I move as an unopposed motion—

I second.

Agreed to.

I move—

Thus far we have not offered any opposition to the Bill. But I can only tell the Minister of Finance that there are members of the Select Committee on Public Accounts—and I think that that applies to the Committee as a whole—who very reluctantly allowed this matter to pass. One of the matters which has been agreed to here, is the salary of the Chairman of the Land Board, which is beyond the legitimate provisions. The Act says that the salary of the Chairman of the Central Land Board is £1,000 per year, and here we have a case of the Minister, notwithstanding the provisions of the Act, simply deciding that a salary of £1,250 should be paid to the Chairman of the Land Board. The point is that this has been going on for the past four or five years. The position is that this matter has already come before the Select Committee, and we opposed it. If the Minster considers that he should pay a salary to the Chairman of the Land Board which is beyond the provisions of the Act; if he thinks that the salary is not sufficient, then let him do one of two things. Let him either reduce the salary to the legitimate provision, or let him amend the Act. But this matter has been going on for four or five years already. We have objected to this time and time again, and last year were were given a solmen promise that the Act would be amended. That promise has not been implemented. This year we have again received a solemn assurance that this year at least an endeavour would be made to get statutory approval of this irregularity. I can merely say that this matter leaves behind a bad taste. The most favourable construction a person can put on this is that it is pure neglect, that is to say, that the Minister and his Department have forgotten to consult Parliament and to obtain approval of it. But I want to say this, that if the Government has the necessary respect for this House, as it should have, then a thing like this would never have taken place in the first instance, and then it would not have continued for four or five years. In that one can only see disrespect for the authority of Parliament, disrespect for the necessity of consulting Parliament in these matters. We made the proposal in this case, but it was reluctantly, and I can assure the Minister that if this matter comes before us again next year, then the fat will be in the fire.

Perhaps I may just explain. There was neglect in getting the position legalised. The position is that Act No. 37 of 1934 contains the provision regarding the salary of the Chairman of the Central Land Board, which the hon. member has mentioned here, but the intention at that time was that the Chairman would always remain an official In fact that was the case. The Under-Secretary for Lands was appointed as Chairman. After his promotion to Secretary for Lands, his successor was appointed. In 1937, or in 1939 —in any case, under the administration of the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp)—that procedure was departed from. After Major Edwards left the Service—at that time he was the Chairman of the Central Land Board—the previous Minister, of Lands decided to appoint one of the members of the Land Board as the Chairman, and he appointed Mr. Wentzel as the Chairman. Article 3 (1) of the Act provides that the salary of a member of the Land Board is to be £1,000 per year, and that is the salary which according to law had to be paid to the Chairman. However, as the previous Chairman, as an official, received £1,350 an additional allowance of £250 was paid to Mr. Wentzel as the Chairman. Since then the Controller and Auditor-General has questioned the legality of this special allowance, and that is the reason why legal authority is being sought in this Bill.

But why did you wait so long?

I admit that there was delay. Why, I do hot know. The Treasury agreed to the allowance and the matter just went on. I think that the Minister of Finance will correct the matter this year in the Finance Bill.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

I want to move the following; amendment standing in my name on page 225 of the Order Paper—

At the second reading of this Bill we, on this side of the House., gave the Minister the assurance that we heartily welcomed the principle of the Bill. We still take up that attitude. But we would like to voice our protest against certain provisions of the Bill, which are designed to make the Bill difficult, unpractical and unmanageable. In the definitions the word “institute” is also defined, which means that two bodies will be created for the carrying out of the provisions of the Bill. The first is the Standards Council, namely the Council of the Bureau, and in addition to that there is this Institute. We thus have the Standards Council and the South. African Standards Institute. We find that that is a very unsound principle to have in this Bill. That is one of the difficulties we often experience in this country, that due to tradition, we get two or more bodies to perform the same work, and this results in overlapping and friction. We have experienced those difficultise in this sitting in connection with other matters which have come before the House. My intention is not to cast any reflections on the Standards Institute which exists today. I merely feel that where we are making a new start we should put it on a sound basis. If a council is necessary in connection with standards; if the Minister is convinced that that council is necessary, then a second body is not necessary to do the same work. If the Institute is capable of carrying out the duties which are necessary for the purposes of this regulation, then the Standards Council is unnecessary. If we want to establish a council which will be responsible for the aims of the Bill, then there is certainly no room for the Institute. If we want to grant certain powers to the Institute, in a later portion of the Bill, then it is possible to make provision for representatives in the council, even under Clause 5. Then we can use the name of the Institute, but we must not use it here. I strongly object to the appointment of two bodies where we are making a new start on a large new subject. One body is necessary to which power is granted for the carrying out of the provisions of this Standards Bill. It is not necessary to have a second body. That is an unsound principle. If the Institute answers to all its requirements, and if the Minister is convinced that, it should continue to exist, then it will be a sound principle to have just that one body, although I would be opposed to it, and would be in favour of having a Government body. But it is an unsound principle to have two bodies for the same purpose. It is clear that the Minister has sympathy and respect for, the past and for institutions which are already in existence. We do not blame him for that, but where he is making a new beginning, he should not allow himself to be influenced by those considerations to include an undesirable principle in the Bill. In the past we have had many cases of two bodies being created for the same purpose. That must lead to overlapping. In the Union we practically have five Parliaments and innumerable councils which makes it impossible to discriminate between the different spheres. We now have the opportunity of laying down a sound principle and the Minister wants to create two bodies. The Minister has attempted to define the work of the Institute, on the one hand, and the work of the council, on the other hand. But he has not succeeded in that. That has led to overlapping and the work of the one is subjected to the other. For that reason I want to insist that the Minister must delete that portion from the definition. If he wishes to recognise the work of the Institute, let him do that at a later stage. I want to go further and say that if the Minister allows the two bodies to remain together, then it is going to lead not only to overlapping, but it is undoubtedly going to lead to clashes. Later on I want to “point out the possibilities of overlapping and clashes. I will later indicate that in one instance work is left to the Institute, and it must be approved by the Standards Board. The Standards Board is allowed to adjudicate on the work of the Institute. That is going to lead to difficulty and clashes, and the Minister himself will later have to give a decision. Therefore we now have the opportunity of drafting this Bill so that such a thing cannot be possible. If the Minister wishes to recognise the work which the Institute has done in the past he will have plenty of opportunity to make use of the Institute under the later provisions of the Bill, namely, where committtees are appointed. I think that the Minister anticipates, and I personally assume that to be the position, that there will probably be about six committees appointed in connection with the various aspects of the work. There he has ample opportunity to appoint all the members of the Institute on these committees. He need not overlook these people. He need not give them a smack in the face, because he has sufficient opportunity of making use of all of them. But he must not create two bodies for the purpose of this Bill, as he is doing here, because that is an unsound principle and will lead to difficulties. I therefore want to emphatically insist that “Institute” should be deleted from this definition. Whereas this body is probably desirous of remaining in existence, and has approached the Minister, I would like to point out that the deletion of this definition will not bring an end to their existence. In April of this year this body will have been in existence for 10 years. It has always been a private institution. During that period the Institute has performed certain work without the Government having given it recognition, as such, in the laws of the land. There is therefore absolutely no reason why the Institute should not continue as a private institution. I wish to repeat that it is not necessary to insult, or show disrespect to the Institution; and that is not our aim either. This amendment does not mean that they are getting a slap in the face. They can continue to act as an advisory body for private undertakings and for the Bureau. This Institute includes people who are engaged in research work, high officials, technicians in different branches, scientists, and representatives of local authorities. I say that this proposal does not mean that the Institute will be abolished. It can continue. But where, in a Bill, we are creating a Standards Council, we cannot allow this body to do the same work as the Standards Council. I would naturally not be approached, but if I were to be approached to become a member of the Bureau Council, I would like to know what the sphere is in which the Bureau can act, and I would also like to be assured that the Bureau will have all the functions it will necessarily require in order to perform the duties placed upon it by this Bill. [Time limit.]

I would like to support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Ceres (Dr. Stals). In the past I have had considerable experience on the question of standardisation in South Africa, and we all realise perfectly well that the Institute mentioned here has done important work in the past. In the basence of anybody having legal authority this body existed practically voluntarily and has done very valuable work. But the importance of the motion, as has already been explained by the hon. member, is not the aim to abolish the Institute. It is not intended to give the Institute a slap in the face. As the hon. member has pointed out, the Institute may still perform the same service in the future. The same persons can continue in an advisory capacity to assist the Standards Board and private undertakings. On the contrary it would be undesirable to abolish the Institute completely because it already has nine years’ experience behind it. On the contrary it places the Institute in a stronger position than it was, because the Institute will co-operate with the Council and the Bureau, and will be in a position to do practically the same work as in the past. In addition, the proposals will go to the Bureau and the Council, and in the event of the proposals made by the Institute being agreed to by the Minister, then the standards become legal and in this way the Institute will be doing more than previously. I can only support the hon. member for Ceres when he says that we must guard against duplication in South Africa. A Council and a Bureau are now being formed whilst there is an Institute in existence, an Institute which is a private establishment. That must lead to unnecessary duplication and eventual inefficiency in the work. I understand that the additional institute for standardisation in the Department of Defence also still exists. We will then, if it has not been abolished, have four such bodies. That can only lead to duplication.

I would be pleased if the Minister, when he replies this morning, will express his views on the amendment in the light of this discussion. I want to endeavour, as far as possible, to restrict myself to matters of principle. Now I would like to say a few words in connection with my two amendments, namely in connection with specifications. You will notice that it is provided, that a specification will be a specification which the Institute can determine, with the approval of the Minister. If that remains so, the standards specification will be the right of the Institute alone, except that later in the Bill provision is made for the Board to possibly ignore the Institute in regard to approval or non-approval. But here the important error is being made of setting aside for the Institute a portion of the sphere which is intended for the Bureau. Now I would like to draw the attention of the House to the extent of the rights of the Institute, which is a private institution. It is not a body which has been incorporated, but a voluntary association of outside people over whom, as such, the State has no control. They can cease to exist or expand at will, and here this voluntary association is granted power to declare any specification a standard specification, with the approval of the Minister, regarding any commodity manufactured in South Africa or imported from overseas. A voluntary association is being authorised to fix standard specifications. I consider it to be an unheard of thing that we should grant such powers to a private organisation of scientists, no matter how capable they may be. It is an institution of private persons, whereas the Minister is himself forming a Council. Now he wants to overlook the Council and grant powers to a private association to fix standard specifications for any kind of commodity, no matter what, irrespective of further powers in connection with manufactured products and commodities. I have endeavoured to give considerable attention to this matter, and I must say that I discovered, to my surprise, that the Minister elected to give the: powers to a private association of scientists. Not only, according to my contention, is he violating a sound principle, but he is granting to a private association powers in connection with the trade and industry in South Africa, even in regard to the tuition of personnel. These far-reaching powers which are being granted must have tremendous repercussions. They are now going to fix standard specifications whereby trade and industry will be bound—the whole industry, in regard to its development, investment of capital and even the tuition of persons, is now being subjected to a private association which is vested with powers to determine standard specifications. It appears to me that if I were concerned in this industry I would strongly object to my future being entrusted to a private association as opposed to the powers which you grant to a Government body and which could be criticised on the floor of this House. That is an unheard of thing. We cannot even criticise the constitution of the association. There is a second aspect. Not only are industries subjected to the decisions of a private institution, but the whole basis of production is influenced by them. Everything that is produced, the consumers thereof, thousands and thousands of people who use commodities, are forced to use what the private association determines. The Minister is shaking his head. He lays down here that they will have the rights. There is however the further power which the Minister can proclaim on the advice of the Council. The Minister has the power to refuse the rights, as also has the Council, but why is such a body created if the Minister intends in anticipation to ignore them? That is silly. We can prepare ourselves for large developments. Necessity compels industries in South Africa to make plans for export, and now the standards of export are entrusted to a private body, not the Standards Bureau of the Government. I simply do not understand the Minister. With a view to the tremendous implications involved, how can he lay down that this body must have the powers? Then I also wish to draw attention to another aspect which is contained in my amendments. I move that the words “and in accordance with its constitution” be deleted. I would be pleased if the Minister would explain what those words mean, to what they refer. I have the Constitution of the Standards Institute in my hands, and I have gone into their reports. I have not studied them closely, but according to my view no • amendments have been brought about in the Constitution. The Constitution consists of seven clauses. The, first is its name. It apparently cannot have any reference to that. In the second clause the objects are described. That contains certain stipulations which I undoubtedly will criticise strongly if the words “in accordance with its constitution”, are applicable to it. Therefore I want to ask the Minister to what it refers. The third clause deals with the constitution of the body, the members, and the fourth deals with the management. I shall be pleased if the Minister can give the assurance that Clauses 3 and 4 are what is referred to. We are left in the dark as to the meaning of these words.

I would like to associate myself with the objections raised by the hon. members for Ceres (Dr. Stals) and Gezina (Dr. Swanepoel) in regard to the powers which are granted to the Institute. The hon. Minister certainly did not advance sufficient reasons at the second reading of the Bill why all these powers, administrative or otherwise, should be granted to the Institute, why a private institution like this should by legislation be vested with the powers which are contained in this Bill, Whilst simultaneously a Council is being appointed to deal with those matters. Why a private body, whilst a Council is being created? I do not want to repeat the arguments which have already been advanced, but I desire to draw the attention of the House to the fact that unnecessary complications are being created by this Bill, because an Institute will exist in conjunction with the Council, to which certain important powers are granted. If we pay attention to the definition of “specification” and of “standard specification”, it would appear that a specification in regard to the manufacture of a trade commodity is something which is determined by the Council itself. But in conjunction with that you have the definition of “standard specification”, which is something different from a specification. A standard specification is a specification which the Institute declares to be a stanadrd specification. One could say that a standard specification is of much greater importance than a specification. A standard specification is not determined by the Council, it may however be approved by the Council, but it is determined by the Institute. Let us now see how this is applied. Clause 14 of the Bill sets that out. Take a mark, you may call it a standard mark. The Council determines it, the specification is made by the Council in regard to trade commodities. The Council declares a mark to be a standard mark. But then there are also the powers of the Institute regarding standard specifications and trade names. Look now at the unnecessary confusion, complication and ambiguity which you get. There is not only one mark, but different marks. One is a mark which the Council itself has accepted, a specification which has been • determined by the Council itself in regard thereto. The other is a standard specification determined by the Institute. You get ambiguity, and simply because the Minister apparently, for some or other reason, attaches tremendous value to the institute. That Institute must now, parallel with the Council, interfere everywhere and determine things. When we come to Clause 15, where we are not concerned with marks but where we are dealing with compulsory standard specifications, what do we find? Let me first say that you have specifications, standard specifications, and compulsory standard specifications. When we come to Clause 15, it is apparent that the Minister, on the recommendation of the Council, declares as compulsory standard specifications, specifications which are determined by the Council or standard specifications which are determined by the Institute. Look now at the unnecessary process which you have. The Council sets up a specification and it can be declared by the Council to be a compulsory specification. The Institute sets up a standard specification and that can be declared by the Minister, on the recommendation of the Council, to be a compulsory standard specification. If you pay attention to the contents of Clauses 14 and 15 it becomes still more apparent how impossible it is to have this body in conjunction with the Board. We have a Board of Trade and Industry which has certain powers, advisory, etc., but you do not have in conjunction with that Board of Trade and Industry another body which also has certain powers in regard to it. Then there is the further point that this Institute, which takes action and functions on its own, also gets the power to appoint almost a half of the members on this Council. Thus it makes it almost double-barrelled. Therefore I want to strongly associate myself with the hon. members who have already protested, and ask the Minister to seriously consider meeting those objections. If the Institution wants to remain in existence it can do so purely as a scientific body, as there are many others in South Africa, which have not the authority and power which is granted to them by a Charter of the House of Assembly. They can be a number of scientists who perform research work and make recommendations as they have previously done, but our objection is that the Government is estáblshing a Council which has statutory powers, while in conjunction with the Council another body is allowed with important powers which can influence, and has a say in the activities and decisions of the Council. I trust that the Minister will take our objections into consideration so that we can further support the Bill.

This amendment of the hon. member for Ceres (Dr. Stals) is one of several amendments designed to remove from the scope of this Bill the Standards Institution and the basis of the argument for doing so is that the Institution is a voluntary body and that in the Council we are setting up, and the Bureau, there is no need for a duplication of work, and therefore if it is considered advisable to recognise the Institution at all it might in some form or other be given advisory powers. Mr. Chairman, this raises the whole basic issue and the principle of this Bill, because we have drafted it with the object of retaining the work and services of this South African Standards Institution which has been functioning for some ten years, and our reason for doing it is that the work of standardisation is and will be to an over-whelming degree voluntary between the people concerned in the industry or trade which is working on that particular aspect of standardisation. This Institute is a very representative body… It has amongst its members almost every technical association in the country, and they really in their ranks contain the people who know most about it.

There are two members of the Standards Institute on the Council.

