is a very important clause. Lately there has been an increase in the number of persons who bluntly refuse to report for service or to undergo military training. Every concession provided by law, such as allotment to non-combatant units and training without weapons, is regarded as unacceptable, with the result that conscientious objectors are time and again charged and punished for their persistent refusal throughout their period of service. The charges are invariably for the same offence, which is undesirable and result in adverse criticism by the Press and the public on the argument that it will be technically possible to prosecute and punish a recalcitrant member until he reaches the age of 65. To counteract this criticism, the amendment proposes to prescribe to the courts to impose a single punishment of detention which coincides with the maximum service commitment of the offender. This knowledge may also have a deterrent effect. I have had long discussions on this matter both in our country with leaders of churches, with military chaplains and in other countries with heads of defence forces and ministers of defence. I have come to the conclusion that this proposal may be the best in the circumstances.

Clauses 11 and 12. In the past it was accepted that “funds” were entitled to a ministerial certificate which exempted them from licence moneys, dues, etc. Legal opinions in this regard vary and the amendment envisages putting the matter beyond any doubt. Furthermore, it is necessary that all certified clubs, messes, institutions and funds of the South African Defence Force should be legal persona, as they enter into numerous legal transactions in the course of their activities.

Clause 13 is of a technical nature and the same applies to clause 14. As I said at the beginning, I propose that this Bill should be referred to a Select Committee for further consideration after the Second Reading. I shall move accordingly at a later stage.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. the Minister for his detailed explanation of this measure and particularly for the announcement which he made that the Bill will go to a Select Committee after the Second Reading. This is, I believe, essential for a measure of this nature, and conforms with the normal practice which the Minister has always followed in regard to defence legislation, where in the past we have always managed to get a large degree of, if not complete, agreement on this type of Bill. I welcome it particularly in this case, because there are aspects of this Bill which we as an Opposition cannot support in their present form. The Bill does not change the basic principle of national service. But it does make, as the hon. the Minister has said, far-reaching changes in its application. When I say there are far-reaching changes, I refer for instance to clause 2, which, as it is worded in the Bill, and as the law will read if this Bill becomes law as it stands, will mean that every Citizen Force man will be liable to perform his 16 months’ normal training plus four months for ten years. This means that an additional 40 months, a total of 56 months’ service, could be imposed under this Bill as a potential maximum period on every young man in South Africa.

Obviously that is not the intention of the legislation. The hon. the Minister has said that this clause will only be used in exceptional circumstances. But that is what the clause says. It says that every young man in South Africa will be liable for nearly five years, 56 months, of continuous training. This, of course, is not a realistic proposition and it is something which those who will serve on the Select Committee will be able to look at so that not only can there be no mistake and no confusion about it, but so that it will not create the impression that South Africa is now going to call up her young men for a period twice as long as in almost every other country, even Portugal, which is virtually in a state of war.

Where did you get that information?

Of what?

That statement you have just made, that it will be twice as long as in any other country in the world.

For Citizen Force full-time service most countries have 18 months, 2 years or 2½ years. That is the period in the average overseas country.

Where did you get the 56 months?

The 56 months is simple arithmetic. Four months per year for ten years is 40 months. The existing Act lays down 16 months. 40 plus 16 makes 56.

Why do you put it in that way?

Mr. Speaker, I am saying that this is the sort of confusion which can be cleared up in a Select Committee. We could not as an Opposition here in the House accent that sort of open-cheque commitment which the Minister is asking for. Parliament is not here to sign blank cheques.

We do not want a sermon from you. Please explain where you get that fact from.

Which fact?

The one you have just stated. The 56 months.

Well, Mr. Speaker, clause 2 inserts the word “annually”, which means every year, into section 22 (7) of the Principal Act, which then reads—

that is new—

the period of two months is changed to four months—

Four months annually to me means four months per year. A person is on strength for ten years in the Citizen Force or in the commandos. Ten years times four months makes 40 months. It is not what the hon. the Minister means. He does not intend to do this, but that is what the Bill says. It is not our task to give blank cheques.

You are just playing around now.

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member for Potchefstroom does not want this Bill to get unanimous support, let him take this sort of attitude. I am trying to say why we on this side of the House could not accept the Bill exactly in its present form, because we could not accept a commitment of 56 months as called for in the Bill as presently worded. That is one aspect of it. I believe that when we have discussed it and when we have put into the law what is intended instead of what is written in the Bill, then we will reach agreement. But assurances do not make laws. The words written in a Bill make laws. What is meant must be what is put in the Bill. It is no use putting something in which is not meant.

I prefer that you fight the Bill straight out instead of using this type of tactic.

Mr. Speaker, I will come with a proposal—I do not have the time to start on it now—for limitation of this clause which I believe will deal with two problems.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 30 (2) and debate adjourned.

The House proceeded to the consideration of private members’ business.

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

1. (a) takes cognizance of the rapid advance of science and technology which makes increasing demands on the financial resources of the modern State, and in turn, profoundly influences its social, economic and political structure;
2. (b) expresses its concern that the size and complexity of these developments may militate against the proper scrutiny of their costs or a sound allocation of priorities between them;
3. (c) affirms that it is the fundamental duty of Parliament to examine and approve the expenditure of public money; and
4. (d) is of the opinion that consideration should be given to the appointment of a Select Committee on Science and Technology to assist Parliament in augmenting its knowledge and strengthening its authority in these fields.

I believe that this motion is self-explanatory. If any part of it does require elucidation, it is the strong reference to financial control which is contained in it, while I propose to deal more especially with the social, economic and political effects of the advance of science. The reason for introducing the financial control content into the motion is quite clear. It is Parliament’s traditional duty to apply controls by the exercise of vigilance over the public purse and if Parliament wishes to control or to moderate the activities of the Executive this is the traditional means, since Magna Carta, which Parliament has employed to bring its influence to bear. The motion is also clearly non-partisan and I hope that speakers on both sides of the House will treat it in that fashion, because it is a motion not against any party but in favour of Parliament.

The motion stems from my deep concern with the developing patterns of society in the modern world. The role of Parliament, in my view, has not measured up to the rapid advance in science and technology. It is a commonplace to say that the rate of advance of science and technology far exceeds the power of the human being to adapt itself to these changes. We are aware all around us of the intense pressure generated by new technological developments and by the inability of mankind to change his nature, his character, his habitat and his social and cultural behaviour in accordance with these new pressures which are upon him. We have only to take a few examples —they are striking, even if old-fashioned— to illustrate the meaning of what I have said. Let us consider the role of gunpowder in the past. Gunpowder broke down the feudal system. It caused people to abandon their castles and fortresses on hilltops; it caused people to accept that warfare could no longer be controlled in the old manner and that warfare would in future be conducted on a new basis against which mere walls would not avail. In regard to the development of printing, it again is a trite statement to say that its development has revolutionized the whole world. We can also take more modern examples, like electricity. What has electricity not brought into our lives and how has it not changed our lives in every respect! There are such things as the internal combustion engine which led to the motor-car and aeroplane. We now have nuclear energy. It started with the atomic bomb, but now we have the development of nuclear energy for peaceful uses. All these things have a vital, far-reaching and enduring effect on the lives of every person on this planet. In my view it is essential that Parliaments, which are concerned with the control and conduct of human behaviour, should be entirely and continuously aware of these things; that they should not only be aware of them, but should understand them, study their implications and should apply forethought to the developments which these changes will bring.

Let us consider briefly a few examples of the impact of science on modern society. This, after all, is a question which I think both scientists and politicians must answer: What is the impact of science on our modern society? How do we adjust? How do we resolve the conflicts between these two? Let us take a few examples. The first, and in my view probably the most important of all examples, is what I might describe as the expectation of life. The most fundamental change which we experience is in the quality of human life and in the environment about us. We are faced with the phenomenon today of the exploding population. Here in South Africa we have a population of approximately 20 million people. The most sober projections by our statisticians indicate that within 25 years or so there will be more than 40 million people in South Africa. This means that there will be a doubling of the total population which will require at least a doubling of all our facilities, amenities and services like housing, dams, roads, post offices, police stations—every single service one can think of. When we consider also that this rising population will be accompanied by an improvement in the quality of life and in the life expectation of the people, it is safe to say that, conservatively, there will be a trebling of all these amenities and services within the next 25 years, or must be, if we are to give satisfaction to our people. These demands on South Africa, which will require the establishment of greater amenities and services than South Africa has created for herself in the past three centuries, are going to take an enormous application of science and technology. They will require that there is brought to bear all the brains and resources which this country can muster.

What is the role of Parliament in this development? Is Parliament to stand aside and wait for these things to happen haphazardly, or is Parliament going to be in the vanguard of progress to understand, study, lead, form and shape this enormous revolution in our time?

We can look at various other aspects of this chapter which I have entitled “Expectation of Life”. There is agriculture. Against this growing population, we have a country which has, in my view, limited agricultural resources. It is not the country in the world which is most amenable to a high agricultural production. What are we going to do about this position? Are we going to allow the projections of Malthus to be proved true for South Africa: that in fact the population will outgrow the food supply; or will there be some green revolution in which we will discover new forms of agriculture and new ways of production which will enable us to match population growth by agricultural growth? We look at problems arising out of the improvement of medicine. Infant mortality is being cut down. Old-age is increasing amongst us. These factors have a direct effect on our population growth. They have enormous effects on our financial resources because it means that the people who are economically inactive, are enormously added to by this process. Any society must welcome the improvement brought about by medicine, but that society must be equally concerned that the people who are too young or too old to work, who are now increasing so much in proportion to the economically active part of the population, should be cared for and should have the necessary resources devoted to them.

