stelde voor, onbestreden—

seconded.

Agreed to.

laid upon the Table—

Return referred to the Select Committee on Railways and Harbours.

stated that owing to petitions in opposition to the South African Society of Accountants (Private) Bill Having been referred to the Select Committee on the Bill, the Committee would meet as on an opposed Private Bill.

In reply to a question put to me by the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. van Zyl) on the 15th inst, in connection with the foundations of the grain elevator at Durban, I stated that the Government considered it desirable to proceed at once with the enquiry into the matter of the grain elevator at Durban. I now wish, with leave, to inform the House that the following gentlemen have been appointed and have agreed to serve on the Commission, viz., Saul Solomon, Esq., K.C., Chairman; Peter Maltitz Anderson, Esq., M.E. and Thomas Philip Edward Butt, Esq., M.I.M.E., M.I.E.E. as members, with Mr. J. S. Coney as Secretary.

Was not Mr. Butt one of the contractors? Didn’t he complete the Klerksdorp elevator?

Absolutely no. All these gentlemen have absolutely nothing to do with the railways in any shape, as contractors or anything else. We have taken good care about that.

stelde voor—

Het edelachtbare lid voor Kroonstad (de heer Werth) is zo goed geweest mij heden morgen mede te delen, dat hij voornemens was dit voorstel te doen. Ik kon hem er toen op wijzen dat Artikel 34 van het Reglement van Orde bepaalt dat geen diskussie verwekt kan worden op de voorgestelde wijze over zaken die op de Ordelijst staan en dat aangezien het verdaagde debat op het voorstel door het edelachtbare lid voor Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) over werkeloosheid en armoede in het land, op de Ordelijst stond voor Vrijdag, 14 Maart, ik het voorstel niet zou kunnen aannemen. Het edelachtbare lid legt er nadruk op dat de zaak van zo dringend belang is, dat bespreking niet behoort te worden uitgesteld totdat de Order bereikt wordt, maar ik vrees dat ik niet kan afwijken van de regel en wens er bij te voegen dat het m.i. niet billik zou zijn tegenover het edelachtbare lid voor Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) indien ik zou toestaan dat de twee kanten van de kwestie afzonderlik besproken werden.

May I submit that this is not really a case of unemployment or of increasing poverty; it is a question of saving human and animal life, as distinctly stated in my motion, and the matter is so urgent and so pressing that in my opinion—I have been to the districts and I have seen the conditions there—it cannot be postponed even until the 14th of next month.

I have already given my ruling. It is a very difficult question for the Speaker when appeals are made to the Chair, to be firm, but at the same time the Speaker has to carry out the rules of the House, and as I view the motion of the hon. member for Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog), I consider that the wording of that motion justifies the hon. member for Kroonstad (Mr. Werth) to raise the question he now wishes to raise on the particular discussion on that motion which has precedence on the 14th March. It has already occupied two sittings of this House, and recognizing the importance of it I gave the hon. member for Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) precedence on the 14th March. It is in conflict with our rules, taking the view that the question now raised is a special question which can be discussed under the motion of the hon. member for Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog): I am debarred from allowing him to raise this question now in the form he is raising it, and my further reason is this that it is unfair to the hon. member who has moved a substantive motion which incorporates this point to have his motion treated piecemeal. It is unfair to the hon. member, and there is the other reason which the House held in adopting this rule, that as little encroachment as possible should be made upon the ordinary work of the House.

May I ask, Mr. Speaker, as it is a matter of very obvious importance to the hon. member for Kroonstad (Mr. Werth) would he be in order when the Prime Minister moves that the House do now; adjourn to raise this matter?

For the second time!

The Prime Minister laughs. He appears to have as much contempt for the rules of Parliament as he has for Parliament.

The hon. member for Stamford Hill (Mr. Creswell) asks whether the hon. member for Kroonstad (Mr. Werth) can be allowed to raise this on the adjournment of the House. The other day when the question was raised, I then indicated that at the end of the sitting, on the motion for adjournment, only questions ought to be raised referring to the business of the House, and it is the rule, both here and in the House of Commons, that any question which can form the subject of a substantive motion cannot be raised on a motion for adjournment. I think that is a very wholesome rule.

moved—

Agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

I think it will be useful, Mr. Chairman, if I make a brief preliminary statement about the position as it now exists, now that we have this Bill back from Select Committee. Hon. members who have looked through the evidence of the Select Committee, will see that careful attention was given to a number of questions raised on this Bill, and they will see that before the Select Committee a meeting had been called by me of the principal interests; that is, the Wine Growers’ Association and the wine merchants, in order to see whether it was not possible for them to come to some agreement about the points in the Bill, which were in issue between them. That conference sat under the Chairmanship of Sir Howard Gorges for some days, and came to a number of conclusions, and these conclusions are to a large extent embodied in the report of the Select Committee and in the Bill as now before us. The Select Committee proceeded to consider the Bill and they made a number of important amendments, as hon. members will see from the Bill before them. Well, Sir, hon. members will also have seen that there are on the notice paper a number of amendments which have been tabled in my name. These amendments embody a further effort to eliminate points of difference at issue between the wine merchants and the Wine Growers’ Association. And the result, I may say, the result of the amended Bill which we have before us, and these further amendments which we have on the notice paper which stand in my name, is this: the amended Bill and these amendments together constitute, as far as those two most important interests are concerned, an agreed Bill. I think I am correct when I say that both the wine merchants and the Wine Growers’ Association, apart from other interests, are substantially satisfied with the Bill in the form in which it is now before us, plus the amendments in my name. I think this is a matter of very considerable importance in a matter which is so highly contentious and highly difficult as this Bill. I think it is a matter of very great importance that the two interests both vitally concerned in it should have finally come to an agreement as embodied in this Bill. Practically, this is an agreed Bill. I wish in advance, coming to Clause 1, which we have before us, to say a word about that. Hon. members will see that in sub-section (1) there are in the draft before us two main amendments to the Bill, as it was introduced by me. In the first place there is an amendment here to make this Bill apply to the whole of the 1924 vintage. The Bill as presented by me originally did not affect contracts concluded before February 1st, and it only prohibited contracts after February 1st. But the conference, which I have referred to, of the wine merchants and the Wine Growers’ Association, came almost unanimously to the conclusion that that would not do, and that if there is to be such control as is proposed in this Bill, it should deal with the whole of the vintage and there should be no exception of existing contracts excluded from the scope of the Bill. The Select Committee, when it came to consider the question, also came to the conclusion that we should not only make this Bill apply only to part of the coming vintage, but that it should apply generally and override existing contracts. With regard to existing contracts, the position was that most of the merchants had entered into contracts, some for a smaller amount, some for a larger amount, and the merchants with one exception were agreed that all these contracts should be thrown into the Bill and come under control. The exception was Mr. Kramer, of the Castle Wine and Brandy Company, who is not only one of the largest of the wine merchants, but is one who had entered into a very large number of these contracts. I understand the amount of wine which he had contracted to buy from the farmers amounted to something like 15,000 leaguers. Mr. Kramer had entered into contracts on a very large scale, and he persisted all through the conference against the cancellation of his contracts. Naturally, Mr. Kramer, if the Bill went through in this form, would stand to lose a very considerable profit, and it would be very likely that the price finally settled upon by the Wine Growers’ Association and the Board of Appeal might be higher than that. It is intelligible and easy to understand why Mr. Kramer should have insisted, on behalf of his Company, that these contracts should not be under control, but I made a personal appeal to Mr. Kramer, and I pointed out to him that this Bill deals with a large national question and a national industry, and that his own private interests should not stand in the way. I am glad to say that Mr. Kramer has agreed with me and given me the assurance that he will waive all question of personal interest and place himself unreservedly under the hands of the Government. In view of the very large amount of money at stake, I think it is a very patriotic action on the part of Mr. Kramer, for which he deserves the thanks of the whole industry. There is no doubt he is actuated by patriotic motives. So far as that question is concerned, which to my mind was one of the most difficult questions to come up under this Bill, it is therefore out of the way.

What about the farmers’ contracts?