That is not enough. Before you can come to the point of declaring a standard specification there is a great deal of work to be done and comparing of notes and examination of different aspects before you can come to a particular specification to meet the needs of the industry, and this Institute has been doing that in the past and all we are doing now is to incorporate into the Bill the work which the Institute has been doing, work they are very well suited to do. They are hampered in what they were able to do in the last ten years because they had no authority and very little money for doing it. They have done a great deal of missionary work and they will continue to do so, so we are taking them over in the Bill and they will remain the standardising body as in the past, and all they are to do is what they did in the past. Standardising has been going on for years, and I think that very few members of the Committee have known anything about it, but they have drawn up standard specifications, and they are best used to the work of the Institute. The suggestion is that apart from the question of whether the Institute should figure as part of the Bill, that they, as a private body, have far too much power. But what does really happen? The standard specification is drawn up and drafted by the Institute and declared by them to be a standard specification. But what is that standard specification? It is simply a declaration by those best qualified to judge what is the best standard for that product, whether it is a tool or a machine or a manufactured article. There is nothing to compel people to use it. There is nothing to make it anything like a compulsory standard, and all it does is to set up a standard which the particular industry or trade agrees they should all work on as a basis for efficiency. Now in this Bill it is proposed to go further and say that when a standard specification or a specification by the Council has been established, there will be provision for issuing a standardisation mark. That is to say, instead of it being a declaration by the people concerned that that is what they are working to, there will be provision for people who use that specification to mark their goods with the standardisation mark certifying that they are working to this specification, but the Standards Institution cannot issue that mark. If they want to associate with it a standardisation mark on which the public will go and feel they have a guarantee, they have to go to the Council and the Council recommends to the Minister that it should be done, so in this Act the Standards Institute has no further powers than it had before. It is not the body suggested by hon. members. All we are doing is to harness a most valuable body of voluntary workers who have done good work in the past and are best qualified to decide on the measure of standardisation. Further, we are beginners in this realm and it is a fact that other countries which have for years been working on standardisation have found it necessary to work very largely through voluntary bodies, and I think we would be unwise to ignore the experience of other countries. I think we are going further in this Bill than in other countries, so when the hon. member for Ceres bases his argument on it that this is an unsóund principle, I cannot agree. I think we are well advised to incorporate it in this Bill and make clear the position of the Institute and what the work is that it can do and that it will be linked up with the Council and they will work together.

Supposing they don’t work together?

That will be the responsibility of the unfortunate Minister. In regard to the powers Of the Institute, I think the hon. member for Ceres has exaggerated the position when he says that we place the powers in the hands of a private body. They have no powers to issue a specification or standardisation mark; all they have the power to do is to declare what is the opinion of their members. If people don’t like it there is no need for them, in making their purchases or drawing up their tenders, to accept it; it is there merely as a guide? The hon. member for Ceres asked me why I put in the definition of standard specification the words “in accordance with their constitution”. That is a formal phrase to indicate that should the Standards Institute behave unconstitutionally, they cannot be taken notice of. We are assuming in the definition of the Bill that they will act in terms of their constitution, and that is all the definition makes clear.

There is no provision in the Institute’s Constitution for carrying out this work.

There is provision; if the hon. member will read the Objects—

and so on, and—

I am not quite clear what the hon. member means when he says there is no provision in the constitution. As far as we are concerned we are simply including this as a formal matter. I am sorry I cannot accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for Ceres (Dr. Stals) and I must press the House to accept the definition as it stands.

I move—

I am strongly supported in this small amendment by important bodies here such as the Federated Chamber of Industries and the Chamber of Commerce. It is felt that some limitation should be imposed in regard to this council’s power to establish a compulsory specification. This is a step which is attended by many serious dangers, and many pitfalls; and no compulsory specification should be made possible unless it is a minimum specification, the reason being that it will be highly undesirable in any way to limit progress. It is fell that the only way to ensure progress no being hampered is to insert a minimum specification. The Chambers of Commerce go further and consider that in every case as specification should be a minimum specification and not an absolute specification. I want to draw the attention of hon. members to the distinction between a minimum and an absolute specification. Furthermore, there is a feeling, and a strong feeling, that a compulsory specification should be limited to the protection of the consumer against such eventualities as outright fraud or the sale of s deleterious commodity. In that case it is necessary to have a minium specification Where it is necessary to provide that ar article should, for instance, contain not less than a stated percentage of a particular ingredient, or not more than a certain percentage, a minimum specification should be within the power of the council, but it should not be able to propose a compulsory specification. I do not want to press this matter further at this stage, because the whole question of the compulsory-standard will arise under Clause 15, and there are many arguments to be advanced in this connection, sc I shall just leave it at present to moving my amendment.

I should like the Minister to explain this interpretation of standard specification a little more clearly. Am I to understand that this voluntary body, the Standards Institution, will furnish a declaration on an article that has to be standardised, and that the council will then, with the approval of the Minister, approve of that standard? Whilst it is admitted, as he himself said, it will not be compulsory, and certain articles will still be made below that standard, I would like to point out that the fundamental difference between this and that say under the Food and Drugs Act (it is true that is compulsory), is that there it is not the manufacturer that sets a standard, it is not the commercial community or the industrial community that sets a standard, but the standard is laid down by the Public Health Department. Here we are asking manufacturers to set up their own standard through the institution of which they are members. It seems to me wrong that this should be done. This institution would appear to me, therefore, to set up a standard convenient to the manufacturers. I do not for a moment suggest this institution would seek to lower a standard or to do anything that would be a disservice to the community, but the time might come when their interests and those of the standard might clash. The Minister says that is where he would come in; but as: a layman he would, still have to take the advice of someone, and the first people he would turn to for advice are his own officials. Therefore I feel that the position should be cleared up. I would also like to point out when he refers to the institution “in accordance with its constitutión” he does not make provision for the approval of that constitution or any smandments of that constitution. The institution may change its constitution, and I can find here no provision for the Minister giving his approval to any change. He quoted instances regarding the constitution which were apparently quite all right. I think the Minister should secure himself and have control of this constitution. The Minister is now taking upon himself power to legislate on a totally new system in regard to deciding the-standard that shall be set for a particular commidity. Although the standard will be voluntary, and the public need not buy the stuff, nevertheless it is going to be a standard that will bear a Government mark. That being so, I think the people Who should settle the standard should not be those concerned in the manufacture of the commodity. There is a fundamental weakness there, and I should like the Minister to reply to me on that point;

I am pleased that the hon. Minister has told us his intentions early in the debate, although I am exceedingly sorry that he has taken up the attitude that he refuses to accept the amendment. I do not want it to be understood that the Minister has wrongly informed the House in regard to the compass of the powers of the Institute in so far as it concerns the specifications. I would like the Minister and the House to understand that. I am not alleging that he has motives but I still think that in terms of the Act the powers of the Institute, by reason of the segregation of standard specifications, are much larger and much more involved than I deduced from what he proposed to the House. If the Minister carefully reads the definition he will see that standard specification can be applicable to all trade commodities; it can be applicable to all processes, the manufacture and production of trade commodities in the Union, it can be applicable to any imported article, it can be applicable to any process of production in the country. They have the power; that is a long time prior to the Minister making standard specifications compulsory. In the past they did not have the opportunity of making standard specifications compulsory, but they did determine standard specifications by the thousands, and that is accepted as authoritative in this country, and therefore I say that if the Minister says that specifications will only be authoritative when they are compulsory specifications, then he is not setting out the position correctly. I think that the Minister should go further, and see what recognition the Institute received in the past, without the power of declaring compulsory standard specifications. He is now going further and he is going to change the character of the Institute. They become an authoritative body and therefore this determination will be so much more applicable. At the commencement I asked the Minister to give his sympathetic consideration to the proposal that the Institute should continue to function as a separate body, as a private institution. I have told him that I want to deal with the matter on the basis of principle only. But due to the attitude the Minister has now taken up I regret that I will have to go further. I have devoted attention and time to all the reports which the Board has brought out in latter years. I think that eight reports were brought out in the last ten years. From the activities of this Council serious conclusions have to be drawn by this House. I made a short summary of the activities of the Council for every year, and I am sorry to have to take up the time of this House, but due to the attitude I have adopted from the beginning, I think that it is necessary for the Minister to give us the opportunity to set out the position clearly and in an unbiassed manner. I do not want the Minister to later say that we have now found reasons for dealing with the matter on principle. The Council was appointed on the 25th April, I think, and the year runs until April or May. In the first year of the Council’s activity one specification was laid down for African products — “Standard method of analysis of lime soap”—and they also laid down a final form for a standard specification for “washing soda”. In this year the Institute paid attention to two matters, namely “lime soap” and “washing soda”. During the course of the year there were a number of applications by the industry for the laying down of standard specifications. In that year there was application for a standard specification of African salt. I will point out later that the Institute, I think, took seven years to lay down a standard specification for African salt; and according to the 8th report of 1942-’43 the Council did not succeed in laying down a standard specification for corundum. But during that first year, however, the Institute did have the opportunity of laying down or proclaiming a considerable number of British standard specifications as South African standard specifications. In the first year the Institute laid down at least 85 British standard specifications as South African standard specifications. I want the House to take note of the difference. In the first instance work is done in regard to two standard specifications, but 85 from overseas are approved. I just want to add here that I have respect for the work of the Council; the Council receives drafts from the whole community and I think work is being done on them, but the Council has achieved little—I want to repeat that—the Council has achieved little in regard to the determination of South African standard specifications, except that they imported British specifications as African specifications. The second year this specification for washing soda was specified. A final summary for a South African specification for the samplification of coal was also prepared. Then it is to he noticed that African salt is still under consideration, and it has remained under consideration for seven years. In the first year mention was also made of a number of matters in regard to which the industry made application for standard specifications to be laid down— amongst others sheet iron, both corrugated and flat — and I want the House to pay attention to this. This application came before the Council in 1936 for the determination of a standard specification for sheet iron which was then being manufactured in south Africa on a considerable scale. Iscor had then already commenced with the production of sheet iron, and until 1943 there was not yet any specification for South African sheet iron. I think in these circumstances we have reason to doubt the efforts or the valué of the Institute for the setting up or laying down of African standard specifications. In that same year, the second year, the Institute went on to declare 212 British standard specifications as South African standard specifications. In the mechanical engineers department 55 specifications were taken on. In the electrical eingineers department 52 were taken on; no specification was taken on for the civil engineers department; 44 were taken on in the chemical department without amendment, and 40 with certain amendments; in the timber section 14 were taken on. In that year 212 British standard specifications were declared as South African standard specifications, whilst one South African standard specification was proclaimed. In the following year we had this position: The following specifications were accepted during 1938 for South African products—“final specification no. 13/37 for the samplification of coal.” [Time limit.]

I also want to make an earnest request to the Minister to use a bit of intelligence in regard to this matter. It does not help to let your feelings run away with your intelligence. Here you have a body which is an entirely voluntary body, which is going to amend its constitution tomorrow or the next day, and which tomorrow or the next day can cease to exist. You have no control over this body and as far as I can see you are vesting it With more powers than it had. You are giving more power to it than you are giving to the Council. The Government is not in a position to amend any recommendation under Clause 14 or to repeal it before consulting the Institute. Conseqeuntly the position is simply this; because you now want to recognise the Institute—and I know why you want to recognise it—we must keep account of developments after the war. Most of those people, as I understand, are representatives of foreign companies.

Read the list of members

I have already seen it and I have also seen the people. The position is this. The Minister must realise that in this Bill he is going to give powers to a body which they did not have. The Minister says that he is not giving them powers which they did not previously have. If that is the case why do you pass the Act? Did I correctly understand the Minister? Did I correctly understand the Minister when he said that this Institute is getting no powers which it did not have? It is purely and simply an advisory body; in the absence of any Act it had an opportunity of laying down specifications. If this Bill is passed they will continue exactly as in the past. The Minister, says: “I am now only legalising it; we need not make any recommendation and if we do get recommendations we put them before the Council.” I do not think that the Minister realises what can happen. He most probably does not realise that the Council can support one thing and the Institute another, that differences may arise when you allocate the work to two bodies and do not make the one subject to the other. Then you are looking for trouble, because if a difference does arise the Minister has to decide what he is going to do in regard to it. Thus I feel that when he gives the work to two bodies, he does not realise what can happen. The Institute is prepared to develop in regard to its activities; and for the purpose of their progress. But we also have to look at the consumers; we must look at the country itself. Here we find that the Institute has laid down, in regard to African standard specifications, two in the 9 or 10 years of its existence, and a few hundred British specifications have been taken on. Why should we be bound by the specifications of any one particular country? If I want a specification from America or Canada or Australia, but the English standard is different, then I must accept the English standard and manufacture in accordance with that standard specification in my country. Here the Minister has no control over the body. He has no control • over their constitution. Certain powers are given to them and you can see for yourself what the possible complications are. Consequently I feel that I would rather see that the Bill is not passed at all, if the position is that we are going to be bound to the specifications of one country. The Minister must not forget the history of the Institute. The Institute was originally founded as a branch of the British Institute. It is now nine or ten years ago that they decided to have a separate Institute in each part of the British Commonwealth. Whether that is to the benefit of the country or not, we must accept their specification. I cannot understand why the Minister grants powers to two bodies when he could give them to one. That body can advise the Government. What we desire is a Council which will take care of the interests of the nation of South Africa, not a Council which has its interests in another place—and that is what the Minister is going to get—the Minister is going to experience difficulty in connection with this matter. I realise now that his side of the House will vote for the Bill on Party lines, but I want to tell the Minister that if the Bill goes through, then he has to assume responsibility. We are warning him and telling him what the position is. If things go wrong later, the nation will have to decide whether they are prepared to leave such a Government in power.

The hon. member for Ceres (Dr. Stals) has given us a list specifying the work done by the Institute, showing that on their own they made very few specifications and that they had taken over a large number of British specifications during the last nine years. That is true; but I do not think it is fair to judge the Institute by the last nine years, simply because during that time they had no laboratory facilities and no finance. They had no facilities for carrying out investigations, and as they were working on a purely voluntary basis, and had in fact no recognised status, their progress was naturally slow. In the absence of any machinery, governmental or otherwise, for assisting them in arriving at their South African standards, they have declared a considerable number of British standards to be standard specifications for this country. That is very understandable because, especially in the engineering industry Britain was our main supplier for machinery, tools etc. before the war. It was only natural then that these standards should be taken over temporarily. To indicate that I should like to quote from their last year’s report—

I only mention that to indicate that though they have adopted British standards, it does not mean they are not being continually revised, and as they get the opportunity these will be superseded by our own standards. So I do not think the argument that they have not done very much by way of introducing their own standards over the last nine years, is fair criticism.

In what way win they be better off financially?

The bureau and the laboratory will be available for their testing work. Their members will pay, admittedly. It was not really money that stopped it. The money would have been forthcoming if the facilities had been available.

I ask because the hon. Minister said that up to now they had no finance.

They had not; they were purely a voluntary body.

Where will they get their finance now?

From their members.

Could they not have got it from their members in the past?

Once there was something to be done with the money it will be available. The hon. member for South Rand (Mr. Christie) raised the question of the constitution. The position is that we discussed their constitution with them, and they have given an undertaking that as soon as the Bill is through they will be prepared to amend their constitution with our approval, and to provide that any further amendment of the constitution will be subject to the approval of the Minister. The hon. member for Houghton (Mr. Bell) has moved another amendment referring to the question of minimum standards. He pointed out that the Bill is full of pitfalls, and I agree. He must be careful, as I must, not to fall into them, and this Committee, I hope, is going to be careful in considering this matter which is highly technical and not rush into amendments the results of which we cannot foresee, and I think this particular amendment would vitiate the whole of the Bill because he wants to provide that there should be a compulsory minimum standard specification. I cannot understand that. A standard specification is a precise specification. In the specification it may lay down minimum quantities and maximum quantities for this or that, but it is a specification, so the amendment does not seem to mean anything except that it might prevent us from declaring absolute standards, maximum standards or minimum standards. You have three kinds of standards. Maximum standards refer to such things as the carbon content of steel or the sulphate content of salt, and then you have the absolute standard, for wire gauges and so on. Then you have the minimum standards which apply to such things as materials or rope, so to simply put in the word “minimum” would not meet the case, and the fact that you have a compulsory specification does not imply that there will not possibly be reference to a minimum or maximum. When the standard specification is final, it is a precise thing, and it cannot be defined as minimum, maximum or absolute, and therefore I am afraid I cannot accept the amendment.