Lastly, under this chapter, I would mention the question of birth control, which is a most complicated subject to deal with. I wish to refer to it only very briefly. For some generations now, or for some decades at least, scientists have pursued the concept of an effective contraceptive method, a pill which will be easy to take and which will be safe and convenient. They have pursued this concept as though it were some sort of holy grail. But one wonders whether these scientists in their single-minded pursuit of this objective, gave sufficient thought to the other consequences. I can believe that most societies would welcome this new ability to control families and to plan parenthood; but it has brought other social problems. It has brought a change in moral patterns. I am not here to say this afternoon that the one thing is good and the other is bad. But I believe that this kind of scientific endeavour should be accompanied by some forethought and that there should be some philosophical injection into the problem before the scientific invention is made universally available. This again I believe is the kind of thing which Parliament should do.

Let me deal briefly with another chapter to which I shall refer as the “Confrontation of Races”. For hundreds of thousands of years the population of the world lived in isolated groups, divided by geographical barriers, by mountain ranges and oceans. Today, modern communications—the car, the train, the aeroplane, radio, television and communication by satellite—have made it possible for all peoples throughout this planet to communicate easily with one another. Growing out of this is a sense of common destiny. People share each other’s thoughts; they share each other’s aspirations and together there has grown a common dependence on certain basic resources. There is an awareness now that we have a common dependence on certain scarce resources, that there must be joint international planning to ensure that these resources will not be wastefully consumed by one small group in one part of the planet and not become available to the other people in other parts of the planet. Apart from this joint dependence on common resources, there is also now a new sharing of philosophical aspirations. These things are the consequence of the printing press, radio and television. These are the facts of life with which we must live, accept and adapt to. My point is that these things were upon us before we had had time to think out the implications. We think philosophically and socially ex post facto. We are presented with the facts, and then we start to find remedies, brakes or controls for the new situation which suddenly arises around us.

So, too, there are problems of physical environment. We are aware of the housing sprawl around us, the extensive urban development which is now despoiling our countryside. We see about us the disappearance of our farmlands, woods, forests and streams. We see biological change around us. We see pollution of our environment. We are growing accustomed to living with the motor-car and the plane. We are accustoming ourselves to new methods of construction which in fact abandon the aesthetic and the beautiful and produce the utilitarian object at any price. These are the prices we are paying. Is it good or is it bad? These questions are upon us; should they not be considered before they happen? Should we not have time to think, philosophize and decide what, from the social, economic and political point of view, is desirable before we accept the scientific achievement when already it may be too late?

Sir, let me mention one or two more. There is the chapter I would refer to as “Control Engineering”. There is growing up around us, in our industrial society, a whole new technique which is concerned with the production of goods on a mass basis through automated means. Control engineering goes wider and broader than that, but this narrow definition will serve my purpose. The consequence of this control engineering or automated industry is that whole classes of occupations are disappearing. Clerks, servants, chain production workers are becoming redundant through this. Sir, I do not cry “Alarm!” as people did during the industrial revolution when they saw a few machines introduced; but nevertheless where will the sons of the clerks work; where will the sons of the chain production workers work; where will these people go; how will they be employed? What kind of education would they need if industrial life about us is changing so fast? Clearly there will be new skills, new problems of organization and new problems of management. We are going to have to decide, Sir, whether we are going to go for ever greater employment or greater leisure. Are we going to produce a civilization of leisure? Will we be able to plan from these new changes in our society a new civilization of leisure? It will not come automatically; it will have to be deliberately planned.

Sir, we have problems of energy. Mankind started by driving small machines with human and animal energy. To this day we commemorate animal energy in the phrase “horse-power”. The output of our motor-cars and aeroplanes is measured in horse-power. We have moved from this to fossil fuel power, that is to say, the generation of energy out of oil and coal reserves; these are the fossil fuels left to us from the past. But they will in due course be exhausted. We are moving now to nuclear power. The generation of energy leads, in turn, to grave problems of pollution, the disposal of waste, which is a most difficult and urgent problem in the case of nuclear power. Then there is the whole question of power storage which may bring further new benefits but also new problems to mankind. Lastly, Sir, in this category of change there is the problem of education. How are we going to conduct education in future? For what kind of world are we going to educate people? In the face of all this change, which I have briefly outlined, youth obviously cannot go on being educated according to the old standards, the old methods, the old techniques, which were good enough for our grandfathers. They need to adapt; they need to be trained; they need to be made aware of the problems of this new world. They will have to live in an environment entirely different, more complex and more difficult than any which we have ever dreamt of. Is it any wonder, Sir, that the youth at some universities express doubt; that some of them revolt against old teaching systems? I say nothing, Sir, of other forms of revolt at universities; I refer specifically here to the kind of revolt which has happened at many universities and which has been a revolt against the techniques, the facilities and the methods of teaching. Can one wonder that these students who feel called upon to face such grave charges and such grave responsibilities, revolt when they are treated to dog-eared Latin books, when they are taught by old-fashioned methods: little boxes with a few wires sticking out of them when they study physics, and a few glass tubes when they study chemistry? Sir, this is not good enough. We shall have to adapt our education in order to enable our youth to survive in the kind of world which is rapidly evolving around us.

Can anyone question, Sir, that these are matters about which Parliament should be concerned? Can we wait for events and only then seek to find controls? Surely there is an urgent need for a parliamentary research and development policy, just as there is a need for a research and development policy in industry and elsewhere. We members also need to keep abreast of the times, for the pace is quickening every day. Sir, in the case of photography, 102 years elapsed between the observance of the phenomenon which gave rise to photography and its effective realization. In the case of the telephone, 56 years elapsed between the first observation of the principle and its eventual implementation. In the case of radio, it took 35 years; in the case of television, 14 years; in the case of nuclear energy, only six years, and in the case of the transistor, five years. This, I think, is a dramatic illustration of the pace at which things are moving and the pace at which things are changing. We are living in a permanent revolution.

It is not the purpose of my motion to attack or to criticize the administrative organization of science and technology in South Africa. Looking at the public sector alone, I would say that we are fortunate in many respects. It is true that research in South Africa is divided and spread amongst many departments, but this is common in other countries as well. I have looked at the amount of money, scattered through the Budget, which is being spent in support of research and technology, and if one takes into account the CSIR, the Atomic Energy Board, the various research institutes, medical research, agricultural technical services, Antarctic research, museums, universities, and so forth, one finds that we are spending something approaching R50 million out of a total Budget of approximately R3 500 million. This is something like 1⅓ per cent, which, by world standards, is neither the best nor the worst; it is somewhere in the middle and, as I have said, it is not my intention to criticize at this moment the amount which is being spent. Co-ordination between these various departmental activities is taking place. There is a Scientific Advisory Council which co-ordinates; there is a scientific adviser to the Prime Minister, and if one were to criticize this structure at all, which is not my intention in this motion, one would in passing say that it is a pity that the Prime Minister, who is the person at the apex of the pyramid, is not normally the person in this House to whom we can turn with these broad scientific and philosophical questions. It might be better, from the point of view of discussing these problems in the House, answering questions and generally replying to criticism, that there should be a Minister of Science and Technology, who would deal with such matters with a department of his own, so that in the current affairs of this House we could have a constant debate on these subjects.

I said that my main theme was not administration, but Parliament. I have established, I hope, that there is a new responsibility on Parliament, and that we need science for policy in the sense that we must think science and must understand science in order to make policy; we also need a policy for science, because if we do not have a policy for science, science will get away from us. We have in this House, for example, a Railways Standing Committee. This committee has, over the years, specialized in certain aspects of Railways administration, the development of railways, and so forth, and this House has been confident that its interests have been well represented. The members of that committee have become well acquainted with these problems and, over the years, they have developed a certain expert skill in Railway matters. Railways are no longer an urgent and burning problem in our society. Is it not right then, if the Railways Select Committee has justified itself, that we should have a committee to deal with science and technology, to look urgently at all these other problems? The choice upon us is whether we are going to allow the scientists to rule—and I say this without the adverse intent that we may have to choose between on the one hand efficiency, power and productivity, with its attendant pollution, or on the other hand, leisure, tranquility, conservation and human adaptation. The choice is not quite as stark as that. I am speaking about a kind of compromise between these extremes in order that we may live decent, peaceful lives, while enjoying the fruits of progress.

The objections to a Parliamentary Standing Committee of this kind are well-known. One has heard them before. The same problem has been discussed in many other countries. The first objection is that administrative efficiency is adequate to deal with the problem. If the administration is efficient, the Government will decide and Parliament will accept. There is the objection of scientific illiteracy, i.e. that Parliamentarians in general do not understand science. The third consideration is whether co-operation between scientists and politicians is possible at all. There is on the one hand the scepticism of scientists in regard to interference with their objectivity. On the other hand there is the suspicion of politicians that scientists are socially irresponsible. There is the fear that comments by Parliamentarians may be partisan or trivial. There is the argument that the Select Committee on Public Accounts can deal with such matters through its control of the Budget. The Public Accounts Committee is essentially an audit committee. I believe that all these objections can be overcome by the argument that, as Parliament through its Select Committee takes an interest in science and technology, as it works with scientists and as it subpoenas them or calls for papers, it will over the years develop into a body of expert opinion, as has happened in other countries. Such a body will be able, willing and eager to understand the problems of science and will be sympathetic to these problems. It will in the confidence of scientists, who will at last find that in the pursuit of their particular beliefs they have found a wider audience and that, through Parliament and its understanding of science and its problems, they can communicate with the outer world. There is very often the necessity of making a choice between applied research and pure research. This is a grave problem. The pure scientists very often can offer no obvious gain or immediate target; yet basic research is very often vital to the great rewards that come later on. Such a parliamentary body, standing independent of the scientific race, might better judge to what extent pure research should be sponsored and to what extent it should play a part in this movement towards greater progress.

I believe that the modernization of Parliament, in the sense in which I have spoken of it, is essential not only to meet the problems of our day, but in order to retain the respect of the rising generation. I believe implicitly that Parliament is essential to the future, just as it has been essential in the past and that it is an element in our society which we cannot do without. It is essential to maintain the prestige of Parliament in the changing times in which we live. Unless Parliament modernizes and shows its ability to grasp these intractable, difficult, modern problems of our times, Parliament will lose the prestige and respect which it must have if it is to do its job. I say these things with the deepest respect and not in a sense of criticism. Parliament will lose its control unless it establishes suitable machinery to deal with the problems and difficulties which arise with the developments of our times. So I move my motion with this appeal that the voice of Parliament be heard in these matters.