It is very likely that there can be only one issue, and that is, the farmers will benefit. Mr. Kramer bought this wine at a low price, and the price to be settled by the association is very likely going to be a higher price, and so far as these contracts are subject to the association, the farmers are not likely to lose; it is simply the profit which Mr. Kramer and his company forego. That was one very great difficulty which arose under Clause 1, but thanks to Mr. Kramer that is out of the way. With regard to the other question, hon. members will see in the Bill as it comes from the Select Committee that farmers are forbidden to use their own brandy for the fortification of their wine. They are forbidden to do that without the consent of the Wine Growers’ Association. The brandy which hitherto has been free and unrestricted will in future, under this amendment, if it is passed, be under the control and subject to the consent of the society. The reason why that was put in is this. Let me first of all explain what the practice now is. To-day farmers who fortify their wine for sale get rectified spirits from the merchants. They do not use their own brandy, which is in many ways a poisonous product, possessing as it does fusole oil, and they use rectified spirits which the merchants supply them with, so that the wine is not contaminated or poisoned and made into a bad article of drink. It stands to reason under this Bill that the rectified spirit which is used would be subject to the consent of the society, and would be subject therefore to any surplus contribution which the society would impose. And it was feared by the Select Committee that if the farmer could use his own brandy without the consent of the society his own brandy would not be subject to the surplus contribution. There would be this handicap on the rectified spirit which would pay the surplus contribution and there would be this advantage to the farmers’ own spirit that it would not pay the contribution, and, naturally, under these conditions, the farmer would tend to use his own brandy for fortification purposes, and consequently there would be a set-back to the industry. This brandy would contain fusole oil and make bad brandy and instead of helping the wine industry by this Bill we would be handicapping it. The Select Committee came to the conclusion that this fortification should be placed under the control of the society, so that the society might impose the same conditions under which rectified spirit is to be used by the farmers for fortification. I hope I am making myself plain! There may be some objection to that. It will be said that so far the farmer has been able to use his own brandy for fortification purposes and now why should he ask for the consent of the society? I am desirous of meeting whatever legitimate opposition may be raised here against control. I want to help the wine farmers in every possible way, and hon. members will see I have put in an amendment to meet that opposition. The amendment is that the wine farmer will, in the future, be able to use as in the past, his own brandy for fortification purposes, but his brandy is put on the same footing as rectified spirits which has been used hithertofore. It will in the same way pay the surplus which the rectified spirit has paid. The position is that the status quo is maintained. But now the rectified spirit is placed under control and will pay the surplus contribution as also will the farmers’ own brandy. The position will now be this. Supposing the farmer wants to sell 100 leaguers of his own wine and he finds it necessary, in view of his own wine turning sour, or some other reason, that to fortify the 100 leaguers he has to use some of his own brandy for the purpose. The effect of my amendment will be that he will be perfectly free to use his own brandy for the purpose, but those leaguers shall pay the surplus contribution just as much as if the wine had been sold by him for distillation purposes to a merchant. He will be in exactly the same position as far as the two leaguers of brandy are concerned. This is just to prevent a misunderstanding amongst the farmers and to prevent them from getting frightened. It is for the purpose of reassuring farmers that I wish to move this amendment. With these remarks I beg to move—

I move this and will subsequently move the further amendments of which I have given notice. They are really verbal and intended to express more clearly the understanding which was come to on this point between the merchants and the wine growers. I do not intend to go into the matter further, as this is not really a matter of very great importance.

Ek is bly om te merk dat die edelagbare die Eerste Minister die verkeerdheid van sy weg ingesien het en ’n enigsins tegemoetkomende houding teenoor aie wynboer aanneem. Ek sê “enigsins,” want hy kom hom net op één punt tegemoet, n.l., waar hom toegestaan word om sy eie brandewyn te gebruik vir fortifikasie van sy wyn.

Might I ask the hon. member if he would mind making in English the remarks he is going to offer on the amendment he proposes to move, to enable those who do not understand Dutch to follow him?

Het ek u permissie, Mnr. Voorsitter, om my verder aanmerkinge in Engels te maak?

Onder die omstandighede, ja.

I wish to move as an amendment to this amendment—

I am very much opposed to putting difficulties in the way of the wine farmers when preserving their wine. The Prime Minister does not leave the farmer in the position as he has been for about 240 years. For 240 years the wine-farmer has been allowed as much spirit and brandy for the fortification of his wine as he pleased. True, he had to submit to the excise officer on account of what he had in his possession. The excise officer knew the amount in his possession, but no interference took place with regard to his preserving his wine. What the Prime Minister now proposes is to remove that, and the wine-farmer has to go hat in hand to the secretary of the corporation and say “May I be permitted to use some of my own brandy to save my own wine”? It would be even more absurd if a wine-farmer, finding that his wine was going bad, had to write to the secretary of the organization “I find my wine is going bad, and I will be obliged if you would let me use some of my own brandy in preserving my own wine.” If the secretary refused, the result would be that the wine would go bad and would have to be destroyed. The Prime Minister says he wishes to encourage farmers to use rectified spirits. I do not know whether rectified spirits are better than ordinary brandy for the preservation of wine, but I know that I would prefer to take my drop from a wine-farmer than from a shop in town in spite of fusil oil, one’s head is less disturbed by the wine he gets from the farmer, than by the wine he receives in town. As far as the farmers are concerned you can get a good wholesome wine. For a good many years many have been using brandy for its preservation, and I see no reason why the society should consider the matter of allowing brandy for fortification purposes as part of their work. The Government is creating a huge monopoly. If hon. members study the report of the Select Committee and read the evidence they will be shocked—if they read the evidence of Mrs. Albrecht on the organization. She has pointed out what has occurred—how the balance sheets have been meddled with. You would want to know what good the Government can see in these directors, to grant them a monopoly, a power which not even the Government has dared to ask for. No Government up to now has asked Parliament to consent to any tax being placed on brandy for this use. On the contrary, the attitude of Government has been specially sympathetic towards the wine farmers as to the preservation of their own product. The Prime Minister’s new amendment allows farmers to use brandy for fortification of wine, but makes them contribute towards the fund known as the “Surplus Contribution”, and, in addition, subject them to any conditions the society might wish to impose. What are these conditions? The Prime Minister only mentions the surplus contribution. That is by no means all. The Association may even withold their consent after the surplus contribution has been paid. We do not know what conditions they may impose. Under the Bill, the society may go so far as to say, “We will grant you permission to use your brandy provided you become a member of our society.” This is clear from the clause. The society is not going to place those farmers who use brandy for fortification purposes, and are not members, on the same level and give them the same privileges as if they were members.

I have read the evidence of the witness, Mrs. Albrecht, mentioned by the hon. member, which appears to me to consist of two parts, one constructive and the other destructive. As far as I am personally concerned I approve of the principle of the Bill, but cannot approve of the methods laid down in the clause, and as far as I am concerned I object very strongly to a monopoly being given to an association of this kind. I want at the same time to ask the Prime Minister if he will consider this point. What provision is there made either in this clause, or the Bill, if the Association ceases to exist? I find none. Perhaps the Prime Minister may think it necessary to make some provision so that some other society could then function.

That is provided for in the definition clause.

The hon. member has not read it.

It is very easy to say that I have not read it. All I want to know is whether this question has been considered.

Yes, it was considered.

Well, if I have the assurance of the Prime Minister, then I am satisfied. After all, what do we laymen know about the manufacture of wine or brandy or spirits. Some of us may drink these, and then we know less about it afterwards.

The hon. member should speak for himself.

I also want to know whether there is provision made in case the association declines to function. Perhaps the right hon. the Prime Minister can point that out too. These are two points which occur to me.

No doubt the Bill, as it appears before us, has been greatly improved, and a great many objections have certainly been removed, but I think the Prime Minister cannot go so far as to call it an agreed Bill. One section of the people has not been considered in this Bill, nor was it represented before the Select Committee, and that is the consuming public.

Hear, hear.

No evidence was called On behalf of the consumers and yet, I think, it is quite right that they should have been called. Two bodies largely interested, the wine merchants and the Wine Growers’ Association were called, but all the same the public should be considered and there should be evidence on behalf of the consumer. But they have been entirely set aside, as if they did not matter. The two parties, who are considered to a certain extent, have been called, but the public is not considered at all. Now the right hon. the Prime Minister referred to the wine merchants but if one reads the evidence of Mr. Jooste who gave evidence on their behalf, it will be seen that they regarded this Bill as force majeure and they tried to get the best terms they could. The merchants recommended that the Bill should be withdrawn, but if that could not be done, then they suggested that this or that could take place. To a certain extent their objections were met, but they didn’t ask for the Bill. Then I ask what about the wine farmers who are not members of the Association or those who have resigned, how are they met by this Bill? I have read the evidence very carefully and I must say that on the whole it is hostile to the Bill. I find that there is hardly any evidence; except that of the hon. member for Worcester (Mr. Heatlie), which is friendly to the Bill.