If I was not previously quite convinced of the direction in which this Institute was working, then the Minister’s speech has now made any doubt impossible. He says that they achieved so little in South Africa because they did not have the necessary facilities. I want to draw the Minister’s attention to the Constitution of the Institute. There are scientific representatives, representatives of various Government departments, of public utility companies, local authorities, associations of scientists, etc., etc., on this Standards Institute. I have already indicated how very little they have done in regard to South African standards, whilst they have done very much for overseas standards. The Minister says that they did not have the facilities for setting up South African standards. That is the excuse advanced by the Minister why so mighty little has been done for South African standards. If his excuse is that they did not have the facilities for inspecting South African articles, then there is no justification for their having set up hundreds of overseas articles without investigation. This is a very important matter. If it is a question of their not having had sufficient finance, then that is no excuse. We know that the Government and the Railway Department pay a subsidy every year. It is only approximately £100 and that is quite negligible in connection with scientific research and work of this nature. But if we accept the Minister’s point of view, then there is still this further implication. This voluntary body is brought into existence. On the other hand the State provides facilities for research work, because for that purpose it has created the Bureau, and the findings of this Bureau are then made available to a private institution. That is unheard of. I wish to emphasise that we cannot possibly accept the argument advanced by the Minister. I would like to go further to indicate what work this Institute has done in regard to South African products, and in regard to overseas products. We now come to the Annual Report which sets out the work for the year 1937. During that year standards were set up for South African goods in the form of coal, for salt which was ready for publication, and for bricks in a final form. Standardisation for calcium carbide, standard methods for corundum analysis; carbolinium, creosote, the marking of taps, underground pumping equipment galvanised iron, corrugated and flat, was under consideration. In the case of British standards, specifications were set out in regard to 20 articles. Then we come to next year 1938-’39. In that year the standard was set up for the combustion point of petrol and other inflammable products. A standard specification was determined for building bricks. The publication of the salt standard was delayed. The standard for lime was also delayed. And those still under consideration were the following: calcium carbide, standard methods for corundum analysis, carbolinium and creosote, the marking of taps, underground pumping equipment, galvanised steel sheets and flat and other galvanised sheets. Consideration was also granted to specifications and the naming of dry and seasoned woods. And then we find this very important statement in the Report that the Institute has taken over a large number of British standard specifications in their entirety for South Africa and others, subject to amendments. Then a number of examples of this are given in connection with electrical goods and the machine industry. We then come to the Annual Report for 1939-1940. There certain standards were laid down for South African coal and other British standards were taken over for South Africa. Standards regarding salt, carbolinium, creosote, galvanised steel sheets and galvanised iron sheets were still under consideration. In 1942-’43 they mentioned standards for dry and seasoned woods, charcoal for use in gas plants, asbestos and cement pipes. A very large number of British standards were again taken on. And we notice that in 1943 galvanised steel, and galvanised iron sheets, calcium carbide, corundum analysis, were still under consideration. Some of these had already in 1936 been under consideration, and whilst during that period only a few South African standards and specifications were announced hundreds of British standards were taken over for South Africa. Now we get this surprising state of affairs. The Government receives an application from a company from overseas to be allowed to erect a large factory in the Union in order to supply the needs of the Union in regard to certain products. That refers to water taps, plumbers’ goods, copper bands, valves for water pipes in the mines, and we find that this Institute tells the company, in anticipation, that after the war the British standards will be taken over for South Africa. Standards for South African articles, such as table salt, calcium carbide creosote and such like things remain in abeyance for seven years. But in one year hundreds of overseas standards are taken over. I regret that I have to make use of these matters, but in future when the Minister wants to saddle us with a body, we will have to investigate these matters. In the past it was a voluntary body but in the future the activities of this body will have the backing of State authority, and use will also be made of the money and facilities of the State. Here we notice how very little has been done to fix standards for South African articles, nevertheless the Institute goes out of its way to inform a body that the articles which it wishes to manufacture will have the British standard after the war. I want to point out that many of us have no faith in the activities of the Institute. The activities of this body during the past 10 years gives it no claim to our faith. I want to make one last request to the Minister that he must reconsider the matter and not persist in his refusal to accept this amendment. The amendment contains a sound principle, Zand I will later point out the consequences if he refuses to accept the amendment and if he forms two bodies for the purpose of this Bill. [Time limit.]

Mr. Chairman, it was very gratifying to hear the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) stating that he was concerned about the consumer. He felt that the consumer might be exploited, and there is no doubt, from the experience this House has had in the past, that in anything of this nature, which sets up a statutory body, we have to see that the interests of the consumer, the people “daar buite”, are well protected from the machinations of all interested parties. In that respect. I would point out to him, however, that his objection to representation on the Standards Institute is not quite in being with fair representation on a body of this sort. The fact that there should be consumer representation is beside the point. I would point out that in other boards of this sort, because this is in the nature of a control board, the farmer and the processor are represented.

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

I was discussing in this House the matter of the representation afforded the South African Standards Institute, and I must say that I feel the criticism passed on it by the hon. member for Ceres (Dr. Stals) was a bit hard. This was a voluntary body. At no time had it received any State support. It had developed out of the, initiative of people engaged in industry. They co-opted various sections of the community and endeavoured to make it into an effective body. Its existence was entirely due to their efforts; Our industrial development was not being accorded a high degree of interest, and yet this body did at least make a beginning towards standardisation. The knowledege that it has acquired over a period of years is something that can be made use of in connection with any State concern such as is envisaged here. The Department or the Bureau itself will not, I feel, have necessarily the immediate knowledge and experience to conduct with perfection the whole of the tasks that are being entrusted to it, and I feel, that the members of this institute will in this respect, serve a very useful and informal link with the Bureau.

I do not propose to carry my amendment any further at this stage; I would prefer to leave it until we reach Clause 15, when the subject will be discussed again and probably more appropriately under that clause than at present. I want to deal with the last remarks made by the hon. member for Ceres (Dr. Stals). He rather tended to draw a red herring across the trail in dealing with the financial arrangements. If one reviews the statement of the South African Standards Institution, one finds that it is not a body handling a large sum of money, it has no large funds, but it exists on donations and grants. I daresay if it wanted more money it could quite possibly raise it, when one takes into account the large and responsible nature of the Institution concerned. In regard to British Standard Specifications, the hon. member seems to be apprehensive that the part the Institution would be given in this Bill is dangerous, and that it may lead to the wholesale adoption of British standards to the exclusion of South African standards. The hon. member for Ceres has cited the case of salt. Let me say he could not have cited a better example which redounds to the credit of the South African Standards Institution. For years salt has been before that institution, and for years now there has been no standard arrived at. Let me tell the hon. member for Ceres that had that Institution brought out a specification for salt, it is more than probable it would have closed down the South African industry. Let me say further that had they adopted a British standard they would have closed down the South African industry, and 40 or 50 producers at Hagenspan in the Free State would have gone out of existence. This illustration indicates the need for approaching the subject with caution and with no idea of haste. In arriving at a standard it is essential that the standard should be arrived at in order to produce a sound state of affairs, and a standard should not be produced merely for the sake of creating standards. That should not be the object. The delay has been definitely supported by the Institution; it has the matter under consideration, and no doubt when a standard is adopted the South African industry will have reached the stage when it will be practicable and possible to frame some standard. But that industry has up to the present time not been in a position to operate under a standard. I believe the hon. Minister can elaborate what I have been saying, because his Department has been taking a hand in this matter. They have, I understand, introduced a simple test which can be carried out, and which will help to improve the quality and lead to some standardisation in the product. Salt affords an illustration of the importance of approaching this subject in a very cautious manner, and I think the Minister is correct in approaching it from that angle. It also illustrates, as will be shown a little later in this Bill, how important it is to proceed carefully. There is no doubt that had the Standards Institution brought out a large number of standards, it might have been harmful to the country instead of being helpful. That is a point we cannot lose sight of, but must bear in mind. It indicates very definitely the great importance of having this sound, cautious and responsible body brought into the Bill in such a way, and retaining its association and collaboration. When one examines the report of the Institution one realises what this body really comprises. I really wonder whether hon. members present know what it comprises.

Read the names—all the names.

On the main committee there are no fewer than nine State departments represented, embracing Agriculture and Forestry; Commerce and Industries; Irrigation; Mines; Posts and Telegraphs; Public Works; and the South African Railways and Harbours Administration. Then we have representatives of the Association of Mine Resident Engineers; the Association of Municipal Electricity Undertakings of South Africa and Rhodesia; the Chemical and Metallurgical and Mining Society of South Africa; the Geological Society of South Africa; the Institute of South African Architects; the Institution of Certificated Engineers, South Africa; the Institution of Municipal and County Engineers (S.A. Branch); Institution of Structural Engineers (S.A. Branch); Natal Institute of Engineers; South African Chemical Institute; South African Institute of Electrical Engineers; S.A. Institution of Engineers; S.A. Society of Civil Engineers; British Electrical and Allied Manufacturers’ Association; Electricity Supply Commission; Natal Goal Owners’ Association; National Federation of Building Trade Employers in S.A.; Rand Water Board; S.A. Federated Chamber of Industries; S.A. Iron and Steel Industrial Corporation Ltd.; Transvaal Chamber of Mines Consulting Engineers (Mechanical and Electri cal); Transvaal Coal Owners’ Association and the Transvaal Iron and Steel and Engineering Industries Federation. Now, Mr. Chairman, I have read out a very wide list of representative bodies, who are interested and whose collaboration is vital and essential if the Council is going to be able to operate efficiently and continuously, and if one goes, on to read about the different sub-committees and one studies this aspect one is forced to realise the important part the Standards institution is playing, playing as a voluntary body, and I think if the Minister stands on including this body in the Bill, as he has done, then that is a perfectly correct attitude and the hon. member for Ceres is not correct in objecting to this Institution.

With leave of the Committee, the amendments proposed by Mr. Bell, were withdrawn.

My fears concerning certain provisions of this Bill, did not abate as I listened to hon. members on the other side who advocated the provisions in connection with the Institution. I want to put the matter to the Minister this way. By granting these powers to the Institution and by appointing the Council of the Bureau, he is going to have two parallel bodies as far as research and the establishment of standards and specifications are concerned. Both will be able to act simultaneously. In view of what the Minister has stated here, I ask myself this Question: Is this Council of the Bureau really going to do any independent work? Will the Council with its Bureau have sufficient experts at its disposal to do something on its own initiative? I am beginning to come to the conclusion that it will be a dead letter and that what will now happen, will be the following. The Government will make available money for the Institution and the maintenance of the Bureau, and that Bureau will simply be placed at the disposal of the Institution, with the result that the Institution will be afforded an opportunity and power to act on a greater scale than has been the case in the past. Now I ask myself this question: In view of what the Institution has done in the past, when it had no statutory powers to establish standards and when it was left to anyone to adopt those standards voluntarily, it nevertheless established various standards and specifications.

Will it not still be voluntary?

No, not if the Council of the Bureau gives effect to it. It will then be declared as standard marks and specifications. The Institution will be able to give advice to the Council of the Bureau and in that way make it compulsory to give effect to its advice and make it binding on the country. It goes through the Council and in that way the advice of the Institution is made compulsory. It is made compulsory not only for South Africa, but also in regard to imports from overseas. When we take into account the past activities of the Institution in this connection, we might very well ask ourselves what is going to happen. The hon. member for Ceres (Dr. Stals) quoted to us what the Institution had done over a long period of years in connection with South African standards. It did literally nothing. In other words, this Institution did practically nothing to establish standards in the interests of South African industry. All it did was to recommend a whole series of standards for South Africa. Let us assume that in the future the Institution can act in the same way. What is that going to mean? It will mean that this Institution will be a body which is going to make specifications for exports from overseas compulsory, through the Council and the Minister, and that it is going to make use of those means to introduce a one-sided policy of importation into South Africa. Whereas in the past its recommendations were not binding on anyone, the position will now be the reverse. The series of specifications and standards which was quoted by the hon. member for Ceres, are British standards which will be made compulsory as far as we are concerned. What does that mean? It simply means that no one in South Africa will be able to import goods from any country in the world unless those standards are complied with. America may have its own standards; France has its own standards; Holland has its own standards; but because the British standards are prescribed in this country and because the standards of those countries do not agree with the British standards, we shall not be able to import from those countries. That is what it is going to mean. Take electrical globes, for example. The English standards will prescribe a definite form, definite wiring and a spring connection, instead of a bulb which screws in. That will mean that it will only be possible to import bulbs complying with those standards; in other words, we shall only be able to import bulbs from England. I should like this House to realise that that will be the result of the powers granted here by the Minister, because this is simply going to put the stamp of the law on the recommendations of this private body. I say that the Council of the Bureau will do nothing independent. They will simply be there to put the rubber stamp on the work of the Institution or the recommendations of the Institution in regard to marks and specifications, and then make those standards and marks compulsory in South Africa, both with regard to our goods and imported goods. That will be the effect of this, and I base what I say here on the fact that the Institution has literally done nothing for South African standards. In spite of what the hon. member for Houghton (Mr. Bell) has said, as well as other members on the other side, this Institution has done absolutely nothing in the past for our industries, in the direction of recommending standards for South Africa. In these circumstances it is clear to me that the powers which are being granted to the Institution can become a source of great danger to the Union because it will divert our trade into a definite channel.

I want to associate myself with the amendment of the hon. member for Ceres (Dr. Stals). I served for a considerable period on the Standard Committee. I am acquainted with the internal working of the Committee in all its branches, and I think the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) put the whole position, with all its attendant dangers, in its true form and perspective. The fixation of specifications and standards is open to considerable abuse. Here it strikes one that two bodies are being created. We are creating the Bureau with its Council, and parallel with the Bureau a body like the Institution is still called into being. The law provides that sub-committees may serve under the Bureau Council, which will from time to time investigate certain matters. But it is very clear that the recommendations and findings of that Committee will be of no value whatsoever unless the Institution is prepared to put its stamp of approval on it. This Bill lays down a course which can be of value to the country. But the Minister should be careful and define those powers in such a way that they cannot be abused. The hon. member for Houghton (Mr. Bell) has withdrawn his amendment. What did that amendment embody? It was an expression of the fear which is felt by the Chamber of Commerce, by people who are not in the Institution and who will have no say in regard to the standards of the goods which are manufactured, although they also have an interest in the manufacture of those articles. Those people are afraid that these powers will be abused by the Institution, and that fear found expression in the amendment of the hon. member for Houghton. That, in fact, is what we are afraid of, that we are going to keep two parallel bodies and that certain powers will be given to a group of people. There can be no doubt, and it is not denied by the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. Waring) and the hon. member for Houghton, that such a group could abuse its powers. The hon. member for Houghton mentioned various bodies which are incorporated in the Institution. Those people represent all sorts of private undertakings. Even on the Standards Committee we have the representatives of big overseas interests, and it is only natural that in laying down specifications and standards, those people will take into account the interests they represent, and that as far as possible they will only agree to standards when they know that the interests represented by them manufacture similar articles. I know that the Minister is asking for powers which his predecessor, as Minister of Commerce and Industries, was not disposed to do. The Minister wants to adopt this course to lay down standards and specifications for South Africa. That is all very well, but I want to warn him to act cautiously. These powers can be abused with the result that the consumer generally and also the farmer in particular might suffer tremendous damage. The Minister should deal with this matter on its merits and make concessions where necessary. He should give the Bureau Council the necessary powers, subject to his approval, and in that case we shall have more confidence in this Institution than in a body on which private interests are represented, and where pressure can be brought to bear in order to promote certain private interests and in order to direct trade into definite channels.

With the attitude which the Minister has adopted up to this point, it is clear that he proposes to use the Party machinery to pass these provisions. In those circumstances I think it will serve no purpose for us on this side of the House to take up the time of the House any further. I just want to put it very clearly that although we welcome the principle of this Bill, we definitely regard these provisions which are affected by the amendment as unsound. Since certain principles are bein incorporated in this Bill, which, in our opinion, are unsound, we want to protest against it strongly. This particular provision can only lead to overlapping, duplication and friction and to the elimination of one body or the other. If the Minister wants to be arbitrary, I do no doubt on which side he will throw in his weight. I want to close this aspect of the matter by saying that it is extremely unsound to call into being two bodies to promote one particular interest for the nation. In the second place the Minister told us that according to his views and according to his knowledge of standardisation, this is a promotion of interests by private initiative. That is the case in many coutries. But in the progressive countries—perhaps I should say in the most progressive countries—that is not the case. America is the foremost industrial country in the world and America has a State Institution; Russia has a State Institution; Germany had one and the United Kingdom is realising more and more that it is far behind the times and it is also going to create such an Institution. The Minister, however, wants to promote this matter by private initiative instead of by means of a State Institution. I can only say that that is going to cause difficulties, not only as far as he is concerned but for all of us in South Africa. I do not want again to go into the apparently unsympathetic attitude of the Institute of Standards towards South African industries. I want to say very clearly that I am not casting any reflection on the honour of the individual members. But as the hon. member for Houghton (Mr. Bell) indicated, such a large series of bodies is represented on the Committee that it múst be a cumbersome and unwieldy body, and must eventually be unpractical. Various interests are represented on the Committee. Let us appoint a Committee consisting of people of acknowledged capability; but private interests need not be represented on it. Because this Committee represents all the various interests, it has not only become unsympathetic but also powerless and paralysed as far as South Africa’s interests are concerned. In this connection I strongly want to emphasise the aspect which was raised by the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom). If we are going to entrust these questions of specifications and standards to the Institute of Standards, it will mean the canalisation of South Africa’s trade, and in anticipation I want to express my strong disapproval on behalf of this side of the House of incorporating such a danger in a Bill which otherwise is a step in the right direction. It is a pity that the Minister adopts that attitude. He is forcing us to react strongly against these provisions in a measure, the general principle of which we welcome.

