As this Bill is a hybrid measure, it will now in terms of Rule 29 of the Rules relating to Hybrid Bills be referred to the examiners for report.

I should like to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to the use of the word “prys” in the Afrikaans text of this clause as well as of other clauses of the Bill. Linguistically there is nothing wrong with the use of this word, as far as I know. Nevertheless I want to suggest that the word “buit” is perhaps a more correct Afrikaans word to use in this connection. I must honestly confess that until I had read the Bill I did not know what “prysregsbevoegdheid” was. I would, however, have known immediately what it meant if it had read “buitregsbevoegdeheid”. Therefore I want respectfully to suggest that the hon. Minister consider substituting the word “buit” for the word “prys”.

The hon. member was so kind as to notify me beforehand that he preferred the word “buit” to the word “prys”. I have therefore had an opportunity of going into the matter to some extent. It appears that the word “prys” is not only linguistically correct, but also correct in terms of legal history. It is therefore the correct word. It appears that this word was taken from the old French by the Dutch and the British. It actually derives from the Latin word prehendere, that is to say. “to seize” or “to take”. In the context of this Bill it therefore means to “seize” or to “take” a ship. As far as can be ascertained, the words “prysreg”, “prysgereg” or “prysgeregshof” were used as far back as the year 1590. Since this word has therefore come down to us by way of Dutch, we must retain it not only for linguistic reasons, but also for the sake of its legal history —we do after all acknowledge Roman-Dutch law.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

Clause 4:

I wonder whether the Minister could give us some indication what a “condemned prize” is. We are repealing all the legislation dealing with prizes with their element of piracy, that certain prizes can be “condemned prizes”—for instance, a ship can be a condemned prize. This is a matter of substantive law, rather than a matter of procedure. What, in the first place, is a “condemned prize”? There is no definition of it in this Bill and there is no indication who wlil determine whether a ship is a condemned prize or not, nor how a determination of a ship as a condefned prize is to be communicated to the court. In other words, a condemned prize is a state of fact, or a state of law. Someone has to determine it. Presumably the Cabinet will determine it, i.e. the responsible Minister, and he will communicate it to the world at large by means of a notice in the Gazette. But there is no provision for this in the Bill whatever. So, I should like the hon. the Minister to indicate just how this is to take place. I had thought it might take place under clause 5, where the Chief Justice is given the power to make rules necessary for the adjudication of prize proceedings. This is a procedural matter while in clause 4 it is a matter of law, a matter of fact. Can the hon. the Minister enlighten us on this?

I think that the point made by the hon. member is in fact covered by clause 5. According to my interpretation, clause 5 makes provision not only for the procedure to be followed, but also for the substantive law to be applied. If we look at British law, we find in it a lengthy explanation of sections which lay down precisely how this prize is to be divided and to whom it must be allocated. I think this is covered by clause 5, which gives the Chief Justice the right to make rules “for the adjudication of prize proceedings”, that is to say, which law and which rules of law must be applied. In actual fact it will be the rules of international law. I think the Minister has acted wisely in not following British law and not laying down for all time precisely what rules must be applied. International law, of course, is not an exact science such as statutory law. It is subject to continual changes. The hon. member will recall that the Declaration of Paris laid down certain things. But changes occur and here we are enabling the Chief Justice to take those changes into account so that he may make rules for adjudication.

Surely the hon. member for Prinshof cannot be right. Under the Supreme Court Act the Chief Justice has the power to make rules of court, rules relatnig to proceedings. In terms of that Act he is in this Bill also being given power to make rules for this special prize adjudication court, and quite rightly so. But clause 5 provides that the Chief Justice shall have the power to make rules for the adjudication of prize “proceedings”—in other words, relating to the proceedings and not to substantive law. I hope this is not intended but if it is it is most unusual and quite wrong that the Chief Justice, who might be called upon to adjudicate in a matter of prize proceedings, should not only lay down the procedure but should also be responsible for saying what a condemned prize is. As a matter of fact, he may have to sit in judgment in a dispute whether something is or is not a condemned prize. Surely the Chief Justice does not make substantive law? He only makes rules relating to the proceedings of the court. But here we have a matter of fact, a very important matter of fact, because if one does capture a ship in times of war that ship belongs to someone, usually to the person who has captured it. This is a matter which the prize court must determine.

But if the ship is a “condemned prize” then the court shall award it to the State. How is the court going to know whether that particular ship is a condemned prize or not? Surely, the Chief Justice is not going to determine it? Surely, this is not what is contemplated in clause 5? Therefore I hope the hon. the Minister will enlighten us in this regard. There is here an element of piracy and whilst repealing the old British statutes I hope we are not intending continuing some of the activities some of Her Majesty’s ships indulged in on our east coast, activities somewhat related to piracy. But this is a very important question: Who decides what a condemned ship is? It means that whoever goes out and captures a ship will not bother to bring it back, or he might not bother to bring it back if he finds that if he does bring it back it will be awarded to the State. So I hope the hon. the Minister will give us an explanation somewhat better than that given by the hon. member for Prinshof.

The hon. member for Durban (North) is right to a certain extent, but he is a little confused. This clause is in fact unnecessary. If the hon. member looks at the Afrikaans version the meaning will become clear to him. The Afrikaans version provides: “Verbeurdverklaarde prys behoort aan die Staat.” In other words, after a prize has been condemned by the court, it will belong to the State. This provision is actually redundant, but it has only been included to make one hundred per cent sure that no doubt will exist. The hon. member must remember that prize proceedings occur as a result of a state of war. War is not conducted between private persons but between states, and if a boat is captured, then it is the state which captures it, and the state can not simply capture the boat, because it might belong to a neutral country. The case then comes before the prize court and the prize court determines whether it is in fact an enemy boat and, if so, the boat is declared a prize. Because it is a state which is waging war on another state, it follows that the boat will belong to the state. Clause 4 is virtually redundant, but it is merely to make it clear that a condemned prize shall belong to the state.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

Subsection (4), on page 9, prohibits the depositing of money or security as bail if the court, Judge, magistrate, judicial officer or policeman concerned has considered the question and has reason to believe that such person who deposits the money or security has been indemnified or will be indemnified by any person in any manner against loss of such sum of money, or that the person depositing bail has received or will receive any financial benefit in connection with the deposit or provision of such sum of money, Government securities or security. Sir, we support this subsection (4), and we can see the necessity for it. This possibly arises out of the Fischer case, where Fischer returned the bail money to the man who had deposited it, so we can see that there is a necessity for a provision of this nature. But, Sir, I submit that legal practitioners should be exempted from this provision, because in the nature of their profession they do attend to these matters on behalf of accused persons. Every time an attorney deposits money or security as bail on behalf of an accused person, the magistrate could quite rightly say, “You are benefiting; you stand to gain financially by depositing this money,” because naturally the attorney is paid for his professional services. I ask the Minister therefore to accept the following amendment—

1. (5) The provisions of subsection (4) shall not apply to the legal representative of an accused who deposits or furnishes any sum of money or any government securities or security in terms of the provisions of this section on behalf of such accused.

I am grateful to the hon. member for Transkei for having brought this point to the attention of the Committee. The position is as he put it. The possibility exists that legal practitioners may be excluded. I do not think that magistrates will adopt that attitude, but the possibility exists that it may happen, and in the circumstances I am prepared to accept the amendment.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Clause 8:

I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Clause 9:

An aspect of this clause to which I would like to draw the attention of the Committee is paragraph (b) on page 11, which provides that when a person has been arrested for an offence in respect of which the Attorney-General is entitled to refuse him bail under his certificate and the prosecutor in forms the Judge, the court or the magistrate, that in fact the matter has been referred to the Attorney-General for his decision in this regard, the accused may not be released on bail until the decision of the Attorney-General has been given. Sir, this might be an inordinately long time, and I therefore move the following amendment—

Is the period not too short?

No, I do not think it is too short. I think when the matter comes before the court, proceedings will already have been started to inform the Attorney-General, and he is entitled, in terms of various amendments to the Criminal Procedure Act, to communicate his decision by telegram. I cannot think of any circumstances where a period of ten days will be too short. If it is, then perhaps the period could be extended to two weeks. But I think the principle of the matter is one which is reasonable and I hope the hon. the Minister will be prepared to accept my amendment.

I am in agreement with the spirit of the amendment. I think it is quite correct that the Attorney-General is expected to make his decision known within a certain time and that it should be communicated to the court or the presiding officer concerned. But I want to say that I have not yet had an opportunity of considering the amendment as drafted. It has been handed to me only, and I have not yet been able to refer it to the legal draftsmen. I therefore want to suggest that I keep it back, draft it in proper form, and effect the amendment in the Other Place. I may make the period a little longer than ten days. One can imagine that there may be a large number of these applications in the province and that the Attorney-General may have his hands full, and consequently not always be able to deal with them immediately. I accept the spirit of the amendment and undertake to introduce the necessary amendment in the Other Place after it has been drafted in proper form.

The hon. the Minister was given very short notice of this. I appreciate that he will consider it and will move an amendment in this spirit in the Other Place, and therefore with the leave of the Committee I withdraw my amendment.

With leave, amendment withdrawn.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

Clause 24:

This clause introduces a very novel form of procedure in terms of which, before a superior court, if one is convicted and one asks for leave to appeal, one is now entitled as of right at the same time to apply to the court by which one was convioted, also for the right to call further evidence if it can be shown that such evidence was not available during the trial but became available later. This will form part of the record, and the appeal will be heard on the record as it stands with the evidence on which the accused was convicted, together with the new evidence which has been discovered and which is led at the time of the application and becomes part of the appeal record. There does not appear to be at this stage any reference to the duties of the court a quo in the sense that the court has found the person guilty on the evidence which was led before it and it has made certain findings relating to the demeanour of the witnesses. It is now enjoined merely to receive certain other evidence—not to adjudicate upon it—and the State is entitled to lead any evidence in rebuttal of this new evidence. What I ask in this regard is this: What is the Judge supposed to do? Is he obliged to make a finding as to demeanour in relation to the new evidence? Because if he is not, and the evidence is merely led and recorded and becomes part of the appeal record. one can anticipate that the appeal Judges could find themselves in some difficulty in assessing the new evidence which has been led, inasmuch as they have not seen the witnesses and are not in a position to determine what their demeanour was. I do not wish to appear to be opposed to this provision, because this is a big step forward, provided it works properly and provided the Appeal Court is not put in an impossible position. It may be that the Appeal Court will then send the whole matter back to the trial court for a re-hearing of the whole case. But it may well be that when that evidence is received at the time the application to appeal is made the trial judge might find that the demeanour of the witnesses called to give the new evidence is so bad that he cannot believe them, and he might say so.

Then one has another difficulty. The judge then sits alone on this application, and while he may feel that the demeanour of the witnesses called is so bad that he does not believe a word they said, he cannot say that the court which convicted the accused would not have done so if it is one of those cases where the judge sits with assessors, because a decision as to whether a witness is believed or not is one by the whole court. The hon. the Minister has obviously given this matter a lot of thought before bringing it before the House, so I hope he will give us an idea as to whether these difficulties were anticipated and exactly how he hopes that this provision will work in practice.

Is the position here not simply that the accused is in fact being placed in the position of not having to put in a substantive application for the additional evidence? I am of the opinion that what will happen is that if the new evidence is attached and sent to the Appeal Court, it will be considered by the Appeal Judges. All that will happen there, is that it will be possible for the Appeal Judges immediately to be placed in a position to set the sentence aside and refer the case together with the new evidence back to the magistrate or the court a quo for due consideration of the new evidence. In actual fact it merely eliminates that additional application which one usually has to make if one wants to submit new evidence to the Appeal Court. One has to make a special application and state why that evidence was not available earlier, and that is quite an expensive process and one which takes time. I am of the opinion that that is all that will happen.

The position is as stated by the hon. member for Prinshof. The only object is to eliminate an unnecessary application. The position will be exactly the same as at present, except that there will be no referring back to the court to obtain the evidence. Suppose the court in the first instance grants an application for appeal to the Appeal Court on the grounds of there being proper additional evidence. That is all that happens at that stage. If the Appeal Court grants it, the evidence has to be taken down. That means that the matter is referred back to the trial court and the evidence has to be led. What this measure does is to eliminate that referring back and forth. If the application is based on the grounds of additional evidence which has come to light, the trial court may hear all the evidence at that stage already and submit it to the Appeal Court. It amounts to this, that a stage is eliminated without prejudicing anyone.

Mr. Chairman. the hon. the Minister has explained that the object in introducing this amendment is to do away with this unnecessary application and, therefore, the unnecessary step of going to the Appeal Court and then having to go back to the trial court to hear the additional evidence. We on this side are naturally entirely in agreement with this principle. The present procedure does involve unnecessary waste of time and expense and the new procedure envisaged will certainly be an advantage. But I do not think the Minister has quite dealt with one of the points raised by the hon. member for Durban (North), and that is this. The court a quo, or some other Judge in place of the trial Judge, if the latter is not available, is required in terms of subsection (3) to receive the new evidence, the proposed new section 363 (3) reads, inter alia, as follows—

and it includes rebutting evidence. The court or the Judge hearing this new evidence is not, in terms of subsection (3), required to give any finding as to demeanour or credibility, and unless he does make such findings, when the evidence goes to the Appeal Court the Appeal Court may find it difficult to make satisfactory use of such additional evidence without findings in regard to demeanour and credibility. It does seem to me that in order to be effective subsection (3) should be amended to provide that the court hearing the application may receive the evidence and such further evidence that may become necessary as a result of that, and shall make a finding in regard to credibility and demeanour as well as any other findings which he, the Judge hearing this new evidence, thinks may assist the Appeal Court in coming to a proper decision on the case.