We called the opponents.

Well, the right hon. gentleman must have thought that he had a very weak case if he did not get the supporters of the Bill to come under cross-examination. That is a very bad plan unless one has made up one’s mind to force the Bill through. What I want to say is this. In one very important respect this Bill transcends every bit of legislation which I have ever seen passed through Parliament. Of course, I have had only 16 years of Parliament—

And the hon. member has had many changes in that time.

But I want to say that I do not know of any Bill which in the manner here provided cancels existing agreements, and I say that this is a bit of pure Bolshevism. I am not now referring to Mr. Kramer but to a number of the farmers who gave evidence. I wonder if the Prime Minister has seen them and got them to give up their contracts. They entered into bona fide contracts last year and they do not want these contracts to be disturbed. Now the Government proposes that every contract in existence to-day shall be cancelled by this Bill and people who have entered into contracts on the supposition that Parliament will not interfere with those contracts, will find that they are mistaken. People have obtained the best possible prices for their product. These contracts were made in October or November last when there was no question of any legislation. I could understand Parliament saying “we are not going to recognize any contracts entered into after the 1st February.” That principle is recognized in regard to Customs too and I could understand that. Although the Bill was not passed then, I could understand it, because every one after the 1st February knew what Parliament was going to do, and I say that that is exactly the same as what is being done in regard to taxation proposals. But when you go on and say “we are going to cancel all contracts entered into last year,” then I say that you are going too far. Would the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Sir Abe Bailey) support such a principle in regard to mining contracts, or would other members agree to that principle in regard to other contracts, so that Parliament can come along six months later and say: “cancel, I say so.” Really, if Parliament were to agree to this, it would be introducing one of the most dangerous principles into this House. Cancelling contracts without the approval of the people concerned, cancelling, without warning, contracts entered into in perfect good faith is a most dangerous thing. Now on page 14 of the report of the Select Committee is the evidence of Mr. J. P. Joubert a wine farmer in the district of Paarl. He says—

that is as the Bill was originally. Then he says—

Then on page 20 he refers to it again. He wants the existing contracts to be maintained. He says—

and he goes on to refer to the position of two directors who have made contracts and are protected. The position is that the directors seem to be in a preferential position. The directors can carry on, and I do not see how the Kooperatieve Wijnbouwers Vereniging van Zuid Afrika Beperkt, can withhold its consent from the directors. Then I refer to the evidence on page 23. That is the evidence of Mr. J. Bredell, a wine farmer from Helderberg. He says—

And why not? The Prime Minister says: “No, I am going to cancel it”. Then on page 55 Mr. Jooste, one of the wine merchants, said that he did not suppose the parties who entered into contracts before the 6th February, would like to get out of the contracts. It is quite true what the Prime Minister said that he believed that the majority of the wine merchants are quite prepared to agree to the Bill; but what about the farmers? One of the parties to the contracts says they are prepared, but what about the others? Have any farmers come before the Committee and said that they wanted their contracts cancelled. The only farmers who have come, have said that they wanted their contracts maintained. Where is there a precedent for this cancelling of contracts which are entered into bona fide? I have never heard of anything like it. I have heard of Bolshevism, but I have never heard of a democratic country, a democratic Parliament agreeing to smash contracts and agreements by brute force in the manner provided for in this Bill.

What about the Rents Act?

It is an entirely different position, and I will tell the hon. member why. I do not know whether I shall be in order, but I shall be quite prepared to meet the hon. member on the point when that Act comes in for renewal—as I hope it will do. The Rents Act deals with the housing of the people. The housing of the people is a necessity and the hon. member surely does not mean to tell me that wine and brandy are necessities.

I would have said nothing about this matter, had it not been for a statement made by the hon. member for Cape Town Castle (Mr. Alexander) about a couple of directors.

I did not make a statement; I read from the evidence.

The hon. member said that a couple of the directors have contracts. Well, that is entirely incorrect. There are directors with contracts and I don’t even mind mentioning their names, but they have contracts which are not at all affected by this Bill, and no other person having wine to be sold, as a wine for consumption, will have his contract affected by this Bill. It is only wine which is sold for distillation purposes which is affected and the contracts which the hon. member has referred to are contracts, which are for wines that are sold for consumption as wines. Now the hon. member for Castle has also said a great deal about the contract of the farmers, which will be cancelled by this Bill. No farmer’s contract will be cancelled in so far as he has sold wine to be consumed as wine, that is the higher priced article, and his contract will be cancelled in regard to his distilling wine only, and hon. members will find that in each case, the sellers’ position will be better under the provisions of this Bill than under the existing contracts. It was necessary to bring people before the Select Committee, as in nearly every case wine farmers and wine merchants all agree that there must be control, and you cannot have control if you do not at the same time control the whole of your 1924 crop.

We have to control the controller.

Now the hon. member for Piquetberg (Mr. de Waal) has raised a question which I do not think he thoroughly understands. He has raised it with the best intentions for the protection of the farmer, but he doesn’t understand it and he certainly doesn’t know what has been the practice in the past. He says that it has been the practice that the wine farmer has been using his brandy for fortification, and he has drunk his wine and he has not had a headache from it. That shows that the wine farmer has not in the past been in the custom of selling his wine highly fortified. He has sold his pure wine.

I didn’t say so.

Now the condition is entirely changed in the last few years. Up to a few years ago we did not have any surplus production but everyone knows and admits to-day there is a surplus production and when you have to deal with a surplus you must have a surplus contribution fund to pay for diverting your surplus to other uses and thereby enhance the value of the remainder of the product. Now if you allow the wine farmer to fortify here without making a contribution to the surplus fund you will be putting a premium on that kind of fortification, and the result will be that you will have all your inferior wine, which would otherwise never come into consumption, fortified, because they can use a cheaper spirit to fortify it, and you will have a quantity of inferior but highly fortified wine placed on the market if you were to adopt the amendment of the hon. member for Piquetberg (Mr. de Waal), because you would then be placing a premium on that kind of fortification. What has been the practice in the past? The wine merchant buys wine and whatever he wants, pays the full price, distils his spirits and supplies the wine farmer with a highly rectified spirit. The wine is fortified in most cases in the wine-farmer’s cellars. Now the hon. member for Piquetberg (Mr. de Waal) wants to give the farmers an opportunity to fortify with brandy for which they will be on a much better footing than the wine merchant. Naturally you are going to put a premium on that kind of fortification with the result that you are going to have an enormous quantity of inferior wines highly fortified placed on the market and fortified with an inferior spirit. There are very few wine farmers, and very few makers of good wine, who would agree to what the hon. member for Piquetberg (Mr. de Waal) wants. They would be altogether against what he wants and I think that with the Prime Minister’s amendment you have gone far to meet those wine farmers who still wish to do a little fortification on their own account. If there is any surplus contribution then he only contributes on the spirit which he has placed in the wine when he sells his wine, but if it is for his own use or for use on his farm he will not contribute.

The Bill does not say that.

Yes, the Bill says that. If the hon. member will read it he will see that it says where he sells it or offers it for’ sale it will be subject to surplus contribution.

The time of the hon. member has now expired.

The last speaker said he does not wish to pay any contribution if he uses it for himself. Can you point out where that is in the Bill?

If the hon. member cannot see it, I cannot point it out to him.

I can see it if it is pointed out.

Is the hon. member sure?

The hon. member who has just spoken (Mr. Heatlie), like the right hon. the Prime Minister, has now discovered that it would be very necessary that the farmer should pay a surplus contribution on the little brandy he uses for the fortification of his wine. It is very peculiar that this necessity should only have been discovered at the last moment. It is very remarkable that in 1920, when the Society claimed that they controlled 95 percent of the wine farmers, it placed no obstacle in the way of fortification. They then had that power. Why did they not then insert a clause in their Articles that wine-farmers would have to contribute on the little brandy they used for the fortification of their wine? Why was it not necessary then? If it was not necessary then, why is it necessary now? When this Bill was drawn up by the Prime Minister, or by the corporation—I do not know which—they certainly acted in consultation, why it is that they and the hon. member for Worcester (Mr. Heatlie) forgot the little proviso? “The more the devil has, the more the devil wants”, and our friend, the hon. member for Worcester (Mr. Heatlie), is a director of this Corporation.