I don’t want to keep the House long, but the list of bodies which form the South African Institution is a very formidable one. I notice that nearly every Government Department is a member. It seems that only one that is not represented is Finance. They also have escom, they have architects and they have Iscor, and so on, but I believe it would be much better if it was in the hands of a committee entirely representative of the Government, a Government council, or at least a council that the Government itself would take the responsibility for, and they would lay down the standard, and not the Standards Institution. I still feel the Minister has started wrongly in this very excellent Bill. I think he is making a mistake in pinning his faith to a voluntary body who will set up the standards as this body does. They have done very little research work of their own and they have taken over standards from Great Britain, and any committee could do that, and, I think, although the standards may be excellent for other countries, it requiries some research to see whether it is applicable and suitable to this country. The Minister has indicated that in future they will be able to do this better because the financial position will be better. I do not know where the money is coming from, whether it is from the Government or the Treasury, or from the various people who asked for their standards. Shall I say, when the manufacturer of a certain commodity says that it wishes to have a standard mark, will it have to pay the Institution or the Standards Council? Then there is another complication. Will they collect the money and instruct the Standards Institution to go ahead, or will the Institution collect the money and the Council simply agree to what the Institution has decided? I say that is a weakness in the whole position, and I feel that in setting up a standard, a final decision with a force of law behind it, it should only be by a body that shall have the force of this House and the force of the Government behind it; not a private body representing diverse interests.

The Institution has no final say.

I appreciate that from what the Minister has said, but when this Bill goes through they will have the fined say.

They will not.

The Minister told us that they could not go ahead because they had no money and that could only be done when they have money, and if this is going to be a research department they must have finance with which to do it. Although they have no money at the present time, in the future they are going to have money, and it will mean that when the Bill is passed regulations will be made and they may be very far-reaching, and these regulations will see to it that this money is there, whether it comes from the people who ask for a standard mark for their commodity, or whether it comes from the Government, and that is a matter for decision by the Government I do however feel that whilst we appreciate this Bill the Minister is starting wrongly; and I will tell him that in the form it is now, it won’t be long before he and the council he sets up come to this House for power to set up a true council and a standard that will be acceptable to the manufacturers and to the people who are going to use the commodities, and these people are to be considered as much as the producer, and therefore I am sorry to say that the Minister is starting off with what, to my mind, is a fundamental blunder, and I can see that within the next few years he will have to come to the House to get an amendment to put this right, to get a proper council, not a council which is half of another body, and which will be able to give a true decision.

I should like to ask the Minister whether I understood him correctly. He stated that the Institute was not being granted greater powers than it has at the present time, and that he has no say in connection with standardisation. I want to draw the attention of the Minister to Clause 14. It reads that the council may with the approval of the Minister and subject to certain provisions by notice in the Gazette, declare any mark in connection with specifications, etc., to be of force. It further reads that it can be declared a standardisation mark in respect of that commodity, etc. And then we get this provision—

I should like the Minister to explain to me what the intention of this is and whether it gives the Institution power which it did not have previously. The Council of the Bureau has no power. The Minister is not obliged to consult the Council of the Bureau, but the Institution has to be consulted.

The institution will have to declare standards and put them up to the the council to get the council to authorise the standardisation marks, and the provision in sub-clause (3) is simply if the council wishes at any time to rescind or take away before doing so they shall consult with the Institution. That is a reasonable provision.

I can understand that if the institution made certain recommendations in connection with the fixation of specifications, it will have a say. But that is not the case. The Council, with the approval of the Minister, without having been approached by the Institution, can lay down standardisation marks for certain commodities, but once, it has laid down those marks and published them in the Government Gazette, and it wishes to bring about alterations, it has to go to the Institution.

Read paragraph (b).

It reads as follows—

1. (a) which has been adopted by the Council in respect of any specification framed by it for any commodity or for the manufacture, production, processing or treatment of any commodity, or
2. (b) which has been adopted by the Institution in respect of any standard specification for any commodity or for the manufacture; production, processing or treatment of any commodity…

Both these bodies have the right to do it, but if any alteration has taken place—

No.

I do not want to read it again, but if words have any meaning, it is stated here clearly: “Provided that no mark referred to in pragraph (b) shall be abolished or amended, except after consultation with the Institution.” The Institution may adopt a standard specification with the approval of the Minister in respect of any commodity, etc. Both these bodies can do certain things in connection with standardisation. Any one of these bodies can make proposals, but only the Council can declare a standardisation mark to be of force and effect. It can do so on its own initiative or at the request of the Institution. But the mark can Only be abolished or amended after it has first consulted the Institution.

No, read paragraph (b).

I should like the Minister to understand that the Institution has a say in this respect which it would not have had otherwise. This is not a body appointed and controlled by us, but an independent body with all sorts of conflicting elements on it and these people will now have the say. I think it goes too far.

Question put: That the definition of “institution” in lines 21 and 22, proposed to be omitted stand part of the Clause,

Upon which the Committee divided:

Ayes—65.

Abbott, C. B. M.

Acutt, F. H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Barlow, A. G.

Bawden, W.

Bekker, H. J.

Bell, R. E.

Bodenstein, H. A. S.

Bosman, J. C.

Bosman, L. P.

Bowker, T. B.

Butters, W. R.

Carinus J. G.

Clark, C. W.

Connan, J. M.

Conradie, J. M.

De Kock, P. H.

De Wet, H. C.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, A. C.

Du Toit, R. J.

Eksteen, H. O.

Faure J. C.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedman, B.

Gluckman H.

Gray, T. P.

Hare W. D.

Henny, G. E. J.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Jackson, D.

Kentridge, M.

Latimer, A.

Moll, A. M.

Morris, J. W. H.

Mushet, J. W.

Neate, C.

Payne, A. C.

Prinsloo, W. B. J.

Raubenheimer, L. J.

Robertson, R. B.

Russell, J. H.

Shearer, O. L.

Smuts, J. C.

Sonnenberg, M.

Steenkamp, L. S.

Steyn, C. F.

Stratford, J. R. F.

Tighy, S. J.

Tothill, H. A.

Ueckermann, K.

Van def Merwe, H.

Van Onselen, W. S.

Visser, H. J.

Wanless, A. T.

Waring, F. W.

Warren, C. M.

Waterson, S. F.

Williams, H. J.

Wolmarans. J. B.

Tellers: G. A. Friend and W. B Humphreys.

Noes—31.

Bekker, G. F. H.

Booysen, W. A.

Brink, W. D.

Conradie, J. H.

Döhne, J. L. B.

Fouché, J. J.

Grobler, D. C. S.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Klopper, H. J.

Le Roux, J. N.

Le Roux, S. P.

Louw, E. H.

Ludick, A. I.

Malan, D. F.

Mentz, F. E.

Nel, M. D. C. de W.

Olivier, P. J.

Serfontein, J. J.

Stals, A. J.

Steyn, A.

Steyn, G. P.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Strydom, J. G.

Swanepoel, S. J.

Swart, C. R.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Warren, S. E.

Werth, A. J.

Wilkens, J.

Tellers: J. F. T. Naudé and P. O. Sauer.

Question accordingly affirmed and the amendments proposed by Dr. Stals dropped.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

On Clause 2,

In this clause we establish a South African Bureau of Standards which shall be managed and controlled by the Council. This Council is a corporate body. The Minister has indicated that in other parts of the world, in New Zealand, Canada, Great Britain and the United States, statutory measures have been taken to effect a standardisation measure; but I do not think in any of these different parts of the world has there been initiated a corporate body in the nature of this Council, which is going to control the Bureau of Standards. It amazes me that we have that, whereas we have various sections of the Department—in the Department of Commerce and Industries we have assize division—why it is necessary for us to develop a new corporate body to run a bureau of this sort. If these countries which have had economic and industrial experience are loth to form such a corporate body, why do we in this country persist in developing this corporate system? I should like to know what is the big advantage. I gathered from the Minister’s speech on the second reading of this Bill that one of the big objectives was to get away from the bureaucratic tendencies of the Department; but the experience I have had, and that this House has had, is that these corporate bodies have even more bureaucratic power than the actual departments themselves, and therefore I cannot accept that because of what he calls a corporate body.

I think the hon. member is out of order. He is now discussing the principle of the Bill, and as the hon. member is aware, he can only discuss the details in this Committee.

I bow to your ruling, Sir. It states in the preamble that the Bill is “to prescribe the manner in which it shall be managed and controlled,” but not what body shall do it, and I take it the corporate body is not part of the principle of the Bill.

The clause provides for the establishment of a Bureau of Standards, which is an outstanding feature of the Bill.

It says it will be managed and controlled by the Council, and I am discussing that Council.

The hon. member may proceed.

In that respect I cannot understand why in view of the experience that has been gained in other countries that/ have developed on a democratic system, we in this country should depart from their example and develop a sort of corporate system which was developed in a country like Fascist Italy. I refer to the criticism that this would create less bureaucracy than if it fell under the Department itself. I mentioned previously that I cannot accept that. With the experience I have had of other boards which have branched off from the Department and become boards of their own, I have found that they have become more bureaucratic than the Department itself. Then I analyse the position to find what is the guiding force, what is the idea behind forming these corporate bodies. I regret to say I feel one of the big things behind it is the pressure that is exercised by the departments which frame these Bills to produce corporate bodies. We had the example only last Session in connection with the Fishing Industry Development Bill, where a corporate body was established, and eventually we found that the official who, as it were, watched over this Bill, was the man who was appointed manager of the corporation, and another official was created a director. That, I maintain, is a bad development in regard to the Public Service. If we do not accept the principle that the Public Service itself can deal with a Bureau of this sort, we must reorganise our Public Service. A commission is at present sitting that is going to report to this House on the Public Service, and I think that this tendency is one that is most unsatisfactory and one that might engage their attention. It must lead to a demoralisation of the whole basis of the Public Service, especially if it is possible to include a financial provision whereunder the manager of the control board, or one of these bodies, can receive a higher salary than the secretary of the department himself, or even than the Secretary for Finance. That surely is a very unsatisfactory state of affairs. In addition, I maintain that this duplicates the expense of administering the country. I am convinced that in addition to the ordinary cost of the department the taxpayer is forced, as in this case, to bear the cost of running a corporation, and I cannot see what benefit the country will derive from a corporation which could be run in conjunction with the department itself.

I do not think the hon. A member can elaborate that point further.

I bow to your ruling, Sir. I therefore put it that this Bureau of Standards could definitely be undertaken by the Department itself without the unnecessary expense of a corporation.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 3,

I move—

The effect of these amendments is this; that since this Bill was drafted we have come to an arrangement about establishing a council of scientific and industrial research, and a Bill which will come before us in due course will provide for research facilities under that council. Accordingly, it is felt that the research work which was envisaged in the first instance to be done by this bureau will probably better come under the aegis of this council of industrial research. I had thought originally we could have said so in this, definition, but as the council does not;exist yet we cannot refer to it in a Bill. So the amendment is drafted to provide or make arrangements for private facilities. The whole intention of the amendment is to enable the bureau to come to satisfactory arrangements with the council of research as soon as it is established.

I think there is no objection to the amendment which the hon. Minister moved. It only contemplates the substitution of another body to do the necessary research. I want to avail myself of this, opportunity to move the amendments which stand in my name. I move—

1. (k) to provide for the performance of such other functions as may be approved by resolution of both Houses of Parliament.

I had another amendment to delete paragraph (h), but after the passing of Clause 1, it will serve no purpose to move it. As far as paragraph (k) is concerned, however, it surprises me that the Minister does not immediately move that Parliament be disolved. He comes here and asks for certain powers for the institution of a bureau and in connection with its activities, and then he sets out a large number of functions which the bureau will perform, objects to be aimed at by the bureau, but when he comes to the end, he becomes tired and says: “Anything which may occur to me later on, must also be included.” That is unheard of. It surprises me that hon. members on that side do not object. Here we have legislation by regulation in its worst form.

He need not even promulgate a regulation.

Yes, the Minister can lay it down himself. That is why I move this amendment. Then the provision will be that in connection with further activities there must be a resolution by both Houses of Parliament, before they will fall under it. That is the principle which has been acknowledged in connection with the powers of other bodies. The Minister must then come before the House with a resolution and after it has been accepted, it is sent to the Senate. Further powers can only be granted in that way. But to introduce legislation which will give the Minister further powers is far-reaching. I hope the Minister will accept this amendment.

I have a couple of amendments standing in my name. One relates to paragraph (c) of Clause 3. I do not propose to move the amendment as, printed, but in place of it I move—

That is an amendment consequential upon the amendment moved by the Minister, and I move it for this reason, that the clause as amended by the Minister leaves the Bureau laboratory entirely free to undertake any type of testing work. They are in no way limited to carrying on work restricted to standardisation—the purpose for which this Bureau is established; and they will be free, then, to undertake work in connection with any commodity whether it releates to standardisation or not; and in doing so to compete with private established institutions, many of which have been in existence for a long number of years. I have a note here with regard to the South African Institution of Private Laboratory Owners. Some of these firms have been in existence for as long as 55 years. They are highly reputable; they are well known concerns. They claim that their field of work, covered by their laboratories, includes general chemical analyses, industrial research, chemical engineering metallurgy, etc. In fact, all branches of pure and applied chemical investigation. They claim that between them they have done much to promote improvements in the quality of products and the setting up and maintenance of specifications and standards of quality, both in methods and the products of manufacture. This body welcomes the introduction of this Bill. They favour it, but they are most apprenhensive with regard to this clause, and they seek an assurance and some security that this laboratory set up by the Government is not going to enter into direct or indirect competition with an established profession to the end that they may be prejudiced in the legitimate earning of their livelihood. I think that by the retention of the words “in relation to standardisation”, they will be protected in so far as it is possible to do so: I am conscious in moving this amendment that-We have no desire to limit the field of the laboratory or their operations. But the clause as then amended will read—;

I think that the clause amended in that form will leave the Bureau laboratory entirely free to undertake any work connected with standardisation be it the investigation of a new specification or the checking of an existing standard or any matter like that: The Bureau laboratory will be left entirely free, but they will not be at liberty to undertake work outside their standardisation objects; they will not be at liberty to do just any work and so compete with persons such as those I have just enumerated. I hope the hon. Minister will be able to give favourable consideration to this amendment. I am aware that one of his problems is this, that the Bureau laboratory may be so equipped that it is the only laboratory in the country with an apparatus to carry out certain tests, and that in consequence a limitation of this nature might operate to prevent their being useful in a case of that nature. Whether a case of that nature will arise frequently or infrequently. I am unable to judge. But I do think that the main criticism I have to the general tenor of this Bill is the fact that in the greater part of this Bill a completely blank cheque is to be given to this body. The aim and object of this Bill in each of the clauses is to give the Council an unfettered right to carry out its objects, without limitation in any shape or form, and I am inclined to think we are possibly going too far at this stage in setting up something that is entirely new to us, something of which we have had no previous experience, in leaving this clause in its present form. I hope in this respect the hon. Minister will be able to meet me, if not in the exact terms of my amendment, then in some other terms which will achieve the object I have set out to achieve. Then I move to delete paragraph (k). The hon. Minister says it has been moved by the hon. member for Ceres, but he has moved it in the form that another paragraph should be substituted. I do not wish any other paragraph to be substituted. I feel strongly that sub-paragraph (k) should be deleted. I think this is a new importation in our legislation. I am not aware that a clause of this nature has appeared in any Act so far. It seems to me that an Act should clearly define the objects and that objects which are not foreseen should not be covered in this omnibus nature whereby other functions can be added, and the real test of this clause, to my way of thinking, lies in the fact that one can delete all objects from (a) to (j) and still achieve the same results by leaving paragraph (k). That is equivalent to giving the Bureau a completely blank cheque. In the memorandum of a company one does not find this sort of thing appearing. The objects should be set out precisely and clearly. The objects should be set out as fully as possible, and, I submit, that if the objects as set out ultimately prove to be insufficient or inadequate to enable the Bureau to carry out fully the purpose for which it was established, the correct procedure is for the Minister to come back to this House with an amending Bill. I think that an omnibus clause of this nature is not acceptable. I do hope the hon. Minister is going to agree to the complete deletion of this clause and not to the substitution of another clause, which meets it halfway.

May I in this instance agree with the hon. member for Houghton (Mr. Bell), and may I add my plea to his that this Clause 3 (k) be deleted. I feel, to use legal terminology, that it is vague and embarrassing. I personally do not understand why it is here. I would like the Minister to give some explanation of what it means. I would like to know what purpose it serves. I would like to know in what way the Minister expects to use it. It seems to me that here we have started a dangerous principle of empowering Ministers to invent new objects for old Bills. It is possible that the Minister can give some logical explanation as to why it is necessary at the end of the catalogue of objects of the Bill to say: “Other objects may occur to me later and if they do occur to me later, I would like them to have the force of law.” I sympathise with and am prepared partially to support the amendment of the hon. member for Ceres (Dr. Stals). He aims by his amendment at taking away from the Ministers a very extensive right which they now posses to govern by regulation and on important matters like this to come before the House and to get the approval of the House for any new measure. But I do think the hon. member for Ceres did not go far enough because there is an omnibus clause the usual omnibus clause one sees s in every Bill, which the Minister can use in any case, even if the amendment of the hon. member for Ceres were accepted. The Minister can use that clause to introduce legislation covering all the points the hon. member for Ceres seeks to safeguard in his amendment to sub-section (k). I feel that this sub-section (k) is not only quite unnecessary, but I feel that it might set up a dangerous precedent. I do not know whether I would be going too far in saying this. There has been an attempt in the past to make regulations and there has been an attempt in statutes to say that this regulation or future regulations, when made, shall have the force of law. Is it not possible to read into this drafting the possibility that "… the omnibus clause which empowers a Minister to make regulations which shall have the force of law, seeks to put the stamp of approval on the Minister’s actions without his having to account to Parliament? That is just a thought I would like to put into the mind of the hon. Minister, because I cannot see any logical or reasonable grounds for its insertion amongst the objects of the Bill, and I heartily support the hon. member for Houghton in his request for deletion of this clause.