Mr. Chairman, I am afraid I cannot take the matter much further at this stage, but I undertake to go into it, particularly into the points raised by the hon. gentleman who has just sat down. As far as I am aware, all that is being done here is that we are eliminating one stage. However, I shall give the matters raised here my attention and, if it is found necessary. I can also attend to these points in the Other Place.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments.

Report Stage.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to move the following amendment—

What this addition amounts to is that only Sasol and Foskor are for the present included in this clause. The minor point raised by hon. members on the opposite side of this House in regard to this subsection, ought to be satisfied by this.

Mr. Chairman, the Minister has met the objections which we raised during the Second Reading. We had an amendment to this clause but in view of the amendment moved by the hon. the Deputy Minister we do not propose to move our amendment. As it stood, the Bill contained too wide a definition but the Minister has now narrowed the definition and that makes it more practical. We are therefore prepared to accept the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, when the hon. the Minister mentions these companies, he means wholly owned companies. In other words, they own all the shares, just as the Government owns all the shares in the Industrial Development Corporation. There is no public participation in these shares. I said yesterday that the Government was going into the market, if we implemented the Deputy Minister’s original statement. In other words, they will be investing these funds in industrial shares and commercial shares. They would perhaps do this indirectly, but that would be what they are doing.

In regard to paragraph (i) which says “securities issued by any other body established by or in terms of any law”, I should like to know what the position is in regard to the Bantu Development Corporation and the Coloured Development Corporation. Are they included in the provisions of this clause? Will the P.D.C. be able to invest their funds there? All these are bodies established by law. In regard to paragraph (k) I should like to ask whether that means that the Public Debt Commissioners are going to deal in foreign bonds? Does this mean that they will be able to buy French, German, Swiss, American or other bonds? Is that the intention? Will they purchase shares outside this country because what is meant by “securities” is actually shares. I should like some elucidation in this regard.

Mr. Chairman, I shall refer to paragraph (h) first. The amendment which I have now made, means that paragraph (h) is being restricted to undertakings established and conducted in terms of section 3 (a) of the Industrial Development Act. These are undertakings established with the approval of the State President. As I said a moment ago, there are only two at present, namely, Sasol and Foskor. In other words, section 3 (a) of the Industrial Development Act to which I referred, restricts the scope of the investment that is going to be made in terms of this provision.

As regards paragraph (i), which reads “securities issued by any other body established by or in terms of any law”, I also gave an explanation yesterday. First of all I want to say that some of the bodies that are included or may be included in this, are mentioned earlier in this clause. Thus the Rand Water Board, for example, is mentioned in paragraph (e). The Rand Water Board is one of the bodies which paragraph (i) includes. In other words, it is a body established by or in terms of an Act of Parliament. We then make further provision in paragraph (i) for other bodies established by or in terms of an Act of Parliament, so as to make a distinction, because in the case of paragraph (i), the approval of the Minister is required, as becomes clear when one reads the last part of this clause, while in terms of paragraph (3), the Rand Water Board does not need the approval of the Minister. That is why we make a distinction in respect of a group which actually falls under the same heading. As I said yesterday, this only includes bodies established by or in terms of an Act of this Parliament. These include Iscor, the Rand Water Board, the Broadcasting Corporation and Escom. I do not think the intention is to include the Bantu Development Corporation. If the hon. member for Kensington does have problems in this regard, however, I shall go into the matter and deal with it on a subsequent occasion.

Mr. Chairman, do I take it now that the Industrial Selections Limited and the National Selections Limited, which were two finance-holding companies of the I.D.C., are now ruled out? This is our main objection to this clause.

Mr. Chairman, my reply is yes. Unfortunately I failed to reply to the other aspect raised by the hon. member for Kensington, namely the obscurity of paragraph (k), as far as he is concerned. Yesterday I stated explicitly that at present we were not thinking of making investments abroad. Previously this Act made provision for the Government to buy securities of Great Britain, India, or any other British Colonial Government. In other words, provision used to exist for investments in this limited area. At present we do not have any such plans in mind, but we do feel that the necessary provision for this should be made as the possibility of buying securities abroad may arise. Therefore, we think that provision for this should now be made in this Bill.

In Rhodesia, for example?

Mr. Chairman. I do not want to make any predictions. If the hon. member chooses to do so, I simply leave it to him.

Mr. Chairman, another point has occurred to me in connection with the Minister’s amendment. In moving his amendment the Minister said that he contemplated only two companies in regard to which this kind of investment would be allowed, namely Foscor and Sasol. The Minister will remember that a few years ago the I.D.C. had substantial interests in Klipfontein Organic Products. Subsequently the Government decided to sell that undertaking and a private company took it over. As far as I know, the I.D.C. has at present little or no interest in Klipfontein Organic Products. What would be the position if private interests took Foscor over and there were investments in Foscor even after it had been taken over by private interests? Does the Minister in terms of his definition foresee that the Public Debt Commissioners would immediately have to realize those securities? I appreciate that at the moment there is no intention of the Government disposing of its interests in Sasol or Foscor, but as the hon. the Minister knows a number of years ago the Government was virtually the only party interested in Escom. Over the years the Government investment in Escom has decreased and private investment has steadily increased. It may be that in the future the Government will decide that in its own interests it is better to realize its investments in Foscor and allow the public to participate in that organization. What will be the position if the Public Debt Commissioners hold funds in Foscor when the I.D.C. no longer has control over it? Does the Minister contemplate having sufficient control in terms of this clause in a case such as this? The case of Klipfontein Organic Products was one case where the Government did change its mind. It made out a very good case for it to be owned by the Government, and after the Government holding it for a few years, it changed its mind and gave a very good case for selling it.

Mr. Chairman, this is not really a matter of what the Debt Commissioners would like to do. This is a matter of how wide a field they should be left. Now I may say for the information of the hon. member that, as far as these two companies are concerned, the present intention of the Debt Commissioners is only to take an interest in the stock of Sasol and not that of Foskor. But because objections were raised to the effect, the opinion was expressed that the field in this respect was too wide, we agreed to restricting it to those bodies established in terms of section 3 (a). These are bodies established and conducted with the approval of the State President. At present only those two have been established. If it were to happen that the Development Corporation relinquished its interests in any particular company which at present falls under 3 (a), that company would lose its qualifying character. Therefore I think that hon. members need not have any objections or misgivings about that. At present this is restricted to companies established in terms of section 3 (a) of the Industrial Development Act. At present there are only those two, and for the moment the Debt Commissioners are interested in Sasol only. It so happens that Foskor also falls within this group, which is the reason for its inclusion.

Mr. Chairman, it is the purpose to lend money, not to buy securities. They all belong to the Government now, don’t they? There is only one shareholder in the I.D.C., and that is the Government. There is no other shareholder.

Yes, but we are dealing with the Debt Commissioners now.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with an amendment.

Report Stage.

I move—

I promised yesterday to give the hon. member for Durban (Point) information with regard to the assets withdrawn in the Table Bay Harbour. The assets withdrawn consist of steel sheet piling, bollards, concrete coping and a tarmac roadway. These assets were withdrawn as a result of the restoration of the Eastern Mole.

I promised to give the hon. member for Pinelands information with regard to the type of accommodation that has been provided for Bantu workers at Langa. The hon. Whips can tell him to read in Hansard what I am going to say. It is provided on Railway property adjoining Langa station for 1,020 single Bantu in the form of 17 dormitory blocks, each with three dormitories for 20, a kitchen block and a mess hall with a steel framing and asbestos cladding, a sick bay for 20 and a compound manager’s office, sewerage, washing slabs, clothes wires, fencing, roads, gatekeeper’s hut, bus and visitors’ shelter, drainage and plumbing, bunks and lockers. The work was carried out by contract.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Chairman, during the last session we asked for the speeding up of the elimination of level crossings. I am, therefore, very pleased to note that the hon. the Minister has agreed to double the payments into the Elimination Fund. But in his explanatory memorandum, he states that costs have risen very sharply, and that we cannot expect that double the amount of crossings should be eliminated during the current year or under the new system. Can we suggest that he follows the United States’ system where they sink the railway lines and put over prefabricated steel bridges? That also eliminates blind rises on concrete structures and, as you know, blind rises are very serious traffic hazards. According to statistics some 800 persons will be killed and some 1,400 will be injured in the next year. I do think that the hon. the Minister should give that very serious consideration. He states that it is of national interest that these serious accidents be arrested by eliminating level crossings.

I therefore suggest that he should take bolder steps than what he has done to eliminate these level crossings as soon as possible.

Sinking the railway lines will not be practicable. One cannot have the railway lines in a dip. If you want to sink the railway line, you have to do it over a considerable distance so as to obtain the right grading. I have not seen it in the United States, and I was there only 18 months ago. It is different matter when a railway line runs through a cutting. Then, of course, you have the overhead bridge at street level. Otherwise the only way of elimination is by either a subway or a bridge over the railway line. I can assure the hon. member that I am as anxious as he is to eliminate as many crossings as possible, but I have to take into consideration the available manpower; the planning has to be done and negotiations have to take place with the local authorities before eventually tenders can be called for for the building of a subway or a bridge. The number that we are eliminating at the present time is about the maximum number that we can eliminate under present conditions. There are hundreds of railway crossings throughout the country which still have to be eliminated but, as I have said on a previous occasion, that is going to take quite a number of years. On the other hand, I think motorists should take more care. There are stop signs at every railway crossing, and if motorists only observe the warning signs there will not be so many accidents. It is not only a question of making things safe for the motorist; a responsibility rests on him too to see that he is not involved in an accident.

Clause put and agreed to.

I move the amendment standing in my name. I would like to read this to the Committee so that it will have a clear picture of what I hope to achieve—

1. (i) the hours from half-past eight o’clock in the forenoon to five o’clock in the afternoon;

My reason for doing this is that the Electoral Act provided for a particular type of voter, a special voter. In passing Act No. 84 of 1965, the measure that we are amending now, it was considered necessary to provide certain fixed hours during which those people could exercise their vote. Now we have an amending Bill before us at the moment, clause 3 of which one would rather expect to see in a Bill to amend the Public Service Act, rather than the Electoral Act, because if the emphasis is placed on the right spot, it is the convenience of the voters that this Act has to serve. We are now being asked to accept an amendment which is more in line with an amendment to the hours of duty of individuals, rather than studying the convenience of the voting public. The Act that we are dealing with at the moment, is an Act which is designed to serve that particular interest. In its original form, section 71quat, which we are amending, provided, inter alia, …

At that time it was thought necessary to lay down that the hours shall be from seven o’clock in the morning until nine o’clock at night during the period of 21 days before polling day, a period which in fact boils down to 19 days, as you know, so we are not considering the imposition of an onerous duty over a considerably long period. I believe that it is not sufficient in a clause of this nature just to say “his ordinary hours of duty.” I think that the voting public must know that if they are qualified to exercise the special vote—and we do not need to go into those qualifications— that there will be certain fixed hours in any and every constituency where they can in fact exercise that vote. In other words, they must know that if they get off a ship in Durban harbour having come from somewhere in the Cape, they can go to a returning officer in that area and make arrangements to exercise special vote from 9 in the morning until 5 o’clock in the afternoon. I do not think that is unreasonable. I think it comes very close to the official’s ordinary hours of duty, as this particular clause says. But. Sir, we also recognize the fact that it is necessary in certain cases for further hours to be set aside outside of that period for the convenience of the voting public. As the hon. member for Durban (Point) pointed out yesterday, we do not want to see public servants, who are already working under quite a great strain, having to remain in office until 9 o’clock every night of the week without in fact attending to one special vote. We believe that in an area like Durban, for example, a complex in which there are many seats which are based to a large extent on the magistrates courts, whose officers administer this special vote, an arrangement can be made by consultation with all parties concerned. I have not moved an amendment to that effect but I believe that the hon. the Minister should in the Other Place consider the advisability of providing that the extra hours which are going to be provided, must be laid down by consultation between the electoral officer of the area and all the candidates or their agents in the particular complex, whether it be Durban, Cape Town, Johannesburg or any other complex. We believe that where the electoral officer determines the extra hours, he should determine them having due regard to the reasonable requirements of the voting public. That is why I have moved the addition of the words “as reasonable for the convenience of voters”, because as the clause is worded here, the hours could be determined having regard solely to the convenience of the returning officer. And that, of course, is not what is intended in this Act.

This Act was designed for and built around the execution of a vote by a person entitled to it. I think it should be emphasized in this clause that in fact the convenience of the voter is being served. While not in any way belittling the efforts of the returning officers concerned, I believe that something more definite than the loose wording of this clause should be inserted in this Bill for the convenience of the voters so that they will be able to exercise their vote in any constituency throughout the length and breadth of the Republic at a certain fixed time, and in extra hours by arrangement between those concerned in the area in question.

I can follow the purport of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Umlazi, but I cannot agree with him that what he is proposing here is actually an improvement or something which is necessary. In the first instance. the entire object of this Bill is, as he himself said, always to have regard to the convenience of the voter when he applies to exercise a special vote. The purport of my amendment also indicates that we want to facilitate the procedure; we do not want to make it more complicated. The main objection the hon. member has is that we are now giving the chief electoral officer and/or the electoral officers the right to determine at their own discretion the hours in which officers will be available for the exercising of such votes at certain places or throughout the country. What he does not bear in mind is the fact that the hours of duty are not the same throughout South Africa. Most of the presiding officers are public servants. But in Pretoria, for example, the hours of duty are quite different from those in the Cape. In certain large centres the hours of duty are from half past seven in the morning until four o’clock in the afternoon. The public as a whole has become accustomed to the offices being open during those hours. At other places the hours of duty are from eight o’clock until half past four in the afternoon; in some places the hours of duty are from eight o’clock until five o’clock, and in this connection I am thinking particularly of Durban, where, for special and sound reasons which I do not want to deal with now, the offices are closed for a longer period for lunch. One must also take into account the fact that public servants are not everywhere and always available to act as presiding officers. At very remote places, and also in view of the shortage of manpower, we have to make use of people from the private sector, and in those cases the presiding officer must be able to exercise his discretion. I am convinced that it will lead to greater disruption if the hon. member’s amendment is accepted. What will happen if, as he suggests, we lay down that the hours of duty shall be from half past eight in the morning until five o’clock in the afternoon? The public has become accustomed to the old hours, say, from half past seven until four o’clock in the afternoon. A member of the public who comes to the office at half past seven will now find that the office opens at half past eight only, and he will have to wait for an hour. For that reason I think that the clause, as printed, is the right one.