Mr. Speaker, we have taken cognizance of this motion of the hon. member for Von Brandis. Initially we really could not determine exactly what the hon. member had in mind when he moved this motion. We proceeded from the standpoint that we would take cognizance of what the hon. member for Von Brandis had to say about this and react accordingly. I can tell you that from the beginning we adopted the view that the hon. member for Von Brandis’ point of departure, in respect of the function of Parliament as we know it, was somewhat naїve. Although we do not find much fault with the motion as such and the principle contained in it, we do nevertheless find that we shall have to give serious attention to the question of whether the hon. member for Von Brandis’ approach to this matter was an altogether correct one. We listened attentively to the hon. member for Von Brandis; we took note of what he said …

We could not hear.

I want to state very clearly on behalf of this side of the House that we are not satisfied with this motion as it stands, and I therefore move the following amendment—

1. (a) takes cognizance of the rapid advance of science and technology, their increasing importance in the modern state and the demands made thereby on the financial resources of the Republic; and
2. (b) is of the opinion that the existing agencies for expert research and advice which the Government has at its disposal, as adapted from time to time, are adequate, and that a select committee of Parliament is therefore unnecessary.”.

I move this amendment in view of certain arguments that will be advanced from this side of the House to try to convince this House that we do not always have to be looking only for something new, but that these means we have at our disposal are proven means and that we cannot so easily venture down new paths. I begin by saying that State expenditure, as every hon. member knows, is arranged on the basis of a budget and according to a specific budget procedure. This also applies to the State’s financial contributions to the progress of science and technology. I do not believe that any reason exists in principle for other arrangements to be made for the control of State expenditure in connection with scientific and technological progress. On the contrary. There are many valid considerations, where that is concerned, why Parliament will not exercise any drastic control over the relevant expenditure.

I want to stress this last thought and say that we must be careful that Parliament does not act in such a way as to obstruct this matter. In this connection there are a few thoughts that are very relevant. In the first place I should like to point to the so-called exclusiveness of science and technology. Scientific development in the true sense requires that such development be orientated in accordance with scientific and not political norms. In a certain sense science and technology must go their own way for their efficient and balanced development. Many important scientific developments would probably never have taken place, or not progressed so far, if the course of science had been regulated from without. I think that a man with the hon. member for Von Brandis’ background must definitely take cognizance of this. In the light of this consideration the motion that a Select Committee on Science and Technology be appointed cannot be supported. Such a committee would, of necessity, chiefly have to work with political norms that could hamper and undermine scientific and technological progress.

The objects of science must also be taken into account when reflecting upon control measures in respect of this matter. A tendency exists, for example, to see the object of science and technology as being chiefly utilitarian. We tend to want to measure everything in this context to determine precisely what we have thereby achieved. Such a view gives rise to science and technology being evaluated chiefly in the light of the contributions they can make to the promotion of collective prosperity. Such a view is one-sided, however, and can do serious damage to the balanced progress of science and technology.

Science and technology should, it is true, be at the service of man and his numerous vocations on this earth. But on the other hand science also has an intrinsic value. Science and technology should, it is true, be at the service of man, but we must never lose sight of the fact that the so-called basic sciences chiefly assume responsibility for the latter objective, while the applied science strives to realize the objectives with a utilitarian orientation. A proper balance between these two objectives is an indispensible requirement for balanced scientific and technological progress.

Now we come specifically to the last point in the hon. member for Von Brandis’ motion. In that connection we say without fear of contradiction that the nature of science and technology, and its development therefore, is such that Parliament cannot meaningfully exercise drastic control over it. This Parliament cannot exercise meaningful control as the hon. member for Von Brandis would like to have it. I have no doubt that the executive authority is much better equipped in that respect. The executive authority, the Prime Minister with his Cabinet, are in a much better position to do this in a meaningful way, particularly because use is made of specialized aids. There are specialized aids such as the Scientific Advisory Council, the Economic Advisory Council and the Planning Advisory Council. There are advisers to the Prime Minister at every level. As I have said we shall continually be adapting these operations as this becomes necessary from time to time. The control of the executive authority which Parliament exercised in that connection will have to be based on trust to a large extent. The hon. member for Von Brandis’ suggestion that Parliament must confirm that it is its fundamental duty to sanction State expenditure is naïve and superflous. The hon. member himself referred to our Select Committee on Public Accounts. There the expenditure of funds, whatever department may be involved, is properly investigated.

To conclude I want to say that apart from historic developments over many centuries, whereby Parliament’s supreme authority in that specific respect has been confirmed, the Constitution and other statutes leave no doubts about that. However, good Parliamentary practice necessitates that Parliament should not attempt to exercise control over matters not suited to it, nor in ways unsuited to it as the result of its composition. Just like the hon. member for Von Brandis, we on this side of the House would like to do everything possible to have Parliament’s authority function where this is necessary, but we cannot support this motion since we have an existing order that functions altogether efficiently. To throw this overboard for something, as we have tried to indicate, which desires to exercise control over the development of science and technology with the obstructive influences that could be exercised on it, would be wrong. We consequently cannot move this motion.

Mr. Speaker, I feel that the hon. member for Smithfield, who has just sat down, has perhaps misunderstood the whole purpose and the motive of the motion moved by the hon. member for Von Brandis. I understand that the hon. member for Smithfield has said that he has difficulty in understanding the intention of the motion. I do not really know why because it seems perfectly clear to me. I want to make the point at the outset that this motion deals with the status of the individual member of Parliament and with the status of this Parliament as such. If I were given the opportunity I would want to go back a little bit into the function of the member of Parliament. Let us admit one thing straightaway, namely that Parliament basically has to do with money. This is the function of Parliament and it has always been so historically. In the home of Parliament, Great Britain, Parliament was called together for the specific purpose of appropriating money to the King to wage wars and for other purposes of State for which he required money. This goes right back to the time of Edward I, in 1297, when Parliament was called together which extorted from the King the right to consent or not to consent to the levy of tonnage and poundage which was the method by which revenue was raised for the King in those days. As far back as that when Parliament itself was merely an embryo you can trace in the history of Britain the constitutional principle that levying of money by the King was the one thread which ran right through the whole development of England, from the time of Edward I, from the time of Charles I through the Revolution in 1642 right up to the present day. You will also find that it has been the right, the indisputable right of every single member of Parliament to search and to delve into the expenditure which was voted by Parliament. It was not only the right but also the duty of every member to delve into the moneys expended by Parliament, by the Executive and by the Government, the moneys which had been voted by the members of Parliament in their capacity as members representing the public who paid the money by means of taxation. I think that every single member in this House can ask himself right now whether we as members have before us today the ability, the time and all the information at our disposal to enable us to go into the spending of money by the Cabinet. Can we really in the time that is available to us, make the sort of study which is requisite and which is desirable to have a really efficient scrutiny of the accounts of the State and the amounts of money spent by individual Ministers and their departments. I believe it is common cause in Parliaments throughout the world today that the Executive has become so strong, that the party machine has become so strong, that the complexities of government have become so big and so great and that the amounts of money involved are so enormous, that for the ordinary member of Parliament, the Budget is a host of bewildering facts in connection with which he can centre his attention only on those small aspects of the public life which catch his own particular individual fancy. It is in that spirit that this motion has been brought forward, namely to attempt to focus again the attention of individual members on specific subjects and, in this particular case, the question of science and technology, to bring back into the control of the members of Parliament some say over the issue of spending of money on this particular subject of scientific research. Let us accept one thing, namely that research today is vital. It is a weapon to be used for good, but it can be used for ill if it is misdirected. To say, as the hon. member for Smithfield in effect said that we as members must abandon to the Executive, that we must surrender on trust control over this money, that we must give it into the hands of every single individual Minister who in his department is carrying on research without acquainting ourselves with what is going on and with the reasons, priorities and so forth, I believe is a weakness. It is a weakness in the Parliamentary system as it has evolved today, that the Executive has escaped from the control of the individual members of Parliament. I think this is a means by which this control can be brought back. The purpose of the motion is that the members of Parliament by means of a Select Committee which takes account of the political balance of the House, a recognized institution of this House, should have an oversight of the allocation of funds for research. This is a global sum. Every department does research of some sort or another. There should be priorities and should, within certain limits —whatever those limits might be—allocate funds for the priorities which it establishes. The question is always asked and the hon. member for Smithfield himself asked how can we as members really know what is going on as far as research is concerned. I want to say that I believe that it is essential that the members of Parliament, the elected representatives, should have a control and a say over the allocation of money to and the spending of money by State departments. For the purpose of this argument, we are focusing our attention today on science, research and technology. Lloyd George said that war was far too important a thing to be left to the generals. It is far too important an instrument of policy to be left to the generals. In other words, the politicians had to control it. Research today, as the hon. member for Von Brandis explained at length, can so influence the daily lives of every single member of the public that simply to leave it haphazardly within the confines of each single department, every one of which has its own particular interest, to simply abandon it and have it hidden away and folded away somewhere in the accounts of the different departments that are laid before us in the Budget is, I believe, an abandonment of something which we ought to be taking cognizance of and over which we ought to have control.