I cannot understand the hon. member for Houghton (Mr. Bell) with regard to his amendment on sub-paragraph (c). He tells us, first of all, that a number of private practitioners are concerned that this bureau may take certain work away from them, and then he proposes an amendment which he thinks will safeguard those private practitioners. But what is the effect of the amendment? It is this, that the bureau is primarily set up to establish standards and in order to establish standards, you must on top of examination and testing, set up machinery for research. Otherwise how is it possible for them to arrive at a standard? The bureau will now have to go to the private practitioner for him to do the research work.

You misunderstood me.

It is not a matter of misunderstanding; that is what the hon. member’s amendment says. His amendment definitely seeks to out out all reference to research work.

No, the Minister’s amendment cuts that out. My amendment is consequential on the Minister’s.

I want to point out to the Minister this very weak position, because how on earth can any bureau or body of scientists or professional men set up a standard that has not existed before without research work?

You, were not here when I explained it.

I feel that it will take a tremendous lot of explaining to tell me that a body of men can set up a standard of a commodity without either doing their own research work or taking the report of research work from other countries or other bodies. That seems to me to be nonsense. I therefore suggest that to say now that this bureau shall not do any research work, is going to create this position that if they cannot do research work, then they must go outside to get the research work done, which would only stultify and hang Up the work of the bureau.

I have already explained to the Committee that the idea is that the research side of this work will be undertaken by the Council of Industrial Research which was recently formed this Session, and that is why we are taking research out of here and we are providing for arrangement to be made between the Industrial Research Council and private professional analysts.

So we will have another Bill and another body?

Yes. I am grateful to the hon. member for Ceres for not persuing his amendment to sub-paragraph (h). I think it will greatly expedite our work. With regard to his other amendment to omit sub-paragraph (k), hon. members would have noticed that. I have myself put an amendment on the Order Paper to omit the last few words which I think, indicates that I myself was not entirely satisfied with subclause (k). Since then I have had representations from members of both sides of the House who all feel that that sub-clause is not desirable, and the position is that the legal advisors who drafted the Bill put that in on the ground that it was a new experiment and that it was difficult to define too closely what the objects of the Bureau were, and they thought it might make it a bit more elastic if they put that sub-clause in. Personally I am inclined to agree with the hon. members who have spoken. I am therefore prepared to agree to the withdrawal of sub-clause (k). I think perhaps it would be better if we did not accept the further amendment of the hon. member for Ceres. I think it would probably be better if we just left it alone. That would mean that in the event of any further object to be attained, the Minister will have to come before the House with a further Bill. I come now to the other amendment of the hon. member for Houghton (Mr. Bell). I cannot accept it as it stands. I do not know whether he saw the law advisors, about it before he introduced it into the Committee. But I myself am not satisfied what effect it wil have in relation to standardising. I think one has to be extremely careful in accepting amendments without having carefully considered what effect it will have, and the position is this, that the Bureau is designed for certain purposes. It is designed to fulfil the need for testing and examination of facilities in regard to standardisation, and that is its main function. There is no intention whatever—I can give hon. members that assurance—of going into open competition with existing private analysts. The hon. member for Houghton says there is no precedent, but of course, he is not quite accurate there because we have the Fuel Research Institute and the Division of Chemical Research.

You misunderstood me; I did not say that.

He said we were starting a brand-new idea. I am sorry I apparently misunderstood him, but there is nothing new about it. In these case we have had very few complaints from local private practitioners, from private analysts, and moreover if I were to accept this amendment as it stands, it would mean that this laboratory may very well be equipped, as indeed some of the Government laboratories are already equipped, with apparatus which is not available anywhere else in the country, and if I accepted this amendment as it stands, it would mean that industrialists or commercial people who wished to avail themselves of the use of that particular apparatus would be prevented from doing so unless it was in connection with a standardised product, which is obviously a restriction no one would like to see. I think this is a matter which can best be arranged by discussion between the Bureau and private analysts. The Bureau is not visualised as going into open competition with private analysts and, on the contrary, it is the intention to make every possible use of all available facilities to carry out its functions. I am quite prepared to undertake to see that the Council of the Bureau consults with professional consultants with a view to giving them an undertaking that every effort will be made to safeguard their interests and wherever possible give work to them. My own opinion is that the establishment of this bureau, so far from cutting into the work of private consultants, will create a vast amount of testing and analytical work for them all over the country, and I feel that the position of the professional consutlant will be improved by this Bureau as a result of the extra amount of testing and examination that commercial people all over the country will require to be done. There is no intention whatever to interfere with their activities. On the contrary, we visualise an increase in their activities as a result of the establishment of the Bureau. I move—

I should like to know clearly whether the Minister himself agrees to the deletion of sub-clause (k)?

Yes.

In that case the question arises whether I should now withdraw my amendment in favour of the motion which is before the House. I will gladly do it with the assurance on the part of the Minister that he will now accept that amendment of the hon. member for Houghton (Mr. Bell). I felt that with the beginning which is being made here to frame certain functions and powers to be entrusted to this body, it will be difficult to draw a line of demarcation at the beginning, to lay down clearly what duties are to be entrusted to the Bureau. Perhaps an easy way can be found whereby time can be saved to extend these powers, if it appears necessary. If the Minister wants to extend the powers of the Bureau, he must, of course, come before the House with a special Bill. A resolution could easily be brought before this House which, in all probability, need only be moved and seconded formally. That will bring about a saving of time as well as expenses. That was my object in seeking to amend the clause in this way, but with the assurance of the Minister I think I can withdraw this amendment.

With-leave of the Committee, the amendment proposed by Dr. Stals was withdrdawn.

Under Clause 3 (a) the objects for which the Bureau is established, are—

This is a matter which has received a great deal of attention in this House, but nevertheless I feel that is a question which we are bound to bring to the notice of the Minister pertinently, that standardisation in commerce and industry, however necessary we may regard it, may nevertheless involve tremendously great dangers. I hope the Minister will draw the Bureau’s attention to the necessity of always remaining in contact with developments not only in South Africa but throughout the whole world. On a previous occasion I referred to the tremendous dangers attached to the acceptance of old standards and I pointed out how difficult such standards would make it for us to compete with the rest of the world in the industrial sphere. I think it cannot be emphasised strongly enough, and I shall be very glad if the Minister will make a point of specially bringing it to the notice of the Bureau that this House feels that the Bureau ought to take into account the developments in the world outside, especially new technical developments. The hon. member for Ceres (Dr. Stals) has now withdrawn his amendment with regard to sub-clause (k). I feel, however, that by merely deleting this subclause, we may be placed in the same position with this Bill in which we were placed with the Rand Water Board. We sometimes find that Bills of this nature do not go through the House quickly, and if we have to bring about an amendment to the Act every two or three years, I think the printing expenses, etc., will be greater than the costs which the motion of the hon. member for Ceres would have involved. Of course, he has now withdrawn his amendment and we therefore abide by it.

Amendments proposed by the Minister of Economic Development and Mr. Bell put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 4,

I do not want to take up the time of thé House unduly, but I would like to ask the Minister if he will explain to me why this body cannot be run in conjunction with this Department in the same way as the assize division. Why must it develop into a corporation? What are the advantages and what are the advantages of its remaining in the Department?

Very briefly the advantage of this is that in this Council—it is not a corporation in the sense that it is a trading corporation—in this Council we wish to have a free choice of the "best technical people that we can get, and if you are going to put it simply as a branch of a Government department, you are limted to your permanent public servants, and the feeling here is that in a matter of very high and widespread technical matters, it is essential that we should have the assistance available to us of men on a much wider basis than would be available from Government departments.

The point that strikes me is that we are an exception to the rule. That evidently works efficiently in other countries. In America admittedly it is a voluntary body and it is entirely out of the scope of the department. But it seems to me that here the public has certain protections given to it by a public service body, which may be lacking in a corporation. And that is, Sir, why I am anxious to know, if it is purely a matter of technical salaries, is that the be-all and end-all of legislation of this type?

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 5,

I want to move the amendment standing in my name—

If that were to read literally, there would be a case for saying that this is three members and not two, but that is not so; it was mentioned that way to show that these two men should be men of wide knowledge. It was not intended that they should specifically represent these three branches. If one were to say that, then there are half a dozen other interests which might, say that they have an equal right, but that is not what is desired, and I want to make it clear that these two men are not intended to represent industry, commerce or agriculture, and I think that these words should come out.

I should like to move the amendment which stands in my name on the Order Paper—

We are dealing here with a body which is going to be tremendously important, and I feel that the Minister should be free from the outset to make his own choice, and that he should not be bound to this, that or the other interest. He must be able to make the best choice, having regard to the objects of the Bureau, and he should not be bound to this, that or the other industry. If he deems it desirable to nominate anyone from a particular industry on account of his special knowledge, he should have the power to do so. The Minister’s amendment goes in the direction of what I personally contemplated, but I want to give him even greater freedom, and for that reason I move this amendment. In order to grasp the scope of the activities of this Council, we need only read Clause 3 to see what is expected of the Council. Tremendously important functions are entrusted to the Council. The formulation and the development of our policy is entrusted to these people, and in these days which lie ahead, when we anticipate great development in the industrial sphere, this Council is expected to give us a lead, and it should therefore consist of a number of men who can be expected to give us the best advice, who are scientifically Qualified and who occupy a high place in the community. When we bear in mind the immediate future for a moment, we realise that competition can be expected from overseas, and we must therefore have men who are not only in a position to promote our development, but men who will be able to assist us to withstand that competition. They must be farseeing men, men who have ideals and vision, and who can therefore advise the Minister to prepare plans whereby South Africa can take up its legitimate place in the industrial development of the world. As far as our export market is concerned, we are entitled to conquer markets in neighbouring areas, and we must have people who are able to see far ahead. It was in order to enable the Minister to appoint such men to this Council, having due regard to all these things, that I moved this amendment. I want him to have a Council of scientifically qualified men, men who have shown by experience that they are able to carry out the objects of this Bill and who will be able, as a result of their development and scientific preparation, to wage that struggle which competition will bring about. I want the Minister to have a free hand, and I therefore move this amendment.

In the light of the amendment moved by the Minister, the object I had in tabling my amendment to this clause has been achieved, and I do not propose to move my amendment now. But on the clause generally I must say that I have sympathy for the amendment of the hon. member for Ceres (Dr. Stals), but nevertheless he seems to be confused because, whilst he does not want to agree to the constitution of the Council as it is, which presumably is the constitution the Minister wishes, on the other hand, he proposes to hand to the Minister full power to appoint that Council in any way he wants to. That seems to be illogical, but I realise the possible difficulty of moving an amendment like this at this stage., but I would, however, like the Minister to consider between now and the time this Bill comes before Another Place, whether it is not desirable to alter the constitution of the Council to provide for the Institution only having one representative on the Council so as to do away with some of the objections which have been raised to the influence of the Institute. Feeling has been expressed widely that, this being a private body, it should not have the powers which it is proposed to give to it. Normally it would not have that power because it is responsible to the Minister, but once you give it two representatives on the Council its power and influence become great and I would suggest that the Minister might consider an amendment on this subject. I do not think there is anything fundamental in reducing the representation of the Institute to one, instead of two, so that no one can feel that the Institute is being given any undue advantage. I don’t, want to propose the amendment now, but I do think that the Minister might consider it.

The hon. member for Ceres (Dr. Stals) and I are not very far away from one another in this matter because with the amendment I propose, the Minister will be free to elect the best people for the Council, especially when you read the subsection which gives him the power to appoint seven and the only one he is going to be fettered in regard to is the two members, but I am afraid the hon. member and I don’t see eye to eye and there is nothing we can do about it. This Bill was drafted after very full discussion, and the arrangements that the Institute should have the right to nominate the two members I agree to.

I don’t see eye to eye with the member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge). I think the constitution of the Council is well chosen in its present form, and I think the Institution which has such knowledge should have two representatives on it, and in any case these are not in the majority in a Council of five or seven. It will not surprise me to see this Council resolve itself into seven, for I think the Minister may exercise the powers under sub-section 2 of this clause. I appreciate the Minister’s argument in deleting the reference to industry, commerce and agriculture, but I do hope that he will bear in mind that object number one of the Bill is to promote standardisation in industry and commerce, and that their interests are of a paramount character in a Bill of this nature, and should be given due accord when it is considered who should be appointed to the Council.

With regard to the constitution of the Council I feel that whereas I had no objection to the Standards Institution having representation, when I looked at the Council I looked at it in the same way as a control board. This is a control board for standards and the man who will be affected tremendously is the consumer of the goods whether it is rigidly put in as a minimum Or a maximum or an absolute standard; he is the man who should have representation, and I think that some solution should be found so that the consumer should have adequate representation on this.

I just want to ask the Minister, in connection with the composition of this Council, whether he can give this House a guarantee that the Council will be bilingual. In A and C the Minister makes the appointment and there he can provide for this. But in the case of B he has to appoint two out of a list of five names submitted to him by the Institution. The Minister can easily tell them to nominate people who are bilingual. We should like a statement from the Minister before moving an amendment.

I give you my assurance that where possible we will appoint people who are bilingual, but the main essential is that they are technically qualified.

I am afraid we cannot accept “where possible”. It is possible, and it can be done. After that statement on the part of the Minister, I want to move the following amendment—

In connection with the amendment which has been moved by the hon. member for Christiana (Mr. Brink) I should like to put the matter to the Minister this way. Will he appoint anyone who does not know one of the two official languages? The Minister does not want to reply, but I take it his reply is in the negative….

If you want to reply bn my behalf, why put the question to me?

I gave the Minister an opportunity, but he did not reply, and I can only infer from that, that he will not do it. I can understand it. All he is concerned about is that the person should know English. I want to ask him whether he would appoint anyone who knows Afrikaans only and not English? Of course not; he would not do it. The Minister would not get up in this House and tell us that he will appoint anyone who knows Afrikaans and not English. His attitude is that the man must know English. In England English is the official language and the English Government would not appoint anyone in England who did not know the official language. In America the official language is English or American, and the American Government would not dream of appointing anyone who did not know the official language. In our country there are two official languages and there should be no question of appointing anyone to such a body who does not know both official languages. This is not merely a Council of technical people. From time to time representations will be made to them by the public, and the population of this country does not consist of English-speaking people only. Later during the Session we shall have a further opportunity of testing the Government with regard to its attitude towards bilingualism. On a later occasion we shall quote examples to show what this Minister’s attitude is in regard to bilingaulism. Under the administration of this Minister bilingualism is simply non-existent. May I be permitted to quote an example, and the country and this House will then realise why we are perturbed. Petrol control was instituted under the Department of Commerce and Industries. In St. George’s Street in Cape Town there is a big office in which dozens and dozens of officials are employed. I assume that the people who go to that office are not only English-speaking and Jewish-speaking, but Afrikaans-speaking as well. They have to go there in connection with their petrol coupons. It is just as well that this House and the country should know that some time ago when I walked into that office, there was not a single notice in Afrikaans. All the notices on the various doors and everywhere else were in English only. I want the Minister to listen to this. I give you the assurance that in that big office with its numerous divisions, there was not a single Afrikaans notice. That is the position we have under the administration of this Minister. That is what one gets from this Government which continually talks of its sincerity in connection with bilingualism, which wants to go to the length of applying the dual-medium in our schools, but when a new department like this is called into being, we find that there is not a single Afrikaans notice. The Minister and members on the other side are doing an injustice towards the Afrikaans-speaking people of this country. Nevertheless it is these people who are continuallly telling the people in the country that they do not want to do any injustice to Afrikaans. I heartily support this amendment.

I want to give my hearty support to this amendment. As a member who served for nearly two years on the Standards Committee, I want to say that I have never heard a single word of Afrikaans in the discussions.

Now you have started something.

We regard this as a serious matter. I say that I did not see any minutes in Afrikaans. The proceedings are held in English and the minutes are kept in English.

Where is that?

On the Standards Committee, under this Minister. As the hon. member for Water berg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) correctly stated, the Minister has an opportunity here of seeing that justice is done to Afrikaans, and he should avail himself of that opportunity. He himself takes the trouble in this House to furnish Afrikaans replies to members on this side. Why does he not see to it that his department applies the same principle? I am acquainted with the persons who serve on the Standards Committee and who are apparently members of the Institution as well, and I know that there are bilingual persons amongst them who are capable; and I do not believe therefore that the Minister will experience any inconvenience or difficulty in finding bilingual persons to appoint to this Council. I agree with the amenment of the hon. member for Ceres (Dr. Stals) to give the Minister a free hand in the constitution of the Council. We want to give the Minister full power to appoint whoever he likes. We on this side have therefore shown that we have confidence in the Minister, since we want to place those powers in his hands exclusively. Let him, in his turn, also meet us in connection with this matter. With regard to the deletion, inter alia, of agriculture, I as an agriculturist had to urge that a representative of agriculture be appointed. I take it the Minister will appoint a person to the Council who has the necessary knowledge of agriculture, but since we are prepared to place all these powers in the hands of the Minister, let him in his turn undertake to appoint bilingual persons, because we know there are bilingual persons who are sufficiently qualified for appointment to this Council.