However, I agree with the hon. member for Durban (Point) that the hours should be determined from place to place after consultation with the organizations and candidates of the political parties so that they may come to an arrangement which will be acceptable to all, due regard being had to their needs. However, I cannot accept the amendment moved by the hon. member. Neither can I agree with him that the proposed words “for the convenience of voters” should be inserted in line 18, because there may be other determining factors. Why must only the convenience of the voters be emphasized? There may be other factors which may be as important as the convenience of the voters and which have to be taken into account, for example costs. As the Act reads at present, the presiding officers for special votes have to be available at all the places from 7 a.m. until 9 p.m. for the purpose of receiving special votes, which, to begin with, has meant that they have had to be paid overtime for approximately six hours per day, which is a considerable amount. For that reason it is necessary that we should amend it. In cases where more overtime has to be worked, such a stipulation can be made after consultation, and in cases where less overtime has to be worked, such a stipulation can likewise be made, and so forth. I fel that the voter also has a duty and a responsibility. After all, one cannot do anything solely for the convenience of the voter, because then one may just as well say that the date of the election also has to be postponed for the convenience of the voter, but we say that if he, as a citizen of the country, wants to exercise his vote, he must go and vote on that day. The same principle applies here. I am convinced that the hon. member for Umlazi will feel satisfied when he hears what amendment I am going to move. With your leave, Sir, I wish to move the following amendment, and I believe it will also remove the doubts of the hon. member for Umlazi. I move—

I want to thank the hon. the Minister for moving this amendment, because it goes a long way towards solving my problem. But it still leaves one factor out, and that is the fixed time of duty during the day. I want a fixed time and the Minister does not want a fixed time. I think the Minister has made my case stronger than perhaps I have made it because he has pointed out that in different areas the ordinary hours of duty vary quite considerably. Even the lunch-hours vary. I want to remind the hon. the Minister that a special vote can be used instead of a postal vote, which means that a person visiting a strange part of the Republic can in fact go to a returning officer without being taken there by the representative of a party and he can record his special vote on the spot. This is a good thing. But if they are accustomed to the hours of 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. and they go to another place where the hours are from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., they might lose the opportunity of recording their votes, because if they are travelling they may have only that one opportunity on which to record their votes; and if they arrive at a town at 4 p.m., hoping to record their vote before 5 p.m., as they are able to do in the area they come from, they may be denied the opportunity of recording their vote. I do not mind if the Minister in fact shortens those hours a little, provided they are definite, and provided every voter in South Africa knows that between such and such an hour in the morning and such and such an hour in the afternoon he can record his vote. I want to remind the hon. the Minister that there are many Government offices where you cannot do certain things after 3 p.m., like paying certain accounts, and it is doubtful, whilst public servants are on duty whether the office is necessarily open. What are the ordinary hours of duty in cases like that?

Then the Minister goes further and says that because there is a shortage of public servants to do this work, very often outside people are engaged who are not public servants. What are their ordinary hours of duty? Because these ordinary hours of duty are pinned to the Public Service, and not to the Electoral Act. This is my complaint. What are the ordinary hours of a person who is not a public servant? How do you determine that? If he is a pensioner he may have no ordinary hours at all. I believe that even if the hon. Minister says the hours are from 9 to 4, or from 9 to 4.30, or from 9 to 5, it will be a great improvement on this because it lays down a time when an officer has to be there to record a vote. I do not believe there is such a fixed time on a universal basis throughout the Republic.

In principle I see absolutely nothing wrong with the argument put forward by the hon. member for Umlazi, but I want to ask him to consider the situation in which we may land ourselves, and then he will agree with me that, from a practical point of view, it is not possible to have this specified in the Act. Then it should rather stay as it is. The Minister said in his introductory speech that these amendments were being made particularly with a view to the coming election of the Coloured Council. The hon. member will agree that elections for the Coloured Council will take place throughout the Republic. There are certain parts of the Republic, outside the Cape Province and even in the Cape Province too, in the north and in the far eastern regions, where there are perhaps two voters or no voters at all in one magisterial district, and in some magisterial districts there may be six or seven voters. In terms of the provisions of the Electoral Act many of them are entitled to cast their votes in that electoral district by means of special votes. Now one must tie someone down at Makwassie. It is a very large district, but there are probably very few Coloured voters there. One must tie someone down in terms of the law to sit there for certain hours because a Coloured person may possibly turn up to exercise his vote. If in such a case matters can be for the convenience of the different parties which come to an agreement, I see no reason why the matter cannot be left to the discretion of the Department. The approach adopted by the Department and in the Electoral Act is always to make it possible for every voter to exercise his vote. With this situation at hand, I think we should leave this matter in the hands of the Department, and more specifically as far as this election of the Coloured Council is concerned. I want to make an appeal to the hon. member. Possibly he did not think about it in that way. We shall not have this state of affairs in an ordinary election for Whites, as there are always a fairly large number of voters in every magisterial district whose interests have to be taken care of. We shall not have this difficulty in the urban areas at all, but this provision is being made in view of the fact that the Coloured voters are sparsely distributed over the country. In this case I think we shall have to allow the Department some discretion somewhere instead of tying people down to certain office-hours throughout the country. After all, there are certain afternoons on which the magistrate or the returning officer goes home a little earlier, but if we specify these hours in the Act, they will have to be observed. If the parties are consulted, I fail to see why the matter cannot be left in the hands of the chief electoral officer. We know that it is always the approach that, whatever is done, the voter must be enabled to exercise his vote. For that reason I have no hesitation in supporting this amendment, and I think the hon. member for Umlazi will do the same now.

Amendments proposed by Mr. H. M. Lewis put and negatived and amendments proposed by the Minister of the Interior put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments.

I move—

Mr. Speaker, this Bill is a simple and short one, and I trust that it will receive the support of all. This House will know that we are being flooded by modern drugs in this country today. Virtually every one of these modern drugs is poisonous or harmful to some extent. Along with the favourable results they may have, they also have less favourable results, results that are less desirable. South Africa has always been regarded as one of the very good markets for the pharmaceutical industry. According to the facts at our disposal and as the House knows, our country is being flooded by a stream of drugs at the rate of 200 per month. Every month an additional 200 drugs are pushed onto our market. These drugs have not all been tested. Many of the drugs sold to patients in South Africa, even by medical practitioners. have been insufficiently examined. Their effects are often not known at all. What is more, we already have from 20,000 to 25,000 drugs in South Africa, drugs which I shall call old drugs, ones that have already been marketed. All these drugs still have to be examined. All the drugs are in use at present and some of them have been in use for years. To date none of them has been thoroughly examined in South Africa. At the time of the introduction of the Drugs Control Act of 1965 we devised two methods for the control of drugs in order to ensure that in the future drugs in South Africa would always have been tested and that every person or medical practitioner using a drug would know what its properties were, how he should use it and in what ways it could be dangerous. Therefore the Drugs Control Act of 1965 provided that we would deny access to all new drugs until such time as they had been examined by the Drugs Control Council and found to be safe. The Drugs Control Council would then at the same time recommend how they were to be used. The second principle was that once the present stream was under control, the old drugs —in other words, drugs already on sale in South Africa—would be examined and tested class by class. This is how the Act was drafted. Now, unfortunately, we have been informed by our law advisers that the Act does not altogether succeed in achieving that object. The reason it is not being achieved is the way in which the Act was drafted and in which some of the sections are worded. Consequently the Act has to be amended. You will notice that the first section in the Afrikaans version of the Bill reads, “Behoudens die bepalings van hierdie artikel …”. The English version reads: “Save as provided in this Section …”. In other words, even though the first subsection provides that no new drug shall be allowed in South Africa unless it has been registered, that subsection is subject to the provision “Save as provided”. They now say that to-day this can only be done if there are categories and the new drugs fall within the same categories as those of the old drugs. Therefore the first amendment is being made merely to rectify that aspect so that all new drugs imported into South Africa may be prohibited in South Africa until the Drugs Control Council has examined them. At the same time the law advisers have availed themselves of the opportunity to bring about a really necessary simplification. You will notice that all determinations must at present be legalized by regulation, while this is not necessary in the case of certain determinations. When, for example, the Drugs Control Council says that it is examining drugs in certain categories, this need not be done by way of regulation. The procedure in the case of regulations is a cumbrous one and involves prior notice of at least three months. In addition there is a series of other provisions which apply in this connection. The law advisers have now amended the procedure in such a way that in future certain cases—such as when the Drues Control Council wants to deal with any particular category of drugs—may simply be dealt with by way of a resolution published in the Government Gazette.

The third amendment of importance concerns the fees. You will remember that the examination of drugs entails heavy expenditure. Experts are needed, a staff is needed, virtually a small sub-department is needed for the examination, checking and control of drugs. It is not enough that drugs must be examined and registered. Once they have been registered, a watchful eye must be kept on them. This is necessary as it may be found in South Africa, America or Britain, for example, that those drugs produce side-effects or harmful effects in the long run. In such a case the Drugs Control Council must be able to step in immediately and say that it wants to reconsider the registration. This will entail expenditure, and now the Drugs Control Council feels that, as we have laid down a certain registration fee to be paid by a manufacturer for the registration of a drug, an additional amount should be paid annually for the supervision of the product. The introduction of an additional fee can at the same time serve to discourage manufacturers from placing unnecessary drugs on the register, because if the manufacturer has drugs on the register which he himself no longer considers profitable to him and in respect of which he has to pay additional fees, he will have them removed. Many kinds of drugs remain on the market for some time and are then discontinued by most manufacturers, but these drugs, from which the manufacturer derives no benefit and which the public and medical practitioners feel are not really beneficial drugs, remain on the register, and the Drugs Control Council must continue to exercise care and supervision in respect of such drugs. In these circumstances the Drugs Control Council feels that it is highly desirable that drugs which have proved to be not very beneficial or which the manufacturers no longer want to keep on the market, should be removed from the register. If a small amount is payable annually at the renewal of the registration of drugs, it will encourage manufacturers to get rid of the drugs which I have mentioned. The amendment has the effect that instead of there being an increase in registration fees, the registration fees will be less, but at the same time a registration renewal fee will be payable annually in respect of each drug. If a manufacturer wants to keep a drug on the market, he will have to pay a small amount every year. If he does not pay it, it will be assumed that he no longer wants the drug on the register.

There is only one further amendment, and this concerns standards. When drugs are registered the Drugs Control Council must also determine the standard, etc., of each drug. According to law the Council must list the components of each drug, and if a drug consists of various components, the requirements for every component must be stated. In other countries where such drugs have already been examined there are good pharmacopoeiae, good registers, in which the standards and requirements of such drugs are stated. The final amendment proposed in this measure is to empower the Drugs Control Council to determine the standards. The Council will then be able to require the standard of any particular drug to conform to, for example, the standards laid down in the British pharmacopoeiae or in some standard work or other.

These in brief, are the most important provisions of this Bill. I may almost say that they are the only provisions of any importance, as the others are merely of a consequential nature.

Mr. Speaker, it is most curious that last year a Bill was passed by this House for the registration of drugs, while later it was found that future drugs could not be registered. However, I do not want to quibble about the matter. We on this side accept this measure as being a necessary piece of legislation, but we do reserve the right to criticize and perhaps ask at a later stage for a reduction in the amount which is to be charged for re-registration. We feel that on the whole a sum of R30, the maximum, is too high for the re-registration of most drugs. We on this side also feel that one aspect has been overlooked, namely what is to happen when drugs are not re-registered? I visualize a drug which is at present in use and which will now go on the register merely because all drugs which are now in use will be registered.

Many household drugs, for instance common salt, castor oil, epsom salts, and other household remedies, which will have to be registered because they have to be standardized, but no particular pharmacist or pharmaceutical organization will be interested in paying R30 to register them. Presumably, if nobody takes the trouble to register them, they will be struck off the register. The country will then be deprived of many useful remedies. I think the hon. the Minister should give this matter consideration and we can discuss again during the Committee stage as to how he is to avoid any large number of drugs not appearing in the register because it is in the interests of no particular person that they be registered, although they will be in continual use.

Clause 6 (a) deals with the use of the various national pharmacopoeiae of the older countries. We on this side of the House have no objection to this provision. But we feel that perhaps it could be useful if this House laid down certain limits, for instance which particular pharmacopoeiae or which particular publications are at the disposal of the Drugs Control Council. It is hardly right and fair that they should be able to wander over the world —which I do not think they will do, but they will be able to do so—searching for various standards, when most of our drugs are already standardized in certain well-known and well-equipped countries. I think that this House should consider this aspect very carefully and decide whether we should not lay down which pharmacopoeiae they may use.

With those few words we on this side accept this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Durban (Central) indicated that we on this side accept this amending Bill and the Minister has clearly described the purpose of the amending clauses. However, I wish to make a few further comments.

