In connection with Clause 13 I should like to move the amendment appearing in my name on the Order Paper—

Clause 13 (1) reads as follows—

As it reads here we notice that the Minister under clause (2) proclaims a certain area. The Minister already said that the word “may” in that case means “shall”. Once such an area has been proclaimed we feel that there should be no option, but that a Juvenile Affairs Board must be established. That is the chief aim of this legislation as far as juvenile workseekers are concerned. The establishment of a Juvenile Affairs Board in such an area is one of the essential aspects of the Bill and for that reason we propose that once an area has been proclaimed the establishment of a Juvenile Affairs Board should not be optional. It should be compulsory. I do hope the Minister will accept this amendment. Then we come to sub-section (5) of Clause 13 which reads—

In regard to a similar provision the Minister yesterday accepted an amendment of the same nature as the amendment which we now propose. We realise that in the opinion of the Minister officials are bilingual. There are, however, also officials in the public service who are not bilingual. It is obvious that the secretary must be bilingual because he will be dealing all day with guardians of juveniles and even with juveniles, who may not be bilingual. I take it the Minister will realise the necessity and therefore I shall not go further into the matter. I move my amendment as I indicated before and the clause will then read—

I do not think it is necessary to plead here that the secretary should be bilingual because that is self-evident. The Minister has accepted the principle and I hope that he will also accept these amendments.

I am afraid I cannot accept the hon. member’s first amendment, for the same reasons I advanced when the hon. member for Smithfield (Mr. Fouché) moved his amendments earlier. The question of “may” and “shall” has been discussed almost threadbare, and I take my stand precisely as I did before. Then the hon. member wants the words inserted after “area” “proclaimed under this Act.” What he means, if I understand him correctly, is that immediately the Act is promulgated then automatically these areas are proclaimed and the Juvenile Affairs Board is set up; is that the position my hon. friend takes up?

When you proclaim an area.

I do not proclaim an area. I merely state such an area is an area; I do not proclaim it in the sense that my friend has raised the question.

You must set up a juvenile affairs board then.

That follows as a matter of course, so it is not necessary to put a thing like that in the Act. But to show you as a result of having had a good night I am in an adjustable mood, prepared to meet you just as far as I possibly can; I am prepared to insert the words “who shall be bilingual” after “officer” in line 13, in accordance with the amendment that has been moved by the hon. member for Boshof (Mr. Serfontein). I see that there is something to be said for what the hon. member is contending, that there are some officers, not in my department, but in the public service, who are not actually bilingual. My hon. friend will, however, accept my assurance that even if he did not have these words inserted here I would not appoint anyone but a bilingual officer. However, to make assurance doubly sure, I shall accept that amendment. But I reject the others.

The Minister said that he had had a good night and that for that reason he is prepared to accept one of these amendments. I am inclined to say that perhaps we should again keep him busy all day and if thereafter he has another good night he may be prepared to accept more amendments so that this Bill may become a sound legislative matter. I do not want to keep the House. I only want to say that yesterday the impression was created here that we on this side by an amendment we proposed in regard to separateness, wanted to abolish juvenile affairs boards for natives or non-Europeans. That is not the case. We on this side believe that juvenile affairs boards are very necessary. This amendment even puts it more strongly that we want to have a juvenile affairs board in every area which is proclaimed under the Act. We consider the functions of the juvenile affairs board to be of the utmost importance and for that reason we want to make it compulsory that a juvenile affairs board be appointed in every such area, a juvenile affairs board for Europeans and a juvenile affairs board for non-Europeans, where this is possible, but not a mixed juvenile affairs board. I furthermore want to say that we are glad that the Minister has accepted the principle that the officer to be appointed as secretary shall be bilingual. That is a principle which we have always advocated and we are glad that he accepts it.

Amendment proposed by Mr. Fouché in line 13 put and agreed to and remaining amendments put and negatived.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to On Clause 14.

I should like to invite the attention of the Minister to Clause 14 (1). It is so important that to support my argument I should like to read out—

1. (a) one-third shall be nominated by such organisations as the Minister may deem qualified to represent the interests of employers;
2. (b) one-third shall be nominated by such organisations as the Minister may deem qualified to represent the interests of employees; and
3. (c) one-third shall be nominated by such organisations as the Minister may deem qualified to represent educational and social interests.

Now it is of exceptional importance to us to have from the Minister a clear expression of opinion as to what the composition of this board will be. Juvenile Affairs Boards will be appointed for three sections of the community, in the first place for Europeans, then for coloureds and then for natives. Now I should like to have an expression of the Minister’s views on whether we can assume in constituting such a Juvenile Affairs Board—and I hope he will meet us—that the Minister will so contrive that Europeans and non-Europeans will not have to serve on the same board. The Minister does appreciate that this is a matter we have frequently discussed in this House. We should be glad to learn the Minister’s intentions before we go more deeply into the matter. Then we come to the proviso which reads as follows—

I have given notice of the following amendments, but I do not want to move them before I have learned the Minister’s view. Those amendments are as follows—

The effect of this amendment will be this, that the composition of this board will be left less to the discretion of the Minister than is the case under the present clause. In the clause as it stands here if an organisation does not make a recommendation within the period specified or if there is no organisation which in his opinion is qualfied to do this, the Minister may appoint these persons. He can in his judgment eliminate the organisation and appoint representatives who are not exactly representatives of these organisations, and that is why I gave notice of these amendments. The Minister will then have sufficient power. It will be this, that if an organisation neglects to nominate a representative within the specified time that is mentioned the Minister may appoint such persons as in his opinion will be able to represent those interests without the Minister having the right to set about it of his own volition. In this clause the Minister takes the power to throw over the relationship between the representation in respect of the various organisations. There is reference here to one-third, one-third and one-third. The Minister has, for instance, the power to vary the proportion between (b) and (c). For example, he can say that half the members must be appointed as indicated under sub-clause (a), and under (b) and (c) each will then get a fourth. There can be a variation of the proportions laid down there, and in my opinion the proviso makes the clause quite ineffective. For that reason I have proposed the amendment, and I shall be glad to have a clear statement from the Minister. In regard to the first part of the amendment I shall await what the Minister has to say in connection with the composition of the boards.

First of all the hon. member wants an assurance as to the racial composition of the Boards. There will be no intermingling of the races. In other words, the European Board will be a European Board and the Native Board will be a Native Board, etc. That is clear, as clear as crystal. Now, with regard to the strictures which the hon. member passed on me in a left-handed way—he does not trust me apparently to have the powers that are sought to be taken in this clause.

He is not sure of your successor.

You are aspiring to become the Government.

You are so old that another man may take your place before that.

It is the same thing you have in all the other labour legislation. Hon. members must remember that the Minister must preserve the relationship between (a) and (b), and it is necessary for the Minister to have the power to deal with social interests, because we may not be able to get it. But as far as possible we will always preserve the ratio of one to three, one-third each. But I cannot accept the amendment of the hon. member for the reasons I have stated.

If the Minister wants the right to change my question why does he not put it in such a way that the strength of the representation shall not be altered. As far as (a) is concerned, the Minister cannot alter the total numbers or at any rate the ratio of the totals, but he can alter the totals in (b) and (c). I shall be glad if the Minister will make clear what authority he has in connection with a change in the proportion between (a), (b) and (c). I now move—

I do not quite follow the hon. member. The Minister will have no power to deal with the relationship of (a) and (b) in point of practice as it is now. The only variation will lie in the members and that is necessary because we find that these bodies are not sufficiently interested. Social Welfare bodies may not be sufficiently interested to send along their representatives, and we must have the power to vary it in some way or other in order to get the thing going.

The Minister has explained the position, but suppose you have a Minister who is not well disposed towards the employees he will be in a position to reduce the number of employees’ members. He can do this by reducing the numbers under (a) and (b) to such a degree and increasing the number in (c) to such an extent that the employees will then be in a hopeless minority in their own organisation. I see the danger in this, that as the Minister can reduce the numbers at his discretion, the Minister as it now stands will allow the employees to be worsted because he can go and at his discretion reduce the numbers under (a) and (b) and under (c) so enlarge the number that the employees will no longer have a say in their own board. I do not know whether the Minister grasps that entirely, but that is the danger I see.

For the sake of clarity, I would like to put it this way. Here we have three groups, (a) the employers, (b) employees, and (c), representatives of social organisations. The important people are the employers and the employees. Now under the proviso as it at present stands, the Minister can state that half of the board must be comprised of (c), a fourth out of (a) and a fourth out of (b). All that he has not power to do is to give more to (a) than to (b).

Our difficulty usually is to get enough of the (c) people.

The position is that in my opinion the Minister has too much power to vary the proportions so that the interests of the employers and the interests of the employees are not properly represented. I shall therefore be glad if the Minister would direct his attention to this.

I will accept it, if you care to move it, making it obligatory for one-third of the Board at least to be workers’ representatives. We will draft that for the Report Stage.

I just want to add one word about this assurance that the Minister has given. I do not wish to raise the question of intermingling of these members, of different sections of the population. I am opposed to social intermingling, but I can visualise that as far as the Juvenile Affairs Board is concerned there may be, and probably will be, cases of outstandingly able representatives of the non-European section of the trade unions who will be of the utmost value to the Juvenile Affairs Board, and surely there should be some machinery for seeing that the services of these people shall be utilised.

To save confusion we will do it in the Report Stage so that it may be drafted properly. But the assurance is given that that amendment will be moved, to give at least one-third representation for the employees, not the employers.

For both.

May I please have a little enlightenment from the Minister. He has now stated that he will accept the amendment making it obligatory that one-third of the members will represent the employees.

At least a third.

But now the position is this that the ratio between the employers and the employees can be varied.

It remains the same.

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

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

On Cluase 15,

Sub-clause (2) of Clause 15 reads—

In this connection I should now like to move an amendment standing in the name of the hon. member for Brits (Mr. Potgieter)—

We should like to retain the right of request by the organisations. We ask what the value of such a request by an organisation is if the Minister, of his own accord, can veto it. As the position is, such an organisation may make a request on very good grounds, but the Minister may simply refuse it of his own accord. This can lead to abuse and the Minister can completely destroy the value of a request by the nominating organisation for the appointment of a member.

It is necessary for the Minister to have this power. He must have the right to terminate the membership of any particular individual, whether representing an organisation or having been appointed on the Board by the Minister himself. Of course, in the latter case the member will agree that it is inevitable that the Minister should have the power to withdraw his own nominations at any time. But there sometimes comes a conflict between an organisation and the Minister on moral grounds. A man or a woman may be an excellent representative on the economic side of a particular organisation. Take a trade union, for example. But it may happen that the moral character of that individual is not too good, and the association of that person with others is not in the best interests of the juveniles concerned. We have had that experience, not with trade unions but with others, and I think the hon. member had better accept the position that the Minister should be allowed to terminate the membership of anyone.

I should like to make an appeal to the Minister. I am sorry I had not the opportunity to speak first, because if the Minister once decides not to accept a thing it is difficult to get him to understand what the objections to that are. It appears to me the position is that various organisations nominate members to such a board and the Minister appoints them. He can, of course, choose whom he wishes, but it appears to me that the powers the Minister takes here are more drastic than those of a dictator. The juvenile affairs boards have done very excellent work despite the opinion that some people hold about them. The provisions here are just the same as those that were adopted in the Act of 1921 under which juvenile affairs boards were appointed. The wording is just a little different and the procedure is different. Where matters were arranged by regulation they are now laid down in the Act. But the Minister’s powers are very great in regard to his being able to say that he does not agree to the appointment of a member and therefore he must go and someone else is put in his place who will be pliant enough to carry out the Minister’s wishes. What are you doing then to the juvenile affairs boards? I cannot understand why the Minister is insisting on this. A strong man may be sitting on the juvenile affairs board who is not at one with the Minister, then the Minister can swing round and say that he can discharge him and appoint in his place another member who will comply with his wishes. The Minister will then have all the power in his hands. If the juvenile affairs boards have to do just as the Minister wishes you will be setting up the position you had in connection with control boards. They had virtually no say. They make proposals and the Minister does what he wants to. He acquiesces or refuses, just as he wishes. Now the Minister wants the right, as far as juvenile affairs boards are concerned, to cancel the appointment of a member who does not fall in with his wishes and put someone else in his place. The members of the juvenile affairs boards are not paid officials, and they do the work because they have sympathy for the poor people. Now the Minister comes along and places the members under the apprehension that if they are not docile and do as he wishes they will have to get out. I think this is a humiliating position in which to place the members, that they should have to act as the Mnister or the Department required, or be kicked out. In these circumstances I doubt whether he will have very desirable people serving on his juvenile affairs boards. The juvenile affairs boards have done exceptionally good work, but now can you expect a man of intelligence and independent judgment to serve on such boards? If these were paid officials in the service of the Government, they would be able to say what line an official should take, but here you have independent men who are making a sacrifice in order to serve on the boards. There is considerable work attached to it, and they are not going to be tied down to do what the Minister prescribes. The Minister desires to have the co-operation of the public. That is necessary. We have had too many political appointments on boards and the result has been a great waste, because the members have to share the political opinions of the Minister concerned. Otherwise they will be kicked out. The Minister knows what the results have been. I have seen it, for instance, in my own village with the rent board. I do not think the Minister would be able to find weaker people than he has selected. You see the same thing in connection with other boards. You do not get proper people to serve on them when they have to do just what the Minister wants them to do and I want to point out to the Minister that he will not always remain in power. The Government to which he belongs will not always be in power. Other Ministers will come along with different opinions and you cannot expect that you will get decent people to serve on a board when they have to change their feelings or their politics to suit the opinions of the Minister. I can understand there may be individual cases of undesirable persons on juvenile affairs boards, but it is the Minister who appoints them and should he be convinced that a mistake has been made in regard to a member he can take action. By giving one person marching orders he does not cause a change in the opinions of the entire board. On the contrary, he will get the other members up against him and co-operation between the Department and juvenile affairs boards will thereby be impaired. If a member has misbehaved himself in a moral sense then it is very easy for the Minister to communicate with the parties who have nominated him and they can withdraw the nomination. There is therefore another course open to the Minister to enable him not to retain such an individual on the juvenile affairs board, but to say here that the Minister can state of his own accord that he objects to a person and that consequently his going to get rid of them will mean that he is going to destroy the good work of thè juvenile affairs board, and he will not get the right sort of people to do the work. The Minister cannot expect it. If the Minister is stubborn and will not listen to good advice he will simply have to go his own way. But he will be responsible for the consequences.

The Minister when he is piloting this Bill through the House should always bear in mind that he must retain the goodwill of the public, and if the Minister desires to have the co-operation of the public he should not incessantly hold a kind of sword over the heads of the members of the Juvenile Affairs Boards and say: “If you do not mach in step with me I will kick you out.” We have heard a good deal of late in regard to the Nazi germs still being amongst us. Here is the Nazi germ. The Minister still has the Nazi germ in his legislation. It is peculiar that he has been infected in such a way by this germ. He wants to act the big man over these organisations. He asks them to send representatives to serve on the juvenile affairs boards, but he adds to that that if these representatives do not behave as he would like them to he will kick them out. The Minister gives two reasons for this authority. The individual whom he appoints of his own accord may do just as he pleases. But when an organisation requests to nominate someone and such a person is appointed, the Minister can come and say that he will have nothing to do with it. It may be a personal matter between the Minister and such a representative. If there is really anything wrong with such a person the Minister ought to complain to the organisation. If it is a matter of immoral conduct the organisation concerned would be only too eager to take immediate steps to discharge such a person. The Minister now wants to be altogether heroic. The Nazi germ has infected him. This legislation is not in conformity with our democratic system, and it runs counter to our conception of democracy on this side of the House. If the Minister has good grounds why an individual should not serve on the School Board he can request the organisation to take steps, he can tell them that he is not pleased with this person on the juvenile affairs board and they can then withdraw him and appoint someone else in his stead. But there is a further matter. The Minister wants the co-operation of the public, of those who take an interest in the youth of the nation, and who do not receive any remuneration for their services; but if the Minister places these people in the humiliating position that he can deal with them as he likes, he will destroy the good work of the juvenile affairs board. There is still such a thing as independence of mind and judgment. I hope the Minister will accept the amendment.

I trust the Minister will regard this matter from a practical angle. The juvenile affairs board is comprised of nine persons, and if according to the Minister’s argument there is one of the nine who, on moral grounds, should not be a member, he wants to have the right to suspend such a person of his own accord. But supposing the Minister wants to suspend a person and the eight members ask him not to suspend such a person, what is going to be the position? Then we have the reverse case of the eight persons being against the member being suspended. What will the Minister do then? The clause says that the Minister at the request of the organisation can cancel the appointment of any member. Now we have the reverse case. What is he going to do? I think that in practice the Minister will be landed in an impossible position and that he will lose the goodwill of the members of the juvenile affairs board. These members are functioning in an honorary capacity and the persons you obtain to serve on these boards are inspired with the best motives, but the Minister should be careful not to place them in an impossible position. We should like to see this legislation functioning well, and consequently we are anxious that he should take these points into consideration. Everything depends on the goodwill of the people who have to do the work, and if the Minister suspends a member against the wishes of the other members the juvenile affairs board concerned will really then amount to nothing. You can accept that the majority of the members on the juvenile affairs board will be individuals of high moral character, and the Minister still has control in that he has to approve the appointments. If out of the nine there are seven or eight persons of high character, then they will, of their own volition, get rid of a person who is immoral, for the good working of the board, by asking the Minister to suspend the member. The majority of the board will act on their own initiative in such a case, in the public interest, and press for the suspension of such an individual. Should anything of the sort occur, the Minister will have a request from that body and if he complies with their request for suspension he will retain the goodwill of that organisation. I want to ask the Minister in view of these facts to reconsider his decision. He has in the last resort, after all, the power of appointment. He appoints them and I do not know why he wishes to have in this clause this extraordinary power which can be abused, and it can be misapplied for ends that will not have a favourable effect on the administration of the Act.

The clause makes no reference to immorality.

The Minister can use this for political ends. The Minister can come and say that of his own accord he is going to suspend a certain individual, such an individual being a protagonist of a political movement in strong opposition to the Minister’s party. As I have said before, he can apply this for political ends, and I consider this creates a dangerous position, and the Minister must realise this and he must accept the deletion of these few words. After all, he has still the control and he will retain the control, and if he does this he will retain the goodwill of that organisation.

How can politics enter into it?

It has in other boards.

These boards are all comprised of voluntary workers. There is no attraction for them in the way of money or advancement. How on earth can you bring in political pressure, or what is the urge to bring political pressure on a body such as this? I hope the hon. member will forgive me when I say that his argument does not hold water, but the hon. member for Boshof (Mr. Serfontein) has himself supplied the argument for the retention of this, though he tried to argue against it. He said, Supposing a Minister for good cause decides on the dismissal of a particular member of the Juvenile Affairs Board, one member of the nine, and the other eight urge the Minister not to dismiss him? In that case, of course, the Minister would take a great deal of notice of the urging of the balance. But let us reverse it. Suppose the one member has made himself disagreeable to the eight, suppose the eight want him dismissed, what is going to happen if he agrees with the eight?

The Minister may do so at the request of the committee.

No, only at the request of the organisation.

In the clause it says you may dismiss him at the request of the committee, that means the majority.