I want to point out to the hon. Minister that last year we had the same fight here. Four Bills were introduced, one in connection with the employment of soldiers, the Nursing Bill, the Fisheries Development Bill and the Apprenticeship Bill, and in connection with all four Bills we were obliged to move the same type of amendment, and in all four eases the Minister refused. A tendency is being shown on the other side simply to ignore bilingualism. Our request is a reasonable one and it is in accordance with the spirit of Section 137, namely, that the two languages shall have equal rights, and yet we find that it is refused. Numerous Afrikaans-speaking people are now taking an interest in industry and they will from time to time come into contact with this Council. They will use Afrikaans and it will lead to great difficulty if a translation has to be made, apart from the fact that these people will not be properly understood. It is very important that these people should be bilingual, and I want to ask the Minister seriously to consider this amendment. I assume the chairman of the Council will be bilingual. And it should follow as a matter of course that the members appointed by the Minister under C will be bilingual. We should like those appointed under B, the two members whom the Minister will have to choose from a list of five, to be bilingual, too.

I should very much like to support this amendment. I really cannot imagine that the Minister can still be under the impression that he will not be able to find bilingual persons who are sufficiently capable for appointment to this Council. The Government is showing no respect for the Afrikaner language. There can be no doubt about that. In recent times we have had speeches from members of the United Party and also from Ministers which clearly show that. On the other hand we have had speeches from members on the other side and from members of the United Party outside this House, suggesting that racialism is born in this country because the members on the other side do not show the necessary respect for the Afrikaner language and culture. The Minister apparently sides with those members in the United Party who advocate the policy of kicking out people. If that party continues with the policy of making political appointments to all boards and bodies, there will still be chaos in this country. We know that members of the United Party have gone from platform to platform and from congress to congress, proclaiming that the Government should only appoint people who endorse the political views of the Government to boards and Government bodies. The time has arrived for us to put a stop to that sort of thing. The Government is continually speaking of bilingualism, and if it is really sincere, the Minister will realise that South Africa is a bilingual country and that both languages should be respected. He is now being asked to give the assurance to the House that no unilingual persons will be appointed to the Council. I am deeply convinced that even if the f Minister gets the best man in the country for such a Council, he will never be appointed if he cannot speak English. I want to make an urgent appeal to the Minister therefore, to accept this amendment. He should do so if he is in earnest in wishing to see South Africa becoming a bilingual country. I want to ask the Minister therefore to make this concession in this case and to let fairness and justice triumph. Unfortunately there are many persons on the other side who say that bilingualism should be applied, but when it comes to action in connection with public appointments, they disregard the principle.

It would be a pity if hon. members were to infer that I am indifferent in regard to the qualifications of members who are appointed to the Council. As far as I am concerned it is a foregone conclusion that no Minister has the right to appoint unilingual members to a public board. If there had still been a shortage of qualified persons who are bilingual, there would be something to say for the Minister’s attitude. But the Minister knows and I know, that there are sufficient bilingual persons with the necessary qualifications to give him a wide choice for appointments. If the Minister wants to satisfy the people he should pay due attention to the principle of bilingualism. There are sufficient bilingual people who can be chosen from the ranks of scientists. There is no longer any lack of well qualified, bilingual technical persons in this country. The inference must not be drawn therefore that I am not taking into account the question of qualifications. As the position is at present, the Minister can ignore this principle in making appointments, and consequently the Minister is not doing his duty towards the country as a whole.

Amendment proposed by Mr. Brink put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—27.

Bekker, G. F. H.

Brink, W D.

Conradie, J. H.

Döhne, J. L. B.

Grobler, D. C. S.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Klopper, H. J.

Le Roux, S. P.

Louw, E. H.

Ludick, A. I.

Malan, D. F.

Mentz, F. E.

Nel, M, D. C. de W.

Olivier, P. J.

Stals, A. J.

Steyn, A.

Steyn, G. P.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Strydom, J. G.

Swanepoel, S. J.

Swart, C. R.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Warren, S. E.

Werth, A. J.

Wilkens, J.

Tellers: J. F. T. Naudeé and P.O. Sauer.

Noes—S6.

Abbott, C. B. M.

Abrahamson, H.

Allen. F. B.

Bawden W.

Bekker, H. J.

Bell, R. E.

Bodenstein. H. A. S.

Bosman, J. C.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowker, T. B.

Butters, W. R.

Carinus, J. G.

Christie, J.

Cilliers, S. A.

Clark, C. W.

Connan, J. M.

Conradie, J. M.

De Kock, P. H.

Derbyshire, J. G.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, A. C.

Du Toit, R. J.

Faure, J. C.

Friedman B.

Gluckman, H.

Grav, T. P.

Hare, W. D.

Hemming, G. K.

Henny, G. E. J.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Kentridge, M.

Latimer, A.

Moll, A. M.

Morris, J. W. H. a:

Mushet, J. W.

Neate, C.

Pieterse, E. P.

Prinsloo, W. B. J.

Robertson, R. B.

Russell, J. H.

Shearer, O. L.

Smuts, J. C.

Sonnenberg, M.

Steenkamp, L. S.

Steyn, C. F.

Sturrock, F. C.

Tighy, S. J.

Tothill, H. A.

Van Onselen, W. S.

Wanless, A. T.

Warren, C. M.

Waterson, S. F.

Williams, H. J.

Wolmarans, J. B.

Tellers: G. A. Friend and W. B. Humphreys,

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Amendment proposed by the Minister of Economic Development put and agreed to and amendment proposed by Dr. Stals put and negatived.

If I am in order, I should like to move an amendment to (b) and (c)

It is out of order at this stage. The Committee has already decided to retain the words up to (2).

An amendment which I moved has been rejected and certain other amendments have been accepted. I should like to know whether I can move other amendments at this stage.

The Committee has decided to retain the words as printed up to (2). In order to give the Minister an opportunity of moving his amendment, I only put that portion which the hon. member for Ceres proposed to delete. Thereafter the amendment as moved by the Minister, was agreed to. I am afraid I cannot accept the amendment of the hon. member.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 7,

On the motion of the Minister of Economic [Development, an amendment, was made, in the Afrikaans version which did not occur in the English version.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 8,

I should like to ask the Minister whether the minutes and the official documents of the Council will be kept in both languages. I think that Would only be fair.

No, I cannot give that undertaking.

In that case I move the following amendment—

1. (3) All minutes and other official documents of the Council shall be kept in both official languages.

I should very much like to support the amendment of the hon. member for Christiana (Mr. Brink). I think I as an Afrikaans-speaking member of this House am entitled to insist that I should be able to read such documents in my own language; and I am surprised that the Minister does not accept this amendment. Year after year we have to fight for bilingualism, and last year we thought the Government party was also in favour of bilingualism, but we are again called upon to fight, as we did last year, in f order to give effect to the principle of bilingualism. What purpose was served last year by all this talking about bilingualism, if you do not want to carry it out? Surely we are entitled to insist that we should be able to read such documents in our own language. The Minister advanced the excuse a moment ago that there may be unilingual qualified persons whom he would like to appoint, but surely he cannot object to these documents being in both languages. I hope therefore that he will accept this amendment.

I should like to support this amendment. We are striving on both sides to maintain a certain amount of friendship and co-operation. How can we ever expect a good understanding to be created if the Minister continues to slight the principle of bilingualism in this way?. That is very unfair. There would have been no objection, if, for example, the Minister had adopted the reasonable attitude that the meetings are to be held alternately in English and in Afrikaans.

That is not your proposal.

That would have given great satisfaction. We are anxious to create a good understanding, but if Afrikaans is continually trampled upon we will never arrive at such an understanding.

Upon which the Committee divided:

Ayes—27

Bekker, G. F. H.

Booysen, W. A.

Brink, W. D.

Conradie, J. H.

Döhne, J. L. B.

Grobler, D. C. S.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Klopper, H. J.

Louw, E, H.

Ludick, A. I.

Malan, D. F.

Mentz, F. E.

Nel M. D. C. de W.

Olivier P. J.

Stals, A. J.

Steyn, A.

Steyn, G, P.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Strydom, J. G.

Swanepoel, S. J.

Swart, C. R.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Warren, S. E.

Werth, A. J.

Wilkens, J.

Tellers: J. F. T. Naudé and P. O. Sauer.

Noes—50.

Abbott, C. B. M.

Abrahamson. H.

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Bawden, W.

Bekker, H. J.

Bell, R. E.

Bodenstein, H. A. S.

Bosman, J. C.

Bosman’ L. P.

Bowker,’ T. B.

Burnside, D. C.

Butters, W. R.

Carinus, J. G.

Christie, J.

Clark. C. W.

Connan, J. M.

Conradie, J. M.

Derbyshire, J. G.

De Wet, H. C.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, A. C.

Faure, J. C.

Gluckman, H. A.

Gray, T. P.

Hare, W. D.

Henny, G. E. J.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Kentridge, M.

Latimer, A.

Mushet, J. W. A.

Neate, C.

Pieterse, E. P.

Prinsloo, W. B. J.

Robertson, R. B.

Shearer, O. L.

Smuts, J. C.

Sonnenberg, M.

Sturrock, F. C.

Tighy, S. J.

Tothill, H. A.

Van Onselen, W. S.

Visser, H. J.

Wanless, A. T.

Warren, C. M.,

Waterson, S. F.

Williams, H. J.

Wolmarans, J. B.

Tellers: G. A. Friend and W. B. Humphreys.

Amendment, accordingly negatived.

Since the Committee has decided in its wisdom not to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Christiana (Mr. Brink) I want to move the following amendment—

1. (3) The proceedings of the Council shall be in both official languages: Provided that the official minutes shall be alternately in English and Afri kaans.

This will probably be acceptable to some hon. members on the other side, especially the hon. member for Vryheid (Dr. Steenkamp) and the hon. member for Woodstock (Mr. Russell), who are both very desirous of having bilingualism acknowledged. The Minister sits there as though he is deaf and dumb and he clearly evinces an unsympathetic attitude towards Afrikaans. I have known the Minister for many years. He practically grew up with me in Cape Town, and he has never condescended to learn Afrikaans. He has no time for it. He sometimes tells us how anxious the English speaking people are to learn Afrikaans. I know that the hon. member for Hottentots Holland (Mr. Carinus) will probably say again that I should not attack the Minister in this way, because in that case we will get nothing out of him. This Council which is to be appointed will be a very important Council and it is not only the English speaking people who are interested in the Council. Both sections of the community will be interested in the proceedings of the Council. We are on the eve of great economic development and both sections of the population take a great interest in it. By means of this amendment I am now giving hon. members, on the other side an opportunity to show their goodwill towards Afrikaans and towards bilingualism by voting for this amendment.

I want to associate myself heartily with this amendment. When the previous amendment was discussed, I made this suggestion, but it was out of order, and I am very glad therefore that the hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H Conradie) has moved this amendment, namely that the meetings will be held alternately in English and in Afrikaans. I think both sides of the House will really welcome this. I make an appeal not only to the Afrikaans-speaking members on the other side, but also to the English-speaking members on the other side, to vote for this amendment for the sake of harmony in the future, and especially since this country is in favour of bilingualism. The English speaking people are asking for bilingualism, and the Afrikaans-speaking people are doing the same. I do not suppose the Minister will hesitate for a moment to accept this particularly reasonable amendment. We shall be very glad and it will be of great value to the country if that is done. It will be a step in the direction of better understanding in the sphere of bilingualism. We dare not be hypocritical about this point. We have a provision in regard to bilingualism in our Statutes and it is a very serious matter to take a step in this legislation which will ignore those legal provisions concerning bilingualism. It is a violation of our South Africa Act. We are in the minority, but we look to the Minister to side with right and justice in this instance.

I want to make an appeal, not only to the Minister, but also to members on the other side who gave us to understand that if we moved such an amendment, they would support it. The hon. member for Ventersdorp (Mr. Visser) and the hon. member for Hottentots-Holland (Mr. Carinus) said that. Let them show their sincerity now. I believe they were sincere when they said it. In the first place, we are naturally in favour of applying bilingaulism generally, but we could not succeed in that. We then tried to persuade the House to have all documents printed in both languages. We could not get that. We have now come with this amendment, and we expect hon. members on the other side to support it. It is a serious matter as far as we are concerned.

Hear, hear.

I hope the hon. member agrees with me and that he is not only joking at my expense. Bilingualism is a serious matter with us, and we expect that hon. member to support us. It is wrong to laugh in this House when we come forward with a matter of this kind, and to suggest that we are merely wasting the time of the House. We are serious about the matter and the country sees that an injustice is being done, not only in connection with the principle of bilingualism but towards Afrikaans. I do not want to use unnecessary arguments, but I want to appeal to members on the other side to stop playing the fool when we advocate matters of this kind in the House. They must realise that to us it is a serious matter. We do not want to take up the time of the House unnecessarily, but we do feel that justice is not being done towards the Afrikaans language. We feel that the Government is systematically pushing aside Afrikaans and practically treating it with contempt. That is why I make this earnest appeal to all sections on the other side to take us seriously and to support this amendment.

The hon. Member who has proposed the amendment has rightly said that this is a very important Board that is being appointed. Unfortunately he has produced an amendment to belittle this Board that has been appointed to the extent that we here have to lay down absolutely how that important body should perform its duties. We on this side do not stand back for any hon. members on the opposite side of the House in regard to the furthering of Afrikaans. We want to carry it out practically. But never in this House where a. Board has been appointed, or a Committee has been nominated—not even in the time of the old Nationalist Government—have we said to that body that they must conduct their activities in this manner or that. We have never done in such cases what the hon. member propposes in his amendment. My attitude is that I want to promote bilingualism. If this Board is appointed and there is an Afrikaans-speaking member or an English-speaking member whose interests are not respected because they will not allow him to use his language, he can make an objection and if the Board concerned does not adjust the matter, it can be mentioned in this House. But to appoint such a Board and to tell it on every point that it should do this or that, will simply not go down. Such a Board would not tolerate this, and I cannot support this amendment.

The hon. member who has just spoken has told us that he stands for bilingualism. He is a member of the Distributive Costs Commission, six members of which are unilingual and three bilingual. Has he urged on that commission that his language should be justily treated?

My correspondence is being done in Afrikaans.

Has he required that Afrikaans should have its dues? I say that he has not done that. All the proceedings are in English, and then he comes here and he talks of the maintenance of Afrikaans and bilingualism. When a person is living in a glass house he should not throw stones. That hon. member is sitting on that commission, and he does not look after his language. Has he ever spoken Afrikaans there?

Certainly.

And then the other six members would not understand him. No, we have become rather tired of this talk by members on the opposite benches that they are in favour of bilingualism. They come here the whole day and say that they do not stand back for us as far as regards the protection of the Tights of Afrikaans, but when we emphasise bilingualism then they vote against us. Our standpoint is that the Government must set an example on all Government bodies by saying: We are only appointing bilingual persons so that everyone may know that he has no hope of serving on a Government body unless he is bilingual. If this is done, justice will be done to both sections. It is nothing else than the biggest hypocrisy to come here and say: We stand for bilingualism. But every time the test is applied they are found wainting and oppose us. They are afraid to make it compulsory in any Act that the members of boards should be bilingual. We want to have justice prevail in regard to both languages. That is all that we ask, and they have refused that right. That is not the position in most cases, but it is always the case that the Afrikaans language is neglected. Everything, happens in English, and members such as the hon. member opposite find pleasure in that. The hon. member may shake his head now. On the commission on which he is sitting he will not dare to say that the proceedings should one day be in Afrikaans, and the next day in English. They say every day that they are in favour of fifty-fifty. They do not stand for fifty-fifty because they are not prepared to accord Afrikaans equal rights with English. They will not even agree to the proceedings being carried on one day in English and the other in Afrikaans. Our standpoint is clear, and it is also clear why we in this case ask that it should be a matter of half. If members opposite vote against that it shows that they are not in favour of Afrikaans being given equal rights with English.

I am beginning to wonder whether we are really discussing the Standards Bill or whether this has developed itself into sheer politics. I want to make the point that this amendment is entirely unnecessary. If this Council wishes it, it can keep the proceedings in either of the two official languages. Surely my hon. friends realise that this has now resolved itself into a mere argumentative matter. We are dealing here with a scientific Council and the reports of this Council will be reports in the nature of mathematical formulae and not really in English or Afrikaans. They will not be reports dealing with politics, but with economics and standardisation reports, and in their very nature they must be scientific formulae, and therefore, if we agree that this is a necessary Bill that it is a Bill which will serve some purpose, and if my hon. friends agree they will realise that in order to accuse the hon. member for Hottentots Holland (Mr. Carinus) they are now raising something which will stultify the purposes of this Bill, and they should not do this. They are trying to insert in the Bill a clause whereby the Minister is going to be bound to bilingualism, and surely when you are dealing with such a scientific proposition and are asking for an investigation which takes you into the realms of higher mathematics or chemistry, surely the question of language is not important in order to be able to lay down the standards for the benefit of the Union of South Africa, and, that being so, I do not see any good purpose for this amendment. If that were not so I am sure that the Council could have the investigations conducted in either English or Afrikaans, and I am quite sure that when the standards are published they will be published in both languages. Standards really cannot exist of a language, but of mathematical formulae. There is no attack whatever on the Afrikaans language as far as I can see in the Bill; we are merely trying to do a scientific thing in a scientific manner, and my hon. friends are not doing anything to assist this matter by making it a political argument.