First of all, I believe the intention to create certain classifications or groups is a good one which will make the administration of the Act a great deal simpler than it was under the original Act. I think, though, that for the sake of clarity we should be clear in our minds as to the functions which the Drugs Control Council carries out in terms of its powers as defined in the Drugs Control Act.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I move—

1. (1) having regard to the tribute paid by the hon. the Prime Minister to our scientists in his New Year message, desires to express its appreciation for the hon. the Prime Minister’s assurance that, as our means permit, more funds will be made available for scientific research, and moreover requests the Government to investigate every possibility of giving effect to this aim as well as to the overall co-ordination of research; and
2. (2) furthermore notes with appreciation the Government’s announcement that in deserving cases scientists and other persons who have rendered outstanding services to the Republic, will be honoured.

This is a dual motion because it deals with the financing and co-ordination of research, and it contains the idea that persons, individuals or groups of persons, who have in some way or other made outstanding achievements to the benefit of our Republic should be honoured. They may be honoured in various spheres—scientific, economic, political or otherwise. But the two ideas have been linked together in my motion because there is a common background to this motion. Obviously it relates in the first place to the exceptional achievements of the heart transplant team at Groote Schuur Hospital. Those are achievements which we want to praise here in this House to-day. Apart from the immediate daring and skill associated with it, it was the crowning achievement of unobtrusive research work by other scientists as well who were possibly less well-known and whose work, of course, was not greeted with the same publicity which the surgical deed met with. The operations have gripped public opinion in a way unparalleled in modern times, probably throughout the world. We know that the resulting influences will now, as well as in the future, be to the benefit of our entire Republic and our country. Along with the personal tribute which has been paid to that achievement, which was quite natural, and with which we associate ourselves, the question has inevitably arisen amongst members of the public as to whether the Government has suitable means of honouring and thus recognizing, in some way or other, achievements of this nature. The idea then arose amongst members of the public, particularly after the hon. the Prime Minister had made his New Year speech, that the recognition should not necessarily be for scientific achievements, but in other fields as well. There are various other fields, but I do not want to go into that question at this stage. We shall return to it later, as the motion is discussed further by other speakers. That, however, is the reason for combining these two ideas in one motion.

In the second place, however, we must take into consideration the fact that, apart from the praise and the appreciation which our esteemed Prime Minister and the Government have displayed for these achievements, they cannot, in their decisions, which may result in major financial expenditure, even in an emotionally charged atmosphere, create the impression that they are being swept along by aroused public opinion, because that opinion subsequently cools off. All of us know it. Then their responsibility in respect of the spending of public funds comes under scrutiny again. Their responsibility in this respect therefore makes it impossible for them. That is why we are grateful that it was possible to give these assurances, because we are certain that they will be adhered to. The purpose of this motion is not to take the Government at its word now. The idea in introducing this motion was rather, in the first place, to discuss the matter. I think that discussing this matter does a lot of good. The second reason is that the motion will make it possible to draw attention to what has already been done by the Government to keep pace with the amazing technological and scientific developments we have experienced in recent times. This has made very great demands on the country and on the Government’s organizational and financial means. The Government has been able to give these undertakings, because what is now being requested, was already a policy in the process of implementation when the recent events, to which we have referred, the exceptional achievements, took place.

But reproaches have been levelled against the authorities in regard to meagre salaries and the unfavourable conditions under which our research workers have to work. The pity of it is that this opportunity was also used to exploit this matter to the full in this House last week during the no-confidence debate. I hope that we are going to view this matter objectively and fairly to-day. Let us, if we have well-meant suggestions, offer them because politics is completely out of place in a discussion of this matter. There are certain grounds for improvement. At the same time we are now asking for more, but in my opinion comparisons of this nature are ridiculous, particularly if we want to compare ourselves with the United States of America, where research laboratories—not those of the State, but those of industries, co-operative societies and other private bodies—spend from private sources alone a few times as much on research as the amount of our entire Budget. We cannot compete with these people as far as facilities and money are concerned. No, Mr. Speaker, a third consideration will always have to be taken into account by any South African research worker. It will have to be an important element when he considers whether he wants to remain and render his services here. It is, namely, his service to his own country. For those people who, when they in actual fact have the world at their feet and can pick and choose, and nevertheless decide to remain here and continue with their task under these circumstances, fitting tribute will never be found wanting. As I have said before, there are, of course, many other fields in which tribute may be paid. It is not only in the medical or the scientific field.

As far as our research workers are concerned, we cannot of course rely solely on the loyalty of individuals towards the country when they need money and facilities and need them very badly. I must tell you that, in the cases which came to my attention, I found that they needed them very badly, but that they nevertheless remained inspired. They were achieving a great deal with very little at their disposal. More is being achieved from them. We are achieving greater efficiency. Perhaps that is a good thing. It has come to my attention that in a Peninsula hospital there has, for the past ten years, been only one heart-lung machine. To-day a heart-lung machine costs R35,000. A technician there made it his task to see whether he could not contribute something. He constructed a heart-lung machine for R2,400. He assured me that, although they are now using the heart-lung machine he made on animals, they could, in an emergency, use that machine quite safely on a human being as well. It is actions of this kind, service of this kind, which earns one’s respect and makes one feel that one would like to give these people a great deal more assistance. Money for research, we must admit, is to a certain extent, a risky investment. The results are not always guaranteed. The work takes a long time. Sometimes each new experiment is a step in the dark. It appears that the money is being wasted. Then suddenly one day the results are world news. Then suddenly one day we hear about an invention such as the tellurometer system of measuring distance. This system was an invention by Dr. Wadley of the C.S.I.R., which has already earned the country far in excess of R7 million in currency and the C.S.I.R. far in excess of R½million in royalties. For years the work proceeds unobtrusively and then discoveries are made, such as those made by Dr. Nico Sutterheim which led to the establishment of the slag cement industry, which is to-day ensuring that industry a turnover of R3 million in this country. We have our research workers in the field of physics. We are aware of our achievements in nuclear research, building research, etc. This was all the result of an uninterrupted continuation of basic research, although success was long in coming. But ultimately it has brought us great benefits as far as technological improvements are concerned, as well as advantages in economic and other fields. That is why I am glad that, in giving this assurance, no mention whatsoever was made of the present inflation, because research, I believe, Sir, must continue. It is a kind of spending which, in my opinion is not really inflationary, but which helps us to ensure greater productivity for the future. It also helps us to bridge the technical gap between us and other countries which are advanced technologically to the stage where we may once again give the go-ahead sign to development. While we are asking for more here, we realize that the Government is particularly restricted in its resources as far as research is concerned. It is not purely a matter for the State. A great responsibility also rests on the industries, business concerns and the private sector. The duty of the State lies more in the direction of co-ordination, control and arrangement of research and the establishment of a kind of infrastructure of facilities. But its task has to end somewhere. Traditionally it is not its task to finance research fully. Nowhere in the world is this done. If there have been complaints, therefore, to the effect that our scientists and research workers were not receiving their share and were not receiving encouragement, those complaints may to-day with equal justification be directed against the industries and against our public as against the State.

Sir, our Government has a fine record as far as the recent past is concerned. It is a record which existed before these events came to pass. The Government has a fine record of adaptation to the demands made by this rapid scientific and technological development of the past ten years. If we were to dig a little into the past, we would think back to the year 1916, when the Industrial Advisory Council was nominated. It had to undertake research into production statistics, the development and utilization of our resources, as well as industrial and scientific research. But then the support for research was entirely negligible. In 20 years, from 1918 to 1938, the Council for Research Grants approved an amount of only R150,178 to research workers to undertake research. In one year the meagre amount of R184 was set aside for research. In those days there was no encouragement but fortunately there were a few rays of light. We had private individuals who took the plight of our research workers to heart. It would be fitting for one to mention to-day the name of Sir Bernard Price who made the Institute for Geophysical Research at the University of the Witwatersrand possible, as well as that of Dr. Hans Merensky, who made the Department of Physics at Stellenbosch possible. Conditions improved later on, when a Grants Council, as a national research council, came into being under the Department of Education, round about 1930.

But our great milestone was the establishment in 1955 under the Scientific Council Act of the C.S.I.R. To-day the C.S.I.R. is a research council of which we may justifiably feel very proud. I think members know this, particularly those of them who have paid a visit to it. I was unable to do so. To-day it is the most important body through which the Government delegates responsibility for the development in various fields of knowledge to groups of scientists who have already distinguished themselves in those fields. Here again we have to pay tribute to men such as Sir Basil Schonland, the first president of the C.S.I.R. from 1944, Dr. P. J. du Toit, and our present president of the C.S.I.R., Dr. F. Meiring Naude. These people realized how essential basic research was for the progress of our country. They caused this idea to become deeply rooted. To-day, as you know, the C.S.I.R. has the Bureau of Standards under its supervision. It already has 13 research institutes of its own. There are the independent service sections which also bring in revenue. Then there are a number of industrial research associations which are receiving support.

The C.S.I.R. has a dual task. It is a research council. It co-ordinates and organizes research. But the C.S.I.R. also has its own laboratories and undertakes its own research. The field of activity of the C.S.I.R. has expanded tremendously. In 1948 this body fell under the Prime Minister and in that year the meagre amount of R600,000 was granted to it. I should like to inform members, though, that this was an estimate for 1947-’48. In that year the meagre amount of R600,000 was granted to the C.S.I.R. In 1958 it had grown to a little more than R4 million and in 1968, under the Department of Planning, the amount of R20,370.000, if the research projects for Government Departments which have developed in the meantime, are also included. In addition, the C.S.I.R. has, as far as its organization is concerned—and we are also discussing organization—followed a policy of centralization. It has collected its laboratories together in the C.S.I.R. township, Scientia. There we find to-day the advantages of inter-disciplinary studies. This township and the work which is being done there is world famous to-day. It is earning world-wide praise.

Of course, the C.S.I.R. also has specialized research institutes at the universities. I want to make a few remarks about medical research. The C.S.I.R. has a section for medical research, but does not have a separate body to control, supervise or organize medical research. This section is actually of a dual nature. There is one part for post-graduate research at the universities, and one for medical research. No separate medical bodies exist. Up to now the policy of the C.S.I.R. has always been simply to support the South African Institute for Medical Research, universities, and medical schools with hospitals. The universities and hospitals also work together in undertaking research. A committee for research into the medical sciences has been appointed. This is the Advising and Co-ordinating Committee which undertakes medical research. But that is only being done where there are existing facilities. Here we are faced with a problem. I feel that since the Provinces have to make provision for these facilities there could perhaps be better co-ordination between the Province and the C.S.I.R., which is a central Government body so that they can improve their co-ordination as far as the establishment of facilities and the making available of money for those people who have to tackle the research projects are concerned. The C.S.I.R. awards its grants in the form of ad hoc grants which its committee allocate to research workers for certain projects. In addition, they appoint certain persons to permanent posts at the universities, and they create research units at universities. One of these is the heart research unit at the University of Cape Town. There is also a heart research unit at the University of the Witwatersrand, as well as another at the University of Pretoria, which are not so generally well-known. In articles which appeared this year in medical publications the research units at the University of Cape Town handsomely acknowledged the C.S.I.R. contribution. As regards the requests being made by projects, which a year ago was calculated to be R1½ million, the C.S.I.R. was scarcely able to give these people one-tenth, after the units at the universities had been given their share. Since we are dealing with organization and efficiency, one has to ask therefore whether all these units justify their continued existence? Twenty years ago R50,000 was made available for research in this country, and the universities could not even utilize it all. Up to 1956 the supply more or less kept up with the demand. In the past ten years, however, research applications have streamed in, but the C.S.I.R.’s Parliamentary allocation has only increased by 7½ per cent per year since 1956. Owing to the tremendous expansion of research and financial demand, it was simply impossible to fill the needs of these people. Since we have now heard the intentions of the Government, I would just like to suggest that we could perhaps have a greater degree of flexibility here. I should like to mention just one place where vast funds are necessary to-day and where work of world standard is being done, work which has really aroused my interest and sympathy. At a Peninsula Hospital where a heart and kidney research project is being carried out—it is not a unit—280 kidney transplants have already been performed on baboons. A baboon, as you know, is after all a kind of human being.

It is just the other way round.

It is not necessary for the Opposition to raise objections. It is a scientific fact that in many respects the primates show correspondences with human beings in their immunological reactions and their resistance, etc. These baboons are native to Africa, and we have many baboons here in this country. But in the rest of the world one does not find this kind of baboon. This work is being done at a cost of approximately R10 a baboon. In the United States where they do not have these primitive men, they are now already offering R200 for a baboon, and I am certain that with the funds at their disposal they will offer up to R1,000 and more for our baboons. Since we are therefore privileged in this case to have these citizens of the mountains here, and since their lives will in future gradually become just as precious as our own—I am pleased that this is not an agricultural debate —I am of the opinion that we should give serious attention to the exporting of baboons. We often discuss immigration problems. I think we should for a change discuss the emigration of baboons here.