But the Minister may refuse to dismiss him under certain circumstances. You must give the power to the Minister one way or the other. The power was in the 1918 Act land no reference has ever been made to an abuse of that power under that Act.

Can you tell us of any use that was made of it?

No, it was only used in an extreme case. But this is a juvenile affairs board, and you have to be mighty careful how the youths are treated. I am stressing the point of view of immorality because cases have occurred—my friend raised the point—where a member can quite adequately represent their interests, apart from anything else. Then the Minister must have the power. This is advisory and not executive. Now are you going to keep it up?

The Minister says that he was given the power in the old Act to cancel the appointment.

Yes.

In Section 1 (4) of Act No. 33 of 1921 it states—

There is no mention of unsuitability in this present clause. It states—

He may cancel it after consultation with the organisation or the association.

Is the Minister prepared to insert that?

Do not keep on playing with the Bill. If you are going to hold it up, say so.

If the Minister adds those words I shall be satisfied. Here the Minister does not state whan the reason is, whether it is immorality or anything else. If he wants to tell me that his Government has not made use of political followers on boards irrespective of whether they were suitable or not, but just because they were of his political persuasion ….

This is a juvenile affairs board.

I am not talking about the juvenile affairs board.

That is what the clause is about.

You drag politics into everything.

No, we are not Nats.

If the Nats, did this it would be in your interest that it should be stopped. You are making a law for many years and not only for the period while the United Party is in power.

I make you a present of the power.

In Act. No. 33 of 1921 it states that the appointment may be cancelled by the Minister after consultation with the association or organisation on the ground of the member’s unsuitability. If the Minister is prepared to include that I shall be satisfied. He cannot mention one instance to me from 1921 to 1945 in which they have removed or in which there was any necessity for removing a member from a juvenile affairs board. Now he wants to take this dictatorial power of allowing him to cancel the appointment for any reason. He says the man may be immoral. Well, let him put that in the Bill. I am prepared to accept an amendment to this section on the lines of Section 1 in Act 33 of 1921.

I am prepared to do that—in line 5 to delete ‘of his own accord”, and insert “after consultation with”. Will that suit you?

Yes.

Then I move—

I withdraw my amendment.

With leave of the Committee the amendment proposed by Mr. Serfontein was withdrawn.

I am very glad that the Minister has been so generous as to make this amendment, but nevertheless although I admit that half a loaf is better than no bread he is ignoring the question of the grounds on which they will take this action, namely on the ground of such person’s unsuitability. But if he will not accept this, I am satisfied to leave it at that; but they ought to do it because it gives them the right to object to any person who is nominated not merely on account of unsuitability, and if the Minister does this I shall be completely satisfied. I am afraid, however, that the Minister may think I want to hold up the House, but I should like to know from him if he is not prepared to insert this as well.

It conveys nothing, “on account of unsuitability”. I should have to be the judge of unsuitability.

Amendment proposed by the Minister of Labour put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 17,

In connection with the meetings of juvenile affairs boards I suggest that the Minister insert in this clause that the minimum number of meettings to be held should be four. I would suggest that in paragraph (2) an amendment should be made so that it would read—

My experience has been that the holding of meetings is governed by local conditions, and I understand that in some urban areas the meetings are held at very irregular intervals. I suggest it would be in the interests of juvenile affairs boards throughout the country that at least four meetings a year should be held, this would coincide with school terms.

Clause 17 (4) reads that the minutes of the proceedings of the meetings of the board shall be kept by the secretary. I should like to ask the Minister whether he is prepared to agree to the minutes being kept in both official languages. If he is not prepared to agree to this I propose to bring forward an amendment. We should also like to have all official documents in both official languages. The minutes and other documents of all meetings of all juvenile affairs boards should be prepared in both languages. Perhaps the Minister could first give us a reply.

I cannot accept the suggestion made by the hon. member for East London (North) (Mr.

Christopher). If a juvenile affairs board is so lacking in interest that it cannot meet four times a year we would disestablish it. There is no excuse for its existence as a board. In regard to the hon. member for Christiana (Mr. Brink) I would point out that if you take the countryside where the members of the board are Afrikaans-speaking and half of them cannot speak English ….

You hardly ever find that.

What does it matter?

Take the case of a board that might be wholly composed of English-speaking members. Would it not be a waste of time, a waste of paper, and a waste of effort to have the minutes in both languages all the time?

It is not only the members who are concerned but the general public.

The general public do not get the minutes, and they do not get papers.

In view of what the Minister has stated I should like to move an amendment reading as follows—

1. (6) All official documents shall be kept in both official languages.

I do not think the latter amendment applies to the minutes. It will be better to have a separate paragraph for that. The Minister has already intimated he is not prepared to accept that. We should like to point out to him that the fact of such matters being made obligatory has a very stimulating effect in inducing people to learn both languages. When one is compelled to learn both languages and to understand them it is a big incentive to make you learn these languages. If this is not the case you can always say that you can manage without the second language. This is one of the big difficulties we have had to cope with in the past and the reason why we have not got bilingualism. The party on the other side stands for equality of languages; we on this side stand for absolute bilingualism. We want to have complete bilingualism in every direction. I want to point out to the Minister that in connection with every Bill we shall propose that the principle of bilingualism must be carried into effect. This is the sixth occasion, so far as I know, on which this matter has come into the foreground, but it is the first time since the war in Europe is over that it has been proposed. There is no longer a danger of hindering the war effort by making bilingualism compulsory in connection with the proceedings of the board. I have in mind, for instance, the Minister’s interpreter. He is just as anxious as I am that the principle of bilingualism is carried out but he has always pleaded that there is a war on and he does not want to involve his Government in difficulties. Let him use his influence with the Minister now so that we will have this matter rectified. It is a very important matter. During the last General Élection in 1943 all the members on the Government side stated on one platform after the other that they wished to have bilingualism. Here we have a practical proposal. Will they vote for it?

We also want efficiency.

You are unilingual and you are not efficient.

Bilingualism is one of the most important factors in efficiency. The hon. member for Vryheid (Dr. Steenkamp) moved a bilingual clause in the Select Committee the other day and we accepted it. I now want to ask the hon. member to be consistent. I am glad to see he is present. I hope he will support this amendment that the minutes and the official documents shall be kept in both official languages. Durban, which is a unilingual town in a unilingual province, has adopted this practice. They have accepted that all documents and notices and publications should be in both languages. We have had this proposal by the hon. member for Vereeniging and it has been accepted by Durban, and now we come along and ask hon. members who spoke in favour of bilingualism on platform after platform during the General Election, to vote for this amendment. We have had difficulty in regard to the matter. We had it last year in respect of four Bills. I should like to mention them again. In the first place there was the Bill in connection with the employment of soldiers. There we had a clash with the Government. We were not offended by them, the war was still in progress, and they did not want to have difficulties among their own members. There are members on the opposite benches who are absolutely opposed to Afrikaans. The same thing happened in Connection with the Nursing Bill. Three members of the board appointed under the Nursing Act are absolutely unilingual. If the Minister had accepted that amendment from us this would not have happened. In the case of the Fishing Industry Bill we made the same proposal, and the Government would not accept it. We proposed it in the case of the Apprenticeship Bill, and it was rejected. We proposed it this year in connection with the Standards Bill and it was rejected by the Minister of Economic Development. I hope the Minister will accept these amendments. This morning he is in a very good mood. The war is over, there is no further danger that Germany will win if we are bilingual, and I shall be glad if the Minister will say this morning: The war is now over, we are now also going to have peace on the question of bilingualism and we are going to accept these amendments. Let them keep the minutes in both languages. If Durban can accept this why cannot we accept it?

The hon. member has stated an instance of the acceptance of bilingualism in the matter of keeping minutes of official documents—that Durban has done it. That is exactly what I want. Let them themselves decide to do it, and not enforce it upon them. Those are voluntary bodies. Surely they can be permitted to keep their minutes in any form they like. Leave it to them: do not force them. So I ask my hon. friend not to move the amendment.

The Minister has not yet given us a reply in connection with the second amendment that was proposed. The hon. member for Christinia (Mr. Brink) proposed a new Sub-clause (6) which prescribes that all official documents in connection with the work should be kept in both official languages. Is the Minister prepared to accept this?

I can see the difficulty in connection with keeping the minutes in both languages. There may be some difficulty in keeping the minutes in both languages. I can understand that may be the case, but I think the new Sub-clause (6) is necessary. It has already been accepted ih another Act. It is also for the benefit of the public. Any interested party can go along and ask to see the official documents, and this is a public document. Although these are the proceedings of a meeting comprised of benevolent organisations it is a public document, and I want to ask the Minister to accept that subclause. This includes all the other documents such as notices and the resolutions that they take from time to time which have to come to the notice of the public, and this ought to be in both languages.

There are no official documents at all issued by these boards. The only thing that concerns the boards is their own minutes, and they must decide what language they will be in.

I should like to point out to the Minister that he is misrepresenting the question of that Bill affecting Durban. The amendment was proposed by the Select Gommittee that that provision should be incorporated in the law and that is why Durban adopted it. It is not that they did it off their own bat and adopted this. Here we have a similar position. We want this to be inserted in the Bill and the Minister should follow the course that Durban did and accept it. I do not know whether the Minister follows it, but the point is entirely different to what he stated. The provision was first embodied in the law and subsequently Durban decided to accept it. We now wish to have it in the law and we want the Minister to be as generous as Durban and also put this in the Bill.

Amendments put and negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

On Clause 20,

I should like to refer to the amendment of the hon. member for Harrismith (Mr. E. R. Strauss) that appears on the Order Paper and which reads as follows—

Before I move this amendment I should like to have a clear statement from the Minister that there will be no mixing of Europeans and non-Europeans on the Juvenile Affairs Boards. We find in this clause the following provision—

Take a town like Graaff-Reinet where a Juvenile Affairs Board has been established for Europeans. It only deals with juvenile workseekers and it has only one register. But it may be no Juvenile Affairs Board for coloured workseekers has been established and that the European Juvenile Affairs Board has also to deal with coloured workseekers. In a case like that we want separate registers to be kept for European juvenile workseekers and nonEuropean juvenile workseekers respectively. The Minister may have cases where he does not see his way clear to establish separate Juvenile Affairs Boards for Europeans, coloureds and natives. We stand for the principle of separation, and where such a Juvenile Affairs Board is functioning for Europeans and non-Europeans we want separate registers and labour bureaux to be instituted for Europeans and non-Europeans. I shall be glad if the Minister will explain his attitude to us clearly before we proceed further.

I think such an amendment is absolutely unnecessary.

May I know from the Minister whether there will be such cases where the European Juvenile Affairs Board will also have to keep a register and a labour bureau for coloured people and natives? If there are such instances then we want separate registers and bureaux. This is a very reasonable question I have put to the Minister because we want to know how the boards will function in such cases, and I shall be glad to have a reply.

There will be no mixing of Europeans and non-Europeans.

Does the Minister give us the assurance that a European Juvenile Affairs Board will have nothing to do with non-Europeans?

We have already dealt with that matter under a previous clause.

I am putting a very reasonable question and I trust the Minister will give me a reply calmly and dispassionately. We have frequently dealt with the question, but it has not always been absolutely clear, and it was very proper to ask for clarity. Can he give me the assurance that a European Juvenile Affairs Board will have to deal solely with European juvenile workseekers? If not, if it will have to deal with non-European workseekers we want to have separate registration and separate bureaux.

It has already been clearly stated that separate registers will be kept.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 22,

I move—

I am beginning to fear that in almost every Act that is passed by this House in connection with industrial affairs we have to deal with suspicions. The ordinary rule of the common law is that a person is innocent until he is proved guilty. The onus of proof rests on the complainant to prove that the person is guilty and it does not rest on the defendant to prove his innocence. That rule is being transgressed on every occasion. We are here dealing with new legislation and it is also being done here in connection with the registration of unemployed. In connection with a new Bill like this we should like to have the co-operation of all and we should not violate the ordinary common law in this way. If a person is not registered and he is charged with not having registered it is necessary for the man who brings the accusation to prove that that person really falls within the scope of the Act. That would be the position under the common law. Now the Minister comes and he lays down—I accept that it will be difficult to prove, but it should only be done when it is impossible to prove something— that the onus of proof is placed on the accused to show he is innocent. Clause 22 contains the following provisions. It is a short clause and I shall read it out—

One of the things he has to prove is that he really is a workseeker. We must take into consideration that when the Crown brings a charge against an accused the Crown is not involved in any expense because it has its officials who draw their salaries in the ordinary way. But the accused person has to obtain advice and someone to represent him. This entails expense and he obtains no refund of those costs should he win his case. It may be a case with no grounds at all. But he is put to expense to get someone to represent him. He must prove in court that he is innocent. That does not seem right to me. There has been much discussion over this matter and it really appears to me that we are going too far and that we are abandoning a system that has been built up through the centuries. It is not right that such things should be done. I only want to say this, and to say it emphatically. I do not want to propose an amendment. The Minister should think a little further ahead when he places such clauses in the Bill. We must not take up the attitude that we want to land people in difficulties. This is a new Bill and we must try to get the co-operation of people. If we do not get that co-operation the whole thing may possibly end in failure. We must remember that the person who is summoned has no right to costs if he is wrongly summoned. We know that the Crown can summon persons through the magistrate to give statements beforehand so that he may judge whether he has a case or not. If this sort of procedure is followed it will only lead to slovenliness in the work and to the summoning of people without good reason. I believe we are going rather too far with this sort of legislation. If we want to take over the French system under which every man is guilty until he has proved his innocence we must tell the country frankly, but I doubt whether the country would accept such a system. We should be careful not to introduce alterations to the principles of our common law in such a way as this.

I am like the hon. member. I am very nervous of making any person a criminal in the anticipation that he has to prove that he is not a criminal; but I can see no other way to get over this question at all, and it is very easy, in this case at all events, for a man to prove that he is not a workseeker, if he is not one. If he has an income or has rich parents with whom he lives, it is easy for him to prove it. My hon. friend, as a lawyer, must see that. It is practically impossible to prove it in any other way. He can rely upon it that we shall deal with this matter very sympathetically in the administration of the Act.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 24,

I move the amendment standing in my name on page 683 of the Order Paper—

This is the clause dealing with sanctions, and I want to raise the point that from a Bill such as this the alternative of imprisonment should be entirely eliminated. Imprisonment is regarded generally as being associated with crimes or grave offences. This Bill provides that if a man out of employment fails to register within a certain period he may, on prosecution and conviction, have to pay a fine or be imprisoned in default of payment.

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

When we adjourned I was endeavouring to impress on the House the necessity of eliminating the punishment of imprisonment from the penalty in this clause. The offences referred to cannot in any sense be regarded as crimes. Secondly, who are the potential offenders? Mainly they will come from the poorer section of the people who are out of employment, or in employment but not connected with the trade unions; in other words, the unorganised workers. I mention that because provision is made in Clause 4 of the Bill for the exemption of members of trade unions from the penalties in this Bill, but the unskilled and unorganised worker would be subject to the punishment of imprisonment if be were unable to pay the fine. The organised worker would fall to be dealt with in accordance with the rules of his trade union. In regard to the general principle I think it is time that the House called a halt to the imposition of imprisonment as an alternative form of punishment for minor statutory offences. We discussed the broad principle in connection with the motion that was before the House in March, and I do not wish to labour that just now, except to say this amendment is consistent with the feeling expressed by the House on the subject; and as our law is not like that of the “Medes and Persians” I think the time has arrived for some modification to be made in it. We do not welcome the consideration that poverty should impose an increased handicap—to say the least—when a man is unable to pay the prescribed fine, that because of that he should be sent to prison. I quite agree that the purpose of this Act will not be fulfilled unless there is a penalty clause, unless there is a means of inducing, or doing something more than inducing, those concerned to comply with the provisions of the Bill. I have no desire to weaken the Act but to assist in the fulfilment of its purpose. If we make no provision at all for imprisonment it will be left to the magistrate to issue a writ and to enable payment of the fine to be made by means of the sale of the man’s property. I have endeavoured, with the assistance of men who are experts, to make provision that in no case shall this particular offender be placed in a worse condition than would a debtor under the civil law. I hope the Minister will agree to the alternative form of punishment, imprisonment, being entirely eliminated.

I must admit that this clause containing the penalties has made me feel very unhappy, and I have not the slightest hesitation in according my strong support to the amendment. In the past we have often had cases where people have been sent to gaol though they have not really been criminals, and while they have been in gaol they have been converted into criminals. We are dealing here with persons who are not really criminals. The infringements are so small that we cannot think of sending such people to gaol, where they may perhaps lose their self-respect and become maladjusted in life. I am grateful for the amendment, and I hope the Minister will accept it.

I support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Roodepoort (Mr. Allen). I think it is very desirable that as far as possible where we are dealing with ordinary statutory offences which really do not constitute a crime in the generally accepted sense of the term the sending of people to gaol should be done away with, and in this instance there is the consideration that the man who fails to register will generally be punishing himself because his omission will lead to difficulties later on in him securing employment. If he registers he will have greater opportunities for securing employment, so indirectly he will be punishing himself. I do realise that it is desirable for workseekers to be registered and it seems to me that the provision under which the magistrate can take all the necessary steps to recover the amount of the fine will be adequate in the circumstances. The fine plus the man’s failure to register should have the desired effect. I am not so much concerned about the application of this to the other sections. I suggest that it be confined to Clause 24 in respect of workseekers.

I welcome the Intervention of all sides of the House, including my own, on this point. It has caused me great perturbation of spirit, as my hon. friend knows, that there should be an extreme form of punishment in respect of what is only an offence and not a crime. In other words we are making a criminal of a man who fails to do something and particularly it wrings my withers that it should be applied to the poor, unfortunate, penniless workman. It seems so ridiculous to say with regard to a fine, if you cannot afford to pay the fine you must automatically go to gaol. I am with my hon. friend there. In this country we are making criminals wholesale for the slightest of offences. Wrong, entirely wrong ! I know my hon. friend has very near to his heart not only prison reform but prevention, and he will find me if not a very able at least a very willing supporter in that respect. So it gives me very great pleasure indeed to accept the amendment that has been so eloquently advocated by all sides of the House.

Amendment proposed by Mr. Allen put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 26,

On this clause I gave notice of the following amendment—

This amendment has already occasioned considerable difficulty and I consulted the Minister about it. Its object is to confine registration under this Bill to Union nationals. The Minister will see that there have been two attempts to frame this amendment. First I gave notice of the amendment in another form.

May I point out to the hon. member that his amendment is tantamount to a new clause to follow Clause 26. I shall therefore have to put Clause 26.

Clause put and agreed to.

On new Clause to follow Clause 26,

On page 647 of the Order Paper I gave notice of the following amendment in lieu of the amendment to this clause printed on page 633, and it reads as follows—

There was difficulty about the amendment in that form and therefore I gave notice of a new Clause 27 which reads as follows—

This is not what I really intended, because the Minister cannot in this Bill lay down who should be appointed by the Public Service Commission should they want to appoint anyone. My amendment is really designed to make this Bill applicable to Union nationals, and the Minister can have no objection to that. This has nothing to do with the provision of employment but only with the fact that the State should concern itself with the registration of Union nationals and not of aliens. I may mention to the Minister that this principle has already been adopted in Act No. 40 of 1944, namely the Soldiers and War Workers Employment Act. Chapter 3 of that Act deals with the civil employment of soldiers and war workers and the general control of unemployment. Section 21 reads as follows—

This does not bind the State to engage people.