I am not a director.

The hon. member was a director up till yesterday, I believe. The hon. member for Worcester (Mr. Heatlie) now says that the Association must have full control. They did not in the first instance ask for that full control, nor did they think of that full control in 1920. This Association has been established for ten years, that is, since 1914, and they never thought of having this full control. But now, seeing they were getting so much, they thought they might ask for a little more, and the Prime Minister, who is as handy to them as he is to the Empire, is conceding all they desire.

Hear, hear!

This question of fortification was mooted for the first time in the Select Committee, and only on the last day was the stipulation inserted. Previous to that, neither the hon. member for Paarl (Dr. de Jager) sitting on that Committee, nor any other Committee member, interested in the wine question urged upon the Prime Minister to insert it. On the contrary, they thought it was necessary that fortifying brandy should be exempted; that these little wine-farmers—I am talking of the smaller men, not the people living at Constantia, but those living far away who are not sending to Cape Town or Paarl for a little rectified spirits, should be left alone. As a matter of fact, the Prime Minister, acting on my suggestion, was the very man to move in the first instance that these people should be exempted. Not a man had previously thought of so taxing the farmer, but when the first part of the report of the Committee leaked out, directors saw how much their association had gained from the Committee, so they thought “Now let us send another man as witness to the Committee with such evidence as would enable the Prime Minister to withdraw his amendment”. “The more the devil has, the more the devil wants”, directors of the association are getting as much out of the Government as they can.

Who is the devil?

The directors.

No. it is the wine-farmer.

It is the wine-farmer! Is it not a fact that certain directors are being exempted from the operation of this Act; that certain people, five of them, have made contracts with wine merchants, exempting them from the operation of the statutes of the association, so that they might get more for their wine than others?

Where?

Only the 1914 vintages included.

A statute of the association, No. 8 of the annexure states that such persons who have already made contracts with the wine merchants, are not bound as to price. They can sell their wine at much higher prices than others. Who are these five? Strange to relate, no less than three of them happen to be directors, and of the other two, one, I believe, is a brother of a director and another is a neighbour. These are the people so very disinterested, so very anxious to assist the wine farmer! Now, the hon. member for Worcester (Mr. Heatlie) has said these five are not touched by the present Bill. Of course, they are not. They take jolly good care that they still remained out. They are still exempted because they did not sell their wine for distilling purposes. Whilst these directors are asking farmers to cancel all contracts that have already been made, they take very good care that they themselves are not amongst them. Why is the hon. member for Worcester (Mr. Heatlie) so eager that the “few farmers”—he says they are a very few—who use their own brandy, should come under the control of this association? Because the Association would then have the right to tell them: “You have been outside of the operation of our statutes for so many years; you have contributed nothing to the surplus contribution, we are going to catch you now. You only need half a leaguer for the purpose of fortifying your wine but we are not going to charge you on half a leaguer, you are going to be subject to our conditions. We are not going to encourage you to remain out of our association. A large number of our members may otherwise drop the association. We cannot put you in a privileged position. They have contributed £3 per leaguer and sold their wine for £6, now we are going to place you in exactly the same position as those members who have been members all the time” and so instead of making them pay on that half-leaguer, the Association is going to make them pay in such a manner as to force them to become members of the Association. Would the hon. member for Worcester deny that? Otherwise, it would mean that members of the Association are going to resign in order to be placed in the more fortunate position of nonmembers. I say it is a most dangerous thing to allow this Association to impose their own conditions upon the farmers who have to use a little brandy to fortify their wine. Besides, that would amount to a breach of faith with the farmer who sells wine only. More than one farmer came before the Select Committee and asked the question “Would we be exempted from the control of this Association?” and the reply was “Yes.” “If we are to be out of the hands of the Association, then we have no objection, but we want to be free altogether.”

The time of the hon. member has now expired.

I would not have risen at all if it had not been for the statement made by the hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Nathan) where he states that he approves of the principle of the Bill.

I did not say so.

But he does not approve of Clause 1. I am against the principle of the Bill, but I believe that if you once accept the principle and give these few gentlemen who comprise the directorate of this co-operative society, if you give them greater power than any Government ever had before, the giving of which was also disapproved of by the majority of the witnesses at Select Committee, if you give this board control, then I consider we must accept Clause 1, because it naturally follows that if you accept the principle that they should have the autocratic powers that the principle adopts, then you must give them power to control any little difficulty that might arise. There is a very big principle at the bottom of not only the principle of this Bill, owing to the payment on a surplus of production of this vintage, we have evidence that farmers are neglecting to grow food commodities because it pays them better to plant vines and therefore get something out of the surplus even if it is not needed. This sub-section (1), there is no doubt at all, must be embodied in the Bill if the Bill goes through, but personally after the evidence which has been given before the Select Committee, and the principle that it gives, I am totally opposed to this Bill and its contents.

Ek wil saamstem met die lid vir Kasteel (de hr. Alexander) aangaande die eienaardigheid van die getuienis van voorstanders en die getuienis toon dat die sukses is alles aan die anderkant. Dit wys dat die ko-öperasie niets anders gedaan het as om ’n laer klas wyn te laat maak en as die Wetsontwerp deurgaat, sal die Wynkoöperatiewe-Vereniging kôntrole hê oor die laere soort wyn. Vra maar enige een wat kennis het of dit beskerming is, as nie gesorg word dat daar ’n betere klas wyn gemaak word nie. Die Eerste Minister kom en sê, dat met die toestemming van Mnr. Kramer, ’n vername wynkoper, gaat hy al die kontrakte van die wynboere kanseleer en sal dit alles vernietig word. Dit mag goed vir die Wynbouerskoöperasie wees, maar daar is geen getuienis dat mense wat geen lede is nie hierin toegestem het. As die wynboer reken, dat ’n aangegane kontrak goed is, welke reg het ons dan om net op die woord van Mnr. Kramer vas te stel dat dit sal vernietig word? Die lid vir Piquetberg (de hr. De Waal) het aangetoon dat bestaande kontrakte in wese gelaat word. Waarom word hulle nie op dieselfde manier behandel as die ander nie? Met betrekking tot die klousule, welke die Eerste Minister wil toevoeg dat hulle kan vra waar iemand die produk gekweek het, het hier weinig te make, want wat uitval gebruik die mense op eie manier. Die lid vir Worcester (de hr. Heatlie) het verklaar dat die boere nooit eie spieritus gebruik om wyn te fortifiseer nie, maar dat hulle dit van die handelaars kry. Ek weet van mense wat uitstekend daarvoor ingerig is om hulle eie wyn te verstook. Ek weet b.v. van één man in die Paarl, wat sy eie stokery het en spieritus vervaardig so goed as enigeen dink om te maak. Hy maak van die aller beste wyn en nou word gevra waarom maak hy gebruik van sy eie spieritus, maar ek wil weet waarom moet hy nou onder kontrôle gestel word van die Wynkwekers-Koöperasie. ’n Bekende deskundige het verklaar dat as jy goeie brandewyn wil maak, moet jy goeie wyn daarvoor gebruik. As goeie wyn afgesluit word, waarom moet dan die goeie wyn van gebruik uitgesluit word? Dit verplig feitlik die mense om onnodige koste te maak om hulle wyn te fortifiseer. Ek dink hier word ’n verkeerde beginsel neergelê vir die man wat nie in besit is van ’n eie distillasie nie. Hier word bepaal wat geskied in verband met die man wat sy eie goed gebruik om sy eie produk te fortifiseer, maar wat omtrent die Koöperasies van Malmesbury, Tulbagh, ens.? Die mense het almal hulle eie distilleerderye en nou word hulle uitgesluit. Dit is koöperasies wat die Eerste Minister en die Regering gehelp stig het en vandag moet hulle gestraf word omdat hulle goeie wyn maak. Onder die omstandighede sal ek met die amendement vir die lid van Piquetberg (de hr. De Waal) saam gaan.