Mr. Speaker, it is realized that the C.S.I.R. is not the only research body we have. The Government has a far greater task, a much more extensive task. There are the spiritual, social and other facets of our lives which also require a continual expansion of knowledge. We are also seeking to further the development of balanced human beings. We know that agriculture must also be continually exploring new horizons in order to feed our growing population better. The National Bureau for Social and Educational Research and the Council for Social Research is undertaking research in fields which are as important, and the ten research institutes of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services have also done work of an exceptional calibre. Actually, they are integrated with our universities. It is impossible to determine precisely the extent of the total amount spent by the Government. The C.S.I.R. has calculated that it amounts to approximately .5 per cent of the national income. We know that the United States spends 3.2 per cent of their national income on research. But there are encouraging signs of increased sympathy and contribution from the public, from our industries and from our financial institutions. This will all serve to stimulate an awareness of research, but I should nevertheless like to raise one idea for consideration here: Companies to-day can deduct 1 per cent from their taxable income for research purposes. Is it not possible for us to increase that amount? Private individuals to-day cannot deduct the amounts which they donate for research to universities from their taxable income for taxation purposes. Is it not possible for us to give some attention to this matter? We have unique opportunities in this country, and we have outstanding scientists. When I talk about unique opportunities, I think back to the baboons. But because funds are relatively limited, we must think along the lines of improved organization, of improved utilization of those funds, and of manpower. There is in South Africa to-day a complex framework of almost 30 bodies, and that is why I am very pleased the Government has decided to nominate four committees to enquire into the technological and scientific organization of research in this country on a national basis. I believe that these committees will place research in our country on a new basis. I trust that these committees will regard as their task, the entire broad concept of research, which includes all fields of research, and that we will have overall co-ordination for the improved utilization of the resources which we have at our disposal because economy in research is a concept which has to be taken into consideration in South Africa. The old research worker was tremendously conservative. He always wanted to carry on on his own; in other words, he wanted to be treated too liberally. Unfortunately, that can no longer be done.

In conclusion may I make the plea that we shall shortly see the realization of a Council for Medical Research in this country, which will have its own financial autonomy and its own status because we medical practitioners and our medical science deserve such a preeminent place after the achievements of recent times.

Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member for Gordonia has covered the ground of modern research and plans for modern research remarkably well. I should like to follow him but not in discussing medical research. There are members on this side of the House who from experience—experience over a life-time in one case—in administration and in the profession can speak with authority on medical research. I have been more interested in physical science and my thoughts naturally run in that direction.

The hon. member for Gordonia says that scientists have not always received the recognition they deserve. Scientists never do. There have been great scientists in the history of the world who have never been recognized in their life-time. What is important to them is their own study, their own science. I think of Rutherford. Rutherford, of course, was privileged. He was able to do research in a university laboratory at the time, and when the atom was split he said that it was an interesting discovery but that it was really of no importance to mankind. Well, we see how the modern world has developed. The scientist follows the star of research. The hon. member, I am pleased to say, referred to the rewards they receive by way of salary. Scientists are very inadequately paid; they are very often not encouraged and for that reason they look for places in the world where they can pursue their own research. They do not know national boundaries. They do not study science for patriotic motives, and when they leave one country and go to another, they go to the new country because it provides the opportunities and facilities for them to pursue their study. Sir, I hope I did not misunderstand the hon. the Prime Minister last week when he said that scientists left this country because they were communists. If we have a learned physicist who finds that he has an opportunity for study in the United States of America or in any of the European countries, who can blame him if he says, “I am not paid well enough in South Africa; I do not have the facilities for research and therefore I will seek the necessary facilities and an opportunity to express myself in research?” During a period of ten years 53,000 scientists from Europe emigrated to the United States. Well, the last thing a communist does is to emigrate to the United States. Those men went there because they were offered better facilities. The people who emigrated were chiefly engineers and physicists but there were others as well. In the United States of America they have developed research in this manner: For every 10,000 people in America, 23 are engaged in scientific research, in the United Kingdom the figure is just about ten— less than half—and in France six, which is rather low. If South Africa were to have half as many as the lowest of these countries, we should require in this country 1,000 scientists engaged in scientific research—not teaching only but scientific research. I agree with the hon. member for Gordonia that this does not affect inflation. When money is spent on scientific research, inflation is not a consideration. It is the same study as education. We cannot afford not to spend money on education, and in the same way we cannot afford to neglect scientific research. The hon. member spoke of technological development. There we have fallen short in South Africa and I propose to deal with that later.

In the course of his speech the hon. member made comparisons with the position 20 and 50 years ago. Sir, a comparison with the position 20 or 50 years ago is meaningless to-day. The progress is so rapid and the development is so great that a comparison going back even ten years is often quite meaningless in scientific research. We are proceeding at a very rapid rate. Hon. members may remember how during the Second World War rapid technological developments brought the German forces forward, until eventually they got to the stage where they had the doodlebug, and how rapidly our own people were able to find counters for all their new developments. If we look back 150 years we come to the period of the industrial revolution, which did not touch South Africa. But 50 years ago South Africa began its industrial development, and to-day we have what is sometimes called in this modern jargon an “explosion”, an explosion in education, an explosion in new ideas and in population. When the hon. member referred to the universities and what they have done, it is very interesting to see that over all the years we have never made adequate provision for scientific research at the universities. In the formula we have basic subsidies and the standard provision, but there is no research provision in the grants to the universities. It is most interesting. We have never regarded the question really seriously. In this new age in which we live I think the important study is physical science. I do not say medical science is not important but physical science is, and all the nations in the world have been anxious to develop physical science, for two reasons chiefly —utilitarian reasons, I admit. The one reason is the development of weapons in defence of their countries.

The other reason is that they have developed physical science for industrial expansion. That is the study we should concentrate on here. Think of the new world we live in and the new processes. I jotted down some while the hon. member was speaking. We have plastics, synthetic fibres, artificial leather, electronic devices, new processes and colour television, which is developing very rapidly now as a means of communication in Germany and in Britain. All this is happening around us and these are recent discoveries.

We in South Africa have neglected our higher education to a great extent. We have concentrated on teaching in our universities and have not given sufficient time to research. Take the subject of technology. What have we done in our country to develop technology? We have spoken about providing technical education, but let us take the short history of technical education as an example of our neglect in South Africa. We have neglected higher education. Technical education 20 years ago, or even more recently, about 15 years ago, consisted of technical colleges established in Cape Town, Johannesburg, Durban, etc. These technical colleges, where they provided post-matriculation studies and higher education, developed a certain measure of autonomy. Local men were interested, just as local men are interested in the universities, and they developed these technical colleges. One found that the employers in industry were members of the Council. Then in 1955, 13 years ago, the Government came along and said they were going to make this technical education part of the Government education system. In other words, they destroyed the measure of autonomy they had developed. But I will say that they saw the error of their ways. There are signs that the Government is stirring in its sleep on this question of education. They are beginning to see the error of their ways, because last year the Government introduced the Advanced Technical Education Bill, which was really to reverse the policy of 1955 and to return to the old road and to develop a new measure of autonomy. I think it is going further. We have before us, although naturally I cannot discuss it, an Advanced Technical Education Bill for Indian Education. I notice the hon. member for Gordonia did not refer to the education of non-Whites in our universities, but here is a great field of research, a special field of research for this country. Just as we have research into baboons, so we have this field of research also. What are we to do in South Africa to obtain scientists? We cannot buy scientists from other countries; we have to produce them. America and other highly-developed countries can buy them and they have often succeeded in doing so, but we have to produce them ourselves. We did in fact many years ago, and I hope we still do so, produce scientists at Onderstepoort in the field of agricultural research. I think we shall have to develop a system whereby we can produce scientists in South Africa. We must have a new system of education and we must encourage these men, because as I see the situation to-day scientists will not come to South Africa. We all dislike it and disapprove of it, but we are being boycotted in the world. People do not like us. We must try to get them to like us, and I think the Government will try to do that. But the position at present is that we do not have the support we ought to have.

I want to refer to another matter in scientific research. That is the support we should give to our College for Coloureds here in the Western Cape. We should try to give them the opportunities to develop as men of science who will work amongst their own people. To-day in South Africa there is no difference of opinion on education policy. In the old days they used to say that the Government was spending too much money in educating non-Whites, the Bantu or the Coloureds. That is not the position today. We all agree, perhaps for different reasons, because the Government’s policy is that these people should be well educated in order that they can govern their own people. Therefore we are all agreed that money must be spent on education, and not only on white education but on the education of all races. But we white people have to set the pace; the responsibility rests upon us. We have to see that these people have an opportunity in life and that they will be able in future to conduct their own university research and run their own affairs.

What do you suggest to stimulate an interest in physical science amongst the non-Whites? Are you aware that there is a certain lack of interest on the part of the non-Whites in physical science?

There may be in physical science, but that is only one field of research. The field of research I had in mind when I spoke is contained in this new Bill we have before us now, namely the human side.

Order! The hon. member cannot discuss that now.

I will not discuss it, but I was trying to tell the hon. member what I had in mind. That is a field of research especially for them. There are people here who can speak with authority on this, but I want to say that every year in this House the Leader of the Opposition criticized the Government because they have never made proper provision for scientific research and the development of technology. I have mentioned that we have fallen far behind in technical education, and our criticism is of the record of the Government for the last 20 years. We welcome what the hon. the Prime Minister has now told us. It shows, if I may use a topical expression, a change of heart. For this reason I wish to move this amendment—

To omit all the words after “House” and to substitute—

1. “(1) while taking note of the assurances given by the Government of its intention to make more funds available for scientific research, records its deep disappointment that these assurances have been announced after almost 20 years of Government failure to make adequate provision for the finance and facilities increasingly necessary for research in South Africa; and
2. (2) accepts the principle of awarding honours and awards to citizens of the Republic who have rendered distinguished and outstanding service to their country, and requests the Government to consider the advisability of appointing a commission to investigate the practical aspects of the matter and to recommend the best methods of implementing this principle.”

The motion before the House to-day provides us with the opportunity, as the highest legislative body in the country, of associating ourselves with the tribute which has been paid by the hon. the Prime Minister and the Government to the outstanding achievements of our scientists in recent years. Now it so happens that these achievements have reached a peak with those of the heart team at Groote Schuur Hospital. There have perhaps been other achievements which may be compared with it, but this particular achievement has focused the attention of the world Press, and the eyes of the world on our scientists and on our country. It has also afforded our public the opportunity—. and that is why we should also like to avail ourselves of this opportunity to-day of doing so again—of focusing its attention on the role played by the research worker and our scientists, and of realizing that they, the public, have an important share in the task of the research worker and the scientist. That is why I want to dissociate myself at once from the statement made by the hon. member for Kensington …

Without furnishing any proof.

Yes, without furnishing any proof. It was the old note of reproach that the Government has been doing nothing for 20 years, and in addition to that the view was insinuated that the Government should do everything. I feel that we have the opportunity to-day of focusing the attention of the general public on the fact that they also have a major role to play in strengthening the hand of our scientists, as is being done in other countries of the world. I say that I cannot associate myself with what the hon. member for Kensington said. But I do not want to move onto that field. What I really want to do is deal with the second part of the motion. But when the hon. member levels the reproach, as it is being done here in the amendment he moved, i.e. that the Government has neglected to do anything for 20 years, then I want to remind the hon. member of one small item, i.e. of what the Government did for 20 years and longer when the party to which the hon. member belongs was in power. That Government closed down our agricultural colleges for a time. Will the hon. member explain to us why they did so? I do not want to repeat to-day the song which the hon. member has recently been so fond of singing. I do not want to rake open old wounds. But I do want to say that if it was necessary to close down those colleges, for whatever reason, the hon. member has no reason this afternoon to reproach this side with negligence.

Look at all the Government has achieved during the past 20 years. The hon. the Prime Minister mentioned a few examples the other day. What was the position 20 years ago? In 1948, before this side came into power, the United Party Government spent less on all the South African universities collectively than we are now spending annually on one university.

Another aspect which the hon. member dealt with was the role of our non-White educational institutions. I want to express my satisfaction at the fact that the hon. member has now seen the light. I recall how we sat through one night sitting after another in this Chamber when we introduced legislation to establish those institutions. It was the attitude of this side that that institution would also be to the benefit and the advantage of the non-Whites. At that time derogatory words were used, words such as “colleges in the bush” and “tribal colleges”, etc., for the added purpose of preventing the non-Whites from seeking their real home in those institutions. I am delighted at the progress which is being made in that respect. In addition the hon. member for Kensington focused the attention this afternoon on the major role which our non-White educational institutions have to play in the field of research and science.

The hon. member said something else with which I cannot agree. He said that scientists worked on an international basis. That may be partially true. However, he also said that they did not undertake research for patriotic purposes. I want to ask the hon. member whether he wants to discourage any patriotic motives on the part of the scientist and the research-worker? If it is not the hon. member’s intention to do so, why does he then make such a remark? It is a reproachful remark. I believe that amongst the greatest scientists and research-workers there are still those who set patriotism above all else. There are those amongst them who are prepared to remain in their own country and to render their services to their own country, whether it is this country, or any other country. That is why I should like to pay specific tribute this afternoon to the members of the heart team at the Groote Schuur Hospital. Not only have they come under the sharp spotlight of world publicity during recent months, they have also become closely acquainted with the favourable and the less favourable aspects of the power of the dollar. They have received very attractive offers, but they have also discovered what the dollar is capable of. Notwithstanding all these things they have in the first place shown themselves to be loyal to their own country, even if their country has a small population. They have shown that they want to contribute their share here in South Africa. I do not want to go into this aspect any further.