It affects the application of the Act. I shall not put this amendment and move another amendment as follows—

That is altogether too wide.

I do not see why the Minister cannot accept such an amendment. We want to know whether we are registering Union citizens. There could be a tremendous increase in the number of aliens in the country coming to register and who can take up the standpoint that they are obliged to register under the Act, and they will then compete for work with our Union citizens. By this amendment we only intend that this Bill—it has nothing to do with the provision of employment—will be made applicable to Union nationals. I therefore ask leave to withdraw the amendment notice of which was given on the Order Paper, and to propose the amendment which I have now indicated.

I should like to support the amendment of the hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie) and I want to refer the Minister to a similar provision in the Act regarding the employment of soldiers. The Minister will recall that in the Select Committee there was a very sharp difference of opinion on this question. I proposed that the Act should only be made applicable to Union nationals. We put it clearly from our side that we did not want our Union citizens to be in competition with foreigners when that Act was adopted. When that motion of mine came to the vote it was I ejected by the casting vote of the chairman, namely the Minister himself. We did not want our returned soldiers and war workers to be in competition with aliens when they returned to civil life. My proposal was rejected in the Select Committee by the casting vote of the Minister, but when we appeared before the House the House accepted my standpoint and the Minister then conceded that that measure would protect Union nationals against competition by aliens. Here we have to do with precisely the same thing, and I want again to put it clearly to the Minister we have here on the Statute Book an Act that obliges unemployed persons to register, but that registration also carries the implication that when employers are looking for a worker, whether it is a State or a private employer they can go to the labour office and there they will get the registration list of the workseekers. All we now want is that preference shall be given to Union nationals, and this is really the intention of this amendment. We want Union nationals to be registered on that list so that they will get the first chance when an employer is looking for workers. If this amendment is not adopted it means that aliens will also be placed on this list and they will be competing on an equal footing with Union nationals, both as regards the State and private employers. I think the Minister should give thorough consideration to the question. I hope he will agree with Us that we have drawn up a very strong plea for the protection of the Union national, and I do not believe there is a single member in this House who will venture to vote against the standpoint that Union nationals should be protected against the competition of foreigners. I ask the Minister to consider the matter and to see whether he cannot meet us as he did last year. We made an exception last year, and that was in the case of Hollanders who are not Union citizens, but who have been a long time in the Union, who have gone on war service and subsequently returned to the Union. We conceded that those persons can also be placed in employment by the State. We want, however, to exclude the competition of people who are foreign intruders in our country. Let the Minister also make a concession to us in this respect.

I could almost shout “Hurrah” three times at the Minister having made provision here for the State to be bound down. Listen to this clause.

Clause 26 has already been disposed of and the hon. member cannot discuss it now.

Then I shall do that at the third reading.

The hon. member’s amendment defeats is own object. All he wants to do is to see that Union nationals are registered. Let me assure both these hon. members who spoke that I do not take second place to them in the desire to give preference to Union nationals. Let us take that as read. Now let us see whether he attains his object in doing this. In the first place his amendment originated with his desire to see that the State only employs Union nationals. Now, if we do not register those who are not Union nationals and who are unemployed there is nothing to prevent the State from employing them.

According to you, yes.

No, that is so, but with his amendment he causes us as a State and the Labour Department as a Department never to get a grip, if there is a possibility of getting a grip on these non-Union nationals. He debars us from getting a grip on them. We do not know them. They roam about the country free and uncontrolled. We cannot get control of them. There is nothing in the amendment which prevents them from getting employment over the Union national. Nothing is obtained, except this negative result, that we will not know anything about these people because they are unregistered. I cannot accept it.

It is curious for the Minister to come here and say that we cannot trace the aliens. Aliens enter the country under our immigration law and the State know who they are. It is not that the State is ignorant of their identity. What we want is that registration should only be made applicable to Union citizens. But accepting what the Minister has stated I would nevertheless like to ask him whether he would be prepared to let the register show clearly who are aliens and who not.

That is an excellent idea.

Will the Minister make such an amendment.

It can be done under the regulations.

No, I undertake to move such an amendment.

I am glad the Minister is not accepting the amendment although I must say that he was particularly generous in his interpretation of the amendment. I want to say to the hon. member for Boshof (Mr. Serfontein) that I am by no means certain whether his anxiety is to secure employment for the Union national or to keep one of the lawful residents in the Union, who on account of the difficulties in the way of naturalisation is not entitled to register, out of work. That would apply to British subjects, Hollanders, etc. I say that every person who is a lawful resident in the Union is entitled to the fullest opportunity of getting employment where employment is available. I realise, and I have said it repeatedly, that our first duty is to see that the Union national secures employment, but I fail to see why we who pose as a free country, who are posing as a people who are anxious’ to develop South Africa, should lay down a principle, a hopeless principle, a reactionary and discriminatory principle, which will give you no benefit whatever and by which you will accept the idea that a person who is lawfully resident in the Union but through probably no fault of his own has not yet been able to secure letters of naturalisation, should be precluded from acquiring employment. I hope that the country will realise that our friends over there, in spite of their protestations, are still imbued with Nazi principles.

If there was any doubt it has now been cleared up. The hon. member who has just resumed his seat (Mr. Kentridge) delivered a real Jerusalem argument. He can give his Jerusalem argument but we on this side may not argue for the sons and daughters of South Africa. We may not plead for South Africa first and for her own children. He is not one of South Africa’s children and it will not worry me if he goes home.

My children were bom here.

I am prepared to help pay for his ticket if he wants to go home. But I want to return to the Minister of Labour—from Jerusalem to South Africa. I want to say this to the Minister, that his objection is that if we accept the amendment we shall wreck our own object in moving the amendment. That’ is not so. There is legislation which enables control to be exercised over foreigners. You have the Immigration Act and also the Aliens Act. If those Acts are not effective for the control of foreigners we should amend them to make them effective as far as it is possible to do so. We are asking here for protection of Union nationals, and I cannot see that there can be anyone who dares say that he has love for South Africa, that he is true and loyal towards South Africa, and who then objects to the inclusion of a clause such as this. I have made it very clear that we want to provide work for our own people.

These are your Nuremberg laws.

I sincerely hope that that hon. member has acquired more wisdom. But I cannot listen to what he has to say. I think his speech today would have made a very good impression in Jerusalem. He ought to go and deliver it there. But I want to say to the Minister that we are coming here with an unimpeachable motive to protect our own people, which will be the more necessary in the light of our experience of post-war conditions. After the first Great War we had a state of unemployment and we may experience the same thing again. We must make provision for employment for our own people, and we shall first have to care for our own people and not allow foreigners to take their places. I do not see how the Minister can contradict such a proposition. This is all that we contemplate. At the second reading of this Bill we put the important principle that the State must accept responsibility for provision of employment. We then moved an amendment which was rejected. Now we are making this plea that where the State or private employers are providing work preference must be given to our people. Why should we allow people to come in from beyond our borders and put them in a position to compete with our own citizens who are unemployed? The Minister cannot escape from it that this is the meaning of our amendment. If the Bill is adopted as it stands here the employer will go to the bureau and he will be shown a list of unemployed whereunder the foreigner will compete on an equal footing with our own people. We cannot allow this. We have consistently helped the Minister to place sound legislation on the Statute Book. The Minister nods in agreement. We have now the same incentive, and I want to ask the Minister to accept this amendment. He must look to the interests of our own country. The hon. member for Troyeville is not looking to the interests of our country. His plea is just for the foreigner who comes here, and that is not a standpoint we dare adopt.

I want cordially to support this amendment because it is extremely important that we should protect our own unemployed. This amendment is in conformity with the Christian outlook and it is adopted in European countries. Even in England that principle is maintained in conjunction with the immigration laws, and although it does not appear on the Statute Book in Jerusalem I want to point out to the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) that this is the principle that is also recognised there. It is no new principle but it is a principle which is recognised in the general interest of the country, and accordingly I give it my hearty support.

I should like the Minister to give his reasons for his not being able to accept this amendment.

I have already given them.

These were no reasons. We want preference to be given to South African nationals. We do not worry about the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) in regard to his conception of this matter. He is only sitting here to benefit the foreigners, but his race are fortunately disappearing. We look to the future and we want to make certain that that registration will place our own sons and daughters on the list so that the employers will be able to know where to find our sons and daughters in order to take them into their service. In that way we can help to build up our country and our people and to assist the children of our own people to get employment. It is in the first place our duty to look after our own people and not the foreigners who come here from elsewhere. We do not want to create opportunities for employment for foreigners who will compete with our own people.

Why not?

The Minister of Labour has for many years played an honourable part in connection with labour in our country and also in regard to the protection of our own people. Why is the Minister now worrying about foreigners? In the Act of 1944 we adopted a provision that South African citizens would obtain preference in regard to employment. The same principle should be adopted here. We want to have a record for registration purposes, and accordingly I am asking the Minister to adopt this amendment because I feel convinced it will enable him to render a service to the workers of our own country. It may be that in the future there will be a big influx of a foreign elment who will come into our labour market and who will compete with our own people. We want to prevent this so that when the employer needs anyone he can go and look at the registration list and he can know that he will there find a Union national whom he can employ. I cannot understand how the Minister can refuse to accept such an amendment.

I should like to put a question to the Minister if his interpreter will listen to me for a moment. It is a very simple question and it is: If a foreigner, a person who is not a Union national, is placed on that list, will any employer who enters that office have the opportunity to choose foreigners just as he would choose Union nationals? This is the test.

Some of them fought for you.

That hon. member is so terribly concerned about returned soldiers ….

And they fought for you.

There is no bigger hater of the Jews in the country than the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Tothill). There is no man in this House who is a stronger anti-Semite than he. He should keep quiet.

That is untrue.

It does not help for him to deny that now.

And what about yourself.

I am not a hypocrite. I say clearly where I stand, but I maintain there is no stronger anti-Semite in this House than the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. The hon. member for Green Point (Mr. Bowen) is always so concerned about the returned soldiers. Here is an opportunity now to obtain work for them, but under this Bill as it is now before the House, the work may just as readily be given to the foreigner who arrived in this country the day before yesterday and who would then take the place of the returned soldier. These are the people who are now so solicitous for the returned soldiers. Now one detects the hypocrisy (skynheiligheid) of members on the other side, hypocrisy on the part of the hon. member for Green Point and also on the part of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout.

The hon. member must withdraw the word “skynheiligheid”; it is not Parliamentary to charge another member with hypocrisy.

I withdraw it, Mr. Chairman, on your ruling that it is unparliamentary,’ but if you will not allow that word then I say that today they have shown by their conduct that they are not honourable in their intention in respect of what they have professed. They do not mean it honourably. They are hypocritical (geveins).

On a point of order, is an hon. member allowed to describe another member of this House as hypocritical?

I did not hear that.

Unfortunately I did. I hope the hon. member will admit that he described us as hypocritical.

If an employer comes into the office ….

On a point of order, will the hon. member be prepared to admit that he applied the word “hypocritical” to us?

I have stated that I did not hear the hon. member employ that word.

On a point of order, I believe that hon. members did hear it and that if the hon. member is asked he will certainly admit it.

Did the hon. member use the word?

To help you, the translation is “insincere”. I do not know whether ….

It has been ruled that the word “hypocrisy” (geveinsheid) may not be used by hon. members.

Then I withdraw that and I say that they did not intend it honourably in their politics. This is worse even than “hypocritical” (geveins). Neither the hon. member for Green Point nor the hon. member for Bezuidenhout are honourable in their political intentions. The Minister should now please tell me whether this is, as I have stated, that when an employer comes into the office he has the free right to choose between a person who is a Union citizen and one who is not a Union citizen.

I do not know why the hon. member should be so excited. We are only asking that aliens should be registered, and the fact is that aliens are registered today.

Will you run round to find if a man is registered before you employ him?

I did not say that; I said if you wished to find out you could do so. Why there is this bother about the registration of aliens I do not know. There will be a large number of English-speaking men from England who have married South African girls and they will become Union nationals after two years. Some of these men may be unemployed. Do hon. members want to keep them off the register? There are 2,000 young English airmen that we know of; I do not think they will all remain in the country. [Interruptions.] Let me make my own speech. I want to ask the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) ….

I will answer the question.

I will ask the hon. member in all humility, will the hon. member with his great heart and with his great experience say that a man who has married his daughter or anybody else’s daughter, some nice girl, and who lives in this country, and who can only become a Union national in two years’ time, will he say that if that man has not got work he must not be registered.

I say, as the Minister of the Interior says, that our own people and our own returned soldiers should receive preference before those members of the R.A.F.

The hon. member is now splitting hairs.

He is splitting your head.

When it comes to a question of employment members of the Government side of the House employ far more Afrikaners than members opposite. If you took a census today you would find we are the employers of labour. I have always taken up the line myself that if you are going to employ a man in South Africa you must first employ your own people.

That is the purpose of the Bill.

Hon. members are talking about the old Nationalist idea, that no man has any right in this country unless he has been here for 100 years. I hope the Minister will take up this definite line that every man in South Africa who is unemployed, no matter how long he has been here, no matter what his nationality is, shall be placed on the register. That is the feeling of the majority of South Africans.

No.

I believe it is so even in South-West Africa. If it had not been we would not have won all these seats. We as a Party are going to stand by our allies.

For aliens?

Yes, who fought for us. We cannot stand up for your allies because they are dead. We are going to stand by our allies. Do you mean to say that if a Pole or a Russian comes to this country, or even if an Italian comes to this country, we should not allow them to be registered? We shall, and what is more, we are going to employ them and we hope they will come here in their thousands and tens of thousands.

A fresh light has been thrown on the subject not so much by what the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) has said but in consequence of the fact that a large number of members on the opposite benches have cheered his statement. It is very clear that the hon. member for Hospital and those who cheer him proceed from the standpoint that the unemployed in the country, whether they are Union citizens or not must be treated alike. It is very clear. Now we know where we stand.

A great success.

Many hon. members consequently proceed from the standpoint that the unemployed, whether they are Union citizens or not should receive equality of treatment.

That is not true.

Oh yes, you should not run away now.

That is untrue.

The hon. member for Hospital should not again reveal his old adroitness in yielding and running away from every position he has taken up as soon as it is under fire. The hon. member for Hospital cited instances. He even spoke in a superlative degree of thousands of members of the allied forces who are not Union nationals, Poles or Russians or Italians, and he asked whether we wanted these people to be able to get work.

Yes, that is correct.

He now desires that if there is unemployment in the country those people and our own Union nationals should be treated on an equal footing.

You have again said what is not true.

If a man’s intelligence is susceptible to logical reasoning you must see that deduction. If the hon. member for Hospital cannot see the implication it is simply because his intelligence is impervious to logical reasoning. But I want to put what the hon. members over there say. I want to put something in regard to our standpoint that in all circumstances Union citizens must be given the preference. This is the land of birth of the Union citizen and it is his birthright. But I also want to put this in regard to the proposition of the Minister of Labour a few days ago when in this House he took up exactly the same position. He said, and it was confirmed by the Minister of the Interior, that they would not allow people to come into our country to compete with our own workmen who might be out of work.

That is the principle of this Party.

It may be the principle of a few Ministers who spoke, but it is certainly not the principle of the hon. member for Hospital and those who have supported him. He says there are thousands of R.A.F.’s and others and that they also should get employment. Those were his words.

You are again distorting.

The fact particularly that what the hon. member said was cheered by a number of members throws another light on the whole matter. Whatever justification the Minister may have had for his standpoint the fact that it is expounded in such a way by a large section of his Party makes it all the more necessary he should accept our amendment, so that not only will there be a clearer provision for what we on this side have been pleading, but in respect of his own position of a few days ago; because he took up the same attitude that we did that under all circumstances Union citizens should obtain preference over non-Union nationals.

That is not the point.

The only way this can be done is to ensure that only Union unemployed are registered. The story of the hon. member for Hospital about foreigners already being registered is absolutely stupid. That is what we have been told, that foreigners are already registered. This is necessary under the Aliens Act. Consequently the Minister is always acquainted with the position in regard to foreigners in the country. All that is necessary for him to do is to examine the list. But what we do not want is that these people should be registered in a way that they will be simply mixed up with our own people, with the result that there will be many employers in the country, people for instance who take up the attitude adopted by the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) and also apparently by the hon. member for Hospital, that when they must choose between an unemployed person who is a Union national and an unemployed person who comes from. London or from Jerusalem they must always give preference to the unemployed from Jerusalem or London.

That is untrue. It is an untruth.

Our attitude is that you must be loyal to your own country. Our attitude, and also the attitude of English-speaking people, like the Minister of Labour, who really have accepted this country as their fatherland is that preference should be given to Union nationals whether they are Afrikaans-speaking or English-speaking. English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking Union nationals should be treated alike, but there should be a marked differentiation between Union nationals and non-Union nationals, whether they are English or Jews. I hope the Minister of Labour has now been enlightened and that he realises what explanation of the provision has been given by people in his own Party. He will then realise that he ought to accept this amendment.

I am surprised there should have been such a lot of heated argument over this matter; it is really of very little concern. What was the proposal of the hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie)? “That they should only register Union Nationalists.”

Nationalists? [Laughter.]

I can appreciate the laugh at my expense over the slip of the tongue and I am glad I have succeeded in getting the House into a better form of mind. The idea in the amendment is that no one who is not a Union national should be registered. That is how the argument started. The Minister in his reply said, “No”. He pointed out that everybody must register because the whole idea was to obviate unemployment and so keep a correct register of all the unemployed. Then the Minister added most distinctly: “Naturally we would always give preference to our Union nationals.” After that a suggestion was made that we should indicate in the register which are aliens and which were Union nationals; what was the reaction of the Minister to that suggestion? Certainly he said that he was prepared to do that if so desired. Then when it comes to unemployment, the Minister continued we will always give pre ference to the Union national. So I say why all this argument and all this heat about it? The member who spoke last (Mr. J. G. Strydom) tried to make political capital out of the point. That is the policy of that side of the House. We want to have good citizens in the country and we want to be fair to everybody. We say that aliens should not have preference over our own people, but we should not turn our backs on them. These are the assurances we have had from the Minister; surely we can accept the position now.

The Opposition really thought this afternoon that they had caught us here on the Government benches and that they had us on the run.

Of course.

They really thought that they had got hold of a fine bogey. What is the real meaning of their motion?

Hear, hear.

You know that you are afraid as soon as I stand up. Their motion really means that the Department of Labour should not register foreigners. Is that right? Good. What does it mean? If they knew the procedure in the big cities they would not have put their foot in it like this. They imagine that foreigners who come into the country and look for work will have preference over Afrikaners. When it is necessary for you to register at a labour bureau you can also go and look for work yourself and no one has anything to do with it. They know this. They thought they had caught us.

Why register if it is a handicap.

The hon. member for Wakkerstroom (Mr. J. G. W. van Niekerk) knows a lot about mealies but very little about labour, but the workers and the workless on the Witwatersrand—I hope that we will not have any workless people—will now vote less for the Nationalist Party than ever before. But we go further. Why was there no protest from the other side of the House when a large number of tradesmen came to this country from Holland, mainly building workers? Why did they not kick up a row then?

We did.