Throughout the history of the world the control by elected representatives over all kinds of specialized functions, is something that stands out. There have been spectacular successes and, admittedly, also spectacular failures, because no Parliament or elected assembly is perfect. If we go back to the history of ancient times, we have the example of Athens where generals were elected every year. They never trusted the military to the point where they would elect a man for an extended period of time. Every single year a man had to be elected as a general. It happened that one of the greatest successes that Athenian armies ever gained when they managed to force into surrender a body of Spartan troops on the island of Sphacteria in 425 B.C. was carried out because a member of the Assembly of Athens insisted that he be given the leadership of the Athenian fleet to go and attack those people, where the fleet until that time had been simply sailing round and round the island because they were too scared to land and to come to grips with the Spartan forces. It is a clear case where a man with leadership in an elected assembly could bring about a spectacularly successful result. On the other side we have the case of Hannibal in Italy when Claudius Varro had himself elected consul on the basis that he would go and flatten Hannibal in a matter of weeks. What he did, of course, was to lead the Roman army into the biggest trap they ever fell into when they were simply massacred right and left at the battle of Cannae. It was the biggest disaster that ever befell the Roman army. One might say that I am now talking against my own position, but there is no question about it that throughout the history of democracy the greatest results had been achieved because the elected representatives of the people were in command and always in control.

Like Churchill.

Yes, but I must qualify it by saying that by the time Churchill came into power the Cabinet had achieved a very strong position in the British Parliament. Churchill used his position and was the kind of man who could reach out and take hold of the power that was in his hands to achieve spectacular results. I believe that the concept of a Select Committee is that it is an arm of Parliament. It is there for the gathering of information and the sifting of evidence. The hon. member for Smithfield said that a Select Committee would place a limitation on the power of the Minister …

A hindrance.

Yes, that it would hinder the work of the Executive. But this need not be so. The Select Committee on Public Accounts does not hinder the work of the hon. the Minister of Finance and the Select Committee on Railways does not hinder the work of the Minister of Transport. What it does is to allow the members of this House the opportunity to see in detail into the administration of certain aspects of our Government. Under the rules of the House they have the ability to call in expert evidence. They sit away from the hurly-burly of this Chamber, almost in a non-party atmosphere. It is surprising, as we have had in several cases, that party lines do not come into the voting of Select Committee findings. There one has the chance of getting away from the precise thing the hon. member mentioned, namely the political bias, because there is no political bias. If you are in a Select Committee and expert evidence is led and fact is being piled upon fact, the sheer common sense of members of this House is enough to lead them to certain conclusions, which are not political conclusions in any form at all. I believe this is the sort of thing the hon. member for Von Brandis is asking, namely that this House takes it upon itself and gives its members the opportunity to ensure that allocations are made on a fair and on a just basis and on a basis which this House regards as being the priority. An hon. member has said that we must take the Minister’s advice on trust. In Great Britain they have a Select Committee on Science and Technology and the chairman of that committee makes the point that this gives the ordinary members in debates—Opposition as well as members of the Government—a second opinion. Mr. Arthur Palmer, the Chairman of this Select Committee, says the following about this process of gathering information:

If we in this House can achieve that sort of status of members on both sides, we would be able to build up a body of expert knowledge over the years, as the Railways Committee has built up and the Public Accounts Committee has built up, a committee of which the hon. the Minister of Plannning was himself at one time chairman. We would then be putting a very potent weapon into the hands of members of Parliament which I think would have a tremendous influence in elevating the status of members of Parliament as such. I think that one of the problems we often find in departments is that projects have been started—and in any department a project can be started by anybody who has the wish to do research in some direction or other—which have to be passed by certain people in the department. But once they are passed by the Minister of that department, who else ever takes them into oversight, looks at them, or decides that they are in fact not a waste of money? These things tend to build up momentum as they go along. If you start on a course of research or on development in certain fields, these things develop a momentum of their own and it is most difficult to bring it to a stop. In Great Britain we have the case of the Blue Streak missile, something which the British Department of Defence said would be the solution to Britain’s defence problems. This project had to be cancelled, but it was not cancelled until it became so blatantly self obvious that the thing could never work and that millions and millions of pounds are being wasted. It might well be that there are organizations in our country right now …

Like Soekor?

The hon. member mentioned Soekor. We may be wasting millions of rands of our money simply because there is no body of members who is in the position to build up that body of knowledge and to get expert knowledge from outside so that we can bring pressure to bear on the hon. the Minister or any other Minister in whose department research is being done. I feel that this is something that we have to look at. We have to accept that part of our responsibility as members of Parliament to the public is to be informed. It is the most difficult thing on earth for a private member to be informed on everything that is going on throughout all the departments. The hon. member mentioned the Select Committee on Public Accounts and said that this was the sort of body we were asking for. But that committee, and the hon. the Minister knows, deals with things that happened two years ago. How can the Select Committee on Public Accounts find out what is going on currently in the department when its attention is firstly directed by the Controller and Auditor-General to certain irregularities which have taken place years ago, and how can that committee function in the sort of watchdog capacity which is being asked for here? The committee we ask for will not only be a watchdog committee and I do not want to create the wrong impression, namely that we want a committee to snuffle out people who are doing things wrong in the department. It is a question of coordination, of allocating priorities, and of establishing whether research is being done in our country which is overlapping with research from overseas. It could also establish whether research which is being done here in one particular field might not in effect be better or that the money, people or the manpower might not be better expended in an effort in another direction. The hon. member for Von Brandis has mentioned, for argument’s sake, oceanography. Might it not be that the money which is currently being spent on research for oil and research in this field might be better spent on the exploration of the resources of the sea which are available to us and which would bring, if they were developed, an alternative food supply which might be absolutely vital in the years ahead? That is why we believe that a committee like this would tend to bring together the scientists, who are often, as the hon. member has said, justifiably suspicious of politicians, and the politicians, who, we feel, are also often justifiably suspicious of scientists, before a committee. It will have to be a responsible and senior committee of this House. They will be able to get expert advice. They will be able to query the requests that are made by scientists in the departments for funds. They will be able to argue out with them the merits of various programmes which are being pursued. One of the most convincing arguments that I have ever heard for this request is the fact that this hon. Minister of Planning is answering the debate this afternoon. I think we have had three or four private members’ motions this session which that hon. Minister himself has had to answer. In other words, he has an oversight now of such an immense field of activity in this country that I do not believe that he can give his attention to the sort of matters we are looking for here today. It is impossible for any one man to have an oversight of the many different avenues into which research is being directed today. I believe that this committee will enable us to do it. I think we must accept that scientists, by and large, are touchy individualists. They tend to go off in directions of their own; they tend to seek information for its own sake. That of course is a very laudable and worthy pursuit; but if it is a case of the public’s money being spent, is it not better that that money should be spent in certain cases for certain objectives which are going to bring about a limited, may be, but an immediate benefit to the people? I would like to quote a passage from Sir William Penny, the man who built the British atomic bomb. The question was asked—

In this case it is the freedom and independence of the units in the various departments—

This is a question asked of Sir William Penny. He said—

He goes on and says—

He goes on—

I believe that it is the function of this Parliament and of its members to have some say in this matter. I am quite sure that if a Select Committee which, as I say, is an arm of this Parliament, were established, a Select Committee which has the right to gather information, we would be able, over a couple of years, to build up the knowledge which will enable us to make a very intelligent and informed allocation of funds on requests that come before this House. They come before this House anyway. They come before this House in the Budget of every single department. I say quite honestly that I do not believe that any of the members of this House really know exactly what is going on in the line of research in each of these individual departments, and certainly nobody has any idea as to what the priorities ought to be. These are things which are fixed before they come here to this House and if we vote them out, then it is going to become a political matter. It would be a political matter if we turned down the request of one of the hon. the Minister’ departments for research funds because it would be an attack on the Minister’s Budget. I think, Sir, that in a case like this we would have a far better chance to make some real evaluation of what goes on and play a much more constructive part in that aspect of our national life, and this in fact has been the experience of the Committee on Science and Technology in the British House of Commons. They have found over five, six or seven years that they are becoming more and more expert at sorting out the scientific knowledge that comes before them and separating the wheat from the chaff. Mr. Speaker, I think it is our duty as members of Parliament to do the same thing. I support the motion.

Sir, I am in complete agreement with what the hon. member for Smithfield said here. By now we have three motions. By the time the hon. the Minister has to reply, I hope he will not have to reply to five different motions. The hon. member for Von Brandis made a very good speech. This also applies to the hon. member for Mooi River. We appreciate the fact that they did not drag in any politics. Sir, the hon. member for Von Brandis spoke here about a quite distinct motion, not the motion appearing on the Order Paper. He moved a motion here to which the hon. the Minister of Social Welfare or the hon. the Minister of Health should actually have replied. The hon. member gave us a good presentation of certain sociological problems in the country; he told us of the influence of automation on the worker and asked what was going to happen to the clerk who is now being eliminated. It is a sociological problem—that is quite correct. The hon. member went further and said that science’s rate of development has far outstripped man’s capacity for adaption. That is a sociological problem. The hon. member also spoke of environmental pollution and the population explosion, and asked what affect this would have on people. Truly, Sir, I cannot see the population explosion being a result of science; I can, it is true, agree with his neat statement that birth control is a consequence of science, but the development of science is surely attributable to the fact that a need arose in people. Take, for example, the man who discovered gunpowder. There was a need in him to get rid of an enemy or to obtain food. Science developed slowly until gunpowder was discovered.