The amendment that has been proposed here was in the first instance that the proceedings of the Board should be carried on in both languages. That is the attitude of our Party, that the Europeans in our country, whether they are English-speaking of Afrikaansspeaking, shall have the right to use their own language. That is the standpoint of our Party, but that, standpoint has now been rejected by the opposite side of the House. To test them still further, the hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie) proposed an amendment to ascertain whether they would concede something, namely, that the proceedings should be in Afrikaans one day and in English the next. This has also been rejected by them. Not only have they rejected the sound standpoint of this side of the House, that the English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking are entitled to have everything happen in their own language, but they also reject the test that the hon. member for Gordonia has now put. This is for us absolute proof that that side of the House have never on any occasion honestly and honourably meant it when they have spoken about bilingualism. Their idea of bilingualism is this, that the English-speaking people should always have the opportunity to use their English, and that the Afrikaansspeaking should also always have the opportunity to use English. We have here an example of this. There has been no single occasion in this House when it has been proposed that bilingualism should be protected that we have had the support of one vote from the opposite side.

The hon. member for Woodstock (Mr. Russell) tried it, and then he ran away.

Yes, the hon. member for Hottentots-Holland (Mr. Carinus) professed to be a strong champion of Afrikaans and he is serving on a body on which more than half the members cannot understand a single word of Afrikaans. What now about bilingualism? He simply goes along meekly on that course. This is the position of affairs that we have in the country. If it was left to the other side of the House to apply bilingualism we would simply get this position that eventually everyone would be unilingual English.

We are all bilingual in South Africa.

I wonder whether the hon. member has ever attempted to talk in Afrikaans to some, of his Ministers?

We are all striving towards that.

And when we ask that bilingual persons should be appointed on a board and that they should follow a policy of bilingualism, these members vote against it because they are striving for bilingualism! I want to ask this of the hon. member for Malmesbury (Mr. J. C. Bosman). He is striving for bilingualism, and does he approve that a Minister in a new department has not a single document in Afrikaans, and that the Minister now in the year 1945 appoints numbers of people in his Department who cannot speak a single word of Afrikaans? Is this the manner in which they strive for bilingualism? No, it is hypocrisy that is streaming out by the ears, the nose and the mouth. The time has arrived that when we talk of creating a good spirit in South Africa with a view to co-operation, I say that the time has arrived that the people on the opposite benches must realise that there are such people as Afrikaans-speaking people in South Africa. I say again that we on this side of the House prove every day by word and deed, and our past when we governed the land also proved that we accorded the English-speaking people full rights in respect of language. I challenge that side to show me that this Party in its official capacity, or when it governed the country, did any injustice towards the English-speaking people. They cannot bring up a shred of evidence on this, and I want the country as a whole to know what the policy of this side of the House is, namely, that we want to give to every English speaking and every Afrikaans-speaking person his full rights in respect of his language.

To indicate what stupidity still exists in this House in regard to Afrikaans, we have only to listen to the hon. member who spoke here about scientific terms. He stated that those terms were not to be found in either Afrikaans or English. He spoke here about higher chemistry. Does he not realise that Afrikaans has had these terms for a long time, as well as for advanced mathematics? This is what is going on now; boards are being filled up with unilingual people, and consequently the law has not been carried out. It is long overdue that we should apply bilingualism in connection with these things. On the benches opposite are members who always profess that they are so broadminded, but it comes down to this, that they run away from their own language. The time has arrived when the Afrikaner must take his place alongside the English-speaking person, and everything should be done on a bilingual basis. I do not agree with this amendment, because it is too much in the nature of a compromise. Why should there be a compromise? We ought simply to carry out the law in the country so that both Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking can be satisfied, and the language of neither should be ignored

I have never in my life been so surprised as I have been over the attitude Of hon. members opposite. I want to tell the Minister this, that here we have an instance of English being rammed down our throat and of Afrikaans being trampled underfoot. Though many of us on this side of the House have in the past endeavoured in every way, as we are still doing to the utmost of our ability to create a good relationship between English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking people, it is this sort of thing that drives us farther apart. I want to warn the Minister. If he is relying on creating a good relationship in the country then he should not do this sort of thing, and there is only one course open to him, namely, to accept this amendment. If he does not do this he must remember that there are some of us who, in the past have been very indulgent in regard to language, but we shall know what line of conduct to follow in the future. If the gauntlet is flung down we shall not run away; we shall pick it up.

I want to make an appeal to the Minister. He was born in the country, he knows what the Afrikaner’s language means to him. If he does not realise it I can hardly believe it. An earnest appeal has been made to him here. In connection with the appointment of boards and committees the excuse of the Government has always been that it is private people that appoints them, and consequently it did not want to make such a provision in the law. Perhaps they had need of unilingual people. Here there cannot be such an excuse. Take the position of the Afrikaans-speaking person who would like to look through the minutes of this board in Afrikaans. If they are in English he will have to read them in a strange language. He ought to realise that it is much better to keep the minutes in both languages. I thought he would stand up arid make such a proposition. This has nothing to do with the people who are appointed. If he accepts this amendment the Afrikaans-speaking Afrikaner will be able to read the reports or the minutes in his own language. The Minister does not need to tell me that they really will be in both lanuguages. Let us insert that in the Bill. If it is not set out in the Bill it means we shall have a continuous struggle. I make an appeal to the Minister, and I make it in all friendship. I feel that he cannot object to it, and if he raises any objection I must ask him to reconsider the matter because he has put himself in the position that his Party profess that they are striving for bilingualism. Here is an opportunity to apply that policy in practice. He says that we are not far enough advanced in regard to language to accept such an amendment. I agree that we are not far enough advanced to have bilingual people on the Boards. But all that we ask here is that the minutes should be kept one day in Afrikaans and the next day in English. An opportunity is given here to the Government to show that they are really just. Let the minutes be kept in Afrikaans one day and the next in English. Personally I think that is still wrong. At every meeting the minutes should be in both languages. The Government supporters have nd excused It is not a question of the man whom you appoint. It is merely a request that the proceedings should be conducted in both languages, so that the Afrikaans-speaking Afrikaner shall be able to read the minutes in his own language, and so that the English-speaking Afrikaner can read the minutes in English. I do not want to become annoyed; I am making this request in all friendship. But if the Minister wants to keep to his word and if he refuses to accept this amendment, I can do nothing about it; but he will realise that he as an English-speaking Afrikaner will examine the minutes, and he will do so in his own language. All that we now ask is this: Give us the right to see and to read the minutes in our own language.

I do not know whether it will avail anything for us to stand up and to argue in favour of the motion of the hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie), but I should like to invite the attention of hon. members on that side of the House to the fact that they were offended with us when we said that they employed the argument that there were no biligual technical people in order to do an injustice to the Afrikaans language. You will remember that a debate was carried on in the House last year in connection with dual medium and single medium schools, and then hon. members opposite stood up and said: “We want the classes to be one day in Afrikaans and the next day in English, so that we can be nicely bilingual.” In other words, they are in favour precisely of this, that we should use Afrikaans and English alternately. Personally I feel much stronger over the amendment that has already been rejected, but I think the hon. member for Gordonia has done the country a good service by moving the motion. Hon. members opposite have always Stated that they have been honest over this question of bilingualism, that they do not only want to apply bilingualism in theory but that they also want it in practice; and here we have a proposal aimed at that very thing, to give effect to that policy, and they throw it out. What is peculiar to me is this. With the exception of the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. Burnside) there was not an English-speaking member on the other side of the House who stood up and’ who spoke against the motion. You know that when a Scotsman is outside his own country he is usually more Scots than a Scotsman. Here we find Afrikaners on the other side who work against the language that they themselves speak and that they have learned from their mothers. I want to ask English-speaking members opposite this question. Say for instance that we on this side of the House should come into power, and that we kept all the minutes in only one language, would not that be a reasonable grievance on the part of the English-speaking Afrikaner, that his language is not employed at these meetings? No, it is the people who have been with us in the same party who are more against the Afrikaans language than the Englishman himself. There are English-speaking people in the country—and we come into contact with such people, not people who are Anglicised, but people in whose veins English blood flows—who cannot understand how it is that we have Afrikaners who fight against their fellow-Afrikaners. We have observed that the English-speaking people on that side of the House have remained quiet, and that it is the Afrikaans-speaking people on that side of the House who have fought us. I want to make an appeal to the Minister. He is an English-speaking Afrikaner. What would be nicer than for him to have stood up in the House today and have said: “This is a bilingual country, and I as Minister am going to make a start by saying that I am going to apply a bilingual policy in practice.” I hope that the Minister will meet us; if he cannot go the whole way then by accepting the amendment by the hon. member for Gordonia.

This amendment in itself I regard as absolutely impracticable. The amendment signifies this, that the Board should assemble, that the proceedings should take place in one language, and that the minutes should be recorded in the other language.

You do not know: What the proposal is.

It has not been put very clearly, but what I want to say is this, that the Opposition is engaged in making out that this side of the House that fought so hard for the Afrikaans language is unfaithful to our language. We regard South Africa as it is today. We fight and battle so that within a measurable period of time there will be no one in South Africa who is unilingual. But we realise that as circumstances are today there are Afrkaans speaking people who are unilingual. I admit that it is only a small portion, but there is a proportion who are unilingual.

How many?

But on the other side we realise that there is a great number who are unilingual English-speaking. We realise that under the circumstances it is necessary today, especially on Boards of this type where you must have people with technical qualifications, that people should be appointed who are sometimes English-speaking, and accordingly we refuse to accept the amendment.

I am surprised to 7 hear a speech such as that made by the hon. member for Malmesbury (Mr. J. C. Bosman) a person who comes from the Western Province. In 1910 we introduced bilingualism, and we are now in the year 1945—35 years later. We have been actively engaged in this fight for more than a generation, but in the past we have always been fought by such men as the hon. member for Paarl (Mr. Faure) and the hon. member for Malmesbury, who did not help us in the fight. We have always had to fight for this and what we have obtained in connection with language facilities we have got from the English-speaking section of the people and not from our own section. They have always fought us. It surprises me that the hon. member for Hottentots-Holland (Mr. Carinus) has stated here it is an insult for the Committee to introduce such provisions. Why then have we such a provision in our Constitution? Is it an insult to Parliament to have a provision in the Constitution that both languages may be used here?

Does the Constitution lay down what your home language should be?

But here we have nothing to do with the home language. It is a body that has been created by Parliament.

It is a public body.

And my amendments says that the proceedings of those meetings of the board will be recorded in both languages, just as is done here.

There is nothing in the law to prevent that.

It is of course an Afrikaner who makes that interjection. He is also one of those who always fights us. Now we come to the second point, and this is where we want to meet hon. members opposite. We say that as far as the minutes are concerned, all the official documents that are published of the meetings should be in turn in English and in Afrikaans. But do we get any assistance from Afrikaansspeaking friends from that side? No, we had to proceed meekly and submissively and let everything go on in that way. There is the hon. member for Parktown (Mr. Stratford). I know that he is inspired by a better spirit than the hon. member oyer there.

Which one?

The one with the big mouth.

I am talking now about “Die Kruithoring”.

We make an appeal to the type of man like the hon. member for Parktown. Those other members like the hon. member for Hottentots Holland and the hon. member for Paarl are finished for the Afrikaner. They do not see the new orientation that has taken place. There is developing in our country a better relationship between our young people. We are virtually accepting here the policy of the other side as regards bilingualism. Because they have rejected our policy we say to them: “Our policy is the best, but seeing you do not accept that we are offering you the second-best policy, namely your own policy.” Our intelligence is numbed.

It would not be the first time.

It seems to me that the Minister’s object is just to create the core of an English board. He comes from London where he has spoken to all these big people. So far as we can make out from his speeches he was a person who always compromised, and this Bill does not breed a South African spirit. If he wants to be honest he must accept this amendment of mine, and if he does not accept it we are entitled to say to the country what his intentions are in connection with the future industrial development of the country.

Calmly and quietly I want to make an appeal to a few of our friends on the other side of the House that we should remain calm and sober in reflecting on this matter. As far as I personally am concerned, I would have preferred that only bilingual persons were appointed, but if we can meet certain of our friends on the opposite benches, and meet them half way, I am prepared to take a step in that direction. I want to make an appeal to the hon. member for Vryheid (Dr. Steenkamp). Not only do I want to make an appeal to the hon. member for Vryheid, but I also want to make an appeal to the hon. member for Woodstock (Mr. Russell). Both of them had the manliness to stand up in this House and express their opinion, and we respect them for that We have not forgotten that either. We want to make an appeal to them that they will stand up for their convictions. They will be conferring a service on the country, and not only those hon. members but also the hon. member for Gardens (Dr. L. P. Bosman). I think he feels the same as we do on this matter, and I really believe he has the courage of his convictions, and is prepared to stand up for them. I think the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (City) (Col. O. L. Shearer), a unilingual English-speaking person, feels the same as we do, and I am certain that if he understands what I am saying here he will agree with us entirely. I think also the hon. member for Nigel (Maj. Ueckermann) also sympathises with us in this matter. The hon. member for Parktown (Mr. Stratford) feels with us in this matter, and I want tö make an appeal to the young members. It seems to me the old members are irrevocably lost, especially once they have been in the Cabinet; then they are bound hand and foot, and they can never again use their discretion. They then have to do just what they are told. But I want to make a friendly request to the young members, and to ask them to meet us in this matter, and I also want to make an appeal to the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. van den Berg). He is a son of the Free State. His name, too, is still van den Berg. I want to make an appeal to him and to ask him to stand by us in this matter. We have come here to a turning point in this Bill and we do not want to get excited over this matter. We want to remain calm and friendly, and we want to make an appeal to the hon. members I have mentioned, and to ask them to cross the floor and to stand with us in this matter, or that they should raise their voices against the policy of this present Government.

Seeing that a so called appeal was made from the other side of the House to the member for Vryheid (Dr. Steenkamp) it is perhaps necessary that as a result especially of a few interjections from the other side, to the effect that “he has been lost to his people,” I should say a few words about my attitude in connection with this matter.

We know him.

Whether you know him or not does not affect me, but I know that when in Natal and in South Africa I played a leading rôle for the Afrikaans movement, I never saw your name in that list.

Order, order!

Most of those members’ names do not appear there.

Did you ask for their assistance?

It was not necessary to apply to them. I knew my duty myself and I did it. But last year I stated in this House that when it came to nontechnical boards there was no reason in existence why bilingual persons should not be appointed to those non-technical boards. But when we come to technical boards, then we must at least think twice before we take such a resolution. At this stage unfortunately, I say it is very unfortunate, there still remains a large number of our English-speaking South Africans who are unilingual, and at this stage this Government has thought it fit to take a resolution in this House which will lead to those English-speaking people becoming bilingual That is why last year we took this resolution in regard to bilingual schools. I fully realise that it is not the Afrikaans-speaking people who are going to experience difficulty in these bilingual schools as much as our English-speaking friends. But by the acceptance of that Bill we shall have within ten years the result that those persons will be bilingual, and then I will be the first person who will cross over from this side of the House and vote for bilingualism. But I must look at the practical side of it. It is for that reason that I believe that an amendment came for which I could not vote, and against which I also did not vote. But now we have this amendment from the other side of the House, that the proceedings and the minutes will be in both languages, first in one language and then in the other.

No, the proceedings can be in one language or the other.

May I know the precise wording of the amendment?

On a point of explanation my amendment conveys that the proceedings may be in both languages.

“Shall.”

“Shall” be in both languages. But the official records of the one meeting will be in English and of the next meeting in Afrikaans.

If that is the interpretation, that the proceedings can occur as in this House, and that the minutes will be alternatively in Afrikaans and in English, it is a reasonable proposal, because then we shall be meeting any of our unilingual friends that may be on the board. The Minister has promised that he will appoint bilingual persons as much as possible. If the amendment contains that provision it is a reasonable proposal, but that is not to say that I am going to cross to the other side, because I do not take this to be a political matter. It is to me a question of conscience. We have reached the stage in our national life when we are serious on this matter, and when we do not stand up and plead on every occasion with a view to making political capital. The newspapers on the Opposition side are being used to tell people: There now, you have a division in the United Party, because Dr. Steenkamp, or whoever it may be, has crossed the floor. We want to regard this matter on its merits from a national point of view.