I did not notice it. Look it up. Will they really tell us that Hollanders are undesirable immigrants?

Our people come first.

I am glad to have it on record that Hollanders are undesirable immigrants in South Africa. Incidentally I have come down by train from the Rand and I was told there were no fewer than 10 women in the train, Afrikaans-speaking women, who were on their way to meet their husbands. They are married to English-speaking lads in the air force. Now I want to ask hon. members, with all their arguments, whether they want Afrikaans-speaking women to starve in their homes because no work will be given to their husbands? But at the time of the election they will have their vote. I should like these hon. members to answer that question. But they are never straight, they always try to indulge in politics. When the hon. member for Hospital spoke the cry was “Our soldiers first”. Who laid down the policy last year when there was a motion regarding immigration? It was not the Nationalist Party but the Prime Minister who laid down the policy and said that while we would welcome immigrants in our country we would give returned soldiers preference. This is not what the Opposition laid down, but now all of a sudden when the war is over they are angling for these people. They are throwing a sprat to catch a mackerel but the voters are not going to be caught with that. I think the country is entitled to test the sincerity of their argument. I conclude …

Hear, hear.

…. with a reference to the so-called preference to soldiers they now proclaim, by reading the following—

This was said in connection with soldiers by a leader on that side of the House. Consequently they cannot employ the argument that they want to protect the returning soldiers. They are making a hubbub just for political purposes.

I do not wish to detain the House by referring to the observations made by the hon. member for Johannesburg (West) (Mr. Tighy). I am only glad that the Minister of Labour’s interpreter did not interpret the hon. member’s remarks. I should like to congratulate the Minister on having been spared what the hon. member said. The Minister would certainly have been surprised to learn that the member’s attitude is that the purpose of the Bill is to register unemployed persons in order to embarrass them in their efforts to find employment.

That is untrue.

In what position must the poor Minister have been if he could not understand what the member was saying. I shall waste no further time on the hon. member, but I shall just refer to the hon. member for Paarl (Mr. Faure). Apart from his lapse when he referred to Union Nationalists instead of Union nationals I think that right through his speech he put his foot into it. He submitted the proposition that we should be fair to everyone in the country. Our objection is just this, that we are not obliged to give equal treatment to everyone who has just come into the country. We want to give the people in our country preference. That is the foundation of our objection. We say that in the first place South Africa belongs to the children of South Africa, and our primary responsibility is to provide employment for the sons and daughters of our own land and our own people. But I want to bring the Minister back to the mood that dominated this debate before the hon. members began to sit in the corner. At the outset I alluded to the fact that the principle we are advocating was accepted last year. I want to read it out. I have before me the Soldiers and War Workers Employment Act. Section 21 of the Act which also deals with employment just as this Bill by implication will deal with employment, runs as follows—

This relates to people who have not got work, and here it is laid down that the Act only applies to persons who immediately before the war were Union nationals or were resident in the Union. Those people who during the war made South Africa an asylum in order to escape the war will not be benefited by that. The aliens who during the war made South Africa a funk hole will not fall under it, only people who were Union nationals before the war or were resident in the Union. There the clause stands. It is very clear. What state of affairs is this you have when the same Minister in one Session of Parliament, in 1944, accepted a principle like this and it stands on the Statute Book although he fought it in the Select Committee. There it stands, and we now come to the following legislation, and now the Minister refuses to accept that principle.

It is not similar.

I think we shall then be entitled to charge the Minister with inconsistency. Throughout we have endeavoured to assist him to place sound legislation on the Statute Book, legislation that will fulfil the needs for which this legislation was adopted by the House, and consequently I want again to ask the Minister, in the light of what I now put to him, in the light of what stands in the Act of 1944, to consider the position and to incorporate the same provision in this Act. Why cannot we do it? It would be a sad state of affairs in South Africa if we applied a different fundamental principle for every specific piece of legislation dealing with the same matter.

Does it not refer there to anyone who has been resident in the Union?

I read the section out fully. I said it applied to persons who were Union nationals or who were resident in the Union immediately before the war. That means people who were living in the Union before the war broke out. Apparently the hon. member was not here when I dealt with the section. I made it clear a moment ago. I said we made a concession on that point because the argument was used that there might be Hollanders in this country who have been here for years but who, for one reason or other have not become naturalised. I think we have a very strong case here, and it is a thing to which the sons and daughters of South Africa are entitled and it is the protection that they require from us, and I think it is the duty of every member of this House in the first instance to bestow his attention and accord his protection to citizens of his own country, and when they have all been provided with work only then may he turn his attention to others. But before that provision is made we have no moral right to allow South Africa to be flooded by foreigners who will swamp our own people on the labour market.

There is no need to blink our eyes or to refuse to see the implication that is in this. The hon. Minister knows that I intervened in this debate yesterday to ask that a registration card should be given by an employment officer in the event of his finding work. I instanced two Government departments which are precluded from employing anyone unless he passes through the employment bureau at the present time. We know also that any soldier at the present time, with a dishonourable discharge, is not receiving any of the benefits of the State helping him to find employment. I take it that when the Bill goes through, he will still be entitled to be registered. This is a Bill that is intended to gain a complete and authoritative register of all unemployed people in South Africa.

It is not.

It is intended to be, and it is also intended to afford them an opportunity to find employment. We know that there are many people who come into this country legally and lawfully and who are entitled to be here, and who are not Union nationals. One has only to instance the number of English-born citizens, British subjects who come into this country as a right and who come in either of their own volition or because they have been imported by the 1820 Settlers’ Organisation, whose policy it is to build up South Africa. It is also my policy, and I hope it is the policy of every decent thinking South African that we should get both Hollanders and English-speaking people, but we are very much more likely to get them from Britain. The Minister has always stood behind the policy of full employment for every person who is in this country. Personally, so far as I am concerned, I want to say this because I do not want to be misunderstood. When a man comes to me and wants work I do not ask him whether he is a Union national. My first question is whether he is an ex-serviceman. If he is, I work doubly hard for him, whether he has been honourably discharged or dishonourably discharged. I prefer any soldier who has fought with the Allies, whatever his colour to hon. members opposite who have made no contribution in the fight with Nazi forces in which we emerged victorious. We know the attitude of those hon. members. We know the need for English-speaking teachers in this country and we know that no English teacher can come into this country and get a job in the Transvaal unless he has been in the country for three years. No English-speaking teacher who comes into this country ….

What about your bilingual test?

I want him to teach English to the children, and I am talking of the School Boards who have the right to make these recommendations.

But I thought every teacher had to be bilingual?

He cannot get a job unless he has been here for three years, no matter how bilingual he may be. [Laughter.] Hon. members may laugh, let us see what this amendment aims at. This is aimed at keeping only Union nationals on the register. In other words, nobody who is not on the register will be able to get a job. That is the next step. That is the obvious step, and I know and the Minister knows of many instances of aliens, friendly aliens, people whose country was ravaged during the war —French, Norwegian Danish—who fought in this country and who will be ex-servicemen at the conclusion of hostilities when they return, and who will, if this is accepted, be denied the right to work in this country. The hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) implied that I was not sincere, that I was a hypocrite. I say quite candidly and definitely that I am as open and as unashamed in my policy as he is in his. He is a racialist of the first water.

And so are you.

No, I am not. I am a South African. He would deny the right to anybody who was not a Union national, even a Jewish Union national, to work in this country. I stand for a policy of employment for everybody, and I hope that the Minister will not go back on his decision not to accept this amendment. I hope further that if he is prepared by regulation to issue instructions under this Bill, that the registration card which is given to people who are workseekers, shall bear, whether they are Union nationals or not, an endorsement as to whether they served in this war or not; that they will also be registered not only as Union nationals, but also as soldiers who fought in this war, or in previous wars in South Africa, and I hope the Minister will turn his face very stubbornly and very determinedly against any attempt by hon. members opposite who will seek by every means possible to undermine what they think is the united South African front which sits on this side ….

Very united.

Yes, very united.

How can it be united; it has wings; it wants to fly.

We have stood for the war, and we will stand for the peace, and we hope to employ every person in South Africa. I am unashamed in my acceptance and in my statement that it matters not to me whether a person is a Union national, whether he is an ex-serviceman, whether he is a friend alien, if he is here by right, this is his country, whether he is a nationalist or not. He has the right to expect that this country will afford him an opportunity of making a living and of supporting himself and his family. There must be none of this segregation, there must be none of this antagonism. Veiled behind this resolution is not the desire to obtain full employment for Union nationals. Veiled behind this amendment is the desire to exclude from South Africa and from South African industry and commerce any person who is not a Union national.

A Union nationalist.

A Union nationalist. That was what was meant. I hope the Minister will set his face very strongly against this. We have always expected from the Minister— and we have got it—an honest determination to find employment for every unemployed person in this country. The Minister has stood for that principle much longer than I have. He gained his popularity in public life and his acceptance as a sincere and honest representative of the people who are unemployed. I asked the Minister not to be misled by hon. members opposite, not to be tempted by the desire to push this Bill through into making those concessions and indulgences to hon. members opposite. Every concession that is given to them in their antagonism to anybody who is opposite to them, whether South African or not, is something upon which they eagerly grasp and feed. Concede this to them, and will they accept it as a concession? No. They will demand more and go on demanding more, as the whole history of their attempts in this House has proved conclusively. This country is going to stand for every person irrespective of the fact whether he is a friendly alien or a Union national or whatever else he is. [Time limit.]

I cannot help coming to the conclusion that hon. members opposite are just trying to make political capital out of nothing. The hon. member for Boshof (Mr. Serfontein) read this section in the Act of 1944. I can also say, as the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) is fond of saying to hon. members on this side, that either the hon. member for Boshof is too stupid to understand this or he deliberately misled the House.

Order, order, the hon. member must not say that another hon. member has deliberately misled the House.

No, I put it in the form of a question. I said that either he was too stupid to understand it, or did he intend to mislead the House?

No, you did not.

The question I asked was this: If the hon. member read it, and he understood it, then I want to know whether he misquoted it to the House to make political capital out of it, or what was his purpose? He read this section and he practically begged the Minister to accept in this Bill the principle which was accepted in this particular section which he quoted.

What did he misquote?

He said that this section ….

Which section?

The point the hon. member read out ….

Read the section.

The hon. member ’ for Boshof appealed to the Minister to adopt the principle contained in that section that Union nationals must get preference in employment. This section definitely contains the very principle that the Minister now wants to introduce in the present Bill, and that is that a register will be kept for Union nationals as well as those resident in the Union, although they may be aliens ….

Before the war.

I am talking about the provisions of this Bill. The section quoted contains this; it says it will only apply to Union nationals or those persons who were resident in the Union immediately before the war. Cannot an alien be resident in the Union?

It says resident in the Union immediately prior to the war.

Of course, the hon. member for Boshof knew that.

But that is how he read it.

He knew that and if he knew that, then I want the hon. member to explain to me what is the difference between this section and what the hon. Minister intends doing with the registration list? What all this row is about is purely political capital, because it is quite clear that this Bill only provides for a register to be kept and all those who are unemployed must be registered whether they are Union nationals or not. Who are not Union nationals? It can only be people who have permission to enter this country according to our laws. Naturally until they are naturalised, they are aliens but they must obtain permission to enter the Union, and therefore they are lawfully in the Union. All the Minister wants is that they must register if they are unemployed. What does that register mean? That register is merely a record of all the people who are unemployed in the country. The Minister cannot compel anyone as an employer to employ an alien against his will. I as an employer can select from that list anyone I like. I am not precluded from employing an alien. If I desire to employ people whose knowledge of a particular trade is such that I require their services, I please myself. I employ any person on that list who is best suited for my employment. No compulsion can be exercised on any employer of labour. You employ whoever you like. Even those employees who names members of the Opposition do not want to go on the list, can still be employed. So what are they fighting about? The only object of hon. members opposite, is to make political capital out of this great cry that you must first give Union nationals employment before giving employment to anyone else. I want to say this to hon. members opposite, that they are the last people who should talk about employment to our people, because if their policy of neutrality had been accepted in 1939, we would have lived today in a state of large-scale unemployment and ruin, and they must rather leave the question of employment to this side of the House.

I hope that the hon. member for Vereeniging (Lt.-Col. Rood) who a little while ago when I put a polite question to him across the floor of the House returned an offensive reply, will listen to what I have to say.

When was that?

The hon. member was so agitated that he did not know what he was saying. I would prefer to believe he did not know what he was saying because if he realised what he was saying I would have had to tell him what he tried to say to the hon. member for Boshof (Mr. Serfontein). Time and again he asked the question: Is the hon. member for Boshof honest or has he deliberately tried to mislead the House? Notwithstanding the fact that you tried to call him to order he sought to repeat this in other ways. Now I say if he realised what he was saying I should have to hurl at him what he tried to hurl at the hon. member for Boshof. He accused the hon. member for Boshof of not having fully read out Section 21 of Act No. 40 of 1944 when he quoted it as analgous to that section.

No, I did not say that.

Yes, you did say so.

Let him now please keep quiet. I then put the question to him courteously: Please read the section that the hon. member for Boshof quoted. Instead of reading it he hurled this insult across the floor of the House. I shall now read it and the hon. member for Boshof quoted it fully.

And I too.

And the hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie) read it out in its entirety.

But did they understand that was the case?

I do not know whether the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) can really understand anything, but I am now dealing with other members of the House. I do not know whether anything can penetrate the intelligence of the hon. member. The hon. member for Boshof quoted what was in Section 21 of that Act, which at the instigation of this side of the House made provision that the measure would only apply to Union nationals or persons who had been resident in the Union before the outbreak of the war and who joined the army. What does the hon. member for Vereeniging do now? He seeks to create the impression that the hon. member for Boshof did something terribly dishonourable, because he says he did not read out that passage in the article referring to people who were here before the war, although the hon. member for Boshof really did so.

He is a mischief maker.

In the second place he comes out with the argument that while we are now agitating that only Union nationals should be registered it is stated in this Act that people who are not Union nationals fall under its provisions. In other words, he has endeavoured to argue that this section makes provision that all other persons who are not Union nationals and who did not join the forces could fall under the Act, and this is not so. This section only refers to one special class, namely persons who were resident in the Union before the war. This section makes no provision at all for soldiers who are not Union nationals and who were not resident in the Union before the outbreak of the war. If he had joined the forces and if he was not resident in the Union before the outbreak of the war he is excluded. I should like now to put this further question to the hon. member for Vereeniging: If anyone is to be charged with having deliberately misled the House is it the hon. member for Boshof or the hon. member for Vereeniging?

You do not understand it.

Yes, I understand and unfortunately I also understand the lame efforts being made by the hon. member for Vereeniging to cast a slur on another member and I also want to say: I did not know the hon. member for Vereeniging in this light when he was a Nationalist. I have only known him in this character since he has undergone this degeneration. When he was a Nationalist in those days he would not resort to such weapons. In any case, he did not do it. Now I want to come to the Minister of Labour. The principle has been accepted, that as far as this Bill is concerned, that it should be restricted to Union nationals plus those people who in ordinary circumstances would have become Union nationals but who were excluded by the Defence Force before they became Union nationals. This is why the exception was made in their case and on this side we conceded that the people who were here before the outbreak of the war and who then joined the Defence Force should be accorded the same benefits as Union citizens who joined the Defence Force, but the principle which is embraced in that is that these benefits should be restricted to Union nationals, plus that small group—and it is a limited and defined group. As the principle has once been accepted tvhat objection can the Minister have to accepting the principle in this Bill?

I hope now that we are going to discuss this amendment and the clause on their merits, and discontinue these recriminations however justified or unjustified on one side or the other. Let us endeavour to get at the real inner meaning of things. Strangely enough, I also must read this clause to which reference has been made so frequently. Hon. members on that side of the House have not only quoted, but they have actually read the clause. The hon. member for Boshof (Mr. Serfontein) has read the clause but not all of it.

I read every word of it.

I want to see the application where hon. members on that side of the House draw an analogy on this to the Bill now under discussion. In point of fact, they endeavoured to prove that I have been most inconsistent in that I adopted one attitude when the Soldiers and War Workers Employment Bill was before the House and a different attitude in respect of this Bill. They say I am inconsistent. I shall endeavour to show that I am nothing of the sort, and as a preliminary to that, I want to read the whole clause. Clause 21 says this—

I have read the whole clause.

May I on a point of personal explanation say that I read the section twice.

Not completely.

Entirely.

My explanation is this: I read it entirely on the first occasion and subsequently I placed emphasis on two special points that appeared in the section, namely the issue of the certificate, and in the second place the providing of employment.

If I misunderstood the hon. member I beg his pardon. Again, of course, it is due to my disability. I will accept that. The hon. member emphasised two points, but he forgot to emphasise this point that this chapter wholly and solely controls the obligation upon employers to employ. In other words, under this Act, we were forcing employers to take returned soldiers or war workers, a very different thing from what it is today, and therein lies my disproof of the allegation of inconsistency. I am consistent in this regard that I am concerned in our, Union nationals getting employment first, or shall I put it this way, that they shall not be prejudiced to the advantage of those who are not Union nationals. But this is not an employment Bill at all. It is a registration of unemployment Bill, a register of those who are unemployed; and by what moral right, by what right based on justice, can we refuse to register unemployed persons who do not happen to be Union nationals? I cannot conceive of the possibility, though it has been demonstrated to me today— though before I could not conceive of it— that any member of Parliament could say in this House: “We insist upon non-Union nationals being left in the gutter.” That is what it amounts to.

It is the Nazi method.

No, I do not say that. Do hon. members who are insisting upon this amendment appreciate that there are thousands of individuals in this country who are non-Union nationals? There are thousands of natives.

But you have not even decided whether you are going to apply it to natives or not.

Of course, it is already decided that natives shall be registered too. As a matter of fact, when hon. members on that side demanded, in order that farmers may be eased in their labour position, that we should register natives, I said yes, natives shall be registered. I must repeat that our friends in that respect are cutting the ground from under their feet, in that natives who are non-Union nationals in their thousands, will be debarred from registration. But is the object of the hon. members opposite to make sure that Union nationals shall be employed? It is. That is the object of the amendment.

The object is to give them preference.

Well, I have said so already.

But why do you not want to put it in the Act?

Because it is unnecessary and it is doomed to failure, if you insert it. I will demonstrate this. It only shows you how hurriedly conceived this amendment is, and there is a nonappreciation of its effects. What is going to be the immediate result of this if only Union nationals are registered, to the exclusion of non-Union nationals, quite apart from natives? The immediate result is going to be that the aliens or non-Union nationals not registered are thrown entirely on their own resources and they will at once concentrate upon visiting employers themselves. They are not registered. The employers do not have to let them be registered and they will inevitably go to the employers.

Is there anything which debars a person who is registered from going to the employers?

None at all, but the mere fact that he is registered will cause him to relax his efforts in that direction.

That is very far-fetched.

My hon. friend, I take it, has never been unemployed, or any of them on that side.

And on your side?

I have, and I know what I am talking about. The urge of the unemployed is to get employment as soon as he can. You are concentrating that urge on the unemployed non-National and he is going to offer himself, seeing that there is no other opportunity, to employers at lower rates of pay, and so you are going to cut your own throat. I say that is the disadvantage.

That is so far-fetched that we cannot take it seriously, and I do not think anyone on your side takes it seriously either.