Ek is verwonder oor die interpretasie welke op die klousule gestel word, dat nl., geen kontrak vanaf 1924 sal geldig wees nie, tensy dit goedgekeur is deur die Wynbouers-koöperasie en as dit die bedoeling is, dan wou ek aan die hand gee dat die Eerste Minister dit sal verander, want “niemand mag wyn van die wynoogst van 1924 of enige volgende jaar op enigerlei wyse verkopen, of verkocht zynde, benuttig.” Dus dit het terugwerkende krag en dit is duidelik dat dit nie kan slaan op transaksies wat reeds aangegaan is. Die oorsprong is 1 Februarie 1924 en vanaf die datum kan geen persoon koop, ens., nie. Maar die man die reeds verkoop het in Desember is daardeur geaffekteer. Ek vra uit belangstelling, want die Eerste Minister weet dat ek net so begerig is as hy om die wetgewing deur te kry. Wat ek beoog is die vrystelling van die man die sy eie brandewyn wil neem om wyn te fortifiseer—waarom hy moet betaal op die brandewyn wat hy sodanig wil gebruik. Geen wynboer word uitgesonder nie, maar waarom word die eis gestel dat wie eie brandewyn wil gebruik, gedwonge word om tot die surpluskontribusie by te dra. Ek wil graag vir eie satisfaksie dit weet, want dit lyk onbillik om so’n bepaling neer te lê.

Ek sal uitlê; dit is net die punt wat slaat op die bewoording soas dit daar lui: niemand mag koop of verkoop en gebruik vanaf 1924 nie sonder die konsent van die Wynbouerskoöperasie. Hy sê vele kontrakte is afgesluit voor die tyd, dus die woorde klop nie met die feite nie. My antwoord is, dat die kwessie wel oorweeg is. Dit is wel so dat kontrakte aangegaan is en die wyn verkoop, maar dit mag nie gebruik word sonder nakoming van die bepaling van die Wet nie. Dit is verkeerd om te sê, dat die kontrakte gekanseleer is. Dit word nie gekanseleer nie, maar daar word enkel verklaar dat die kontrakte onderhewig sal wees aan die konsent van die Wynbouerskoöperasie. Neem die geval van ’n kontrak met ’n wynboer, aangegaan in Desember nopens sy honderd lêers wyn; hy verkoop dit aan ’n wynkoper en nou sê die Artikel hy mag dit nie gebruik nie of distribueer sonder die konsent van die Wynbouerskoöperasie nie. Hulle kan die verdere voorwaarde stel om die prys van vier pond tot op ses of sewe pond te verhoog, waardeur die persoon op dieselfde voet geplaas word as die ander. Ons hele wynindustrie kom in die war, as die een koper goedkoper verkoop as die ander—laat almal ooreen kam geskeer word. Ek meen dat onder die Artikel nie een kontrak verbreek word nie. Die konsent is nodig en as die Vereniging die konsent gegee het, reken ek sal die hele organisasie die billikheid sien van die bepaling dat almal dieselfde betaal. Sê dat die Vereniging goed vind om by die begin van die oes ’n vaste prys neer te lê. Laaste jaar was dit ses pond vir wyn-distribusie; gestel dit word weer so vasgelê en daar is boere wat reeds verkoop het vir vier pond, dan kom hy onder dieselfde kontrôle. Dit is nie te sê dat die verkoping per se gekanseleer word nie, maar hulle konsent is nodig en dan kan die Wynbouerskoöperasie voorwaardes neerlê. ’n Ander punt is, waarom moet surplus-kontribusie betaal word op brandewyn wat hy gebruik vir die fortifikasie van eie wyn. Die antwoord is, dat die Wetsontwerp lê die skerpste lyne en beginsels neer omtrent wyn wat gebruik word om brandewyn te maak, dat dit sal onder kontrôle kom. Goeie wyn wat as wyn gebruik word, is vry. Dit is ’n lyn wat logies getrek word deur die hele Wet. Een lid het gepraat dat goeie wyn aan bande gelê word, maar die Wet stel goeie wyn vry en dit reken ek sal vir die boer aanleiding wees om goeie wyn te maak, want dan het hy dit sonder kontrôle. Nou gaat die boer eie wyn fortifiseer, maar hy gebruik eie brandewyn en die brandewyn wat hy gebruik by die fortifikasie, sal op dieselfde basis te staan kom as die wyn wat hy vroeër gekoop het en waarop hy nou surplus moet betaal. Ons wil geen premie lê op slegte wyn vir fortifikasie nie. Daar is groot verbetering gekom in onse daë en die gebruik van brandewyn van inferieure gehalte vir fortifikasie het ten gevolge gehad dat die aldus gefortifiseerde wyn ook van slegte gehalte geword het. Dit is verander en die boer gebruik nie meer eie brandewyn nie, maar goed gedistilleerde spieritus van die handelaar. Ons het getuienis voor ons gehad, dat die gebruik van “die jaar vroeg” nie meer geldig is nie. Maar as ons die boer die voordeel gee dat hy brandewyn kan gebruik sonder kontribusie te betaal, dan sal hy nie van die handelaar koop nie, maar ons stel dalik ’n premie op slegte wyn.

Maar die boer sal tog nie self sy wynoes bederf nie.

Maar ons sou aanleiding kan gee daartoe. As daar ’n sekere standaard bereik is, laat die dan behou word en die kan alleen geskied deur geen brandewyn op dieselfde voet te stel as die spieritus van die handelaar nie.

Regverdige grond is myns insiens nie verstrek nie, maar ek sou liewers sien dat die wynboer self besluit en nie die Eerste Minister en ek nie. Ek het die vraag gestel omdat ek wou laat die saak duidelik gemaak word. Hier was geargumenteer, as sou die boer die lydende party word, want hy had goeie kontrakte aangegaan en nou word die vernietig.

Hulle gaat nou beter pryse kry.

Ek wens aan die lid vir Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) mee te deel, dat een lid in Selek Komitee voorgestel het dat die kontrakte sal gekanseleer word en een lid het ’n pragtige klousule gehad, nl., dat die op alle bestaande kontrakte van toepassing sal wees. Nou word gesê: Ja, hulle het oorgekom en is tevrede, maar hulle is nie ontevrede alleen die wat die gros vorm nie, maar ook nie-lede; ontevrede namelik dat dit gekanseleer word en dat dit nie aan surplus onderhewig is nie. Die meeste kon verkoop sonder om die kontribusie te betaal, maar toe gaat die wynkopers en bied ’n goeie prys aan. Hulle is grootmoedig uitgetree van die Wynbouerskooperasie. Maar die boer wil horn nie graag bind nie. Dit word gesê, dat hulle ses pond die lêer sal kry, maar drie pond moet afgegee word vir die surplus-kontribusie. Daar word gepraat van drie honderd lêers wat vir drie per lêer gelaat wegvloei is en so is daar honderd ander; die man wat vir ses pond verkoop, moet drie pond afgee om te help betaal vir die weggevloeide en hulle pers elke jaar meer, dit spreek vanself. Nou sê die boer, as hulle my vier pond tien sjielings gee dan kry ek meer as van die Wynbouerskoöperasie. Die wynkoper sê, ek weier, want die kontrak is daar nie, en om dieselfde rede wil die boer nie dat die kontrak gebreek moet word tot voordeel van die koper nie, maar as ons die woord “utilise” gaat uithou, dan is ek oortuig dat dit nutteloos is en dat selfs my vriende wat voorgestem het, daarteen sal gaan.

Ons het verdere getuienis ontvang.

Ja, toe dit uitlek, moes daar weer getuie opgeroep word en een van die direkteure van ’n Wynkopers-Maatskappy moes getuienis gee en op sy verklaring is die kontrak vernietig.