Sir, I want more specifically to confine myself to the second part of this motion, which deals with the question of honouring achievements. The Prime Minister announced in his New Year’s message that achievements would in future be suitably honoured. Nor would this honouring of achievements be confined to scientists only. I know there are people who take exception to the fact that tribute should be paid, or that a specific means should be found of honouring those people who have achievements to their credit. I want to point out this afternoon that the principle of honouring those people who have rendered outstanding services or who have achievements to their credit is no new principle. In South Africa, we have, on a lower as well as on a higher level, numerous examples of meritorious persons having been honoured. One merely has to think of the Suid-Afrikaanse Akademie vir Wetenskap en Kuns which presents the Hertzog Prize for achievements in the literary field and which also presents honorary awards for exceptional scientific achievement. One is reminded of the H. F. Verwoerd Trust which presents the Hendrik Verwoerd Prize for outstanding achievements. This prize has already been presented on two occasions: To the late Dr. Verwoerd for achievements in the political field, and to Dr. M. S. Louw in the field of economics. It is also possible that this prize will now be conferred upon the leader of the heart team. In our Police Force we have a wide range of honorary awards, medals and awards for merit, faithful service, exceptional achievements, courage displayed, etc. On occasions we have the most impressive parades, when our policemen are honoured in this way. In our Defence Force as well, men are honoured for loyal service over a long period, for courage, and for exceptional services in the defence of our country. We also find it in all our youth organizations. Honorary awards are conferred upon people who have rendered outstanding service and displayed an interest in the young people in those organizations. In the Voortrekkers we have for example the honorany order of “Vriend van die Voortrekkers”. We also have honorary awards for merit in the Scouts, the Guides, the Land Service Movement and other organizations. We also have it in our sport. Apart from trophies which are competed for, the highest awards are now being conferred, namely the State President’s Award for exceptional sporting achievements of international calibre. This award has already been conferred a few times. We find that universities honour their ex-students, or ex-students of other universities, who have exceptional achievements to their credit as regards service which they have rendered to the country in the broader sense, with an honorary degree—in the most cases an honorary doctor's degree. Sitting in this House there are a few individuals who have already received that distinction from South African universities. Universities go even further when, as the highest form of tribute, they award the Chancellorship to an ex-student for achievements in various walks of life. We have just learnt that the Chancellorship of his alma mater, the University of Stellenbosch, has been conferred upon the hon. the Prime Minister. We want to extend our sincere congratulations to him. In this way he is following in the footsteps of his predecessors as well as other members of the Cabinet who serve other universities in this capacity. So I can continue to illustrate the fact that there are forms of recognition for merit at all levels.

If we look at overseas countries, we find that this custom prevails there as well. One does not like to dwell at too great a length on this topic. In Britain we find the annual honours list when certain individuals, for example, are admitted to the peerage, are dubbed knights, and receive other honorary orders for meritorious services they have performed. If I may be permitted to say something about this, I would merely like to suggest that conferring this kind of honour would not be a suitable thing in South Africa because we do not believe in an aristocracy and class differences. Apart from that one does not like to see awards on that high level being made annually in such large numbers that it practically becomes the general procedure. There is also the French honorary award, namely the French Legion d’ Honneur. We also call to mind the honorary military award that was bestowed upon our own Minister of Defence in Portugal last year, namely the Portuguese Great Cross of the Order of Christ. It was an award bestowed upon him in his particular capacity to symbolize the good and friendly relations between South Africa and Portugal, particularly in the military field. I want to say that that award went much further than the person of the hon. the Minister of Defence. It was in fact an expression of enduring friendship and is of far greater value than treaties negotiated between two friendly countries.

Since it is now the Government’s intention to make awards for meritorious achievements, achievements of an outstanding nature in the interests of the Republic, then those people who are friends of South Africa, although they are not necessarily citizens of the country, should also be borne in mind. I think that people who have revealed a sympathetic understanding towards us, people who may perhaps have done good work to the benefit of South Africa in overseas countries, but who are not South African citizens, are deserving of such an honorary award. In this regard I want to mention one name, that of Dr. Jan van der Berg, who was ambassador to the Netherlands in South Africa. He was honoured with an honorary doctor’s degree by one of our universities. We South Africans feel grateful for and proud of such contributions made by people who are not citizens of our country.

In conclusion I would just like to say the following. It is not only our scientists who have achieved great things, great achievements in other fields are also being made here in South Africa. It would only be right if we adopted the attitude that man cannot live by bread alone and that it is fitting that we should on occasion bring laurels, where laurels are deserved, to such persons while they are living, rather than bring them to their graves.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Stellenbosch, who has just sat down, occupied quite a long time with his description of what honours and awards are made in other parts of the world. I sat here waiting with bated breath for the answer to the 64,000 dollar question, and that is what form is the honour to take in South Africa, or what is his suggestion. That answer has not been given by him yet. Perhaps it will come at a later stage. In the course of my speech I will refer to his other remarks relevant to the motion now being discussed.

I think the present awakening of, or awakened interest in and concern for research and for research workers are most commendable, and I listened with interest when the hon. member for Gordonia, when introducing his motion, approached the problem under two or three heads. The first one was the problem of co-ordination of research and the necessity for a review of the present coordination arrangements. The second was the question of adequate finance. The third one was the question of recognition of achievement. Those needs are nothing new. It is the awareness both inside and outside this House at this time which is perhaps new.

I want to start off by making a few remarks and giving a few thoughts in connection with the question of co-ordination. I believe that a much higher degree of co-ordination than that which exists at the present time is essential if our financial resources, the energy of our research workers, as well as their number, are not to be dissipated or made less effective on account of being used on innumerable small projects instead of on concentrated endeavour. I believe that no country in modern times can afford unnecessary decentralization of research projects. I would like to mention as an example that this magnificent gift of the mining houses to the Cape Town university for the establishment of a heart research block may possibly be insufficient for the construction of a suitable building and the equipping thereof.

One linear accelerator which is now required, and which is used in cancer research and cancer treatment, costs R1/4 million, according to the latest figures which we have. That type of instrument cannot be bought and supplied to three or four different centres for cancer research. We have seen the benefit of planned co-ordination in this country in regard to research projects. I need refer to one only. That was one of quite recent years, namely when we had the poliomyelitis epidemic in this country. The sum of money in excess of R1 million was collected in a very short time. One centre was established to deal with this problem and the problem was dealt with within a very short period. Since 1945 we have had the C.S.I.R. in this country, functioning as a co-ordinator of research projects. One finds, however, that the C.S.I.R. at the present moment, or at the time of its last report, with the limited resources at its disposal is financing and assisting some 24 different medical research projects. These are overlapping to some degree. On looking at those research projects, it certainly seems as though there could be a better form of coordination.

The hon. member for Stellenbosch took exception to the remarks of the hon. member for Kensington when he drew attention to the fact that the Government had not given adequate attention to this matter in recent years. It was suggested that such an allegation was without any foundation. The C.S.I.R. reports annually to this House. In 1964 the C.S.I.R., in its annual report, stated that with the monies that had been given to it, it had done what it could. But as regards medical research, to quote from the report: “Deserving applications amounting to R400,000 had to be refused.” But let me come closer. In the 1966 report, when a sum of R533,000 was available for medical research through the C.S.I.R., what did the C.S.I.R. say? They stated: “Approximately half the funds requested could not be provided”. Sir, that is the foundation upon which we say that the funds have not been given in sufficient measure. The hon. member for Gordonia has referred to one aspect which I also think has not been sufficiently canvassed. I suggest that it could well be canvassed to the advantage of research. I am speaking of the establishment of private endowments. He has referred correctly to the Bernard Price Institute of Geophysical Research at the Witwatersrand University and to Dr. Merenski’s enablement of the establishment of the Department of Physics at Stellenbosch University. Recently we have also had a contribution of R1 million from the mining houses to the University of Cape Town. There are many other instances where personal and private generosity has been utilized and encouraged for research purposes —not so much here as in other countries. In America one knows that the question of the financing of research is approached as a business project. Cardiac research in America is— I understand from the information which I have—financed almost entirely by the life insurance companies. They regard it as a business investment, having regard to the high percentage of claims on life policies resulting from cardiac failure of some sort. That is done in the States. They are encouraged to do so. But in South Africa at the present moment we can give greater encouragement. I may say, Sir, that in recent months we have found an enormous amount of goodwill on the part of people willing to donate and to give. But if you go to a man who is in the 50 per cent tax group, he may say: “Yes, I shall give you some money, but do you know what this costs me?” I get no tax relief from the Government if I make the payment to you as an individual. The companies have very restricted relief under the existing law. I know the problem is: Can the finances of the country afford that loss of income? Can the country afford the loss of income of taxation? But let us look at the problem from another point of view. If we feel that RX million is required for research purposes and the Government is prepared to spend RX million, it can obtain a large amount of that money by means of private donations. The Government in turn, from the company aspect for instance, is paying 35 per cent only of the amount that is contributed. The balance is then paid by the individual. The amount of money which is available at the present time is quite inadequate for the research which has to be undertaken, having regard to present costs. I want to mention in particular in relation to the figure of R533,000 which was made available last year for medical research, it is anticipated that the cost of running the cardiac research unit at the University of Cape Town will in itself cost R200,000 per year. That is the estimate of the department and those concerned.

There is another aspect in regard to the persons concerned with and employed in research. Research at the moment is for the most part a part-time occupation for persons who are employed for other purposes. It is the professor who takes of his teaching time and spends it doing research. We have the doctors, and I cite the case of Professor Barnard. Professor Barnard is an employee for clinical duties at the hospital. He is charged with clinical duties and is unable to devote his full time and attention to research. So it goes on. These people are employed in a manner which prohibits their being proper research workers. They cannot be full-time research workers under the system which now applies. I think that something can and should be done to meet that difficulty.

Finally I want to refer to the question of recognition. I think there is not one of us in South Africa who is not deeply conscious of the impact which has been made on the world as a result of the recent happenings here at the Groote Schuur hospital. The impact is more important because it has brought South Africa on to the world screen, and I mean literally on to the screen. When one finds that in the United States for a period of 14 days there was news of or concerning South Africa on television as the second item, one realizes that its value to our country is incalculable. One hopes that the Government will give attention to these shortages and requirements so far as research is concerned.

I want to conclude by quoting, if I may, from a document which is available to this House. I am speaking of the news journal of the C.S.I.R. This is the November, 1966, issue. An article on medical research concludes with these words:

Sir, I believe that this report of the C.S.I.R. is sufficient to justify the amendment to the motion which has been moved by this side this afternoon.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I support the motion of the hon. member for Gordonia. I am only sorry about the politics which has been dragged into this debate by the other side of the House here this afternoon. That is the false note in this debate; a debate which was intended to be a positive one in which our research workers and scientists was to be discussed. One wonders what their motive is? What other motive could they have than to throw cold water on a positively intended motion? If not, then it is a question of sour grapes because such scientific achievements have taken place, despite all the prophecies of doom from the other side of the House. I would also like to ask the hon. member for Kensington whether he cannot distinguish between research and education? What he actually did was to talk about education, and that after the hon. the Prime Minister indicated last week in this House that the National Government had in one year spent three times as much on one university as the United Party had spent in one year on all the universities in the country. But, Mr. Speaker, I do not have any time at this stage to argue the matter with the Opposition. The hon. member for Gordonia has already elaborated extensively on the importance of research and the importance of additional support for our research workers from all quarters. I feel myself at liberty to state that South Africa has at its disposal men and women who in their particular fields need not take second place to any in the world. It is a good thing that our recent medical achievements have focussed the public attention closely on the work of the research worker and the scientist. However, the fact that South Africa’s scientists, whether they be natural or social scientists, as well as numerous other South Africans in every sphere of life have been holding their own with particular distinction amongst their equals in the world is no recent phenomenon. I want to say that one is really astounded to see what South Africans, and through them our entire nation, the people of South Africa, have accomplished with our limited means and small population.

We can go back, as far back as 1896, to the time of Paul Kruger. If he were living to-day, he would have been sitting on this side of the House. In 1869 the man who subsequently became Dr. Arnold Theiler began has veterinary activities at Onderstepoort with extremely limited means. How far have we not progressed since in South Africa in this field and what position does South Africa not hold to-day in the world with its discoveries in the field of veterinary science? These achievements are being continued to-day in numerous fields. In the field of cattle-breeding we have a world expert in the person of Professor Jan Bonsma who in his field need not take second place to any other person in the world, and who is in fact in world demand to give guidance and read papers. In this way we can elaborate on educationists, classicists, sociologists, dentists, industrialists, professional men and numerous others. Each year, throughout the world, these people earn laurels, compel respect and are worthy ambassadors for South Africa and the civilization which has been built up in South Africa. It is unfortunately so that the achievements of these citizens go virtually unsung and that their activities seldom reach the headlines and front pages. To that, I think we must gratefully add that personal sacrifices, whether financial or otherwise, actually form a part of the lives of the people. Consequently it is a good thing that the needs and requirements of these people should be discussed in this House and that appreciation should be expressed here for the hon. the Prime Minister’s promised assistance to them, as the means allow. It is my belief that South Africa should not stop short at support. We cannot merely, as means allow, supply them with funds and equipment and leave it at that. It is not really possible for us to reward them properly with money. One does not wish to measure their services in rands and cents. According to a report in the past week-end’s Dagbreek, Baron Luigi Morglia, director of Italy’s state movie service, telephoned our Embassy in Rome and said that, in the form of favourable publicity for South Africa, Chris Barnard was worth as much as ten years’ gold yield. I feel myself inclined to agree with the Italian baron, but whether we, he and I, are correct in thinking thus, does not matter. The fact is that in South Africa there is a long list of men and women, as there has been in the past, whom we can never, in financial terms, reward according to their merits for what they have done and signified for South Africa. But we can at least say to them: “Thank you very much” or “Well done.” We can at least say to these people, “We appreciate what you have done”, or “We are proud of you.” We should present them, as a gesture of gratitude, tribute, goodwill and sympathy, with a token which reflected our feeling towards them. In the long list of men and women passing through my thoughts, there are not only scientists and research workers, there are also statesmen, politicians and ex-politicians, cultural and spiritual leaders, artists, entrepreneurs, businessmen and industrialists; they are not only citizens of South Africa, but also foreign friends and well-wishers of South Africa. There are not only pre-eminent people, people in comfortable circumstances, and learned people; there are also humble, simple and poor people. Yes, from all layers and levels of our society, and from beyond our borders, there have been people and still are people to whom South Africa ought to pay tribute for exceptional services rendered to the Republic, and not only to the Republic, but also to the people of the Republic and sometimes also to humanity as a whole. Britain has its “Order of Merit” introduced by King Edward VII in 1902, for those who have rendered particularly outstanding service in the armed forces, or exceptionally meritorious services to the advancement of art, literature and science. They also have the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire, which King George y introduced as late as 1917. France has the Legion d'houneur with its five ranks, to which reference has already been made, and which Napoleon introduced in 1802 as an award to French citizens and foreigners, both men and women, who had rendered outstanding services, civil or military, to France. The Germans have their Orde pour lé Merité introduced by King Wilhelm Frederik Iy of Prussia in 1842, and in 1951 they introduced the Verdienstorden der Bundesrepublik Deutschland for outstanding achievement in the political, economic, social and intellectual fields to be conferred upon those who have contributed to the peaceful promotion of the Federal Republic of Germany. This order can also be awarded to foreigners, and it consists of three classes. I wonder whether the hon. the Prime Minister was perhaps thinking in this direction when announced that persons rendering exceptional services to the Republic would be honoured? I may just mention that I believe that the need for something like this exists and that it will in fact be welcomed by the nation. This appears from the fact which my friend, the hon. member for Stellenbosch, mentioned to you on the basis of the example that awards are being made by private persons and bodies. I also want to suggest that where some fear that something of this nature is foreign to our nation, it is my contention that that is not the case but that our people would really like to see the reinstatement of honorary awards, the presentation and the acceptance of these awards, as they have had examples of in the past. We call to mind President Paul Kruger who received numerous orders and honorary awards from European heads of state, as well as the old Decoratie voor Trouwe Dienst of the old Transvaal Republic. I just want to mention that I found during the past recess that it was with unmixed pleasure that the general public learned of the Portuguese honorary award bestowed upon the hon. the Minister of Defence. Our Constitution provides in section 7 (3) (c) that the State President has the authority to bestow honorary awards. I would be delighted if this provision were implemented. I believe that the introduction of some or other form of honorary awards or South African Order, or something similar, would be an important step in the further expansion and development of the identity of our young state and the national pride of its citizens.