Whether the hon. member admits that argument or not, I have experienced unemployment in the most practical and painful manner. It is very difficult, where people are not bound by their loyalty to their own particular class of employment, namely artisans—and it is a very strong loyalty, I can assure you, and has kept many an artisan from working below fixed rates—but with regard to the large body of unemployed of a non-Union national character, who are not artisans, they are immediately going to offer themselves for employment at lower rates of pay than our nationals will get. What is the natural consequence? A spiral downwards. Our own nationals will, in turn, have to offer themselves at lower rates of pay.

What about the trade unions?

And so the unhappy process goes on until we are all living on starvation wages.

That is what they want.

I am sure that hon. members over there have not appreciated their amendment. It is because I am keen on Union nationals keeping up and improving their standards of living that I refuse to accept this amendment.

The Minister says the members opposite have not appreciated their amendment. They have. That is quite clear. It is the old Nationalist policy, that the only people who shall have employment shall be people born in this country, and when my hon. friend inadvertently said “Union Nationalist”, that is what they meant. They have read and discussed the Bill. Allow me to remind the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) that when that Bill first came before the House, providing for the employment of volunteers, he and his Party moved that it should only be applicable to volunteers in the South African army and they forgot all about Union nationals who were fighting in the British Army. Look at Hansard. I was one of the men who spoke on it. That is why we had to insert “Union nationals before the war”. Hon. members opposite do not want anyone who fought in the army overseas, or an English-speaking man who is not a Union national but who was in the South African army to be included. Mr. Trollip, if you look at it you will find it all there. But, Mr. Trollip, may I remind you of one thing? What do these gentlemen really want? Take the question of Brakpan where they got into power. The first thing they did was to remove a remarkably able man who had been giving them good service as their solicitor for many years, and they put in a Nationalist. They got rid of men in Brakpan who were soldiers and put in Nationalists. They are trying to do it in Bloemfontein today, and that is the whole position of the Nationalist Party and that is where we differ from them. We take up the attitude that all men in the country who are unemployed should have the right to be registered. We take up the attitude—the hon. member for Waterberg is a most able man and a friend of mine ….

Is that so? [Laughter.]

He is a friend of mine, a generous man, and a man who wants to be Prime Minister of this country but never will be because he has a one-track mind. He can only see his own point of view and that of his Party all the time.

And you have a two-track mind and never know what you think.

He made a statement which I challenged. He said the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) and the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) would not employ a man if he did not come either from London or Jerusalem, or at least would employ him in preference to a South African, He is today chairman of the Voortrekker Pers. Let him look at some of the boys there whom I trained and also in “Die Vaderland”. When I came into the National Bank I said I could not understand why they employed men from overseas, and not South Africans. I have given more employment to South Africans and trained more South Africans than any member opposite. I am a South African. My people have been in South Africa for 100 years. I am as good a South African as they are, but the difference is this, that we are not going to allow the Nationalists to exclude men who fought for our allies and allow them to walk about the streets without being registered. They want Afrikaners. The hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie) said: “Ons moet die Afrikaner help.” Who is an Afrikaner? Let me quote who is an Afrikaner.

Not an alien anyway.

Is this who they mean? This was said by their Leader at the Nationalist Party Congress in Pretoria in 1939—

Order, order! The hon. member must come back to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, you do not know how near I am to the amendment and Mr. Trollip, I am trying to find out who is an Afrikaner, because they only want to employ Afrikaners. I say they are pleased at unemployed of that category not being registered. But the hon. member must not do what he always does in this House, namely putting words into my mouth. What I said was this, and I say it again: I am not speaking for this Party but I speak for myself.

Do you speak for the Left Wing?

I certainly do not speak like you do. You speak like Donald Duck. Speaking for myself, I want this register in this way, and that is where I think the Minister hit the nail on the head, that every unemployed man in this country, white or black, living in the country shall be put on the roll. This is not a Bill providing for employment, but the first opportunity should be given to the man who lives in this country, and is or has become a National. After that aliens can be employed. I say this because there are 2,000 airmen who married South African women and may live here. I want them put on the register if they are unemployed. I want every Pole and every Russian and every American and every other man who fought for us in this war, if he is in this country and unemployed to be put on the register: and that is the difference between the Nationalist Party and our Party. What they want is to keep this country in a small clique, where only they and their children will be employed. We were going to be quiet and peaceful today, but we suddenly see one of the greatest rights being taken away. Our friends in front do not seem to be so worried about it, bût I am glad now that the Minister has told our friends opposite exactly where they get off.

I am only rising because the hon. member who has resumed his seat showed himself so frightfully concerned over the soldiers. This Bill does not refer to soldiers. We dealt with the soldiers in another Act that has already been adopted, and if this Bill also applies to soldiers we must infer that the other Bill was a failure. We have already passed a Bill in regard to the employment of soldiers.

You can send me a proof of your speech and I will read it tomorrow.

As usual, the hon. member has run away, but it is impertinence on his part to think that either I or any other member will go to the trouble of sending him proofs. This Bill relates to the registration of unemployed, and I presume if à person is registered employment will be found for him at the same time. But the Act of registration will not in itself provide him with work unless the State gives him the work. That is absolutely obvious. All we now ask is that the Minister should accept this principle, namely that it is the duty of the Government and of this Parliament to see to our own Union nationals first. That is quite clear and there is no difference of opinion regarding it. I have not participated in this discussion because I have really not had anything to do with the Bill. We on this side of the House have stated, and the Minister has stated, that preference should be given to our own Union nationals, but this Bill does not say so and consequently we are anxious about it. All these arguments about who are Afrikaners and whether Gen. Smuts is an Afrikaner have nothing to do with the matter. I would, however, like to tell the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) that the fact that a person has been born in South Africa does not make him an Afrikaner. Langenhoven once said that if a cat had kittens in an oven that did not make them buns. As far as registration is concerned we assume that once a person is registered he will have better prospects of obtaining employment than the man who has not registered. If that is not so why are we accepting this Bill? What then is the object of the Bill? All we are now asking is that Union nationals should be registered because then they will have better prospects of obtaining employment, otherwise the Bill is of no avail at all. I do not say that the man who is a foreigner should not obtain employment. When he comes here and there is work for him I have no objection to him obtaining that work if he is a decent person. Someone asked why we did not register a protest when the tradesmen from Holland were imported. Personally I did object to that, and members on this side also noted their objections. I said I was opposed to artisans being imported while our own people were not being trained to do that work. I said this and I repeat it. But we are all inspired with the national idea to provide work for our own people first and consequently there should be no difficulty on the Minister’s side of the House in accepting this proposal. I do not want to exclude foreigners. If there is work let them come, but if there is no work and they still come to our country—if the authorities do not keep them out then we shall find what the Minister fears, and that is that they will compete with our own workmen and that they will bring down the wages of our people. But this is another matter and it has nothing to do with registration. It applies to thè admission of immigrants. This amendment relates to the desire we have to provide for our own people before we attend to the foreigners. Soldiers have nothing to do with it. They have been dragged into this debate, but provision has already been made for them by the Act in regard to the employment of returned soldiers. Provision has been made for them in that. Therefore I fail to see what objection the Minister can have, because even the soldiers that have been dragged in are Union nationals, although they fought with other forces. They are being cared for. We hope so in any case, because that was the object of that Act. Now we are making provision for other people who may be unemployed, and consequently I feel it is right to ask that preference should be given to Union nationals as contemplated by this amendment. That ought to be the case because the presumption is that registration will afford them better opportunities of finding employment. If that is not so this Bill is unnecessary.

Proposed new clause put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—36:

Bekker, G. F. H.

Booysen, W. A.

Brink, W. D.

Conradie, J. H.

Döhne, J. L. B.

Erasmus, F. C.

Erasmus, H. S.

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.

Luttig, P. J. H.

Malan, D. F.

Mentz, F. E.

Nel, M. D. C. de W.

Olivier, P. J.

Potgieter, J. E.

Serfontein, J. J.

Stals, A. J.

Steyn, A.

Steyn, G. P.

Strydom, J. G.

Swanepoel, S. I.

Van Niekerk, J. G. W.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Vosloo, L. J.

Warren, S. E.

Werth, A. J.

Wessels, C. J. O.

Wilkens, J.

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

Noes—84:

Abbott, C. B. M.

Abrahamson, H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Barlow, A. G.

Bawden, W.

Bekker, H. J.

Bodenstein, H. A. S.

Bosman, J. C.

Bosman, L. P.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowker, T. B.

Butters, W. R.

Carinus, J. G.

Christie, J.

Christopher, R. M.

Cilliers, H. J.

Clark, C. W.

Connan, J. M.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

De Kock, P. H.

Derbyshire, J. G.

De Wet, H. C.

De Wet, P. J.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, A. C.

Du Toit, R. J.

Faure, J. C.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedman, B.

Gluckman, H.

Goldberg, A.

Gray, T. P.

Hare W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Henny, G. E. J.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Hofmeyr J. H.

Hopf, F.

Howarth, F. T.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Latimer, A.

McLean, J.

Madeley, W. B.

Marwick, J. S.

Miles-Cadman C. F.

Moll, A. M.

Molteno, D. B.

Morris, J. W. H.

Mushet, J. W.

Oosthuizen, O. J.

Payne, A. C.

Pieterse, E. P.

Pocock, P. V.

Prinsloo, W. B. J.

Robertson, R. B.

Rood, K.

Russell, J. H.

Shearer, O. L.

Shearer, V. L.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Sonnenberg, M.

Steenkamp, L. S.

Stratford, J. R. F.

Sullivan, J. R.

Sutter, G. J.

Tighy, S. J.

Tothill, H. A.

Ueckermann. K.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Van der Merwe, H.

Van Niekerk, H. J. L.

Van Onselen, W. S.

Visser, H. J.

Waring, F. W.

Warren, C. M.

Williams, H. J.

Tellers: J. W. Higgerty and W. B. Humphreys.

Proposed new clause accordingly negatived.

Now that this new clause that I propose has been rejected I desire following on the willingness of the Minister as expressed by him after the speech of the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw), to indicate in the registers who are Union nationals and who not, I desire to propose a new clause. We are very anxious that the register should indicate who are Union nationals and who not. Consequently I move that the following be a new clause to follow Clause 26—

I regret I am unable to accept the amendment. We intend to do this administratively.

Proposed new clause put and negatived.

The remaining clauses and the title having been agreed to.

House Resumed:

The CHAIRMAN reported the Bill with amendments; amendments to be considered on 17th May.

I move—

Mr. Speaker, in introducing this Bill I find myself in a somewhat unusual position in one respect. One result of the enactment of this Bill will be that my own department, that of Education, will be shorn of one of its activities. I am introducing this Bill not in my relatively permanent capacity of Minister of Education but rather in my transient capacity as Acting Prime Minister. The new organisation which this Bill is intended to set up will take over most of the work at present done by the Union Education Department, as a department, in the matter of research. To that extent, therefore, my department will be shorn of one of its activities. The reason for that is that it is contemplated, inasmuch as the organisation which it is proposed to set up will be a co-ordinating organisation, that that organisation should fall within the scope of the Department of the Prime Minister, and that he will be the Minister who would be responsible for the administration of this Bill when it becomes an Act. It is unfortunate, Mr. Speaker, that the Prime Minister cannot himself introduce this Bill. He is, of course, a very emininent scientist in his own right, and he has taken a very keen interest in the preparation of this measure. It is indeed a happy coincidence that the Minister who will handle the initiation of the work under this Bill when it becomes law should be one who has the qualities and the interests of the present Prime Minister. But from the purely personal point of view I am glad that I can introduce this important measure in his place. My own past activities have shown me how important is the work of research. I learned a generation ago how dead and lifeless university teaching can be if it is not linked up with research as far as the teachers are concerned, and during my political life I have also learned how essential national provision for the stimulation of research is, both from the point of view of national progress and from the point of view of national honour. A nation which neglects research is at the same time impairing its prospects of material welfare and weakening its status and dignity among the civilised nations of the world. I think it can be said that in recent years we in this country have become increasingly conscious of our national shortcomings in regard to research. Perhaps it is as well that it should be so, that we should realise those shortcomings. Yet I feel it only right to point out that there has been a tendency, as there so often is, to exaggerate our deficiencies and to overlook our very real achievements. One reason for that tendency to exaggerate our deficiencies has been the misconception that the amount of money provided on the Union Education Vote for research is the only provision the State makes for research. Actually it is a very small part of the provision the State makes for research. I say, Mr. Speaker, we have tended to exaggerate our deficiencies and to neglect our very real achievements. We must not forget that South Africa has produced quite a number of research workers who have won world-wide recognition far beyond the boundaries of South Africa, and that in several fields of research. We must not forget that we have built up here in South Africa research institutions— I give as one instance the institution at Onderstepoort—which have a very high standing in the scientific world, and we must not forget our not inconsiderable achievement in the field of research on the qualitative side during the past generation, I mean the creation of a South African spirit in our research activities and the development of a South African attitude as a valuable vantage point of attack on some of the great problems of science. We have no reason to be ashamed of what we have done in the field of research in South Africa. Our prestige in that regard in relation to the size of our community stands high in the world outside, and there is no reason to decry our scientific achievements. We have however fallen short in one respect in comparison with other countries, and that is in the general organisation of our research activities and their co-ordination. We have our research work in the Union in universities, in Government and in semiGovernment institutions, in the laboratories, and in the studies of individual workers; but we have not done enough to bring them together, to secure the better organisation of research activities and to stimulate new workers and new lines of investigation. In that respect we have to admit that to some extent we have failed; We have certainly not realised to the full the very unique opportunities that South Africa offers as one of the most fruitful countries in the world for scientific investigation. Mr. Speaker, against that background let me state the purposes of this Bill. I mention them at this stage. They are threefold. The first purpose is the better application of scientific research to the development of the natural resources and the industries of the Union. The second purpose of this Bill is a proper co-ordination of scientific research (I am using the word “scientific” in a wide sense) throughout the country, in Government departments, in universities and technical colleges, and in all institutions with a research function. And the third main purpose of this Bill is the fostering of the training of research workers. This Bill does not represent the first approach by the State to these general aspects of our research activities. Away back in 1918, as a result of the last Great War, there came into being the Research Grant Board. Its function was regarded as primarily connected with industrial development, and so it fell within the scope first of all of the old Department of Mines and Industries, and then of the Department of Commerce and Industries. That board did good work within a limited field. In fact its field came virtually to be limited to the administration and the allocation of money grants for research, the money having been made available by the Union Government, or, with characteristic generosity, by the Carnegie Corporation of New York which did a very great deal in that connection. Then in 1938 a new beginning was made, a new approach was made to this problem of the wider organisation of research activities. In that year on my own initiative as Minister of Education, there were created two boards, the first was the National Research Council, a relatively large body broadly representative of scientific workers (again I use the word “scientific” in a wide sense) throughout the country, conceived almost as a kind of Parliament of research, having as its primary function the task of proposing measures for the stimulation of research. The second body was the National Research Board, a smaller body which took over the grant-allocating functions of the old Research Grant Board, and at the same time was conceived as a kind of executive of the bigger National Research Council. May I at this stage, Mr. Speaker, pay a tribute to a man happily still in our midst, although no longer actively at work, who may almost be described as the real father of the organisation of research in South Africa, I mean Professor R. B. Young. He was chairman of the Research Grant Board and he was also the first chairman of the National Research Council, and it was only a few years ago that advancing years compelled him to lay down that post. He rendered most valued services to the cause of research in South Africa. The Council and the Board to which I have referred have been in existence for six and a half years. They were just beginning to get to work when the war began. The war, of course, hampered their expansion, but one most important job of work was completed by that organisation. The organisation applied itself particularly, as indeed was its primary function, to the question of devising a suitable permanent research organisation to fit South Africa for its rapidly expanding industrial activities and general progress. It submitted to me about two years ago a report on that subject, and that report has by a series of steps led to the introduction of the present Bill, in the preparation of which that organisation has been fully consulted. I may say that that organisation is quite content that the new council which it is proposed to create in this Bill, and to the coming into being of which it has so largely contributed shall rise phoenix-like from its ashes. May I say when I refer to the series of steps that has led to the preparation of this Bill that we have received most valuable assistance, especially in the later stages, from that very distinguished scientist, Dr. Schonland, who is now our scientific and technical adviser. I shall refer to him again at a later stage. The organisation which this Bill proposes to set up will have two main functions, a stimulating function and a co-ordinating function. What is meant by the stimulating function in relation to research will, I think, be obvious enough. But I want to go a little more into detail in relation to the co-ordinating function which this council will have to carry out. I want to mention the aspects of research work which come up for co-ordination. First of all, there is the university aspect. Universities our own in particular, are heavily burdened with teaching work. It is their duty, however, to select, to inspire and to train the research workers of the future. It is essential that they should do their job and do it well, but it is also very desirable that in doing that job they should be linked up with the other activities for whose purposes they are training those research workers. Universities, therefore, should be linked up with the general research set-up. The second aspect I mention is that of National Research Laboratories coupling with that special research projects which require Government support. The tendency in this, as in other countries, has run more and more in the direction of the establishment of national research laboratories. We have for a long time had well-equipped and very excellent laboratories in agriculture and veterinary science. We have the South African Institute of Medical Research in Johannesburg. We have the Fuel Research Institute. All these are national research laboratories. We are now proposing, as hon. members are aware, to participate in the launching of what may prove to be a very important development, the Deep Level Mining Research Institute. The necessity of providing a national physical laboratory is already looming on the horizon. One particular organisation which is an immediate necessity is an institute in relation to building research. We are looking forward to an expenditure of something like £30,000,000 a year on building in the years after the war, and a very great deal can be done to ensure that that money is spent to the best advantage on research activities. Already certain preliminary steps have been taken in that direction the Minister of Economic Development having set up a committee to draw up a programme. I mention these as existing and contemplated research laboratories, but in regard to such laboratories also no less than in regard to the universities co-ordination is essential. We cannot afford overlapping with the resultant waste of money and human material which would follow from the coming into being of a plethora of island laboratories, laboratories which are entirely independent of the rest of the research set-up of the country. In this connection, too, one must draw attention to the fact that from time to time various specific research projects are laid before the Government. It may be, as it has been the case during the war, that questions are raised by the Defence Department involving research. There may be questions of medical research, there may be questions of nutritional research. One does not want to see theáe projects tackled in isolation from other research activities. The best use must be made of the available facilities, and there again it is desirable to have co-ordination to have a general controlling and co-ordinating body in respect of the nation’s research activities. I mention a third aspect of our research programme, and that is the development of industrial research institutes. More and more in other countries, and to some extent also in South Africa, research institutes in relation to the problems of a particular industry have come to be regarded as basic to the proper development of industry and to the efficiency of the manufacturing processes. The establishment of such institutes is primarily the concern of the industries concerned, but the Government can do a great deal to help. In South Africa we have had for some time the sugar research institute, in Natal. There is a timber research institute under the Chamber of Mines; and one of the most interesting developments of recent years has been the Leather Research Institute established during the war, in 1941, I think it was, in conjuction with the Rhodes University College at Grahamstown and which is doing most excellent work.

Are they subsidised?