The hon. member for Mooi River has now come along with a second motion, and that motion was chiefly concerned with the status of Members of Parliament and the right of Parliament to obtain certain information. The hon. member mentioned Soekor here as an example and said we had the right to know how that money is being spent. That is quite correct; we have the right to know how the money that we vote is being spent, but I ask the hon. member in all honesty. Have we the ability to judge when technical facts are presented to us? How would I feel as a member of such a Select Committee if we, in view of technical information and oceanographic facts submitted to us, recommend that money be voted to search for oil and no oil is found? However, if oil is found I could, as a member of such a Select Committee say that I influenced the Minister to vote the money. If we do not obtain oil, I keep quite. Sir, as far as I am concerned that matter has much greater implications. I read this motion at least 20 times to find out what was actually envisaged, and as far as I am concerned it was chiefly a matter of our science policy. I want to quote here from a survey of developments in South Africa by the Prime Minister’s Scientific Advisory Council. In the July, 1970, issue there is a comprehensive exposition of our science policy; I quote—

The question is whether all these matters are continually being influenced to a larger extent by science and technology. For that a science policy is essential as is an economic policy, a planning policy and a defence policy. Sir, the determination of this science policy is a Government function. We as members of Parliament form part of the Government, but our science policy is influenced by several factors. It is influenced, firstly, by the country’s stage of development; it is influenced by the local problems that lend themselves to research and development, and we have many problems of this nature. We are still a developing country; we have not yet developed fully. It is also very strongly influenced by the availability of funds. One can only cut one’s coat according to one’s cloth. It is also influenced by the availability of labour forces. One must do the necessary research, and once the research has been done one must implement the results somewhere, and to be able to implement the results of research one needs labour forces. Only the big countries can cover the entire research field. Here in South Africa research can be done either by the State or by special institutes established by the State, or it can be done by universities; if not, we can draw on the research findings of other countries. The research findings of other countries are available to us, it is true, but the question is whether we can implement those findings here. Those findings must be adapted to our local conditions. This report states that the most difficult aspect of the science policy is the allocation of priorities. The following guidelines are suggested: Firstly the human needs—health, nutrition, housing, order and safety. The hon. member for Von Brandis wants such a Select Committee to determine those priorities. What priorities are we going to lay down in terms of health? What priorities are we going to lay down in terms of nutrition? How are we going to determine whether this is more important than that? Are we going to determine that the development of atomic energy is more important than the development of agriculture? Where atomic energy is harnessed for use by man it does, after all, have a bearing on health. Although it is not harnessed for use by man in the first place, it is nevertheless projected into agriculture at a later stage. If I have the time I should like to mention a few examples of that.

Who is going to decide?

I am very glad the hon. member asked that question.

What is the answer?

Sir, this matter was also discussed on a previous occasion, and I should like to quote what the hon. the Prime Minister said in connection with research in colume 491 of Hansard, 1968, where he spoke about the specific committees which the hon. member also mentioned. The committees were instructed as follows—

The hon. member also spoke about that. I quote further—

The hon. member mentioned that directly we are spending R50 million. I want to ask the hon. member how any Select Committee can give an opinion not only on the direct spending, but also on the indirect spending of R55 682 000 that is being given to the universities which do a great measure of this research? How is the Government going to determine issues in connection with what is being done by the Department of Agricultural Technical Services? How is it going to determine how the R40 935 000 is to be spent? The hon. member for Winburg spoke in a previous motion of the 2 200 agricultural research projects in progress at the moment. How are we going to determine the priorities in the 2 200 projects being undertaken by the various research centres? We all read the other day of the new plum. This new plum that was developed could possibly be of great economic value to us. The plum was only developed after 20 years of research. At some or other stage, for example, when the plum trees had reached a certain size, was it for our Members of Parliament to say that they could not go further with work on that plum because after five years they had achieved no success. “Pick it.” Then the Member of Parliament could tell the researcher that the following year he would not be on that Select Committee, but that his colleague—my hon. friend who spoke a moment ago, for example— would then be on that committee. He is an agriculturist and he is interested, and he would ask them to begin growing that plum tree again. My question is: “Is it physically possible to do things in this way?”

In my opinion this is a matter of the application of the research that is being done. The hon. member quite rightly referred to our sociological problems. I want to ask the hon. member whether he has already taken the trouble to examine what the Human Scientists Research Council is doing. This Council carries out research and investigations in respect of numerous problems not investigated by the Departments of Social Welfare or Health. I should like to refer to a few examples of research that is being done there. Because this is not politics, I am sure the hon. Opposition would like to listen to it. The Institute for Manpower Research, for example, reports in connection with supply and demand (translation):

The research also deals with many other facets. Research is being done, for example, in connection with the position of South African family life; research is being done in connection with the socio-economic position of the White pensioner; research is being done on the problems of immigrants in South Africa and their adaption in society, etc. I could likewise mention many examples of a sociological nature. How are we going to determine how much must be spent in connection with a sociological problem? Where research extends over a long period, how can we determine when that specific research must be stopped?

I just want to refer to the R8 million that was given to the Atomic Energy Board. My time is nearly up, and I therefore just want to mention two examples with respect to the medical use of the harnessed atom, i.e. the radioactive isotopes that are now being used. I just want to refer to a theoretical example of the influence of science being channeled back to the human organism. I quote from the S.A. Medical Journal of 29th January, 1972:

Mr. Speaker, the whip requests me to conclude my speech. I want to ask whether it will be possible, for example, for me to judge priorities if I were to serve on such a committee and whether I would be able to account for every cent spent on a research project?

Mr. Speaker, it is a matter of profound regret to me personally that the debate should have taken on the mantle that it has on the very important subject of Parliamentary control over the Executive, over expenditure and the development of the country. In the motion, we are asked to look at this whole set-up and we attempt to make Parliament more aware of what is happening and more efficient with regard to its functioning in its constitutional form. We find that an amendment has been moved saying that this is not necessary. We find too, that the next speaker on the other side of the House followed this thought with different reasoning. I would say that this is the most important subject that has been raised here for many years, namely the question of what our constitutional function as Parliament is, and the question of whether we are functioning efficiently, whether we are in fact able with the instruments at our disposal, which we can in fact forge for ourselves, to fulfil our obligations to the people and to our constitution.

For better or worse we inherited the Westminster parliamentary system. I do not believe we had any choice in 1910, because we had to have a crown and a king. In the circumstances I do not think one could have devised any other system. Anyhow, we have this system now. We had a choice when we became a republic, but decided to keep the present system. As Dr. Verwoerd said at the time, this was a gesture to the English-speaking people. However, the system we have is today as Victorian as some parts of the Joint Parliamentary Establishment buildings. We have not with that system advanced into the modern age in amending and adapting it to the modern needs at all. We have virtually stood still in that regard. There is really only one other Parliament with which we can compare ourselves, apart from New Zealand which has only one House, and that is Westminster. There they have adapted from the model which we had together in 1910—it was practically the same—their parliamentary system to meet the modern needs of the modern state. One finds for example the necessary proliferation of delegated legislation where we can only, with the time available, in principle say what these laws should be and leave it to the Minister to make regulations which contain the guts of the law, if I may use that expression. We have tried earlier to set up a Select Committee to deal with what they call in Britain “statutory instruments” which deal with regulations and subordinate legislation, but without success. However, they have it in Britain and they have all sorts of other Select Committees, such as that mentioned by the member who moved this motion. For instance, they have one on national industries. I am pleased that the hon. member for Brentwood mentioned State corporations because I want to deal with that as well. We ourselves have not in any respect adapted in this regard, and one wonders why.

What I am afraid of is that this debate indicates that there is a difference of approach towards Parliament by some members of the House as opposed to other members. Let us look at one of the most important weapons which Parliament has to control the administration by the Executive, not to control it but to be aware of what it is doing. I refer to question time. Question time is one of the most important weapons that Parliament has, because it is a means of eliciting information from the Executive as to its administration. But what worries me as well is that I do not believe—I may be wrong—that one question has been asked in this current session by a member on the other side of the House. I do not think there has been one. However, I venture to say that in the last ten years, if there were an average of 1 000 questions per year, the hon. members on the Government side have asked only 15 of them and even then I think I am very generous. This is what is worrying me. We should be at one on this. We are all members of Parliament on whichever side we sit, and we all have the same function and purpose. It may be—and there is a lot to be said for the thought—that the Westminster system is not one which you can transplant into the body politic of our country. There is a lot to be said for it; there is a lot to be said for the thought that the native system that we have had, the unique model constitution of the Free State, might have been better. That, however, is not what we are concerned with. We are concerned with the system we have and whether we are prepared to do anything about it. The hon. member for Von Brandis has suggested one way in which we may do something about it.

I think none of us should forget that Parliament is the meeting place—and this House especially—of the Government and the representatives of the persons who are governed. This is where we meet and this is where the confrontation takes place. It is to this Chamber and every single member of it, that the Government, the Executive, must account for its administration. It is not casting any reflection on the members on the other side when I say that this confrontation, the quizzing process, the interaction between Parliament and the Executive, has largely become the function of the Opposition. In the nature of things this is so. In the nature of things we have our own peculiar South African caucus system which cannot be divorced from a discussion of the nature of Parliament and the contribution members make to it, on whichever side they sit.

Let us look at the history of what has happened here. In 1945, after the Great War, a war which changed in every sense, technologically, scientifically, socially and economically, the whole of the Western world and its thinking, after the tremendous industrial expansion which occurred here and all over the world, we began to have some thoughts on the subject of adapting our parliamentary system which, as I have said, comes from Westminster and which, as I have indicated, may not have transplanted here as well as it ought. There was a private member’s motion from the Government side at the time the time when the United Party was the Government, relating to delegated authority, that Parliament ought to control this better and should set up machinery to look into this question. The Prime Minister at the time, Gen. Smuts, in the end, after this debate had gone on, moved that a Select Committee look into the subject. One of the things that Gen. Smuts said at the time was that organizations like the State corporations which had developed, and the IDC especially was mentioned, ought to account more effectively to Parliament. In 1964—I am glad the hon. member for Brentwood has raised this matter—a motion was introduced reading as follows—

There it is, accountability to Parliament. The hon. member for Brentwood said: “Well, we agree that we do not have the right as members. Parliament does not have the right to know what is going on and how the money is being expended.” He says: “I would not dare to think that I would be in a position to tell them what to do.” But because the hon. member has that inability, which I share with him, in respect of these things, it does not mean that Parliament, and therefore the people, should be deprived of the opportunity of knowing what is happening in those State corporations and how the money is being spent. It is frightening when one looks at what in fact has happened here. Let us look at the budgets of four public corporations. I hope I may use the term “budget”. I am a simple lawyer, therefore I use these financial expressions with trepidation. The amount of money handled each year by four public corporations, i.e. Iscor, the IDC. Sasol and the Electricity Supply Commission, amounts to R2 872 286 000. For that sum there is not one iota of accountability to this Parliament—not one! May I compare just one figure? The Appropriation Act of 1970 shows that Parliament appropriated R1 842 million from the Revenue Account. R718 000 000 from the Loan Account, R45 000 000 from the Bantu Education Account and nearly R60 000 000 from the South-West Africa Account, making a total of R2 666 million being R200 million less than the amounts handled by just the four State corporations which I have mentioned. For these State Corporation activities there is no accountability to Parliament whatsoever.