Mr. Speaker, I want to confine my remarks to the second part of our amendment. The amendment is in exactly the same terms as a private motion I put on the Order Paper four years ago, i.e., in 1964, and again this year, but then withdrew. After having listened to all the speeches this afternoon, one thing is perfectly clear, and that is that we are all at one that honour should be done to those who have served South Africa well. There is no dispute on this issue. We were therefore very pleased to hear from the hon. the Prime Minister that he intended making provision shortly for honours to be awarded to those South African citizens who had rendered outstanding service to South Africa. But let us be practicable. We are dealing here with a most difficult subject. The question of awarding honours to people is no easy thing. We are going to be breaking new ground and it is essential that when we decide on the means of carrying out the principle which we all accept, we should start off on the right foot. Many years have gone by since we in this country have had any civilian honour awarded by the Government to our distinguished citizens. We do have, of course, honorary degrees by the universities, but these are decided upon and awarded by them. We also have freemen of our cities, but this again is purely a local authority matter. I believe that the reason for not having honours or awards now could well be the fear that such awards might perhaps be given political significance, and that the Government, whoever is the Government, might be accused of some form of nepotism. We have had little experience in dealing with this question, and it is my belief, as well as the belief of this side of the House, that before we embark on any line of action in this regard, the matter should first be fully investigated.

Mr. Speaker, originally orders of knighthood and chivalry, medals and decorations, were confined almost entirely to war achievements. It was in a battle that the young man earned his spurs. War had a far more personal aspect than it has to-day, because to-day electronics and buttons are the sinews of war. Luckily the world has come to realize that the contributions that men or women can make on the civilian front is equally as important, and equally worthy of recognition. For many years Great Britain has had civilian awards. The Legion of Honour of France has recognized the services that many of her great sons and daughters have rendered to France on the civilian front and in the field of human endeavour. It was interesting that after Dr. Salk of the United States discovered the serum which has practically eradicated poliomyelitis, Congress of the United States had to find a special medal to recognize his services. We have seen that there is a trend which has continued for many years now, to recognize the services by our civilians. That is why, with our usual perspicacity and forethought, we had a motion on the Order Paper in 1964. But we now know that the Government is accepting in principle that our citizens should be recognized. But we are not worried about the principle. What we are worried about is the implementation of the principle. That is the important factor. As the hon. member for Green Point said: How are we going to do it and what are we going to do? These are the important things. We have already started taking bites at the cherry. We now have already a Presidential Medal for sport. And we welcome it. Now with the phenomenal achievement of Dr. Chris Barnard and his team it is felt that we should have an award for scientific achievements. We have and we will continue to have, in this country, many people who will serve South Africa in quite different walks of life, be it sport or science. There are artists, writers, judges, businessmen, and civil servants and in many countries of the world the lifelong service rendered by a civil servant to his country is recognized. And I believe it should be. We do not want to confine things, we wish to broaden them. Perhaps even one day a politician may be considered worthy of some award from the State. And that is why we would like to see established a commission—despite the comment of the hon. the Minister of Planning—which could examine all the facets of this matter. I still believe commissions are necessary although I would have something to say about them at a later date. I believe that the broad spectrum should be examined. I believe we should start off on the right foot. I believe we should have opinions from all sections of the community of how we should implement the principle that has already been accepted by all of us. Because, what is of vital importance when you are going to honour a man, is that he should be respected for the honour that has been given to him. We do not want something that can ever make an honour or award, whichever form it might take, by way of a distinctive title or medal, or whatever it may be—cheap. Because if this sort of thing is cheapened it is better left alone. But we want it. I think it is essential. But we want to know that those to whom it is given will be respected by the people. It must be a system which is accepted by the people. It must be a system which will not be criticized by the people. Therefore we would ask of the Government, in accepting the principle, that we tackle this on a sound basis, so that one day when we are ready to institute a procedure or a method to honour our citizens we will all be proud of the method which we have adopted.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to make a few observations and I want to confine myself to the second part of the motion introduced by the hon. member for Gordonia and the second part of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Kensington. Before coming to that. I should just like to say something about the practice of always drawing a comparison between what the present Government is spending to-day and what the previous one spent years ago. One does not prove anything at all by doing that. Members on the opposite side of the House forget that the National Party governed on a previous occasion as well. It governed for ten years. If this Government can each time compare what it spends on material things with the expenditure of a government of 20 years ago, then surely I on my part can compare the previous government with the one that preceded it by more than ten years. There is no point in doing that. The world is making such rapid progress in the material field that it would be quite ridiculous of President Johnson to hold it against President Eisenhower that he did not send a man into space in his time.

But this matter has been raised by the amendment.

It is not a question of who raised it. The point is that comparisons are perpetually being drawn here between, for example, the number of houses built by a former government and the number being built by the present Government. [Interjections.] This does not hold water at all. because I remember that when I was a child it took nine months to build one house, but the position is quite different to-day. So I just want to say in passing that this practice of ours of always comparing the figures of one period with those of another does not hold water. And if the Government wants to suggest that it is doing so much better than the old United Party Government, then I may just as well compare it with the old National Party which governed previously. As I have said, I am interested mainly in the second part of the motion and in the amendment which calls for acceptance of the principle of acknowledgement of national service to South Africa. The fact that three motions dealing with this matter appear on the Order Paper this year, is an indication of the need that exists and the need that is felt in the country to find a way of granting recognition to people who have rendered distinguished services to South Africa. This need has of course become more apparent as a result of the remarkable services recently rendered to South Africa by a man such as Professor Chris Barnard. The hon. member for Gordonia thought along the lines of recognition being granted by the Government. The hon. member for Parktown, on the other hand, strongly emphasized that we should investigate the matter to determine the best method of doing this. I myself had a motion on the Order Paper—which has now been withdrawn in view of this motion—in which I asked for something more specific, i.e. that the Government should consider the advisability of establishing a special award for outstanding services by individuals or institutions to the people of South Africa, to be called in Afrikaans “Die Parlementêre Toekenning” and in English “The Award of Parliament”—the word “Award” is spelt with a capital A—this award to be granted upon a unanimous resolution of both Houses of Parliament. There is a very good reason why I personally prefer that the Government should think along these lines, that is to say, along the lines of an “Award of Parliament.” a “Parlementêre Toekenning”. As the hon. member for Stellenbosch rightly observed, there are a great many different ways in which people are honoured. Monuments are built, but mostly for persons who have died already. Foundations and trust funds are established, and streets and parks and squares and buildings are named after people. The Defence Force and the Police have their own forms of granting awards of merit. There are also organizations such as the Boy Scouts, the Voortrekkers, and the Red Cross. All of them have their own ways of granting recognition for outstanding services. But we have no way of granting comprehensive national recognition bearing the stamp of the nation as a whole. And I think this is a gap we must try and fill. I cannot think of a better way of doing so than by establishing an Award of Parliament. An award made by the Government of the day is very much inclined to have a political air about it. And besides, a government—I do not necessarily say this Government, but any government—can. when it has to make the award, easily be misled into making it with a view to political gain. Therefore I think we must avoid the approach that the award must be made by the Government. One cannot really think of any greater honour that can be bestowed on any person than that Parliament— the conference of the people—decides to honour him. And this is particularly the case when it is done unanimously by both Houses of Parliament. It would be fatal if we made the award—whatever form of award is to be established—a cheap or everyday one. It must be something quite exceptional. And therefore one would like to see the award being made by a unanimous decision of both Houses of Parliament. Then there can be no doubt whatsoever that that award has come from the heart of South Africa. What the nature of such an award ought to be, is something about which one may keep an open mind and which may well be investigated further. But the important thing is that Parliament is sovereign and powerful. Parliament controls the country’s finances. Consequently it lies within its power to make a substantial monetary award should it wish to do so. It lies within the power of Parliament to establish a substantial fund or to erect a building. As a result of the special position occupied by Parliament the entire field is open to it as far as the awarding of honours is concerned. One might even consider granting honorary membership of Parliament, should this prove necessary. [Interjections.] This is not such a novel idea. It can be done more specifically by conferring upon a man of outstanding calibre a membership of the Upper House or even of this House, with advisory powers. I mention this as a possibility which is not all that far-fetched. There is in fact a precedent for it in the kind of appointments made in the House of Lords in Great Britain. [Interjections.]

Order!

The idea of an Award of Parliament has unlimited possibilities. And I do not think one can bestow a greater honour on any person than one which bears the stamp of the nation by way of a unanimous resolution of Parliament.

The motion we have been discussing this afternoon, deals with two matters, namely research on the one hand and honouring persons on the other hand. I should like to deal with the latter part of the motion first. From the discussion conducted here it is very clear to me that members on both sides of the House—and I believe our people outside as well—are satisfied that the time is ripe for the introduction of some honorary award for persons who have rendered outstanding services to South Africa, be they scientists or others. I think that in that regard there is no difference of opinion in the country to-day. Nor do I think that there is any difference of opinion as to the attitude adopted by the hon. member for Stellenbosch as well as the hon. member for Parktown, i.e., that if one decides to award honours, one must award honours very sparingly; that one must at all times be on one’s guard lest the honorary awards one makes in that way, are not bestowed too lavishly, because then one would inevitably be cheapening them. One may also consider—and this is at present being considered by the committee charged with it—whether one should only have one type of honorary award or whether one should have various degrees of merit in the case of awards. These are all matters which are being considered and which will eventually be submitted to hon. members. But I think that right from the start we must have great clarity about one thing, and I cannot do better than to quote in this regard what the Prime Minister of Canada said last year when Canada for the first time proceeded to introduce honorary awards, because to my mind this should at all times be the basis and the foundation of this matter. These were his words—

Then he said this—

I think this is the firm basis on which such a matter should be placed and it will also have to be viewed from that angle by the committee and the Cabinet. The Cabinet accordingly decided in principle in May last year, as I announced in my New Year message, that the time was ripe. For the sake of interest I may just point out to hon. members that the matter of South African honorary awards has quite a long history. In fact, in the previous century already the South African Republic gave consideration to whether the Transvaal should proceed to such a step. It was, of course, an accepted thing in this country up to 1924— hon. members know the history—but since the thirties all governments in South Africa have at some time or other given consideration to this matter, namely whether the time had not arrived for us to proceed to such a step. Eventually, as I have said, the Government took this decision in principle last year and positive action was taken and a committee of officials was appointed to enquire into this matter as a whole and to do the necessary research with regard to the best way of doing this, and, as I said in my New Year message, it is hoped that all these matters will be finalized in the course of this year. There are many things to be taken into account—by whom the candidates are to be selected, etc. These matters will have to be investigated very thoroughly, but I want to add at once that there is one matter to which I can give a definite answer in advance: One cannot have the position, as the hon. member for Bezuidenhout wants to have, that every single candidate is to be discussed across the floor of the House.

It was not the intention that the matter should be discussed here.

The hon. member said that it should be done by unanimous resolution of both Houses. Surely, we do not pass a resolution here without discussing matters. One cannot set about things in that way. Surely if such a matter appears on the agenda of the House, one cannot prohibit people who wish to discuss it from doing so. Surely that is not the procedure followed by Parliament. But let us examine the matter further. The hon. member referred to the rare animals we have in this country. If we adopted the hon. member’s plan, it would mean that one of those creatures could prevent such an award from being made.

A baboon.