As ek verkeerd is sou ek graag sien dat dit verander word, maar ek wil tog die Eerste Minister laat verstaan dat hy my nie oortuig het nie; ek hou vol dat die Wet, wat betref wyn, wat verkoop word om gedistilleer te word, alleen van krag is vanaf daardie datum waarop dit in werking tree, en dat bepaal alleen die verkoop van 1924 geaffekteer word, maar wat voor die tyd aangegaan is, word nie onwettig gemaak nie. Dit is miskien des te meer rede waarom ons duidelikheid moet kry. Dit kom my voor dat selfs die verkoop van wyn in 1924 onwettig is; hier staat eenvoudig: “no person shall sell”. Laat dan gesê word dat die Wet terugwerkende krag het. Nou wil ek weet waar staan van “a person who has sold”, waar val hy onder? In lyn 22 is sprake van “shall acquire”; ons het gehad “shall sell”, nou is feitlik aan die kant van die koöperasie ook dieselfde: koop en verkoop kontrakte sal geldig wees. Gesteld dat die verkoop in November aangegaan is, gaat die Wet sover terug? Ek dink eintlik dat die woord “benut” gee die deurslag hier, die woord alleen. Nou vra ek, is ek reg? Dis wat ek graag van die edele lid vir Piketberg (de hr. De Waal) wil weet. As ek reg is, dan bly jou kontrakte bestaan, maar die kontrakte word van die sy van die koopman so goed as ineffektief, omdat hy belet word bate daaruit te trek. Sover as ek kan sien word die regte van die boere wat voordelige kontrakte gesluit het in die laaste jaar nie geaffekteer nie.

Maar die koper kan dit nie uitvoer nie.

Die edelagbare die Eerste Minister sê dat wat die wynkoper betref die geen beswaar maak nie, dus kan ons die wynkoper heeltemal uitlaat. As ek verkeerd is, sou ek dit graag wil weet, want dan is dit ’n belangrike punt. Ek sien daar is onder ons verskil van mening oor die punt en as dit die geval is, dink ek sal dit nodig wees vir die voorsteller om duidelik aan te gee wat die bedoeling is, anders gaan ons later weer litigasie daardeur kry, net soos ons dit gehad het voor die Wet so was as dit nou staan.

I would like to finish what I was saying a short time ago. If the hon. member for Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) is correct in what he says, I take it he will support me. I beg to move as an amendment—

1. (2) Nothing in sub-section (1) of this section contained shall apply to bona fide contracts entered into before the first day of February, 1924, and still in existence on that date.

I think the clause as it stands interferes with existing contracts. When there is a bona fide contract and a person bought for a certain purpose in November, he should be allowed to get it later on. If an action was brought before the Court it would find that the contract had been declared illegal by Act of Parliament. If a contract is entered into in November and not finished until 1924, it is not right that Parliament should come along and say that it is illegal without the consent of the Corporation. My point is that if the amendment which I have proposed is accepted contracts entered into before the date specified will not be affected. I would draw the attention of the hon. member for Worcester (Mr. Heatlie) to page 43 of the Report where he said “We want a monopoly in dealing with spirits” and the Prime Minister has given it. On page 41 the hon. member also says “We want our Association to have the monopoly of all brandies and spirits”. As to the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls), I want to tell him that brandy is not a necessity of life, and that we did not ask for a monopoly of houses. Anyone could build a house after the date mentioned in the Rent Bill. We did not want to raise rents, but the whole object of this Bill is to bring up prices. But rack renting could not be allowed and the poor people had to be protected, and the Rent Act had to be continued by Parliament until people can get plenty of houses. But this Bill hands over the monopoly of brandy and spirits to one particular organization, without any guarantee that that is to continue, because I want to point out that the Prime Minister interrupting the hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Nathan) said that the definition deals with it. Now the definition says “De Koöperatieve Wijnbouwers Vereniging van Zuid Afrika Bepe.kt., shall include any similar society ....” Now supposing there is no such similar society. What is to happen? In order to test the feeling of the Committee I move my amendment.

I do not wish to delay this clause but I am sorry the Prime Minister has not dealt with the point which I raised. To my mind it is a very important point and I am very glad that I have the support of the hon. member for Castle (Mr. Alexander) in my views. The Prime Minister, when I raised the question as to what would happen if this society ceased to exist, drew my attention to the definition. Well, the definition simply says that Koöperatieve Wijn Boere Vereniging shall include any similar society formed in lieu thereof. So if this society goes out and another comes in, this Bill continues to function. But there may be a period between the two stages, or another society may not be formed, what then? I thought that I was helping the Prime Minister by drawing his attention to this. This Bill is not intended for 1924 alone, but for subsequent years as well, and it is intended to last a considerable period, I take it, with the object of helping this industry. It is a most important point and further, I see no obligation of the society to carry out the powers entrusted to it. There are obligations and penalties as against individual persons, but I am not sure whether under the 1910-11 Act “person” includes an association. It may do so, and if it does, the penalty will also apply to an association. With regard to the monopoly, I said that Mrs. Albrecht and others said that monopolies were objectionable at all time to the consumer. I hold in my hand here a circular, I do not know from whom it comes and which says that the wine control Bill is a threat to the liberty of the subject.

Who sent it?

I do not know but I shall read it: “So the Wine Growers’ Association will have complete control over both sides of the industry, over the producers on the one hand and the distiller on the other, while owing to their complete monopoly and control the public is also completely in their hands.” So, will the hon. member who sits behind me and who has spoken very eloquently to-day and instructed us on many points, deny the truth of that statement? We have it already from the right hon. the Prime Minister that in existing contracts where the prices may be £3 or £4 per leaguer this Association can say “you must add £2 or £3 more to the price” and in that way reach the public.

That is so.

Therefore it is perfectly clear that the consumer will be affected by any price which the association may think fit to tack on.

Ek glo nie dat die Huis ’n diens bewys aan die wynboere as hulle daarop bly staan dat die ou kontrakte uitgevoer moet word nie. Want wat gaan gebeur as die Wet deur die Huis gaan? Die hele kontrôle kom in die hande van die Wynbouerskooperasie en hulle gaan dus ook die surplus-pryse vasstel. Dus, die mense wat al vooraf kontrakte gesluit het, sal ook die surplus-kontribusie moet betaal. Neem b.v., dat die Wynbouerskoöperasie die surplus vasstel op twee pond per lêer, dan kry iemand, wat nou later wyn verkoop, b.v. ses pond per lêer, maar daar gaan twee pond af en dus kry hy vier pond. Maar wat van die mense wat al kontrakte ingegaan het vir b.v. vier pond, en ek verstaan dat die meeste vir die prys verkoop het? Hulle kry onder die kontrôle van die Wynbouerskoöperasie maar net twee pond vir die wyn. Ek dink nie dat ons die wynboere daarmee ’n diens gaan bewys nie en ek sien nie hoe die edele lid vir Piquetberg (de hr. De Waal) so seer daarvoor kan praat nie. Ons gaan die boere daardeur in ’n onmoontlike posiesie, plaas as ons hulle dwing om die oue kontrakte uit te voer. Ek hoop, dat die amendement van die edele lid vir KaapstadKasteel (de hr. Alexander) nie aangeneem sal word nie. En wat betref die bestaande kontrakte wat die edele lid vir Piquetberg (de hr. De Waal) so op hamer, sien ek nie wat in die Wet belet om kontrakte buitekant aan te gaan vir enigeen wat goeie wyn maak nie. Daarom glo ek dat daar nie die minste gevaar is vir die kontrakte wat die kopers aangegaan het nie. En hoekom het die boere die kontrakte aangegaan? Die wynboere wat hulle wyn laaste jaar verkoop het, het onder die indruk verkoop, dat die Wynboerekoöperasie sou te niet gaan en dus die surplus-kontribusie nie betaal hoef te word nie. Hulle het gedink onder die bestaande kontrakte ’n goeie profyt te maak. Ek hoop dus, dat die Wet so sal deurgaan as dit nou staan.