The hon. the Minister who will take part in this debate will recall a debate in which he opposed the suggestion that there should be a Select Committee, He said that he felt the same way as members on this side did and he said that in a matter of this sort there should be no difference between us, but then he found ways and means of avoiding the issue. He said that we still had Parliamentary control over these matters, because we may ask the Ministers questions. What it actually amounts to is that you may ask the Ministers questions and we do ask them questions about these State corporations, but the answer is that they are autonomous bodies; the Minister merely appoints the directors.

This is what worries me. This is an attitude of mind which has existed throughout. I would have been much happier if this motion had come not from this side but from that side of the House. We do all sorts of things of which we appear to be unaware. We pass provisions in Acts which provide, for example, for negative resolution of Parliament. We say that the Minister may do this and he may do that and the regulations or proclamations must be laid upon the Tables of both Houses of Parliament and if during that session when they are laid upon the Tables of both Houses of Parliament a negative resolution, a resolution which disapproves of them is passed, such regulations or proclamations will be negatived. This is a form of parliamentary control, but how do you ever exercise it after Easter when there are no more private members’ motions? Has it not been demonstrated that members sitting on that side will obviously not raise such a motion, that they always oppose a motion like this, a motion which is in the interests of Parliament to support? They find themselves in that peculiar position in which they find themselves and they should be relieved of that position.

I have only a few minutes left, but I want to say—I am glad the hon. the Prime Minister is here—that it is of importance that Parliament should know through a Select Committee. There are matters, as the hon. the Prime Minister said himself, which you cannot tell the House because it will take up so much time of the House.

Only then you did not agree with me.

I am just telling the hon. the Prime Minister that this is a good principle. This is what we have asked for: Not only Parliamentary control, but also Parliamentary appraisal: that Parliament should be apprised of what is happening. All through these years this suggestion had been rejected by that side of the House, until suddenly a little while ago—during the second week of the session—the hon. the Prime Minister wanted a Select Committee to investigate various organizations. The hon. the Prime Minister said that the time had come for Parliament to take cognizance of the objects of these organizations, and so on and said there was an attempt by members on this side of the House to shake off their responsibilities. Perhaps the most important thing of all is that the Prime Minister said that it was for Parliament …

I see the devil can quote Scripture.

That is the way it is in this House. It is far more important Parliament be made aware of the workings of the Government, that Parliament should mean something and that Parliament should not just be a sort of a “yes vote” of a majority who are uninformed, not because they are ignorant, but because we deliberately keep them ignorant as to what is happening and deliberately refrain from giving those members and Parliament itself, through a Select Committee, the wherewithal to make decisions. If we are not prepared to do something with this Westminster system, let us think of adopting some other system. But as long as we have it, let us here speak as a Parliament, and let us all say that we are members of Parliament and that Parliament speaks for the people because it is informed and able to speak.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Durban North raised many arguments and said, inter alia, that the Select Committee, which the Opposition proposes, would serve the interests of Parliament. That is indeed an important question, but the fundamentally relevant question today is what serves the interests of science. That is the primary question that must be asked. The hon. member for Durban North has asked that the money voted by Parliament for research should comply with the modern needs of a modern state. I quite agree with the hon. member that this must be the object for which the money is voted, i.e. to comply with the national needs of the State, and that that research must be of practical significance for the development of the country, regarded from a national point of view. This entails that when the funds are voted and more than one aspect is relevant i.e. on the one hand the determination of the needs of the country and on the other hand the orientation of the research to meet those needs—we must carry out an evaluation.

In the light of the specific objective we lay down for research and science, we must evaluate the existing machinery, the structure obtaining in South Africa when these priorities are determined. We must then ask ourselves whether what hon. members opposite propose can furnish a positive contribution to the existing machinery we have. The structure as we have it begins at the very top with the Prime Minister, the scientific adviser being responsible to the Prime Minister, the economic adviser also being responsible to the Prime Minister and the planning adviser, who is responsible to his Minister, who in turn is responsible to the Prime Minister. In other words, in South Africa this works from the very highest level downwards. Those various advisers are chairmen of the various councils, inter alia the Scientific Advisory Council, the Economic Advisory Council and the Planning Council. We must now bear in mind that research in South Africa is carried out in the laboratory, and we must analyse this system right down to the laboratory level. We must then bear in mind what I have said, i.e. that there is the question of determining needs and orientation.

In other words, with respect to overall needs, seen from a general national viewpoint, we have at the very highest level a body such as the Economic Advisory Council, which determines the economic needs of the country. We have the Planning Council which draws up the development programme for the country and the Scientific Advisory Council which, on the basis orientates scientific research in South Africa from a national point of view. In other words, at the very highest level, we have that principle of the determination of needs and of orientation according to needs. All the various commodities and disciplines in South Africa are represented on the Scientific Advisory Council. That body decides how priorities must be determined. It advises the Prime Minister and the Minister of Planning. Sir, I just want to indicate to you, from the composition of the Scientific Advisory Council, that all the various commodities and disciplines in South Africa are directly or indirectly represented there.

On the Scientific Advisory Council are represented the Universities, the departments that do research, such as the Departments of Agriculture, Water Affairs, Health, Transport, Defence and Posts and Telegraphs, the C.S.I.R., the Atomic Energy Board, the South African Medical Research Council, the Human Sciences Research Council, the I.D.C., the National Institute for Metallurgy and the South African Bureau of Standards. There are representatives of trade and industry, for example of the fishing industry, as well as representatives of the Chamber of Mines. There is a representative of Escom, and there are also persons present in their personal capacity, on the grounds of the excellent research they have done, or the scientific knowledge they have. In other words, in this Scientific Advisory Council are represented all the various bodies that do research in South Africa and therefore have an interest in science. That body advises the Cabinet about the determination of priorities.

I now want to do a further analysis of one of the bodies represented on that Scientific Advisory Council until we get to the point where research is done. The body in question is the Department of Agriculture. In the Department of Agriculture we have the Directorate which is responsible to the Minister of Agriculture. The Directorate again has an advisory council that determines agricultural needs from a national viewpoint advises the Directorate about what problems ought to enjoy priority in South Africa and in what direction research ought to be channelled. Under the Directorate there are ten research institutes functioning on a commodity basis—for dairy products and meat products, tobacco mealies or whatever the case may be. Then we have 21 research bodies, 17 experimental stations and 37 experimental farms that function on a regional basis, i.e. which deal with specific regional problems. But the important question is how the needs are determined for those specific institutes or research stations.

To determine those needs and have the research comply with South Africa’s needs, there are more than 20 advisory committees investigating those needs and informing these various institutes in that respect so that the research can be planned accordingly. Even the experimental farms and experimental stations have consulting committees on which organized agriculture, the farming leaders, the control boards and other people are represented, which stipulate the needs they are faced with. Therefore every research institution, from top to bottom, must decide the priority to be accorded to any specific matter.

That is why this must function from the bottom to the hon. the Minister at the top. At every level needs must be determined and decisions must be taken. For the purpose of giving advice, therefore, the widest possible use must be made of those people who have the most intimate knowledge of science, i.e. the scientists themselves. This is precisely what is being done in South Africa, and I venture to say—I do not want to talk politics—that this is one of the reasons why the National Party achieves so much success in South Africa, because at all levels of daily life, including the scientific level, they involve those people who have a direct interest in the matter, they invest them with certain powers and make use of their advice to the utmost possible extent. This is also done as far as science is concerned. Hon. members on that side now say that we must appoint a Select Committee.

In reality such a Select Committee must now do in respect of Parliament what the Cabinet is doing, because each Minister, as the head of his department, surely knows what is being done in his department. The priorities are determined by the experts in his department and by the experts in those professions outside his department. Advisory councils have been established and which come and tell those departments: “These are our needs; do research along these lines,” and therefore the Minister is the person who is best informed because, after all, he works with that department every day; he deals every day with the people his department serves. Therefore the Minister and the Cabinet are in the best position to inform Parliament about the needs of the various research activities in South Africa. I therefore simply cannot accept that a Select Committee, which does not deal with those specific commodities every day can build up the same knowledge as the Cabinet about these matters, and therefore there cannot be a Select Committee that can inform Parliament to a better extent than the Cabinet is able to, and the Cabinet does so.

Sir, the hon. member referred to what was being requested by the Opposition. That information, those reports that are published, are surely at the disposal of hon. members of the Opposition. Since I do not believe that a Select Committee can bring about an improvement to the existing system that we have, we must also look at what results South Africa has achieved. We must not adopt the view that because other countries have such a Select Committee we should also establish one here. We must ask ourselves: Do the researchers in South Africa, and does the money voted by Parliament, furnish the necessary results? Sir, I do not have time to mention all the various aspects; it also looks to me as if the Whip wants to stop me. I am therefore just going to mention a few important aspects. In 1947-’48 Onderstepoort manufactured 13 vaccines, and they issued 11,6 million doses against 13 diseases. In 1970-’71 they manufactured 112 million doses of vaccine against 30 different contagious diseases.

In those 20 years Onderstepoort quashed 17 contagious diseases in South Africa, and you yourself can understand, Sir, what this means to the livestock industry. Sir, we are all aware of the first heart transplant in the world that was performed in South Africa. We know what tremendous implications this had throughout the world and what it meant for South Africa. We know of the Atomic Energy Board’s achievement in the enrichment of uranium. We know what the implications of that will be as far as the world is concerned. Sir, the hon. member spoke of nuclear power We know that the atom bomb decided the issue in the Second World War, but I would venture to say that the results achieved at Pelindaba will perhaps influence the history of the world more radically than the discovery of the atom bomb has done.