The hon. member for Vryheid (Dr. Steenkamp) said at the commencement of his speech that if the motion was reasonable he would not hesitate to cross the floor to this side of the House. Then he himself admitted that this is a reasonable proposal, but he added immediately that that did not mean that he would cross over to this side of the House. How he reconciles that with his conscience I do not know. But we come to the hon. member for Malmesbury (Mr. J. C. Bosman). He expatiated here on the technical qualification that the person would have to possess, and he said that for that reason the minutes could not be recorded in both languages. The same argument was used last year in connection with the appointment of members to the Board of Trade and Industries. I then pointed out that three of the four persons serving on the board were unilingual. Only one of the four persons was bilingual. What of the technical qualifications of these people? I pointed out that the three unilingual persons had no technical qualifications. The only person with technical qualifications was the person who was bilingual. The hon. member argues apparently for that sort of thing, but if that is the case, how can he have the audacity to plead for the application of the bilingual policy in practice? We know that the technical persons are pre-eminently the bilingual persons, and the bilingual people are pre-eminently the technical people. On the Board of Trade and Industries Dr: Norval is the only bilingual person, and he is also the only person with technical qualifications. This side of the House now presents a reasonable proposal to give effect to the policy of the other side, but hon. members on the other side are fighting us. It only shows us that hon. members opposite do not really mean it and that that policy of bilingualism of theirs is nothing else than bait held out. They know that it is the Afrikaansspeaking person who is bilingual. They know it is the Afrikaans-speaking person who has the technical qualifications. Accordingly I feel that no member on that side of the House who means well in regard to bilingualism has the right to vote against this amendment of the hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie).

It is necessary for me to rise. It appears to me as if the hon. Minister is treating this side of the House with the greatest disrespect. He sits there and lets back benchers do the talking on this matter. Why does he not stand up and tell us why he has not accepted the amendment of the hon. member? Here we have an important amendment, and the Minister sits still and does not say a word. Can he not defend himself, or is it that he wants to treat this side of the House with contempt? Is the language question of such little importance that he does not think it worth while to stand up and to reply to the speeches that have been made from this side of the House? I make a strong objection to the conduct of the Minister. He has introduced this Bill, but he is sitting there absolutely quiet. He allows himself to be defended by back-benchers. He could at least show us the courtesy of standing up and saying why he cannot accept the amendment of the hon. member for Gordonia.

The other side knows perfectly well that the last thing I would do would be to treat the Opposition with disrespect, but in respect of this amendment and the previous one, there is very little I can say that has not already been said. We have discussed this question on many occasions, and I have made my position as clear as I could, and that is that in my view the amendments that are being moved now have little or nothing to do with the question of bilingualism, about the need for which everyone is agreed. But hon. members on the other side overlook the fact, as the hon. member for Vryheid (Dr. Steenkamp) pointed out just now, that there are a large number of people in the Union today who unfortunately are not fully bilingual and when it comes to make appointments of any kind of a specialised nature, it is impossible to bind oneself on the question of bilingualism. When it comes to laying down in a Bill of this kind such a small—in itself, however important the principle may be—such a small direction that the minutes must be kept alternatively in English and Afrikaans, it seems to me that this Bill is not the proper place to do it.

Where is the place?

I have not the slightest doubt personally that the minutes will be kept in both languages if required, and I think it is perfectly right that that should be done. It is no use my giving any assurances to the committee, because hon. members opposite would not accept them. If they are prepared to accept this, I am prepared to see that proper facilities are given for both languages in all the proceedings of this council. As I say, my not taking part in this discussion to any great extent is not due to any lack of respect for the Committee, nor for the subject, nor is it due to lack of sympathy or good intentions in regard to the other language, but simply because this question has been discussed on many occasions and in these discussions I have taken part. I hold that a departure from the policy that has been followed on this side of the House, not only by this Government but by the previous Government, should not be made simply by means of an amendment handed in at a moment’s notice by any member of the Opposition.

I think we are very indebted to the hon. Minister for going so far as to speak. His first argument is the old argument that there are still thousands of English-speaking people who do not know Afrikaans. Is this what is in the mind of the Minister, that he should seek out the people who do not want to learn the Afrikaans language? I think that if there is one good thing the Minister has done it was that he should have told the House frankly that he has absolutely no time for Afrikaans and Afrikaans-speaking people. It does not help matters for the Minister to shake his head. There the Minister is sitting himself. He will not take it amiss if I tell him that he himself would not be qualified to sit on the board on the ground of lack of language qualifications. Why should the right be withheld from us year after year? We have now been busy since Union with bilingualism, and to carry through the principle of bilingualism and equal rights. After 35 years the Minister comes and says that the unilingual people should have another chance. We are tired of that. We on this side see to it that our children are bilingual when they come out of school, and if the Minister goes through the country he will actually find no Afrikaans-speaking people who do not understand English. The Minister will also experience no trouble in finding competent people who are bilingual, for the board. I do not see why we should beg the Minister any more from this side, why we should virtually go on our knees to obtain our rights. The time has come when a stop must be put to five years’ procrastination, and another five years opportunity given to a man to become qualified in the language. We ask the Minister, to respect the rights of the Afrikaans-speaking people, and if the Minister simply will not accept the principle—while professing that this is the policy of the United Party— then we still have the right in the future to take no notice of the Minister in regard to the language question. We shall then Simply not believe that he has any time for Afrikaans and Afrikaans-speaking people. Accordingly, we will no longer beg him, but we demand from the Minister that he should no longer trample on our rights in this matter. Even the hon. member for Vryheid (Dr. Steenkamp) admitted that this is a reasonable amendment. He has nothing against it. Now I ask hon. members on the other side if they are against it not to profess any longer that they want bilingualism. Accordingly, I hope that the Minister will accept the amendment.

I rise again after the Minister’s reply, and after other hon. members on this side of the House have spoken, and I want now to ask the hon. members there to tell me what the Minister has really said. It boils down to this, that the Minister says he is in favour of bilingualism heart and soul, so long as it is not put into effect in practice. I have Stood up, however, because I have remarked from the beginning of this debate that motives have been ascribed to us on this side of the House. The hon. Afrikaansspeaking members on the other side who replied, used that argument. Unfortunately, the hon. member for Vryheid (Dr. Steen-kamp) also began to ascribe motives. There are however, also members on the other side who spoke against the amendment of the hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie). What was their argument? That it was impracticable; but exactly the same thing takes place on boards on which they sit, I think, for instance, of the Divisional Council at Stellenbosch. One of the members of this House is a member of that body, and what do they do there? The minutes are taken alternatively every month in English and in Afrikaans. That is exactly what we are proposing now. Let us go further. I have here in my hands the policy that was accepted by the other side of the House, and the Minister is a member of the Government and is consequently jointly responsible for the laying down of that policy. We think back to the debate on bilingualism, and now I have here in my hands an extract from a letter from the Department of Education dated 24th January, 1945, and therein the policy is defined what that side of the House has now accepted to carry out, their policy of bilingualism. I ask whether this is not precisely the policy that is contained in the proposal of the hon. member for Gordonia. The principal is told that the alternative method must be applied in the schools in regard to the medium of instruction in trades. That is exactly what we are advocating, and then they say—

This is precisely what the hon. member has proposed for the country. Wednesday is then the medium for English, and so on, right through the year. The medium is changed every day. This is the proposal of the United Party, and whether we have motives or not, if the hon. members opposite have accepted a similar policy they may not vote against our proposals, motives or no motives, because this is the policy that they have laid down for the schools. If it is good enough for the education of the people it is good enough for the meetings of the committees that are being appointed. There are reasons why the Minister would not accept the proposal, his reasons. The one is that that side of the House will not carry out bilingualism in • practice. They may say what they like, but in practice they do not stand for bilingualism. When I was overseas, I endeavoured on several occasions at the university to state what we stood for as nationally-minded people, and one of the things that the British students overseas could never understand was why there should be an objection in South Africa to one having to learn a second language. The people in Great Britain would be all too pleased if they had to learn three or five or ten other languages, but here we have now two official languages, and when we urge that the principle of bilingualism should be applied, motives are ascribed to us. There are members on the other side of the House who feel as we do on this point. Why should we not mention their names and say that they feel as we do? Is it politics to say that those members feel as we do? If I feel as other hon. members on the other side, and they use my name and say that is so, does that become politics? No, the argument is simply employed as a smokescreen to hide certain things, to silence the truth and that is that the other side of the House do not want to carry out bilingualism in practice.

I should like to know from the Minister why Section 137 really appears in our constitution. It is now 35 years since it was incorporated, and today we still have to struggle to have bilingualism carried into effect. What is the object of this section in the constitution? Is it hyprocisy? Why is this section there if it is not being carried into effect? We approach the matter from this angle, that the public service and anyone who is appointed to the public service should be bilingual, unless it is unavoidable. It is the laxity of the Government in the past that has been the cause of our today still having to struggle with this sort of thing, and for objections being raised by the other side of the House when we want to maintain this. If the principle was protected at that time, we should no today, after the lapse of 40 years, be still struggling with it. The Minister is not prepared to protect bilingualism. Is it fair towards the Afrikaansspeaking people? And then we are accused of racialism. Why is it racialism? If there is racialism the other side are the cause, because they will not allow the language of the Afrikaans-speaking people to enjoy its rights. If they did justice to the Afrikaansspeaking people in every sphere we would not have these difficulties, which are the great cause of the differences that occur here. If that side of the House will only see to it that the Afrikaans-speaking people are treated in a just manner, that justice is done to them, many of the difficulties will disappear. What about the principle of 50-50? What about British fair play, about which we are always hearing?

The Committee divided:

Ayes—27:

Bekker, G. F. H.

Booysen, W. A.

Bremer K.

Brink, W. D.

Conradie, J. H.

Döhne, J. L. B.

Dönges T. E.

Grobler, D. C. S.

Klopper, H. J.

Le Roux, J. N.

Le Roux, S. P.

Louw, E. H.

Ludick, A. I.

Malan, D. F.

Mentz, F. E.

Nel, M. D. C. de W.

Olivier, P. J.

Stals, A. J.

Steyn, A.

Steyn, G. P.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Swanepoel, S. J.

Swart, C. R.

Warren, S. E.

Wilkens, J.

Tellers: P. O. Sauer and P. J. van Nierop.

Noes—51:

Abbott, C. B. M.

Abrahamson, H.

Acutt, F. H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Bawden, W.

Bekker, H. J.

Bell, R. E.

Bodenstein, H. A. S.

Bosman, J. C.

Bosman, L. P.

Bowker, T. B.

Burnside, D. C.

Carinus, J. G.

Christie, J.

Clark, C. W.

Conradie, J. M.

De Kock, P. H.

Derbyshire, J. G.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, A. C.

Faure, J. C.

Friedman B.

Gluckman, H.

Gray, T. P.

Hare W. D.

Hemming, G. K.

Henny, G. E. J.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Kentridge, M.

Latimer, A.

Neate, C.

Pieterse, E. P.

Prinsloo, W. B. J.

Robertson, R. B,

Russell, J. H.

Shearer, O. L.

Sonnenberg, M,

Stallard, C. F.

Steyn, C. F.

Sturrock, F. C.

Van der Byl, P.

Van der Merwe, H.

Van Onselen, W. S.

Warren, C. M.

Waterson, S. F.

Williams, H. J.

Tellers: G. A. Friend and W. B.

Humphreys.

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

On Clause 9.

I move as an amendment—

We felt that as the council would probably consist of seven people and not five, that three was not a sufficient number for a quorum, so I propose to make it four instead of three. The other amendment, is just a verbal one.

I move the amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper, page 302—

By the deletion of these words the chairman’s casting vote will be eliminated. I think that this is a matter of some importance. I for my part do not favour the chairman’s casting vote. I am aware that many articles of association and many bodies do provide a casting vote for the chairman, but here we have a small council with a quorum of four and very important matters to deliberate upon, and I feel that it would be wrong in a case like this to give the chairman a casting vote.

What happens if the voting is equal?

If the votes are equal the position is quite simple. It resolves itself into a stalemate, and no decision can be arrived at. In such circumstances I submit it would be wrong to reach a decision by the vote of one man. If the matter is of sufficient importance and there is a deadlock it is a simple thing for it to be referred to a meeting of the full council, at which a decision can be arrived at. I hope the Minister will consider this amendment rather seriously. I know the Federated Chambers of Industries attach a great deal of importance to this aspect, particularly because of the small number on this committee.

I do not feel very strongly on this point. It seems to me most unlikely that the board will ever have to vote at all. I cannot remember sitting on a board meeting where a vote had to be taken, and I think if they did adopt the unusual practice of coming to a vote and two members felt so strongly on the issue as to do that, it is inconceivable that the chairman would not say, we must have a meeting of the full council. If the Committee wants it deleted I have no strong feelings, and I should like to know what the other side has to say.

This is an unprecedented matter that is now before the House. Here we have a body called into existence and the chairman is to have no casting vote. What sort of procedure is this? If there is a quorum of four and the voting is two-two, if there is a clash of interests and the chairman has no casting vote, you are going to have an unheard of state of affairs. Here you have a body and you expect that the members will be people for whom you have respect, people who at least can form a judgment, and now you are going to lay down that the chairman will not be able to exercise a casting vote. That comes near to humiliation. When you appoint such a responsible body you must at least attach value to the judgment of the members and you must not create a ridiculous situation by stating that you are not prepared to assess their recommendations at their true value, that you are not prepared to allow the chairman a casting vote.

I feel that the hon. member for Ceres (Dr. Stals) has misunderstood the amendment. It is not that the chairman cannot have a vote—

It is the casting vote.

If the chairman has a casting vote it will mean that the chairman may have two votes.

He always has two.

We may have the position arising where there may be a very contentious matter to be decided, and that there is only present a quorum of four out of seven members, one of whom is elected chairman, that in that case a minority of two might carry a decision which a full meeting would not have arrived at. I think it is a perfectly reasonable request that the chairman should not have a casting vote in addition to his ordinary vote.

I do not understand what the difficulty is. It is a body comprised of seven members.

Four is a quorum.

If the matter should be so important and one or two members are not there, and the position should arise that the chairman exercises his casting vote, I assume that his casting vote would go to the side in favour of which he has not voted. That is what is usually done. When a chairman uses his casting vote he usually gives it to the side for which he refrained from voting. And in the last resort the Minister has the last word. That is the position, and I cannot understand what objection there can be to the chairman not having a casting vote. It may be if important matters are discussed, and no quorum is present, that it will be resolved to adjourn the meeting until there is a full muster of members. I think it would be improper to withhold a casting vote from the chairman. You are going to place him in a humiliating position. The chairman will not understand why this casting vote is being withheld in face of the general custom. I want to appeal to the Minister to retain these words. I cannot see that he should give in here simply because this request has been made to him. It seems to me it would be improper to do so.

I appreciate the attitude the Minister has taken up, and from what I can see all that the hon. Minister has said and what the members opposite have said goes to support the common-sense measure I am proposing, so that no objection can be created by leaving the chairman without a casting vote. The hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) approaches the matter as if a chairman invariably has a casting vote, but that is not so, and therefore I consider it important to delete the right of giving the chairman a casting vote. The chairman has his vote just as an ordinary member has his, and I am trying to avoid the position that where there is a deadlock, the chairman can then use his second vote to carry the matter through.

This is being carried too far. It now transpires what is behind it.

The amendment that the hon. member has proposed is nothing less than a motion of no confidence in the chairman that the Minister is going to appoint, and who apparently will be an official. This is a motion of no confidence in anticipation and an indication that the hon. member is afraid that that person will not be impartial. Seeing that we have already decided about the constitution of the board we should not in advance move a motion of no confidence in him. We cannot expect anything from this board if these people are not in a position to pass judgment over matters, and if they are not in a position to pass judgment we must give them an opportunity to do so. As the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) has indicated, it is a small body, and if the chairman has not got a casting vote the proceedings of the board may end in a deadlock. In this connection a motion of no confidence has been introduced in respect of the chairman whom the Minister is going to appoint, and who apparently is going to be an official. This is wrong.

Amendments proposed by the Minister of Economic Development put and agreed to and the amendment proposed by Mr. Bell put and negatived.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 11,

I wish to move the amendment standing in my name in line 51—

My object is that the Council shall not merely be able at its own pleasure to take the advice of committees that are representing industries, but that they shall appoint committees from nominees of industries so that matters affecting particular industries shall be discussed with the representative committees, whether they take their advice or not. I think that it will not weaken the position of the council to have before it the opinion and advice of the bodies.

I do not see any point in this amendment. You say the council shall establish committees, but that does not get you any further to say it specifically like that. It does not seem to make sense to say it like that, because no-one can say how many committes they require, or which particular one, and if we provide that the Council may establish committees, which they have done all along, and they have these technical committees, the Council will call on the technical experts who have been assisting it, and then if we say it may appoint such members as it deems fit, I think that is as far as we can reasonably go. I think that the amendments of the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) and myself can be left as they stand.

I sympathise with the hon. member’s idea, but I do not think the amendment is going to help him. He wants to alter the word “may” to “shall”. His objection apparently is that people will sit on this committee who have an interest in a particular question, and then they will pay regard to the interests of their pocket rather than to the interests of the country. His proposal cannot, however, eliminate his difficulty. It is a difficulty that we also have on this side; we must see to it that this board and the committees are placed in such a position that they will look after the interests of the country and not specific interests. I am afraid if we give the opportunity to people who are interested in certain products to decide about standards and marks, we may expect difficulty. They will look to their own interests and not to the interests of their country. But the amendment that the hon. member has proposed will not remedy that position.

Amendments put and negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

At 6.40 p.m. the Chairman stated that, in accordance with the Sessional Order adopted on the 25th January, 1945, and Standing Order No. 26 (1), he would report progress and ask leave to sit again.

House Resumed:

The Chairman reported progress and asked leave to sit again.

House to resume in Committee on 6th March.