It is subsidised through the Rhodes University College. The principle of the development of a research institute of this kind has been adopted by the Federated Chamber of Industries at its last convention, and it has appointed a research sub-committee to work in that direction. With all those bodies already in existence the results shown have been excellent. But there is much more that has to be done both from the point of view of the solution of the specific problems of particular industries, and also from the point of view of permeating industry in South Africa with the spirit of research. There is a great deal that still needs to be done. But I think it will be clear again from what I have said that these particular research activities also are merely part of a wider set-up and should be linked with the general conception of research organisation. I mention one more aspect of research activity in this connection, and that is the necessity for contact and collaboration with other countries in regard to research. Science is happily one of those things that knows no boundaries. We are not there unduly concerned about aliens. We are prepared to take the benefit of scientific advances from whatever country it comes and hope in return to make our contribution of scientific development from our country for the benefit of the world. During this war scientific missions from our country have been to Washington and London and have secured most valuable information there. But there is a very great deal to be done in future from the point of view of establishing liaison between our country and other countries so that we may get the full benefit of research advancement and development throughout the world: Now, Mr. Speaker. I think it only remains for me to review briefly how this Bill sets out to achieve the objects I have indicated so far in my speech. May I say that the Bill has been based on careful study of similar organisations set up in other countries. We have learned by their experience, and I think we may profit by the mistakes which have sometimes been made in pioneering ventures elsewhere. In the first place, the Bill proposes to set up a corporate body which will have charge of such matters affecting scientific and industrial research in the Union as are assigned to it by the Government, and in particular it will have the duty of advising the Government on the proper co-ordination and employment of scientific and industrial research for the development of the natural resources and industries of the Union. This body will function under a Minister who, in the first instance at least, will be the Prime Minister, as I have already said. But it is contemplated that he will be assisted by a committee of Ministers who will deal with the affairs of this body as far as the Government is concerned. It is proposed—this is the second point I make— that this council shall be a body corporate. In this we have been guided by the experience of other countries. Research, especially in so far as universities and industries are concerned, requires elastic conditions of control and development, and that requirement can only be met by giving the controlling body the necessary independence. This council will, however, be fully subject to strict Parliamentary control. That is provided for in Clauses 15 arid 16. It will have to submit its estimates for approval, by its Minister. If will draw funds only as a result of Parliamentary appropriations. Parliament will come into the picture every year. Its accounts will be audited by the Controller and Auditor-General, and it will submit annual reports, with certified statements by the Controller and Auditor-General, which will be laid before Parliament. It is also contemplated, Mr. Speaker, that this body will receive donations and contributions from outside parties. Research has always been something which has stimulated generosity and given an opportunity for men of substance to perpetuate their memories. We contemplate that this body will also receive such assistance from outside the Government. In most cases such donations or endowments will be given for particular purposes. At the same time it is also contemplated, and provision is made in the Bill, for this body to undertake specific research investigations on behalf of interested parties against payment. That is provided for in Clause 12. I pass on to the next point. The council will have a president who will also be its chief executive officer. Here I want to say that we hope to be able to secure for these purposes the services of Dr. Schonland if the Bill is passed. Dr. Schonland has had a career of very great distinction in scientific research, first as professor in the University of Cape Town, later as the head and creator of the Geophysical Institute at the University of. Johannesburg, and more recently in the field of wartime research where the very highest tributes have been paid to the valuable work done by him. He has a very high international standing and we shall be very fortunate to have him at the head of our Scientific Research Council. Next, I would like to explain that the field of research which this council is to deal with will be scientific and industrial research. It will not therefore cover all types of research in the full sense of the word. It will not deal with social, educational, and economic or humanistic questions. That is so because it is felt that the field of scientific and industrial research is itself so vast that the effectiveness of the organisation will be impaired if we try to overload it with other duties. As far as other branches of activity are concerned, we have in my Department of Education—and it will continue to function; it has not been able to do much during the war, but it will again be brought to vigorous activity—the Council of Social and Economic Research. We also have the Social and Economic Planning Council. So far as the fund allocating aspect is concerned, for this type of research, we shall continue under my Department a body similar to the present National Research Board, although smaller in scope. It is also proposed to limit this council in respect of agricultural research. The Department of Agriculture, as I have already said, has long been maintaining laboratories and research organisation, some of which like Onderstepoort, have won international renown. It is not proposed that this new council will enter into that field, although there will be close contact between it and the research activities of the Agricultural Department. There will be quite a lot for this council to do in the development of research in scientific problems basic to agriculture and also in the application of industrial research to the products of agriculture.

Will it take over the Fuel Research Institute and things like that?

That will definitely fall within its co-ordinating scope, although it will not take it over. Then I want to deal with the specific functions of the council. According to the definition of its objects in Clause 4, it will itself undertake certain types of research work, it will assist research work sponsored by others, it will foster the establishment of industrial research institutes, it will encourage the training of research workers, it will act in liaison with research activities in other countries and it will provide for the collection and dissemination of information in regard to research. That, I think, will serve to give the House an idea of the nature of what is contemplated in this Bill. We have, as I have already said, a great field for research in this country. We have also a pressing duty towards our country to stimulate the development of research. This Bill is conceived with the object of our entering into that field, and of our meeting that duty and that obligation. I hope it will be accepted by the House in that spirit.

It gives me great pleasure to address a few words to the House in connection with this Bill. The fact that the Bill has been introduced by the Acting Prime Minister instead of by the Minister of Economic Development is in itself an indication of the significance the head of the Government attaches to it. In addition, it is one of the Bills being dealt with in this House during the present Session which leaves least room for Party differences. We are here dealing with a sphere in which all the Parties in the House can cordially participate in the discussion and freely voice their conviction over the benefit that may be derived from this Bill in respect of our post-war development. Considering the principles embraced in this measure I find it difficult to imagine any Bill being introduced into this House which would leave so little latitude for Party differences. It is therefore a privilege for me to take part in this debate. It is one of the spheres in which a start has been made during the present Session. I should like to put it in this way, that with the adoption of this Bill we shall be beginning a matter which will endure after members of this House will no longer be here, and which will stand so long as the people of South Africa need research in connection with industries and those other matters in respect of which this Bill can be of service to the nation in the future. I have given consideration to the thought of what really was the incentive for the introduction of a Bill on this basis. We have all in this country come to a realisation that the position in South Africa is this, that there is a backwardness in the industrial sphere which makes it very incumbent upon us to develop our industrial life and to strengthen the means we have at our disposal to develop the resources of our country by which we may contribute to the development of our industrial life so that industries may play a greater rôle in building up greater national prosperity. Apart from that need there is perhaps a more fundamental cause, namely that the world itself has come to a realisation that science must play a greater part in peace-time. For years we have seen that the highest ability, the best, the cleverest and the newest discoveries in the scientific world are applied to the destruction of the enemy. The world has become satiated with that, and I think a new conception has come into being or has been strengthened, that science should confer a new and a nobler service, that it must be directed towards the happiness of humanity as a whole together with the happiness of the country that devotes itself to that task. There is an additional cause, and that is the new spirit that has been bom in the world. I hope I am interpreting that spirit wrongly, but it appears to me that in spite of pronouncements contained in such a document as the Atlantic Charter a new spirit of competition has been kindled between the nations a competition that is aimed at the preparation of new conditions that no one now can delineate. That uneasiness exists amongst the nations and unless they can provide themselves with scientific weapons in the post-war period they will have the worst of it. I hope I am wrong in my interpretation of that spirit now evident in the world, but even if I am not wrong it is still necessary for the Government to strengthen our industries in a scientific manner and to develop them with all the force behind a united country, to develop them by harnessing the best brainpower we can use for the advancement of the welfare of the country so that should a a world war break out we shall not be unprepared to attend to our own needs. Then there is another thought, and it is that humanity feels that science should be directed to the promotion and the stimulation of production, the reduction of costs, the improvement of the standard of products, and the expediting of the distribution of products. Here we are dealing with a sphere where science can make a big contribution to the development of the means that are necessary to provide the needs of the nation. If I am interpreting this Bill aright we are confronted here with a measure which is not only worthy of this House but which certainly may be the most fruitful we have yet discussed in this House during the present Session. I do not want to make any comparisons now but I feel that the potentialities in regard to the application of this Bill for South Africa as a whole can be much more to its benefit and welfare than any measure that we have yet adopted during the precent Session. It is therefore a special privilege for me to beatole to join a few words to those already uttered by the Acting Prime Minister. If I read the Bill aright its main purposes are expounded in Clauses 3 and 4, clauses in which the bureau is instituted and in which the powers of the bureau are defined. When I examine these clauses I find the basic motive is not only the producing of national work of the highest standard but also the practical application of science and the results of research to the fostering of industries, and if I understand this objective aright I make bold to give my views on the organisation of our industrial life. In the first place we have the general conception that the economic life of the nation is comprised of a certain number of separate departments. That may be so, but they are all subject to one great whole. Industrial life is comprised of various branches of industry, but all of them confer the service of providing a certain part of the national needs, or certain services to the people as a whole. As I accept the standpoint that the economic life of the nation must be viewed as a whole, the unavoidable tendency that this cohesion of industry, this unity of the structure of the economic life can only be appreciated at its best and can be understood and also can be submitted to if that national life is properly constituted and reared on the best foundations that science can ensure. If we have this conception of our national life from an economic viewpoint, as one grand whole, then we find in the first place that our primary industries fill a rôle in it—mining, agriculture, fishing and similar primary industries. They play an important rôle in the economic life of the people, but they can only play their part effectively in our economic structure when scientific knowledge establishes their position and purpose in society which at the same time takes into consideration the aim of the grand unity so that their object can be properly adapted in reference to the secondary industries. As we are beginning here with research we shall gain a better appreciation of the needs of our secondary industries and we can correlate our secondary industries to our primary industries so that the production of raw materials will be adjusted to manufacturing industry. Secondary industries should not in the first instance rest entirely on the needs of the people but on the raw materials that can be provided by primary industries. Seeing then we can harness science to place primary production on a scientific foundation and seeing that we can adjust our primary industries to our secondary or manufacturing industries we go further and we come to transportation which enables us to interlock primary and secondary industries. Our transportation has already been well developed in South Africa, but it has not solved all its problems. This again is linked up with distribution and marketing, which leave much to be desired and in respect of which we have much to learn. Then we come to finance, on which I do not wish to dwell at the moment. These few random observations I am now communicating to the House find their significance, in my opinion, in this, that the unified structure of the economic life of the nation cannot reach its fullest proportions unless all the elements in it rest on a scientific foundation. Accordingly I welcome the Bill which is intended, as we find in Clause 3 to ensure that our natural resources should be the subject of scientific research in every sphere, which is an indication that research must have as an objective the application of the natural resources of thet country to a greater contribution of the national welfare. I leave that thought there and I turn to what the Acting Prime Minister alluded to as his view of the main purpose of the Bill. In my opinion there is a little more to be read into it than he mentioned to the House. The first object is, and he mentioned it too, that scientific investigation should promote the most advantageous utilisation of our natural resources. Then he added the second object, and that is the co-ordination of existing research institutions. Before I go further with this matter I wish to associate myself with what the Acting Prime Minister has said that though we realise we have big leeway to make up we are still indebted to the research that has been done in the past under extremely difficult circumstances. The third thought I should like to voice is in regard to the carrying out of routine tests. In view of the fact that it will be unavoidable for a portion of the work to be routine research we must be viligant that the routine side does not become the predominant objective. That predominant motive is that we cherish high hopes from scientific research as such, and we must see to it that the routine work is not allowed to falsify those high hopes. Seeing that it is an unavoidable feature we must be on our guard that it does not frustrate the main purpose. One of the most attractive features of the Bill is that provision is made that this organisation may attend to the training of research workers for the future. As a son of South Africa I hold the conviction which is based on good grounds that we have enough brains in South Africa for development in the cause of any service that South Africa requires, provided the opportunity is afforded for the necessary training. I place South Africa first, but it is not only South Africa that will be our sphere. The object should be to develop the brainpower that is available to answer the requirements of South Africa and then in addition to that to contribute what is of value to the outside world. But in this connection I want to say this, that as I at present attach so much value to the institution of the bureau there are certain expectations we cherish in regard to this Bill. I believe that it is a sphere in respect of which there will be no difference of opinion—we all welcome the principle of this Bill—but still there are aspects on which a difference of opinion may exist, and I believe a discussion of them at this stage and a free exchange of opinions will yield good results. In regard to the first point the Minister has incidentally already solved my difficulties. I want to point out further that this bureau should in the first place be an Afrikaans national bureau in the broadest sense of the word. Its purpose is to contribute to the knowledge, the capacity and the prosperity of the Afrikaner nation. We have no objection to the gleaning of information from overseas. I believe the world is becoming smaller and smaller and should we eventually obtain a co-ordinating organisation in connection with scientific research, if we can obtain a world organisation it may perhaps be a greater instrument in ensuring world peace than all the proposals we have had during the last 50 years. We have this hope that the bureau should become an Afrikaans national institution in the broadest sense of the word. It must not be a branch. In this connection I put this as my own conviction and no one can differ from me that the members of the council of the bureau must be Afrikaans citizens. I do not think I am touching on an aspect in regard to which I am not on common ground. As far as research is concerned we want to „make use of the best brains. In regard to the direction I have still to discover that we have not sufficient brains in South Africa to take the direction into our hands. I do not want to dwell on this subject at too great length, but I want further to say this, that this bureau should in the first instance have a co-ordinating task. We are privileged to have a number of scientific institutions in the country which have already done excellent work. We do not want those institutions to be subordinated or to be thrust into the background. It has already often been said that our research is fragmentary and that co-ordination is necessary. I wish to come to this point. We do not wish existing institutions to be eliminated; we do not want our universities to be eliminated. I feel myself for instance, that the universities of South Africa are not provided with adequate opportunities to participate in the development of the life of the nation. Attention is devoted to mental development but they should be more active in fitting into the industrial life and establishing greater contact with the life of the nation. They should be better provided with funds to play their rôle in the research that our industrial life and our national life requires. We do not want to eliminate any other institutions in our country that have already earned a world reputation, but there should not be any overlapping. I can understand that there must be certain institutions that should exploit territory that today is not being efficiently exploited and that there is a need for the creation of new institutions. But there should be no overlapping because that would imply waste of brain, money and time. There is a third proviso I would lay down together with co-ordination, and that is that the bureau should not be devoted exclusively to routine research. I shall not go further into that. Finally, I want to make the stipulation that this House should give the Minister to understand that seeing that the field for research work is so wide, seeing that so much new ground invites research work, there should be no meagre provision of funds. We do not want to create a new body to take up research and then to strangle it on account of not providing it with the necessary economic means to carry out its work. We have come to this conclusion in the recent past, that where an enterprise can contribute to the welfare of the people we should not be less generous with our financial contributions than when we are waging a war. As we are unanimous on this we wish to ask that the Minister should at least be not less considerate in affording financial means for the carrying out of this work. In this connection I wish to state the following. As far as the problem of finance is concerned I want to ask the House to instruct the Minister so long as he has control of the national exchequer not to discriminate unfairly but to be at least as accommodating in respect of this work as in connection with establishments required when we were engaged in hostilities. The Minister has already pointed out that tremendous sums of money have been made available for research in other countries. This information that I have obtained all goes to show what has been accomplished in other countries, and also indicates how dissatisfied people are that such a relatively small amount has been devoted to research. The source from which I draw my information discloses that in England before the war about £7,000,000 was devoted to research. It was realised by England that this is absolutely inadequate. The source of my information maintains further that the greatest expenditure is in Russia. What the actual contribution of Russia is to research we cannot determine, but if there is one thing in the presence of which the modern world is amazed it is the growth of the industrial power of that country, and that is to be ascribed to the money it has devoted to that purpose, and we can in that respect take a leaf out of their book. Thirdly we have the United States of America. The American National Research Planning Board devotes about £70,000,000 a year to this matter. It is accepted that this represents about £.64 per cent. of the enhanced value of manufacturing. It is no part of my task to propose a basis to the Minister, but this may possibly be the basis if he can bring it into line with the information that is available in other countries It is perhaps a basis on which the amount can be calculated and on which a contribution may be made to the funds of this institution. Whatever the basis may be I want to be certain that the Minister so far as the financial aspect is concerned will afford this institution the necessary means to develop in so far as money can accomplish this. Then I should like to make a few remarks in connection with paragraphs 11 to 13. I do not propose to go into the details of the Bill, but I think these provisions require further attention. They refer to the application of the results of research to patents, in the first place where the discoveries have been made by members of the staff who are in the service of the institution and of the State; and in the second place with the inventor’s rights in respect of inventions by research workers who are not in such service. Section 11 provides that the council can apply those rights under regulations made by the Governor-General. I should like to mention for the consideration of the Minister that as the council has itself got only executive authority and as it is an organisation created by the State this really is an inferior position for the State to be in if it permits a subordinate agency to have the authority in connection with important research results and to exercise that authority. I do not wish to express a judgment on this matter but I think that the Minister should devote a little more attention to it and that we should have the assurance that the results that are achieved can be applied to the benefit of the people as a whole, and that the Government will in the last instance be responsible for the application of those results. I do not want now to go into the details but this is an aspect on which there can be a difference of opinion, and I should be pleased if it enjoyed the further consideration of the Minister. In regard to the details of the Bill we shall probably discover small disagreements when we regard the provisions under the magnifying glass. We are in accord over the principle, and therefore I welcome the Bill. As far as we are concerned on this side of the House we wish to accord our fullest support to this grand idea, and on this occasion when we are making a fresh start we wish to express the hope that we ourselves may have the opportunity to reap the benefits, the benefits that will continue to expand for prosperity.

I want to join the hon. member for Ceres (Dr. Stals) in congratulating the Government on introducing this Bill. A question that does occur to one is why the Bill was not introduced many years ago. However, we welcome it now and I only hope like the hon. member for Ceres, that all the best possible benefits will be derived from it. There are just a few things to which I should like to draw the Minister’s attention. Not so long ago, we had the Standards Bill introduced into the House by the Minister of Economic Development. Now this Bill is being introduced by the Acting Prime Minister, and I do not know whether the Acting Prime Minister is aware that there are several sub-clauses set out in Section 4 of the Bill which deal practically entirely with standardisation. I often wondered when the Standards Bill was introduced, whether it was not likely to overlap with the objects of this Bill. If the Acting Prime Minister will refer to Clause 4, sub-clauses (d), (e) and (f), he will notice that they are essentially matters dealing with standardisation, and one has to be careful that there will not be overlapping between this council and the Standards Council. Reading this Bill side by side with the other, and bearing in mind the fact that we are a young country in the developing stage, one wonders whether this council could not absorb the other, rather than that they are going to function under different ministers. If not, I can only submit that there must be the closest co-operation between the two councils in order to avaid any overlapping. If the Minister will refer to the objects of the Standards Act, he will find that sub-clause 4 (b) almost verbatim sets out the objects contained in the Standards Act, again indicating that there is this possibility of overlapping. Perhaps one can deal with this in the Committee Stage. I am merely drawing the Minister’s attention to it. It also struck me that this Bill has come at a very opportune time. In our developing industries of South Africa, there can be no question that our industries find that they are too small individually each to have an effective research organisation. It means that you have to import people from overseas with the necessary knowledge knowledge which changes almost from week to week in this rapidly developing scientific world. I was wondering whether, through the assistance of this council, one could not arrange a system whereby existing industries could obtain technical advice from overseas research organisations. I think until such time as the research council is sufficiently established, we can send young South Africans over to various places in the world and pay in some form or another for the training that these men will receive there, and until the research council is sufficiently established, it can obtain the necessary advice overseas to impart to the local industries. I think that is a system that can be adopted, pending the introduction of an adequate research organisation. It stands to reason that for many years to come we cannot hope to establish research works locally which will be able to supply us with such up-to-date technical advice as we can obtain from overseas, either from industries run individually or from research works established by various overseas governments. There is one point in the Bill which I welcome very heartily and that is that I notice it makes provision for the council to co-operate with persons or organisations undertaking industrial research in other countries. That is a most welcome provision in the Bill, because that will give us an opportunity to develop our own research organisation. It is going to be no easy matter to get technical staff, and that is why I suggest that in the meantime there should be some form of co-operation under this Bill from which this country will benefit immediately and very substantially.