Sir, the hon. member for Brentwood mentioned plums, the storage quality of which is such that we can export them throughout the world. We know that the Leather Research Institute has decreased the tanning process from three months to three days; this is a tremendous achievement with tremendous economic implications. We know that in South Africa we can reclaim sewerage water for conversion into drinking water. In those fields and in many others as well, South Africa leads the world, and I therefore think that before sowing suspicion about the system we have, we should preferably make use of this opportunity to congratulate our researchers, who were responsible for these tremendous achievements and who have brought glory to South Africa, and we should congratulate those who did not move as much in the limelight, who carried out research and without whose work these other people could not have come by their achievements. I then also feel, Sir, that we should make use of the opportunity to thank the Government for having made it possible for the researchers of South Africa to furnish these achievements.

Mr. Speaker, just a few words on one aspect of this motion. It is clear from the speech made by the hon. member for Smithfield that hon. members on that side misinterpret the motion completely. The hon. member for Smithfield said, for example, that the existing machinery was sufficient and that a Select Committee was unnecessary. The hon. member, who has just resumed his seat,, added that the Cabinet was in a better position to do what the motion proposed, and the hon. member for Smithfield also said that. But, Sir, the best Minister is in fact that Minister who has earned his spurs as an ordinary member in the Select Committees and in the active functions of this House. What is involved here is not the overthrow of an existing order; nor is it being proposed that the Select Committee should take over the work of industrial research organizations. The essence of this motion is that a Select Committee should analyse the results of scientific developments and the research which is being done, and then see what political adjustments may be necessary from time to time; that is the essence of the matter. After all, it would be too foolish for words to ask that Parliament take over the functions of research bodies; that is a complete misunderstanding on the part of members opposite, and I think it is a great pity that even in a private motion hon. members on that side adopt the attitude that the status quo should at all times be maintained and that we should not even look to see what improvements we could introduce in the machinery of our Parliament. Sir, I think the hon. member for Von Brandis explained effectively the developments in the field of science. I should just like to add a few words in regard to point (d) in his motion, “to assist Parliament in augmenting its knowledge and strengthening its authority in these fields”—the fields of science and technology and, with that in view, to appoint a Select Committee. I do not think that one can with any justification disagree with the hon. member for Von Brandis. Great development is in progress every day in the field of science and technology. This development affects us socially and economically; it affects our political life in a whole variety of ways and it therefore has a direct influence on the task of government; and because it has a direct influence on the task of government, Parliament has a direct interest in it, and machinery—this is the proposal—should consequently be established in Parliament which will have the effect of keeping Parliament informed; so that it remains alert and in a position to cause its influence to be felt in the developments of which it takes cognizance.

But surely we receive reports.

There is no better way of achieving this object than through the appointment of a Select Committee. Sir, this Parliament, as you know, actually functions in three ways. It functions in full session under the authority of Mr. Speaker, when Parliament, the House of Assembly, has full power; it also functions in Committee sittings under the Chairman of the House when it is dealing with the details of legislation; but then Parliament also functions by way of Select Committee meetings which are in reality a contraction of the entire House of Parliament. This is, as it were, a House of Assembly in miniature. All three forms are the House of Assembly in session. We know from experience that a Select Committee, particularly a standing committee is in many respects the House of Assembly at its best, because that is the place where evidence can be called for, where outside advice can be called in, where a profound investigation into a matter can be Instituted and where a group of selected and, at the same time, representative members of the whole House of Assembly can, owing to their special knowledge, submit a considered report to the entire House of Assembly.

That is why I said that a Select Committee is often the House of Assembly at its best. Seen in this way it is really a pity we do not have a greater variety of standing committees and why this one extension, for which the hon. member for Von Brandis is asking, ought to receive our full support.

In other Western countries these problems, which he stated, are dealt with in a large variety of ways. The German Bundestag, for example, which is one of the youngest Western Parliaments, has no fewer than 23 standing committees, and among these there is a committee on science and related matters. In a country such as Spain provision is made in their legislative assembly for the representation of specialist groups, and in that way they are therefore coping with the problem which the hon. member stated in his motion. In Holland they have a system of standing commissions and standing colleges in which experts may participate upon invitation. In America with its entire series of standing committees—a total of 17 in the Senate and 20 in the House of Representatives—we know that committees of this kind play one of the most important roles in the entire process of government. During the past ten years in the United States a considerable number of new committees of this nature have been established in both Houses of Congress to keep pace with new developments in the world.

We are not asking that we should necessarily imitate other countries for the sheer pleasure of imitating, but we must take cognizance of the fact that we are dealing with a serious deficiency in our parliamentary system and this motion is quite simply a first step in coping with this deficiency; and therefore I think it will indeed be a pity if this matter is simply put aside and if the hon. the Minister does not at least give serious consideration to the motion.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to say that I welcome the motion which the hon. member for Von Brandis introduced here, that I also welcome the discussion of that motion, and that I want to congratulate hon. members on the high standard of their speeches, the constructive and positive contributions which all of them made. I want to tell them that as far as I am concerned, and I, too, am only a layman in the field of science, research and technology, the discussion was particularly instructive and interesting. In any case, I want to assure the hon. member for Bezuidenhout that as far as I enter into the picture, I will certainly give further thought to what was said here.

I think it is a good thing that Parliament should, in these times in which we are living, in these changing times, in this new decade, in this new century, the century of science and technology, from time to time take cognizance of the changes taking place in the world and of these things which inevitably, whether we want or not, have the most radical effect on our people and our State. That is why this discussion has its place and a discussion of this nature will be an appropriate one to have here every year. We have at the moment certain opportunities, which I need not emphasize, which we can utilize to discuss these topical matters here. We could for example do so under the Vote of the Prime Minister or under the Vote of the Minister of Planning, under whose administration the Scientific Advisory Council falls, as well as under the Votes of all of the individual Ministers who have different departments, divisions and corporations under their control dealing with research and its application. It is therefore the special right of Parliament to do this. I appreciate this and I should like to say that since we have a special opportunity today, we should nevertheless not overlook the opportunities which we as members already have to become well-informed in regard to and make a study of those various branches of science in which each of us takes a special interest. We as members must acquire a first-hand knowledge of the policy, the scope and the financing of those particular bodies and activities in the specific directions in which each one of us are interested. We must also consider the importance of the work which the various organizations are doing for the Republic. We can do this on our own and need not necessarily do it as members of a committee. We must consider what has already been achieved, what we must still seek to achieve, and what the bottlenecks and problems are with which each organization has to cope. In all these spheres there is information which should be acquired, and each one of us can acquire it for himself. One person cannot become an authority in all fields, but may become reasonably well-informed in a specific direction. I am thinking, for example, of the visit which we as members of the House of Assembly and members of the Senate paid last year to the CSIR. I do not know how many of the hon. members were there, but this organization and other organizations are at all times more than ready to receive members and to supply them with all the information they are in any way able to supply. We can acquire knowledge in this way and when we come here to this House we can already have that knowledge, knowledge which we can use to make a very constructive contribution when we ask questions and when we hold discussions on those various opportunities the House does in fact make available.

In my opinion the hon. members on the opposite side covered three facets of this motion. The hon. member for Von Brandis, partially supplemented by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, pointed out the wonderful developments and changes in science and technology, as well as the consequences this has in the social and other spheres. The hon. member for Mooi River spoke along the lines of a scientific policy and the determination of priorities. The hon. member for Durban North discussed the role which Parliament as an institution and the role which Select Committees can play, and in this the hon. member for Bezuidenhout supplemented very well what he had to say. I should like to tell the hon. member for Durban North that I am of his way of thinking entirely in regard to the function, the role and the right which Parliament has to exercise control at all times over what the executive authority is doing. When it comes to the spending of money and the control which has to be exercised subsequently, I feel that Parliament has created its machinery and it has appointed an official who has to institute those investigations and who then has to report to Parliament, i.e. the Controller and Auditor-General. That person must give us guidance when we go into the matters concerned. It is not what the hon. member for Mooi River wants. He said it was then too late. [Interjections.] I am not talking about that now; I am talking at the moment about the controlling function which Parliament has over the expenditure of the State. I do not think there is really very much we can change or improve in this regard. Parliament has that power, and Parliament may never be deprived of that power. There are of course certain statutory bodies which are not responsible to Parliament, but that is a different subject—and I say this with respect—to the one we are dealing with this afternoon. The fact that Escom does not report to Parliament on all its activities is a matter which one could possibly, in my opinion, argue. Escom is a business organization; it is run by directors and they must see to it that its books are audited. It does not seem to me as if one could place Escom in the same category as Soekor, since we have to vote money every year for Soekor. Soekor is accountable to this House, and in the Select Committee on public accounts we can question its officials about its policy, the implementation of its policy and the spending of the money voted to it by Parliament. As far as Select Committees are concerned, I think it is a wonderful system. I am speaking from the experience I have had of them. There one can obtain facts objectively and arrive at conclusions and then report these back to Parliament. I shall refer specifically in a moment to the question of whether we do have a case here for which a Select Committee is necessary. I was rather impressed by what the hon. member for Von Brandis said, but as I say, I also think he strayed a little from the actual intention of the motion as I understand it. But what he said affects the State in all its aspects; it affects Parliament; it affects the church; it affects education and training. He spoke about our students; he spoke about how these things affect the spirit of mankind. All that is true. This new world in which we are living and which we do not always understand, it affects every one of us, it affects mankind as the creation of God. It makes one realize anew that man does not consist merely of a body which must have food and must breathe, but that a man has a spirit and a soul. If one hears of all these things and thinks about them, one is reminded of the old Biblical saying: For what shall it profit a man if he shall gain the whole world and lose his own soul? What shall it profit a man if he races over the earth in the fastest and most beautiful motor car, but no longer has time to practise friendship as in the days when he went on foot or rode in a horse and buggy? Mankind now has electricity at its disposal; a man can turn open a tap to get cold or warm water; he can have a deepfreeze, a refrigerator, a television set, and so on, but the most important is still whether he has happiness in his home and whether he has remained a humane person as in the days when father, mother and children still used to sit around a table in the candlelight. Although one is grateful for all these wonderful discoveries, and although we are grateful to our scientists, researchers and technologists, we are also grateful that the spirit of a man still remains the most productive instrument and also the most indestructible instrument, and that in addition to all these persons who give us all these wonderful things, we are still grateful for the poets and thinkers, the dreamers and prophets which we hope we will always have with us.