I take it that this Clause is the crux of the Bill and I am going to ask all hon. members on this Committee to vote against it. Yes, there is laughter on the other side of the House from the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Geldenhuys) but I am going to give reasons, if the hon. member can understand them, why the Committee should vote against it. In the first place, I am opposed to the Bill on the ground that it creates a monopoly of a private character; and here we are faced with the extraordinary spectacle of the Prime Minister of the country deliberately asking the House to pass legislation designed to establish in one industry in this country, at all events, a private monopoly, and a monopoly against which, almost without exception, perhaps with a couple of exceptions, the witnesses gave evidence before the Select Committee, and mostly those witnesses, at all events, who are themselves producers of the commodity it is sought to monopolize. That is a most extraordinary spectacle, and one which should give this House and the whole country food for considerable thought. We, who know the Prime Minister, are quite prepared to see this sort of legislation introduced, because we know perfectly well it is, in a sense, the coping-stone of his whole career. He is by nature a dictator; he is by nature a monopolist though he poses as quite the reverse, and it is quite understandable to us to see him introducing legislation of this character, but it does not suit the people of this country, and I hope it is not going to suit the representatives of the people of this country who are sitting here to-day considering the Prime Minister’s proposals. I am opposed to this clause on two grounds. Firstly, because it is creating a monopoly, and, secondly, because it is placing that monopoly in the hands of those who have proved themselves quite incapable of conducting the industry. Not only have they been incapable of conducting that industry, but they have been guilty of mal acts, and I would ask the hon. members who may be disposed to travers the point of view I am trying to put before the Committee to read the evidence of the Select Committee, and particularly would I direct the attention of the Committee to the statements and the evidence of Mrs. Albrecht, who strikes me. I do not know how she strikes other people, as being a highly intelligent lady, and certainly one who has studied the subject. When she came to give evidence she clearly stated without fear of contradiction evidently that the very people concerned who are at present at the head of affairs are not competent to guide the destinies of any such industry at all. “Make a change” says my hon. friend and while you are constantly fiddling about changing the personnel of the directors of this monopoly, the wine industry is going to totter and the people in it are going to be ruined. There is another reason, that is again referring to the evidence of this lady and others, that the policy embarked upon by this body to which the Minister wishes to give absolute control, this very policy is designed to encourage the further production of bad wine; not to encourage the production of good wine, but further to encourage the production of bad wine. Why? Let me read what she says in answer to the hon. member for Paarl (Dr. de Jager), the Government Whip—

What are the facts? I understand, and I think this is a fact which is by no means unknown to the hon. member for Worcester (Mr. Heatlie) or the hon. member for Ladismith (Mr. Jordaan), that the makers of bad wine in j large quantities, certainly in some cases, have been enabled to throw away their stuff getting J their £3 per leaguer for doing so, all at the expense of the manufacturer of the good wine; and is it to be wondered at that these people who have been manufacturing good wine refuse, to become members of this organization, and have to be forced into it by just such legislation as this which the Prime Minister is introducing? It says, in this clause, in another part, that people may sell their wine provided they get the consent of this organization and they have got to obey any conditions that are laid down by the organization before getting their consent, and one of them, the hon. member for Worcester (Mr. Heatlie), says in his evidence here that they do not wish to force wine-growers to become members. They do not want that power, but they are virtually getting that power because one of the conditions of consent may be that you shall become a member of our organization, and in the meantime the poor unfortunate individual, who may be waiting to fortify his own wine with his own products in the form of brandy, may have to be in a long and voluminous correspondence with these people, perhaps at great distance, and in the meantime his wine is spoiled, and he is up against the hard fact that he has either to lose his product, or accept the dictates of this particular Association and join it as a condition under which they shall sell their produce or fortify their wine as the case may be. So at the present time it is pressure of the most harsh kind in addition to its being a monopoly. It seems to me that the Minister might have turned his attention to the distribution of wine. I think if he were to examine the position more clearly he would find that the real trouble lies in the control of distribution. The consumer, to-day, for certain sorts of wine, has got to pay when he gets it in small bulk, gallon jars, for instance, has got to pay for certain sorts of wine, 15s. per gallon. I am referring to upcountry, and I am informed on more or less creditable authority that that wine causes to accrue to the producer himself the magnificent sum of about 4d. or 6d. a bottle. That is to say, it means that the producer, there being six bottles to the gallon, is getting 2s. or 3s. for his product, while it brings the consumer no less a sum than 15s. That is a point the Minister might profitably turn his attention to. I am against this Bill and this clause, which: is half the crux of the Bill, on the ground that it creates a private monopoly. I am not against monopolies, not by any means, of a sort. I am against monopolies such as are highly favoured by my hon. friend the member for Krugersdorp (Sir Abe Bailey). For instance, I am against that sort of monopolies, in fact, I am against placing industry, the lives and souls and conditions of men and women, under the heel of private monopolies, but I am not against Government monopolies, and if the Minister does want to have a real control over the producing end of the wine industry, you might establish a Government monopoly which will have at all times the interests of the industry at heart, or should have on the one hand, the interests of the consumers, and of the rest of the population on the other hand. Having that end in view, I propose to move an amendment, with your permission, and I feel certain I shall have it. It is this, and very little alteration is needed to change over from a private profit-making to a Government monopoly. It merely means the deletion of the words “of the Koöperatieve Wijnbouwers Vereniging van Zuid-Afrika Beperkt,” and insert the words “Minister of Agriculture” I hope the Minister of Agriculture will forgive me for passing this stupendous burden on to him.

I am much obliged for the educational advice the hon. member is giving me.

I am quite prepared to continue it. I move—

Toe die Wetsontwerp van die Selek Komitee af gekom het, is beweer dat die wynboer me meer sy eie goed mag fabriseer nie en nou siet ons dat hy dit me Kan sonder konsent van die ko-operasie nie en hierdie Jiggaam kan die konsent weier as hy me daarinee saamgaan nie. Nou kom die Eerste Minister met ’n amendement en dit beteken net dat die Wet is soas hy uit die Selek Komitee gekom het. Daarom sal ek die amendement van die edele lid vir Piquetberg (de hr. de Waal) ondersteun. Vir my is die onbiilik dat die boer op sy eie produk moet betaal waar geen surplus is nie. Die edele lid vir Worcester (de hr. Heatlie) het verklaar dat die wyn gebruik word, maar wat baie gebruik word kom nie anders in die mark dan as wyn wat gedrink word, maar vir die surplus-kontribusie is hy nie bang nie. Maar die boer wat ander spieritus gebruik sou liewer. Twee jaar gelede was dit dieselfde ding met roltabak en verklaar werd dat die belasting gehef word om die slegte uit te skakel. Dit is net ’n soort ekskuus wat deur die Eerste Minister aangehaal word en die doel is van die edele lid vir Worcester (de hr. Heatlie) om die monopolie te kry; maar waarom dan nie eerlik daarvoor uitgekom nie en gesê, ons wil die monopolie gee aan die Wynbouers-koöperasie. Maar ek sien dat hulle het vier duisend aandele in Natalite en dan kan hulle dit in ander ondernemings ook doen. Doe hulle dit met toestemming of doe hulle dit op eie houtjie en as daar verliese gely word, wie moet dit betaal? Ek sou ook graag van die edele lid vir Worcester (de hr. Heatlie) wil weet, wat ’n nuwe inkomeling sal moet betaal. Dit is iets onduidelik hier en ons sal op die wyse op ’n dwaalweg kan uitkom. Ek dink dat ons die boer moet vry laat as hy sy eie brandewyn wil gebruik; as dit sleg is, sal hy dit nie kan verkoop nie. Ons kan hierdie soort ding oorlaat aan die edele lid vir Worcester (de hr. Heatlie). Vandag sal hy miskien nie ’n uitweg vind nie, maar more weer.

Question put: that the words: “Ko-operatieve Wijnbouwers Vereeniging van Zuid Afrika, Beperkt,” proposed to be omitted, stand part of the clause; and a division was called.

As fewer than ten members (viz., Messrs. Alexander, Boydell, Christie, Madeley, the Rev. Mr. Mullineux, Messrs. Munnik, Pearce, Stewart and Strachan) voted against the question, the Chairman declared the question affirmed, and the amendments proposed by Mr. Madeley dropped.

On the motion of the Prime Minister, the Chairman put the amendments proposed by the Select Committee in lines 14 and 15, which were negatived.

Question put: that al the words after “wine”, where it occurs for the second time in the amendment proposed by the Prime Minister, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the amendment; and the Committee divided:

Ayes—49.

Ballantine, R.

Boydell, T.

Buchanan, W. P.

Burton, H.

Christie, J.

Cilliers, P. S.

Claassen, G. M.

Close, R. W.

Creswell, F. H. P.

Dreyer, T. F. J.

Duncan, P.

Geldenhuys, L.

Giovanetti, C. W.

Graumann, H.

Grobler, H. S.

Harris, D.

Heatlie, C. B.

Henderson R. H.

Jagger, J. W.

Jordaan, P. J.

King, J. G.

Lemmer, L. A. S.

Louw, G. A.

Mackeurtan, H. G.

Malan, F. S.

McAlister, H. S.

Mentz, H.

Moffat, L.

Nel, T. J.

Nicholls, G. H.

Papenfus, H. B.

Pearce, C.

Purcell, I,

Robinson, C. P.