I have two objects in taking part in this debate. The first is to associate myself with those who have already spoken and, with all others who will speak subsequently, in welcoming this Bill. It is, as the hon. member for Ceres (Dr. Stals) has indicated the most important landmark in our approach to scientific matters in this country. The other object is to ascertain from the hon. Minister how medical research will figure in the general set-up of this Bill. The emphasis in the Bill itself is on scientific and industrial research. Although in the remarks which he used, in introducing the Bill, he referred to medical problems, one is naturally anxious to know the exact field of activity that will be granted to medical research. In the course of our enquiry there were strong representations that in this country, insufficient provision is made, financially and otherwise, for medical research. By this comment I do not mean to minimise the great work which has already been accomplished under very great difficulties. In Great Britain, as hon. members know, there is a Medical Research Council which has for years encouraged morally—and much more important—financially, all those who were anxious to further research in connection with medical problems. I want to associate myself with the remarks made by the hon. member for Ceres, that we have in this country two great and important assets readily available. Firstly, we have great facilities; there are splendid facilities for research not only in connection with scientific matters generally, but in connection with human research. Secondly, a most important point, we have here young men and women who are most anxious to carry out research and who have already, under great difficulties, made enormous contributions towards many problems. The work which has been accomplished, under favourable conditions, at Onderstepoort is well known to this country. It is a monument to its great founder, and is regarded with great favour all over the world. If—to use the Acting Prime Minister’s own words—to the “stimulating function” of this contemplated measure, the same regard will be given as to its “co-ordinating function”, and if by “stimulating function” is meant the making available of adequate financial resources, to encourage research, then I have no doubt, that as time goes on, we shall be able to give as excellent account of our stewardship in the field of human research as we have already in connection with research in other spheres. Nor should we forget on an occasion such as this that type of research which may not be immediately remunerative —abstract research—leading apparently nowhere, and producing no immediate dividends. I plead for those individual research workers to be encouraged along these lines of research. One never knows when research along these vague paths will ultimately lead to great discoveries. I said there are great fields of human research. One need but refer to the recent annual report of the Department of Public Health to realise that two conditions are responsible for our greatest morbidity and mortality, namely cardeo-vascular disease and cancer. With regard to the latter, an enormous amount of research has been and is being carried on throughout the world. It is true that this kind of research requires great amounts in equipment and finance. Now there are certain aspects of that problem which can be best studied in this country. A plea has been made some time ago for funds to establish a national cancer institute. I mention that to show that we are fuly alive to these problems and are anxious to do the necessary research work. I hope then in view of these few remarks, that we shall be told exactly the place which will be given to medical research in the future research activity as contemplated by the Bill. These are the only comments I desire to make in connection with this Bill which I welcome very heartily.

If the Government made a practice of producing this kind of legislation it would have a fairly good chance of remaining in power. I wish to identify myself with the views that have been expressed by the hon. member for Ceres (Dr. Stals). What is to me an encouraging aspect of the Bill is that it makes provision for South Africa not being dependent on the outside world. In that respect this is the Nationalist Party’s policy that is now being proposed by the Acting Prime Minister. It is a policy which we have advocated ever since in 1924 we came into power for the first time, to make South Africa independent in respect of its industries as well; and just as South Africa desires to be independent of the outside world in regard to its industries so this legislation is typical of the policy of the Nationalist Party. We are very glad to see that the Government and the Government Party are also able to learn and even to function in a national way on occasion. As the Acting Prime Minister has himself stated science is international, science knows no boundaries. For that reason especially we are glad to support this Bill, more especially science that makes for an improvement of the living conditions of the people. I was also glad to learn from the Acting Prime Minister that this institute that is being established will have a South African spirit and a South African character. Again I say we are glad to see that as a result of the example that was shown by this side of the House we are also beginning to have a national spirit over there. [Laughter.] The Acting Prime Minister laughs.

I am laughing at something else.

I would just say this, if he is laughing over that I would refer him to the debate that immediately preceded this debate and in which we had to struggle and struggle in vain for our own people to be cared for. Now we have the assurance, and I hope it will not remain at an assurance and that that principle will be applied in the work of this institute, the principle of the Nationalist Party to look after your own people first, and that when appointments are made in connection with this institute preference will be given to our own scientists. An institute of this sort has become necessary for another reason, and that is that South Africa has its own particular type of problems. We have special conditions in our own country. For instance we have tropical conditions in certain parts, we have certain types of stock, and it is by reason of the special conditions prevailing in South Africa that it is necessary we should have our own scientific institute. Now there are two points that I should like to mention, but that have already been broached by previous speakers, one by the hon. member for Vereeniging (Lt.-Col. Rood), and that is possible overlapping in connection with standardisation. I do not know whether the Minister of Economic Development has been consulted over this matter, but for once I wish cordially to agree with the hon. member for Vereeniging and to point out to the Minister that according to the wording of the Bill there is really a danger of overlapping. Once you have overlapping the next step is clashing, and one thing to be avoided at all costs is clashing. We know that there is a tendency for State departments to clash with one another and if you get overlapping here there will necessarily be overlapping between the standards institute and this research institute. The other point is this; it is a matter that has already been mentioned by previous speakers, but I wish to emphasise it. If the Acting Prime Minister reads Clause 4 he will see that it deals almost exclusively with trade and industries, standardisation and industrial instruments, etc., and I hope that the institute will not only be devoted to research in connection with industry but also to research in connection with public health, and that that will be stated here more clearly. It is true that Clause 4 (1) (c) says—

That is a general provision but I should think that it is very desirable—and I hope the Minister will insert it here—that it must be made very clear that this institute is also charged with carrying out research work in connection with public health in this country and with medical matters. And secondly, as this institute will be applying itself to research in connection with industry, I want to say this. The Acting Prime Minister has stated that science knows no boundaries. I added that science is international in so far as it extends to research that may be of benefit to humanity as a whole. I would, however, like to express the hope in the interests of our own industries in South Africa that where our own scientists discover certain industrial processes those processess will be preserved for South Africa itself, so that we here in South Africa may reap the full benefits of our own research. When anything has been discovered in connection with medicine it is another matter. Then we give it to the world. But when we discover processes that are in the interests of our industries it should be kept secret; it should be a process to be reserved for our own industries, and patents ought to be taken out to protect our own industrialists. Those are the only matters I wish to mention. I repeat I am glad to see this disposition towards a national policy the Acting Prime Minister has now revealed and on account of this being a typically national policy we whole-heartedly support this Bill.

The introduction of a Bill of this kind provides one of the occasions, unfortunately all too few, on which all sides of the House happily stand together and rejoice at the step the Government is taking. I can say that now without paying too much regard to the typically isolationist and almost Nazi approach to the whole problem of scientific and technological research put forward by the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw). On such an occasion, if there is any jarring note other than that, I think it is simply in the direction of suggesting that while there is no criticism of what the Government proposes to do, there is some disappointment in regard to what the Government does not propose to do. I welcome most heartily the establishment of this institute. I realise and I appreciate the enormous social intention which is behind the plan of the Government to centralise research in industrial and technogolical matters. My disappointment lies in the final statement of the hon. Minister which, of course, is just expressing what the terms of the Bill suggest, that the powers of this institute will not, in effect, extend to social and economic research. I feel that that is a very disappointing situation. In so far as the object of a scientific research institute is in essence social, I cannot understand why, other than for purely administrative reasons, it was decided to separate the control of scientific and technological research from social research. The intention of this research is to develop our natural resources with a view to the building up of the standard of living of our own people and to enabling us to make our contribution, I hope, to the rising standards of the rest of the world. My difficulty just is that I do not know how we can approach an objective of that kind when we know as little as we do, which is lamentably little, about the character of the people whom we hope to serve. At present we are trying in South Africa to build a new society—and this is part of our plan—with the most lamentably inadequate knowledge of the type of society for which we have to plan. I say that with, I hope, some authority, since I have been interested in the social character of our society for a very long time; and I venture to state that the most urgent need at the present time in this country is to find out just what the social and economic conditions of the whole of our population are. We have never had any serious scientific investigation into the character of our European population. We had the Carnegie investigation into the conditions of poor whites in 1930-’31-’32, but the report of that enquiry was in the terms of the usual public commission type. It gave us no specific information about the character of that population. It gave us a number of broad generalisations which may or may not have been true at that time. I think they probably were true at that time, but whether they have remained true over the last 15 years, I defy anybody to be dogmatic about. My own feeling today is therefore that one of our first needs is to find out what the social and economic character of our European population is. Let us begin there and from there we can go on to find out the conditions of the rest of the population. So far as the native population is concerned we had the Native Economic Commission which reported in 1932. Again that investigation was conducted in the traditional way in which investigations of this kind have in the past been conducted where the functions of the State were limited to holding the ring for contending forces. The commission went out and asked people what they thought of the conditions that prevailed and, in the circumstances, when the field of Government was so directly limited as it was in the past, that type of investigation had certain advantages. But its advantages were extremely limited for any social and economic plan, and today we are not only planning but we are putting the whole weight of the authority of law behind the decision which we make. We are building a planned society in which we are laying down what people shall do and what they shall not do, where they shall sell their goods, what prices they shall charge, what prices shall be paid, and all the rest of it; and we are doing that on a basis of information which belongs to an entirely different type of society. We need exact information if our type of planning is not, in effect, to set up far worse pressure-groups than we have had before. The Native Economic Commission gave us the broad lines of the situation which, I believe, were generally true in respect of our native population in 1932, but I have no hesitation in saying that in major directions the findings of the commission are no longer so true today; but we have no details on which to establish this belief. I can only surmise from my own experience as other people can surmise from their experience, and I feel that the experience of the rest of this country in this connection is probably less than mine. In recent years, we have had the report of the Agricultural and Industrial Requirements Commission and the reports of the Social and Economic Planning Council. I suggest again that all those reports which have been indications of the lines upon which certain people have thought we ought to proceed with our planning, are based on the widest generalisations. They are based in my submission, on assumptions which were possibly true in 1925, for instance, when the Economic and Wage Commission made its first series of investigations into our industrial conditions, but there is no guarantee that they are true today. They are not backed by scientifically established fact. Those are all directions in which I feel scientific investigation is one of the very greatest urgency, and my submission is that all our scientific and technological investigation is going to lead us nowhere, unless it is linked up with a careful analysis of the character of the people, their conditions and their potentialities. We are told by the Agricultural and Industrial Requirements Commission for instance that we have labour resources that are eminently adapted to mass production methods. That, Sir, is a generalisation. I want to know on what it is based. I want to know something about the standards of efficiency of our population and the basis on which they are measured. I want to know also how the labour conditions of this country compare with the labour conditions of other countries. I want to know how our industrial organisations has been influenced by the type of labour force available in this country. I want to know how the character of that labour force has encouraged or retarded the reclassification of occupations in industry. I want to know how the building industry has developed in this country as compared with the building industry in America or England, how the organisation of the shoe making industry compares with the shoe making industry in other countries; whether our labour resources allow us to import the sort of machinery other countries use and to use it in the same sort of way as they use it. I want to know how we can apply the enormous development in mass production methods, to which the war has given rise overseas, whether those methods can be adjusted to the needs and conditions of this country; and that is all social and economic research which, I submit, is essential to the full virtue of the purpose for which this scientific and technological research is designed. The hon. Minister has said that to incorporate all this responsibility in this one council, would be too cumbersome, that it would be unworkable. Well, he may be right; I do not know. I can say that, from personal experience, I have enormous faith in Dr. Schonland who has been chosen by the Government to be the head of the Institute. I believe his experience is wide enough and his imagination and his knowledge are great enough to make it possible for him to integrate an institute which would cover these additional fields. The hon. Minister, I may say, offered no encouragement to development in the field of social and socio-economic research when he told us at the end of his speech in introducing the Bill, that the National Research Council would continue to function in this field and would be responsible for all the fields of research which do not fall within the ambit of this new Research Council. The hon. Minister told us himself that it was because of the inadequacy of the machinery that previously existed, its inability to co-ordinate and centralise and initiate research on a wide enough basis that it has been decided to establish this Scientific Research Council to deal specifically with scientific and technological research. I feel that if the pre-existing machinery was not competent to co-ordinate that particular field of research it is far less able to co-ordinate this much more difficult and scattered field of research. Social and economic research is, I believe, a much more difficult field to plan and co-ordinate than the scientific and industrial field and the machinery which it is proposed shall continue to function here has never fulfilled its function in this regard. In fact, the whole field of social and economic research has been a complete Cinderella in this country and apparently it is remaining a Cinderella. I hope, if it is not possible—as apparently it is not—to expand the scope of this Bill, the Minister, before the passing of the second reading of this Bill, will give us some assurance that some new life is going to be injected into the national research organisation which now exists, a new life which will give it aid and capacity to initiate research, and to control and finance research in the social and economic fields on an adequate basis. At the present time its business, so far as I have had experience of it, is to meet from time to time to consider applications from aspiring research workers, to decide whether it will or will not give a grant to these research workers, and to wait more or less hopefully for results where a grant is made. The Minister knows the difficulties, for instance, the universities labour under. Our universities in the country are essentially teaching universities. Their staffs are not nearly big enough for the teaching of students which has to be done in view of the educational and age standards of our students, and to carry on continuous research. They carry on research in their spare time, which is very little, and for the rest, there is no provision made in the university system for research workers. For instance, we have never developed the research fellowship type of office in our universities which would help to some extent to fill the gaps in the situation. And always, as I say, the finance has been hopelessly inadequate. And in my own experience, the research boards have shown very little interest on enthusiasm or appreciation of the directions of social research. I trust the hon. Minister will not regard this as any attempt to belittle the achievement which is proposed in this Bill. I think we all welcome the Bill most whole-heartedly and we trust and believe that it will yield good results. It is simply there are such obvious possibilities and such high hopes of the achievement of the Council it is here proposed to institute that we feel disappointed that its range has been circumscribed in this fashion. I hope the Minister will give us the assurance that while he is considering centralising social and economic research, as he now proposes to centralise scientific and industrial research, he will make plans to reinforce the research organisation which now exists so that we shall not be unduly delayed in the development of that social research which is so essential to our future.

I am pleased to be among the first to congratulate the Minister on the introduction of this Bill. I am anxious to know whether all the members in the House have realised the far-reaching consequences of a Bill of this nature. I would imagine this is one of the most important measures that has been brought before this House for a long, long time. I hope to trace the implications later. It is true, as the Acting Prime Minister told us, we must not speak lightly of the contributions made to the scientific world by South Africa. It is equally true that he spoke in that strain viewed against the background of possibilities in South Africa with regard to our numerous difficulties, and I have no doubt he also had in mind our small European population. But we must view this in the light of the scientist. We must not flatter ourselves that we have contributed much to the stock of human knowledge, for reasons I have already indicated. South Africa, scientifically speaking, is in the doldrums. We are in the wilderness. We are groping in the dark. There are some people who assess the value of a nation by one method and others by other methods, but in the scientific world we diagnose the future of a country by analysing the scientists it has. We are of opinion a nation’s welfare, and unfortunately the reverse, varies directly in proportion to the quality of the scientists. We in South Africa have few scientists. But we have scientists of whom we can be proud. Some I am going to mention now and some later. I think of Dr. Du Toit, who is in charge at Onderstepoort, who is the Dean of the Faculty of Veterinary Science at Pretoria University and also the Director at Onderstepoort. He is a great man—a man whose work is known not only in South Africa but overseas. I think of another applied scientist, Dr. H. van der Bijl. We all know what he has done and what he is capable of doing. So while I say there is a paucity of scientists in South Africa I mention these names as the names of great people. I might say, Mr. Speaker, there is a very great scientist in our country, in fact in our midst, but the hon. Minister has already referred to Dr. Schonland, and it is not for me to add to what he said. I would also refer to Dr. Rogers and Dr. Du Toit, both great geologists. I would couple with their names that of the late Dr. Hans Pirow. I could mention others to illustrate that we have in this country of 2½ million Europeans produced some great scientists, though not enough. It is true that we can make progress in a country by copying the methods of another country; the outstanding example is Japan which has slavishly copied all the scientific methods of Germany. We know a country can make great progress if it is willing to learn; but there comes a time in the history of a nation when it must not merely slavishly copy the scientific achievements of other nations, but when it must stimulate the creative brain. I believe that by means of this most valuable and indescribably far-reaching Bill we are on the eve of doing so. Each country has problems of its own. Then, Mr. Speaker, I would ask myself: Is the question of soil erosion one of bad farming, or is it due to geological conditions, or is it due to changing meteorological conditions? The Acting Prime Minister has indicated to us in his speech that these are matters that should be relegated to agricultural research. Well, the great scientists may still work that out for themselves; is it agriculture or geology or meteorology? We know how much the country suffers from soil erosion, so here alone is a great field for research. In my humble opinion we have not yet explored our minerals to the full. After all South Africa is known throughout the world for its gold and diamonds only. In diamonds its possesses 98.8 per cent. and in gold 46.4 per cent. of the world’s output. Both have been placed there by the hands of God and are being taken out by the hands of man. That represents the sum total of the knowledge people overseas have of us. But we have an example here— it was quoted in this House yesterday— of there having been a shortage of mercury. Unbeknown to us we had a good supply of cinnabar and we are now manufacturing our own mercury in the Transvaal. It seems to me a council of this nature will explore the possibilities not only of producing sufficient for our own requirements but sufficient to be able to export. Gold is not the only mineral that is locked in the earth in South Africa. There is chrome and manganese and various other base metals. Some have been developed to a certain extent, but to what extent? I say that this industrial council, for that purpose I take it, it will be industrial in its outlook, will have wonderful scope. I ask the simple question: Have we harnessed our water supply in this country? Are we satisfied with our farming products? Are the farmers satisfied from the scientific point of view that they are getting the maximum out of the soil? Are they satisfied when the country can produce only 2 per cent. of the cheese consumed in this country? If an improvement can be brought about is it by virtue of the soil, by analysing the chemical nature of the soil in connection with farming? Surely that is a subject that ought to be investigated. Are we satisfied with our wool; are we satisfied with the quantity and the quality of our wool? Will we learn from Australia or will we teach Australia? We have the same climate and the same conditions as Australia. Are we satisfied with our coal by-products? Are we satisfied to let 75 per cent. of the value of our coal go up our chimneys? Are we using the coal as a source of heat only? What about the by-products of coal? I am not going to develop the question of food products but I wish our scientists would devote a little more time to the humble monkey-nut and the soya bean, especially when people are looking for a sufficiency of protein instead by way of beef. We have it in abundance and no doubt our research council will, in the fullness of time, concentrate their energies on matters like that. What about chemicals? Are we making headway in their manufacture? What about textiles? We have developed to a small extent and we can go still further. Then questions arise in regard to plastics and buttons. What about cotton? All these matters will no doubt be investigated. But there are others; take cement. We can make a great deal more cement. I submitted a chemical analysis of the Portland Cement in the Robertom Mountains here in 1918. [Interruptions.] I am a scientist. I am not interested in the unholy trinity of £ s. d. These are things that can be produced.