The management of the complicated functions in the field of science and technology within the South African national economy is vested in a considerable number of statutory bodies, State Departments and State corporations under various Ministers. They are all intimately concerned with science, with research and with technology. I just want to mention them rapidly in passing in order to provide a synoptic picture of this entire field. There is CSIR, which falls under the Minister of Planning; there are the various organizations for which the Minister of Economic Affairs is responsible—for example, the South African Bureau of Standards, the Fuel Research Institute, the Department of Sea Fisheries, all the State corporations such as Iscor, Escom, Sasol, Foskor, I.D.C. and Sentrachem. The Atomic Energy Board, the National Institute for Metallurgy and the Geological Survey Division, fall under the Minister of Mines. There is the Medical Research Council under the Minister of Health and the Water Research Commission under the Minister of Water Affairs. The Department of Agricultural Technical Services, the Onderstepoort Research Institute and the National Parks Board fall under the Minister of Agriculture. The Human Sciences Research Council, all 11 of our White universities fall under the Minister of National Education, and there is also the University of the Western Cape under the Minister of Coloured Affairs. The Armaments Board, the Armaments Corporation and all defence research falls under the Minister of Defence, and the Weather Bureau, for example, falls under the Minister of Transport. All these bodies, as well as the Railways, the National Transport Commission, Posts and the provinces, deal to greater or lesser degree with the financing and the promotion of science and technology. This includes training, research, development, production and the rendering of technical services. The tremendous scope and variety of this vast scientific and technological field entails that only persons who are well equipped and who have first-hand knowledge can really know what is going on. I do not think we can differ on that. I think that the House would agree with me that such persons are able to form a picture, and are in a position to decide on the direction of research, the allocation of projects to certain institutions, and the financing not only of scientific action in the Republic itself, but also on the State’s role and contribution.

I am coming back to this, but I should just like to refer to something which the hon. member for Lichtenburg pointed out, i.e. the role which the members of the Scientific Advisory Council and the Scientific Adviser of the Prime Minister are able to play. I agree that we should draw together the threads somewhere, of all these actions in the scientific and technological field, that we should identify, reinforce or eliminate the weak spots, that we should identify and further strengthen the strong points, and that we should allocate new and essential spheres of action and research. I want to refer to the success of our system, however incomplete it may be, before I come to the motion asking for a Select Committee. We can point to the worldwide reputation of Onderstepoort and the great service which has been and still is being rendered there, not only for South Africa, but also for the rest of Africa. We can point, as the hon. member for Lichtenburg mentioned, to the first successful heart transplant in the world which was carried out here 4½ years ago and which proved in tangible terms to the world the high standard of medical science in South Africa. South Africa is a world leader in the field of the total reclamation of sewage effluent. So, too, our scientists made a sensational break-through in respect of a uranium enrichment process. A new leather tanning process developed here, which eliminates pollution through effluent, is being used in America and Canada. The result of this was that large leather tanneries in those countries, which had had to close down because of the pollution they were causing, were able to reopen because they are using this process of ours. In the field of defence we have the cactus ground-to-air anti-aircraft system. South Africa is a world leader in the field of mining techniques. Our CSIR is recognized and welcomed internationally owing to the outstanding contribution it makes in many fields. I am not mentioning these things in order to tell this House that everything is in order, because I listened carefully to what was said here today. I am merely mentioning these things in order to indicate that we have already achieved a great deal with the system we have. South Africa is a small country with relatively limited resources. We cannot undertake all scientific and technological research ourselves. That is why we are, for example, undertaking a limited amount of research in those fields in which certain major countries with strong capital resources are actively engaged on a large scale so that we, when they achieve certain research results, may successfully apply those results here as far as we are allowed to do so and in that way derive the greatest benefit from them. I can also state that the research which is being done at the moment is concentrated on those fields of research and on those problems which are most important for our national progress. That is why the determination of priorities is in fact, as the hon. member for Mooi River emphasized, very important; to ensure that we do not duplicate work, we must allocate specific fields of research to universities and other institutions. Of course we also owe a great deal, and this we all know, to imported scientific knowledge and technology, particularly as a result of overseas industries which have been established here, and commodities which are being manufactured here under licence. We owe a great deal to imported knowledge and skill. However, the necessity for our developing and improving our own processes still remains. This must still be revealed in the quality, the design, the lower costs and greater achievements of our products. I think that all of us, on both sides of the House, want to express a word of appreciation to all South Africa’s scientists, researchers, technologists and engineers for the exceptional contribution they have rendered, not only in the past, but which they are still rendering today and will probably in future continue to render to our country.

Now I should like to argue for a while the question of whether a Select Committee of Parliament is necessary. I just want to say in passing that I do not have any quarrel with the hon. Opposition at this stage in regard to whether Great Britain has such a committee or not. My information is that Great Britain does not have a select committee but a parliamentary committee. How this committee is organized, I am not myself certain and I shall find out before the discussion of my Vote.

There was a parliamentary committee, but now there is a select committee.

They did have one, I think, but it was then changed. A Select Committee must have a task and terms of reference. It must have a specific task. A Select Committee is not a study group. As far as I am able to understand this motion, there is only one task which I found has been entrusted to this Committee, i.e. the task of determining a scientific policy for South Africa and of establishing priorities. I should like to ask the hon. Opposition: If that is to be the task of the Committee, how must it set about performing that task? What should this Committee do? What information should it assemble? How should it acquire its information? Should it request people to appear before it? It has to be the entire series of scientists in this entire vast field which the Committee wants to cover. Hon. members must bear in mind that this Select Committee, which they are proposing, does not have an official which supplies it with information. This Committee has nothing before it and has to obtain its own information, but by what means? The Committee now has to ask people for information. How will the Committee know whether the information it receives is correct or not, and what method does it have of controlling this?

But how do you as Minister know?

At least I have an organization of people with expert knowledge who work in a specific professional field, and have been doing that work all their lives, who then come to me with a submission. In the last instance I must accept this submission, which I can also in turn have checked by other organizations and other scientific bodies. I must then, as a member of the Cabinet, or a Cabinet Committee, consider that information and then take a final decision. The Committee, however, will have to obtain that information itself, and must then check it or fail to check it.

Have you thought that that Select Committee might be in a position to recommend a better instrument than itself for the purpose of bringing this enlightenment to the House of Assembly?

If you want a Select Committee to investigate whether the Select Committee itself is the best instrument, then I think the appointment of a Select Committee is not very wise and advisable at this stage. It is, however, one of the possible results to which it could come. Suppose the Committee has all the information. Then it must summon the small secretary of a department; it must summon the chairman of the C.S.I.R. and ask them: “Are you receiving enough money?” Then they will say that they are not receiving enough money. The other organizations will also say they are not receiving enough money. How must the Committee decide, from among this welter of information which will take longer than a session to assemble, that the State should not spend its money in this or that direction? For example, how must they say to the C.S.I.R.: “You are receiving too much money?” The C.S.I.R. has its own estimates which run into many pages, and who is going to decide that it should spend less on its building research institute or more on its leather research institute? After all, these people determine, on a scientific basis, where the greatest need for research in the private sector exists. For that reason I really feel that it will be difficult for a Select Committee to exercise criticism. On what grounds should the Select Committee exercise criticism? On the grounds of a newspaper report, something they have heard, or on what grounds should it state that the money is being spent unwisely?

We come now to the hon. member for Durban North who spoke about the subsequent control over the actual spending of the money. How will it know whether the money has been spent unwisely? It does not see the books of that organization; they are not available to it. It only has the word of these people; it has the auditors’ report and it can, after all, not question that. Therefore, Sir, I think such a Select Committee will be placed in an impossible position and one person will be played off against another. The one man will say: “But you are giving too much for water research” and water research will say: “You are giving too much for agricultural research,” and agricultural research will say that the new development, the uranium enrichment process, is too expensive and that we should abandon it. Others, like the hon. member today, will find that Soekor is spending too much money. The hon. member for Brentwood pointed out very aptly that one cannot in any specific area go and tell Soekor to stop its drilling programme. Honestly, Mr. Speaker, I do not think this motion is a practical suggestion. I think we can consider it again in future for we are completely agreed in regard to one matter, which is that we are living in a new world, an important world in which science and technology play a role in our State structure as it has never played before. If we fall behind in this scientific world then we will remain behind, and we cannot remain behind. Therefore we must ensure that, in view of our limited resources as a small country, we spend money in the correct way and get the most value as a State for our money in respect of scientific research and its application. South Africa has with its limited resources achieved a surprisingly great deal. We are only spending 05 per cent of our gross domestic product on research and on technology. But let us ponder this matter; let us see whether we are able to find a better method. But at the moment the method which we have, i.e. all these different specialist organizations, is still the best. We are bringing them all together as much as possible in the Scientific Advisory Council, with the Scientific Adviser to the Prime Minister as chairman. In addition to that we have the Economic Advisory Council, our Planning Advisory Council and all the Ministers who have research departments under them. All this information and particulars are then collated at this top level and then it is for the executive authority to decide. Parliament is the authority which makes the laws and which controls and supervises the executive authority, but Parliament is not the authority which lays down policy. In the last instance it is the executive authority which lays down the policy, and we are responsible for that in Parliament. As far as the spending of money is concerned, those organizations which are examined by the Controller and Auditor-General are responsible to the Select Committee on Public Accounts in respect of the way in which they spend their money.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 32 and motion and amendment lapsed.