Surely one cannot allow one member, because he wants to be funny, to prevent the making of an award which all the other hon. members of this House would very much like to bestow on a person. I also want to say at once and in advance that I am not even considering awarding honorary membership of Parliament to anybody. People who are associated with this Parliament, are and must from the nature of the case only be people whom the nation has elected to be their representatives here. For the sake of interest I may add that there will perhaps be people who may adopt the attitude that it is un-South African to make honorary awards to people. The hon. member for Waterkloof, as well as the hon. member for Stellenbosch, I think, pointed out that honorary awards were received by the presidents of the South African Republic, not only President Kruger, but President Burgers before him and also President Brand of the Free State, although the award of a baronetcy to the latter caused many problems. It is interesting to read in history that President Kruger, when he was laying the corner-stone of the post office in Pretoria, if I remember correctly, failed to wear his decorations and that he was reprimanded by the Volksraad for not having worn on that occasion the decorations he had by that time received from the Netherlands, Portugal and France. This matter is therefore quite in line with our views and with our tradition, and as soon as the necessary investigation has been completed, as soon as one has more clarity in this regard. I shall gladly take hon. members into my confidence, and should it be necessary, if in terms of Parliamentary procedure we cannot discuss the matter here, I shall gladly create an opportunity for hearing hon. members’ views in this regard, because this is a matter that must come from all of us. The only point I want to deal with now is the principle of whether the time is ripe for the introduction of honorary awards, and I am pleased to hear from hon. members on both sides that the time is in fact ripe for doing so now, and the Government will also accept this as a sign that it may proceed and finalize the matter as soon as possible. I thank hon. members on both sides of the House for this.

The motion also deals with another aspect, namely research. I want to thank the hon. members for Gordonia, Stellenbosch and Waterkloof for having discussed the motion in the way they did. What could have been a profitable discussion has, as far as the Opposition is concerned, become a discordant note, because along with the motion we are discussing here, we find that on behalf of the Opposition the hon. member for Kensington has moved the following amendment: “That this House, while taking note (this is what the Opposition says) of the assurances given by the Government of its intention to make more funds available for scientific research, records its deep disappointment that these assurances have been announced after almost 20 years of Government failure to make adequate provision for the finance and facilities increasingly necessary for research in South Africa.” Consequently it has now become necessary for me to deal with a charge of neglect of duty levelled against the Government. But what I find interesting. is that the hon. member for Kensington levelled this charge without furnishing any evidence whatever on which he based this charge. The hon. member has been a member here for many years. Not only has he been here for many years, but he has also taken an interest in education for many years. But to me it was saddening that the hon. member did not even make an attempt at furnishing any proof for this blatant accusation against the Government which appears in the Order Paper. Surely, one does not act in that way in Parliament. Surely the time has passed when one could simply say: The hon. member for Kensington says the Government has neglected its duty, and everybody outside shouts, “hurrah!” The hon. member should, after all, have known that if he rises in this House, he has to furnish proof for his allegations. Surely, it remains an eminent fact that he who alleges, must furnish proof. A blatant allegation has been made here without any attempt being made to prove it. But what hurts me, is the disparaging way in which the hon. member spoke, to create the impression outside that we do not even have 1,000 researchers in South Africa. In other words, we are nothing but a cheap little country of which one need not take any notice. What are the facts? Surely the hon. member ought to know them. I shall test the hon. member. What does he think we spend on pure research in South Africa per year? What does the hon. member think is the amount? That will be interesting to know, in view of the hon. member’s amendment, in which it is claimed that the Government has neglected its duty. I would have expected the hon. member to have had in mind that we should have spent at least such and such an amount, but that we only spent so much. What does the hon. member think we are spending on research? [Interjection.] I want to tell the hon. member that he does not know. I want to accuse him of not knowing: he did not try to find out and he does not care either: he simply wants to make the allegation against us that we are neglecting our duty in this regard. That is my accusation against the hon. member, and in a while I shall prove that what I say is true. The hon. member is the main speaker on that side; he disparages South Africa and attacks the Government without even making an attempt at determining what the actual position is. Take the 1,000 men he referred to. He went as far as to throw up his hands and say: If only we had 1,000 men in South Africa who could do research! What is the position? In the C.S.I.R. the number of scientists and technical staff who are doing nothing but conducting research on a full-time basis is 1,834. In the Atomic Energy Board there are 464. In the National Metallurgical Institute there are 222. In other words, a total of 2,520 in three institutions only. Then I am not even mentioning the Government Departments, particularly the Department of Agriculture. I am not mentioning the universities or the provinces. I am not mentioning Onderstepoort and numerous other organizations which conduct research. But the hon. member disparages us blatantly. What does he achieve by doing so? I simply do not know.

But let us go further. I deliberately asked the hon. member what he thought we were spending. Now I shall deal with the hon. member for Green Point. If there is one person in this House who knows this, then it is the hon. member for Green Point. But he made the same reproach, and what did he base it on? He based it on the fact that the C.S.I.R. had said that owing to a lack of money they could not grant certain applications. But that is the position, and it will always be so, no matter how much money one makes available to them. That is the position in Britain and in Germany and in America, with all the millions that they make available. There will always be cases which one cannot help because one does not have sufficient funds. But in fairness to South Africa, why did the hon. member not furnish the figures for which he had asked the hon. the Minister and which he has in his possession?

I have not received them yet.

No, the question was replied to on Tuesday, 6th February.

On a point of explanation, Sir, the reply has not reached me yet; the question stood over.

I did not simply make an accusation. The fact of the matter is that the hon. member asked the Minister a question for written reply. That question was on the Question Paper of 6th February, last week, and that reply was handed in. I have made enquiries about the procedure. If my information is wrong, then I am wrong, but the information that has been given to me, is that the moment such a question has been replied to, a copy of the reply is given to the member concerned.

On a point of order, Sir, may I draw your attention to the Question Paper of to-day, from which it will be noted that the question was deleted and has been replaced on the Question Paper as a question to the Minister of Planning. It was standing over from the 6th instant, and I have still not had a reply to that question. Had the figures been available, I would certainly have used them.

Order!

My information is that the question has been asked, that it has been replied to, and that the information is at the hon. member’s disposal.

Is the Prime Minister not prepared to accept my word that I have not had a reply?

Order!

I did not say anything to the hon. member or doubt his word. I am telling the hon. member that the information is at his disposal on the Table of the House. That is so. The question is being replied to to-day. He takes part in the debate and does not take the elementary trouble of obtaining the reply. That is what it amounts to. What is the reply? The question was: What funds were made available by the Government for direct expenditure on research during each of the last ten years? The reply is that in former years no records were kept. Consequently it is difficult, if not impossible, to give the reply now. But it was given to him in respect of the 1965-’66 financial year, and it was said that all the figures for this year had not yet been worked out and were therefore not available at present. But this accusation is now being made against the Government by way of an amendment, i.e., that it has neglected its duty. In respect of direct research this Government, which is being accused of neglect of duty, has given Government Departments and provincial administrations the amount of R17 million, purely for research. To the C.S.I.R. and the Atomic Energy Board, to these two organizations alone, R9½ million was given. To the agricultural faculties of the universities alone, R3.2 million was made available. To industries and Government undertakings—Iscor, Sasol and others—it provided R9 million, and to private institutions, museums and non-profit organizations, R1.3 million. That is a total of R40 million, the annual amount this Government spent on pure research two years ago—R40 million as against the meagre R600,000 hon. members opposite made available to the C.S.I.R. in their time, as the hon. member for Gordonia pointed out.

That is why I can understand that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout is stating so piously that one should not draw comparisons. Sir, the hon. member and I stood on the same platform in the old days. I may say that compared to him I looked like a schoolboy; how lyrical did he not wax about the failure of the Opposition to do anything! At that time he knew the figures by heart and he could quote from them for minutes on end. But now all of a sudden it is odious to draw comparisons of that sort.

Most certainly over this period of 20 years. That is for sure!

That I find interesting. Sir, I maintain that as far as this matter is concerned, the Government has done its duty and more than its duty. Let me add at once that the Government did not take this decision to make a greater contribution to research as a result of the upsurge of emotion after these operations; the Government took this decision last year already; and this is not the only decision the Government took last year. Hon. members will recall that as long ago as 6th September last year, my colleague the Minister of Planning issued a statement, and I wish to draw the attention of the House to it, in which he announced the decision of the Government to appoint four national committees of enquiry into scientific organization in the Republic. In this statement it was said that owing to the financial and other responsibilities borne by the State in respect of the large majority of these organizations, the Government considered it desirable then, as had been announced recently, that the effective functioning, co-ordination and co-operation of these organizations be analysed on a national basis. A committee on physical and engineering science has been appointed under the chairmanship of Dr. Van Heerden, the Deputy Scientific Adviser to the Prime Minister. While I am dealing with that point, I want to pay tribute to my predecessor, who, a few years ago already, appointed not only an economic adviser, but also—because he, too, realized the importance of this matter—a scientific adviser. He also appointed a planning adviser. That is how the Government set about things in the past. A committee has now been appointed to decide on the co-ordination, etc., of the physical and engineering sciences. We have a committee on the medical sciences under the chairmanship of Dr. Mönnig. We have a committee on the geographical and environmental sciences. Then there is a committee on the biological sciences, also under the chairmanship of Dr. Mönnig. The terms of reference of those committees are as follows. The committees have been instructed to investigate, each in its own field and by mutual consultation, all significant organizational and functional aspects of research and allied facets in order to make recommendations on, in the first place, a suitable national structure of organizations for satisfactory planning, implementation, co-ordination and co-operation in the broad field of scientific research, development and application; and in the second place, the financing of research in each of the four fields which are receiving State aid at universities and at other institutions. In the third place, we have international co-operation in these fields. In other words, the Government not only appointed a scientific adviser, but it realized full well that the time had arrived for better co-ordination to be brought about, and faced with this upsurge of feeling the Government has now come to the conclusion that in spite of the large amounts it is already spending, we have reached a stage in our development where we have to spend even larger amounts as the funds become available to us. I am only dealing with the principle at the moment. It is not for me to talk about amounts in that regard. However, I want to give the assurance that as far as the matter is concerned the Government is in earnest about making available larger amounts as its financial circumstances permit.

It is with very great pride that we can say to-day that in spite of the fact that two years ago South Africa could only spend R40 million on research as against the billions spent by other countries, we have made tremendous progress. We have come a long way, and one is deeply grateful that this is in fact so. That is why the tribute paid here to our scientists is fully deserved in every respect.

Mention has been made of people who cannot find a niche for themselves in South Africa and of the brain drain which has in recent times been causing a great deal of concern in certain circles. It is true that scientists are being lured to other countries. It is true that they are being lured in their thousands, to the U.S.A. for instance. It is true that they have also lured some of our scientists there. But if one looks at the figures, it is very interesting to note how the situation has changed of late. It is interesting to look at the figures. Just after Sharpeville and the Poqo period many more scientists went to America than before that time—and let me add at once, than after that time. Before that time, that is in 1963, only 33 went, and immediately afterwards the number rose to 55. Last year 32 went. That is but a small number, if one considers what numbers left Europe for America. In this regard we must always bear in mind that South Africa is indeed a small country, small on the one hand, but nevertheless great on the other hand. One can quote many figures in this regard, but to my mind the best figures for illustrating South Africa’s greatness on the one hand and its smallness on the other hand, is the following. Although the American population only represents approximately five per cent, of the total world population, America is responsible for 50 per cent of the world’s production. We, together with the rest of the world, only share the other 50 per cent. If we think of countries such as Russia, Britain, France, Germany, and all the others, we can form some idea of how small our share in that remaining 50 per cent is. Just compare our achievement—we who have such a small share in the remaining 50 per cent—with those of a country like America! But if for the sake of interest we compare ourselves with Africa, we find that we represent approximately 5 per cent of the population of Africa, whereas we are responsible for 50 per cent of the total production of Africa. Then we can appreciate what fractional part the rest of Africa produces of that 50 per cent of which we only produce a small fraction. That puts us, so I believe, in the right perspective.

I think that we have sufficient reason for coming to the decision that the time has arrived for us to grant recognition to people who render outstanding services to South Africa. I also think that we are all agreed that those people must include those who have rendered outstanding services to South Africa in the field of science. Apart from what has already caught the eye and about which a great deal has already been written and said, one thinks here in particular of what is being done and has been done over the past years at Onderstepoort and at many of our universities. Then one is grateful for the fact that this small country, which is a fraction of the size of the world outside, which does not have the means at its disposal but could only spend a meagre R40 million in one year, could have accomplished the achievements which have in fact been accomplished. They have received recognition in the field of agricultural science, in the field of medical science and in the field of nuclear energy; in other words, there is not a single field of research in which South Africans are not to be found in the forefront. It shows that we do have the human material, but it also shows that during the past years facilities have been made available to those people, otherwise they would not, no matter how capable they were, have been able to achieve the standards they did in fact achieve. Let us at all times, as I said on a previous occasion, adopt the attitude, and we are free to do so and it is also good to do so, that we can never spend enough on research. But what do we achieve by groundlessly and senselessly reproaching this Government with having neglected its duty for 20 years, while that side knows only too well that when they were in power they did not even care about research? And that happened at a time just after the Second World War when there was a tremendous stimulus in that field all over the world, when everybody realized that that was the time for doing research. What is more, when the Government of the time could have obtained scientists, they did nothing about it— nothing at all. If that was the position, does it befit the hon. member for Kensington in a discussion of this matter to reproach the Government in such a way?

I want to repeat: The Government knows its duty in this regard. The Government will, as its means permit and without trying to be ostentatious, further this cause even more than it has been doing in the past, and what it has done in the past, was good and has yielded results for South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, I think we have now had a good opportunity of discussing this motion fully. I listened with pleasure to the hon. the Prime Minister’s reply and his assurance that the matters referred to in my motion have been receiving attention for some time already and will be given further attention. I therefore feel that this House may confidently leave the achievement of the objects contained in this motion in the hands of the Government. In view of this and with your leave I wish to withdraw my motion.

With leave, amendment and motion withdrawn.