[Inaudible.]

I am telling you what to do; if you take the wrong medicine it is your own fault. What about the manufacture of glass and paper and innumerable other things? What about the medical side? Does the House know that recently there was not one single vial of insulin procurable in the country? True, that was only for a matter of hours, but we were without a single vial. That is a most serious thing in view of the large numbers of diabetics in this country. I should think that about 60 per cent. of these take insulin. It is serious when we cannot get life-saving medicine for these people. Few of us knew we could not get insulin anywhere. You will agree it is quite wrong we had not got it. The hon. member for Yeoville (Dr. Gluckman) spoke about research. There is something on the medical side that can be developed, and I quote insulin as an instance. It is interesting, too, that a wonderful discovery of 1940, penicillin, was known to the old Voortrekkers of 1830. They did not know what it was but they knew of its curative value. Those things should be analysed. The Voortrekkers used the decoctions of the weeping willow tree and gave them to their children. They did not know what it was, but it cured the cardiac cases. Those are things which suggest lines of scientific research and development not only on the industrial side but on the medical side. Hon. members will realise, therefore, what great importance I attach to this wonderful Bill. The Minister of Economic Development mentioned in the House the other day we are now manufacturing our own D.D.T. That is excellent. It is a very good insecticide, especially effective in the case of certain insects, and we can increase the volume of its manufacture. Why not? The war has shown us that we need it. We want research, and more research, and more research again. But the Acting Prime Minister knows only too well that the question of research in relation to industry has been of little value. For more than two decades he was at the university and also an academician, and although he is a pure scientist he knows of the application of these things to industry. The universities have contributed practically nothing in this connection—nothing to what they would like to. That is because they have been working in watertight compartments. They have told us repeatedly they are overworked and understaffed and consequently they cannot pay much attention to research. There are certain things they have contributed to medical research. They are not generally known, but hon. members like the hon. member for Yeoville and some others may have read of it or know of it from their personal experiences; they will know the tests I am referring to. But though major in importance they are minor in quantity. The Minister has expressed the hope they will correlate the work and see what can be applied industrially. The British universities have just realised how much more important research is than they thought it was. Their grant in this respect has been increased threefold, from £2,200,000 to £6,600,000, with £10,000,000 put down straight away. I mention this to show the nations are waking up in the matter of research, even from a university point of view. Now, Mr. Speaker, I còme back to this Bill. I ask myself, What can South Africans do if given a chance? Well, I would like to quote a name I purposely left out earlier, the name of Sir Arnold Theiler. He built up Onderstepoort, which attracts not only South Africans, but people thousands and thousands of miles away, as the Minister has indicated. Americans come here, Australians come here to see this research school; but not only a research school. It is one of the finest if not the finest, veterinary school in the whole world. Those are the terms that have been applied to it, extravagant though they may seem; they are the actual terms that have been used. What did Dr. Theiler do? He wanted certain things very urgently and he found he had no money. Unlike most scientists, who are shy and retiring people, Sir Arnold was not, and he set about to get what he wanted. The reaction of the politicians was to say: There is no money. His retort was, I want money immediately, and if I do not get it I shall leave. He got the money, and when he spent it he came back to the politicians and said: I have more work to do and I want more money or I resign. He spent that money and he came back a third time, and he got the money again. He virtually held a scientific pistol at the head of the politicians, and he got what he wanted, and now I ask South Africa in particular and the world in general: Was that money well spent or not? Onderstepoort stands as a monument to Sir Arnold and is a credit to South Africa and the world. Fortunately we have a very good man following Sir Arnold, in Dr. Du Toit, who is carrying on the work. The point I want to develop is we must get into the habit of knowing that you cannot put a reel of cotton into the ground today and pick a suit of clothes tomorrow. We must realise the most important aspect the Minister put before us was that of long-term research. We cannot expect results tomorrow. Therefore the Government must be prepared to finance us and to assist men who want to go in for research, to give assistance unstintingly from decade to decade. They may sow in tears but they will reap in joy. Now I should like to illustrate this point. We had a man, Dr. Van den Enden. I am proud of him. He is today one of the greatest experts in viruses in Great Britain. He is lost to South Africa. He said goodbye to us and we will never see him again. Then we lost Dr. Van der Merwe from Cape Town; he is now a professor of physics in Columbia University.

What about Munnik and Malan?

We lost Dr. T. J. Dry as well. These are all people who devoted their time to research in order to add to the stock of human knowledge, but their own country knew them not, because they were not possessed of material means and could not afford to conduct research and pay for their slice of bread at the same time. So they went to other countries, where they can be kept and where by their research they can develop and do great work. Then I mention Dr. Zuckerman, probably one of the greatest anthropologists in the world today. Hon. members over there have mentioned many more names.

Some of them were political victims.

No, there was no politics in it. There was no politics with Dr. Dry and Dr. Zuckerman as far as I know.

What about Dr. Malan?

Who is he? I mean which one? I know half a dozen of them. I will deal with these gentlemen on another occasion. I have mentioned these gentlemen to show what South Africans can do if you give them a chance. I have been informed about timber research that the hon. Minister spoke of; he mentioned it in passing. I would like to mention it again. Ten years ago the Chamber of Mines instituted it with the idea of finding out what was the action of the fungus on the timber in the mines, and I believe they succeeded in preventing that and in thereby saving hundreds of thousands of pounds per annum. I was told the saving represented £1,000,000 a year. But I know the Minister of Finance dislikes financial exaggeration and I would rather say hundreds of thousands. But they have developed further, and they are now investigating the clothing of the miners and making further improvements. The Minister has spoken about the wonderful institution in connection with the leather industry. Hon. members need not be afraid about finance; industry will give the money. The industries are only too willing to help the scientist if the scientist is willing to help them. They helped that institute to the extent of £10,000 to £15,000 a year. In Australia £500,000 a year is devoted to scientific research, and of this amount industry contributes two-fifths. In Canada, too, £500,000 is applied to scientific research, and the contribution made by industry amounts to two-fifths. I mention this to point out the importance of long-term research; and further to point out mainly to the Minister of Finance, that he need have no fear about finding all the money. Industry is only too willing to help and to spend lavishly on scientific research. A further thing I want to mention is the scientific progress made in connection with agar-agar. Some of our scientists here obtained this, after months and months of hard work, from seaweed and today we are producing agar-agar in this city. I will discuss that in connection with another Bill. Then I hope hon. members realise that from our despised stock fish we are producing oils, the vitamin content of which is ten or twenty times as great as that of the greatest vitamin content in the world, namely from the cod. I must say that under a man like Dr. Schonland these things are bound to expand. I am very pleased to support this Bill because I see in it the possibility of supporting young men who are keen and anxious to make their contribution to the welfare of the country, and that contribution can be found in worse channels than scientific development. I am confident that in our midst there are more Dr. Schonlands and Dr. Van den Endens to be found—men who have been neglected or who have been working for a mere pittance, men of great brain who are starved and lost to the country because they have no financial backing to enable them to develop their gifts. They are “flowers bom to blush unseen”.

We are very glad to welcome this Bill. It is high time South Africa realised the importance of carrying out the work of scientific research. It is high time we realised that the whole future of our country must rest on a scientific basis. In the past we developed our industries in the country mainly on the principle of what was necessary in time of war. It is only war conditions the absolute pressure that existed to provide for the requirements of the country that led to the creation of industries. It was when we could not obtain products from elsewhere that we felt that we had to set about producing something in our own country. For that reason we had in the previous world war the spectacle of a large number of industries developing in the country, and those industries passed through a very difficult period when the world war came to a close. Why? Simply because those industries had not been developed on a sound scientific basis. Had they developed on a sound scientific basis the great shock South African industries received after the first world war would not have presented so great a problem. The whole problem is a difficult one, and the great factor that South Africa has always required has been thorough scientific investigation. This Bill, we hope, if it is properly administered, as is expected on this side, will assist us to solve that great problem. I should like to enlarge on a few features of the Bill, but before I proceed to do so I wish to express a few views on the main basic principles. In the first place I should like to emphasise strongly a matter that has been broached by the hon. member for Ceres (Dr. Stals) namely transportation. It is known throughout the world, and very well known indeed in our country where we have far-flung territories with a very scattered population, that transportation is of the most vital importance. Transportation is of importance in sound economic development, and consequently we hope that the council to be appointed under the Bill will make a thorough investigation into transportation in South Africa. The significance of the aspect that is involved in our country’s transportation should no longer need to be emphasised at present. This last war which has just ended has proved to us that transport is of extreme importance. In addition to the development of armaments, air transport, as well as other forms, has always been regarded as of supreme importance. It is because we regard it as of so much importance that we hope that peace-time transportation will develop on a basis such as has never previously been witnessed in our country. We are still carrying on with old methods of transport. We are continuing with our old railway transport; we have our motor transport and we are doing something ton in respect of air transport. I maintain it is extremely necessary that this council should remain in contact with the latest developments overseas in the realm of transportation, and that we in this wide and outstretched country of South Africa should develop our transportation to a degree that has not been witnessed in any other country. Then and then only can we in South Africa not only in the scientific sphere but also in the economic domain develop along sound lines in a manner we have never before succeeded in doing. When we come to the mining industry there are a few points I should like to mention. The basis and the background of our country has largely been the development of the mining industry. The new epoch of South Africa was ushered in with the discovery of diamonds, subsequently with the discovery of gold and after that with the discovery of coal and other base minerals. But this war, and especially the great attention that has been focused on the geological surveys, has indicated to South Africa the great possibilities locked up in the development of the mining industry in South Africa. Consequently we feel it is of supreme importance that this council should not only get to grips with the problems of secondary industry but that it should also turn its attention to the development of mining and other industries. When we turn to agricultural industry we find that the hon. member for Gardens (Dr. L. P. Bosman) has already referred to the part that has been played by Onderstepoort. But we have learned more to appreciate, and the world has come more and more to appreciate that the productive potentialities of the agricultural industry are dependent on the chemical constituents of the soil, and this is of importance in connection with the matter of soil erosion alluded to by the hon. member for Gardens. We are on the threshold of the chemical agricultural industry, and here in South Africa we have a great future in a relatively poor agricultural country, if we can utilise the best experts to carry out research into our agricultural industry viewed from this angle, so that chemical science can be invoked to attain the highest productive powers. We should like to learn from the Minister whether it is possible that this council should devote attention to this aspect of research. When we talk about the new Scientific Research Council we are inclined to think in the first place of research work in connection with secondary industries. But the great question bound up with secondary industries is not only their chemical aspect. There is also other scientific problems in connection with the industry which have not yet affected us in South Africa. Take, for instance, the question of industrial economy. I regret that the Minister is not interested in what I am saying, but it remains a fact that in the sphere of industrial economy we have made very little advance and little research work has been done in South Africa, for example in regard to the layout of factories and all those factors are grouped under this designation, and I should like to see the council doing something in this direction. In the great countries overseas much progress has been made and considerable data has been accumulated in the sphere of industrial economy. Those countries have not only applied themselves to industrial chemistry, in respect of which science has already made big strides, but also in the sphere of industrial economy, and this might yield much fruit for South Africa if this council could institute an investigation into that aspect of our industrialisation. Then there is also another aspect to which the big industrial countries attach paramount importance, namely the study of industrial psychology. This council could also devote its attention to that. Let us take in this connection for instance a service like the public service in South Africa. There the question of industrial psychology is totally neglected. If the State in respect of the people in its own service does not realise for a moment the importance of the factor of industrial psychology and its relationship to our productive powers and our labour powers, then we are fully entitled to ask the Acting Prime Minister that attention should also be given to this feature of the matter. Then there is another important aspect that is of interest and that we want to mention from this side of the House. On this research council we want the best brains of South Africa, and then the public would like to have the assurance that we shall not have in connection with this council a repetition of the same saddening experience that we unfortunately had recently at Onderstepoort, where an outstanding scientist, a man like Professor Malan—I am proud of him being one of my constituents —was kicked out for a trivial so-called political reason. If this council is constituted on that basis it will not always have at its disposal the best brains of South Africa. Consequently we should in this connection have an assurance from the Acting Prime Minister. We cannot afford here in South Africa, where our whole future depends on scientific development and research, and where we have to compete with the rest of the world, not to have the best brains at our disposal. We should like to have an assurance from the Acting Prime Minister that trivial reasons of this kind will not be resorted to in the future in connection with this council in order to discharge people, and that we shall have the best scientific brains to carry out the work of the council. Then there are a few matters in the Bill itself which I would like to mention. I turn in the first place to Clause 4, in which the objects of the council are mentioned. Amongst those objects we find the following—

1. (a) To promote the utilisation of the natural resources of the Union.
2. (b) To undertake testing, investigation and researches, in such manner as it may deem advisable, with the object of improving the technical processes and the methods used in industry, of discovering processes and methods which may promote the expansion of existing or the development of new industries or the better utilisation of waste products.

May I ask the Acting Prime Minister whether he will see to it that this council that is now being instituted will not clash with the Board of Trade and Industries or with the Social and Economic Planning Council. With his long experience the Acting Prime Minister probably knows that in the past there has been the keenest competition between various departments of state, and particularly between various subdivisions of the same department in expressing their ideas on the same matter. There was a time when there was nothing short of continuous warfare between various branches of the Agricultural Department. The one division devoted all its attention to neutralising the work of the other division. Will the Acting Prime Minister give us the assurance that he will use his influence with this council to ensure that in the future there will be co-operation between these bodies? These are all methods to obtain the best results, and if those various bodies are going to come in conflict with each other the instituting of this council will be of absolutely no value. Among the principal objects we find further the following—

1. (d) To provide and control facilities for the testing and calibration of precision instruments, gauges and apparatus, the determination of their degree of accuracy and their certification;
2. (e) to provide and control facilities required for research in relation to standardisation in industry and commerce.

We recently adopted a Standards Act. Again we do not want to have any clashing and I want to emphasise the point that the Acting Prime Minister should intervene in order to ensure that there is the largest measure of friendly co-operation existing. Unless the Acting Prime Minister brings this to the notice of the council there will be clashing between the various bodies and we shall not obtain the best results from the council he is going to appoint. Then I want to refer to the provisions in Paragraph (j) and (k)—

1. (j) To establish and control facilities for the collection and dissemination of information relating to scientific and technical matters;
2. (k) To act as liaison between the Union and other countries in matters relating to scientific and industrial research.

Will the Acting Prime Minister inform us whether regular liaison will be maintained with overseas countries. It is extremely necessary that such contact should be made. If there is not continuous contact between us and other countries so that we may keep in touch with scientific developments that are arising and that are being accomplished we shall not be deriving that benefit we should derive from this undertaking. We are still a young country. We are only on the eve of development, and unless continuous liaison is maintained we in South Africa will suffer great damage. As I notice from Paragraph (c) that we are also going to co-operate with other countries, I should like to know from the Acting Prime Minister how we are going to build up that co-operation. There are large scientific research bureaus in all the great industrial countries of the world, and it is of paramount importance that we should maintain unceasing contact with them. We find the members of this council do not draw a fixed salary, but that they will mainly be just compensated in respect of their expenses; I ask them how they can be expected to keep in touch with the whole of the industrial world. I know the Acting Prime Minister will reply that committees will be appointed. There will be such committees, but the question I as a backbencher want to broach is how is the Acting Prime Minister going to ensure that we shall get the best service from this council especially in so far as concerns scientific matters in other countries of the world. Unless we can do so, this council holds little significance for us. Our country simply must develop on a scientific foundation. We must have the best scientific knowledge of the world at our disposal, otherwise it will be impossible for us to compete, and unless we can do so we shall be unable to improve the standard of living of our people, or to establish that new order of which we have heard such a great deal. According to Clause 11 (2) provision is made that bonuses may be granted for discoveries and inventions in connection with any new technical idea. I am glad about that. We are a democratic country, and whether we are in favour of it or not our economy and our industries are still cast in a capitalistic mould; and unless we make provision for compensating them we cannot expect research workers to bend their best efforts to study and research for the generation of new methods, and new ideas night after night over a course of years. Unless we compensate these people there is no hope of this council being a success. Consequently I think it an excellent idea that the Acting Prime Minister should insert a provision to that effect in the Bill. If we wish to have the very best methods we must be prepared to remunerate the persons who furnish us with those methods. Then I come to the unlucky number 13, but the Minister has fortunately taken up in it a good principle, namely that all the accounts of this council shall be subject to the audit of the Auditor-General who shall transmit his report to this House. The time is overripe when such semi-state institutions as have been established, as well as those which are still to be created, should submit their accounts to the Auditor-General so that he may exercise control. It amounts to nothing when an ordinary auditor inspects the accounts. The Auditor-General has control and reports to this House how the money has been expended, whether it is being squandered or whether it is being spent in a regular and an economical manner. This Parliament ought to insist on that, not only in respect of boards that may be appointed in the future, but also in respect of all boards that have been appointed in the past. This is of supreme importance and I hope the Acting Prime Minister will enforce this in the future so that we may know that the Auditor-General, and through the Auditor-General this House, retains control of the expenditure of such bodies. Then there is another small point under 13 (3). In this it is laid down that the report shall be laid by the Minister on the Table of the House within fourteen days. I was an official for 14 ½ years. I do not want to say I regret it; I learned a great deal. In my opinion this is a thing which is quite impossible. In the case of the Board of Trade and Industries the report must be laid on the Table within thirty days. But such reports have to be translated, and at the time of the year when the reports have to be laid on the Table then it is virtually impossible for a report to be tabled even within thirty days. This is purely an administrative matter but I want to appeal to the Minister to alter this point about the fourteen days. I am speaking in this respect from practical experience. We are glad that the Acting Prime Minister has in this one instance at least, realised that this council ought to fall under the control of this House. We are supposed to be a democratic country, and if we do not keep such councils under the control of this Parliament we shall be weakening those principles that a democratic country should follow. Now I turn to Clause 15 (j)—

This is the usual provision we generally find in connection with regulations. In the past I have always protested against it, and I wish to do so again. “The objects of this Act” is far too wide. When we accept such a provision it means that legislative measures can be adopted solely by means of regulation, without the approval of this House. We have devoted hundreds of millions of pounds to fight dictatorship and Nazism in order to preserve the democratic system, but if we accept such clauses we shall be weakening the democratic system. Such a provision is imported into almost every Bill. It is far too wide. It is so wide that the Minister can practically legislate by way of regulation, and I cannot do otherwise than protest emphatically against it. If we wish to preserve the democratic principle in our country in the future we should live up to it in principle and not accept clauses of this character in the future.

In contributing to the discussion on this important measure I wish first to pay tribute to the contribution to the body of scientific thought in South Africa made by the Acting Prime Minister, and to his guidance for many years in the educational field. Now, Mr. Speaker, may I move—

I second.

Agreed to.

Debate adjourned; to be resumed on 17th May.