Rockey, W.

Scholtz, P. E.

Sephton, C. A. A.

Smartt, T. W.

Smuts, J. C.

Stewart, J.

Strachan, T. G.

Van Eeden, J. W.

Van Heerden, B. I. J.

Van Zyl, G. B.

Venter, J. A.

Watt, T.

Webber, W. S.

Tellers: Collins, W. R.; de Jager, A. L.

Noes—27.

Alberts, S. F.

Alexander, M.

Badenhorst, A. L.

Brink, G. F.

De Villiers, A. I. E.

Du Toit, F. J.

Havenga, N. C.

Hertzog, J. B. M.

Heyns, J. D.

Hugo, D.

Keyter, J. G.

Le Roux, P. W.

Le Roux, S. P.

Malan, C. W.

Malan, D. F.

Mostert, J. P.

Muller, C. H.

Munnik, J. H.

Obermeyer, J.G.

Smit, J. S.

Van Heerden, I. P.

Van Niekerk, P. W. le R.

Werth, A. J.

Wessels, J. B.

Wessels, J. H. B.

Tellers: de Waal, J. H. H.; Wilcocks, C. T. M.

Question accordingly affirmed and the amendment proposed by Mr. de Waal negatived.

Amendment proposed by the Prime Minister put and agreed to.

Dit kom my voor of as ons dit aanneem, dan sal die hele ding doodgaan; dit sal so sleg wees dat die hele beginsel sal weggeneem word. Ek wil die edele lid vir Kaap stad (Kasteel) (de hr. Alexander) die versekering gee, dat hy met sy argumente getoon het hoe korrek my opvatting was omtrent die strekking van die klausule en juis daarom vind ek in die lid se verandering, dat, die hele grondslag van die Wet weggeneem word.

It may be that you will not be able to interfere with a contract entered into. Why should you, if a bona fide sale for wines for distillation purposes took place in October or November come in February and ask Parliament to cancel his contract. Why should this House pass a Bill that interferes with contracts bona fide entered into months before it was introduced. A bona fide contract was entered into in October or November and now in February you are introducing legislation making that contract illegal. Surely it is a very serious thing when you attempt by legislation to cancel a contract which has already been entered into. Unless this principle is removed you are interfering with a contract made long before this legislation was contemplated. I think my amendment is a perfectly reasonable one.

Wat my hier opval is, dat as die amendement aangeneem word, dan was dit, nie nodig om hierdie wetgewing voor te bring nie. Dit word ingebring om te verkry, dat 1924 se wynoes onder die Wet val en ek ag dat as die amendement deurgaat, dan word dit uitgesluit en dan word ook uitgesluit kontrakte vir 1925 en dit kan ons nie toelaat nie. Lede se kontrakte bly staan, maar die Wet wil dat hulle noodsaaklik moet val onder die wetsbepaling—hulle sal dit moet nakom om nie te gebruik nie, alvorens toestemming verkry is van die Wynbouers-kooperasie. En ek beskou dat die boer nie benadeel word nie en die oes van 1924 word ingesluit.

Amendment proposed by Mr. Alexander put and a division was called.

As fewer than ten members (viz., Messrs. Alexander. Creswell and de Waal) voted in favour of the amendment the Chairman declared the amendment negatived.

On the motion of the Prime Minister, the Chairman put the new sub-section (2) proposed by the Select Committee.

moved—

Agreed to.

Amendment, as amended, put and agreed to.

Mnr. Speaker, is ’n lid bevoeg om nog ’n amendment voor te stel? Ek stel voor dat subseksie 3 van Klausule 1 heeltemaal uitgelaat word. Ek sal nie daaroor uitwei nie, maar net daarop wys, dat dit ’n baie gevaarlike beginsel is dat die boer moet oorgelewer word aan die genade van die direkteure van die koöperasie.

New sub-section (3), proposed by the Select Committee put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 2,

I beg to move the amendment standing in my name—

May I just point out that the object of this amendment which I am moving now is to carry out a concession which the society has made to the wine merchants. The wine merchants are very anxious that the society shall not engage in the retail trade, and what the society agrees to here is to sell only to wholesalers and not to sell by retail. They agree that they will not enter into the ordinary competition in the retail trade, and this is a concession which we might ratify here.

I have not risen to oppose the amendment. But I ask why the co-operative societies are included in this section. The Koöperatieve Wijnbouwers Vereniging van Zuid-Afrika Beperkt obtains the benefit of this legislation, and it is the society of the producers. It says here that this society shall, on demand, supply wine, etc. What other co-operative society can possibly be referred to? What other co-operative society could deal in wines apart from the co-operative society that is getting protection under this Bill? Why put these words in “or co-operative society”? I would like the Minister to tell us why they are there. I can understand the other words, “bona fide dis tiller, wholesale trader, association of distillers, or wholesale traders”, but why “or co-operative society”?

That is another general provision, because this provision will apply to the whole of the Union and not merely to this province. There are co-operative societies: or co-operative societies under the Act of last year may be formed, and we are simply keeping the door open, so to speak, for the future, though they may still be a wholesaler or distiller or co-operative society. I do not think there is any harm in it, and it leaves that door open for the future.

Before we pass this clause, I would like to have an explanation as to the words “the quantities usually supplied to distillers or wholesale traders.” It seems to me these words are very vague. Now, a big trader may have taken 25,000 leaguers and a small man may have been in the habit of taking 5,000 leaguers, is that small man going to be refused his usual supplies on the grounds that if you take an average of what is required by the others, it is much less, and therefore he does not take the quantities usually supplied? These words are very dangerous unless defined in some way. It does not say who is to decide what the quantities usually supplied are. Does it mean the quantity supplied to them only or to the whole trade? Unless we have something put in there, this thing will play into the hands of the big man, who will be able to freeze out the small man.

The hon. member for Cape Town (Castle) (Mr. Alexander) does not appreciate the meaning of this section. This is laying a duty on the society. Clause 1 places the control in their hands, under Clause 2 you have a correlative duty. In Clause 2 the society shall supply, shall make no differentiation and shall supply the usual quantities. Suppose a distiller says, “I want a million leaguers of brandy from you”—it is quite unusual, it is beyond the power of the society. You will be laying a burden on the society which it could not possibly fulfil. All that Clause 2 shall say is that the usual demands which have been made hitherto shall continue to be supplied, and the society shall not make an arbitrary use of the power which is placed in its hands.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 3,

moved—

Sub-section (3) requires certain returns to be made to the Commissioner of Excise, and subsection (3) requires that he should make certain returns: he should publish certain data which should be useful to the public. Sub-section (2) deals with a different matter: these are returns to be given to the society, and I therefore move that sub-section (1) and (3), which deal with the official returns to the Commissioner of Excise, be taken together, and that sub-section (2) become the last section. It is purely formal.

Agreed to.

Ek wil voorstel, dat die hele subseksie (2), wat nou (3) geword het, uitgelaat word. Totnogtoe is geen boer verplig gewees om aan enige private vereniging opgawe te doen van alles wat hy besit nie. Onder die sub seksie is boere verplig om elke jaar aan die Vereniging sowel as aan die Goewernement, opgawe te doen. Soos die posiesie nou is en altoos nog gewees het, moet elke boer opgawe doen aan die Regering, naamlik aan die AksynsDepartement, en dis reg genoeg; maar hier kom ’n baie ingrypende bepaling, dat nie alleen aan die Aksyns-Departement maar ook aan die andere baas, aan die monopolie, haarfyne opgawe gedoen moet word. Dit is ’n inmenging in die regte van die boer, wat nie betamelik is nie.

On the motion of Mr. de Waal, the new subsection (2), proposed by the Select Committee, was put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 4,

If this clause were to be defeated it would make it impossible for the co-operative society to carry on its work. A great number of your wine farmers who have an article for sale will be done an injury to. A return is required, so that you may know what your supply will be, will it balance your consumption, or will your supply be greater than your market requirements, and only by getting these returns will you be able to know what the position is. By not having a return your wine farmer will suffer, and you are making it extremely difficult to deal with the position and do justice to all concerned.

I move—

The clause provides that the Governor-General may make regulations prescribing the conditions to be carried out by wine growers respecting removals and sale of wine and spirits, the produce of the vine. That would cover both distilling wine and wine for consumption and give a very wide power indeed to the association, which I do not suppose the association really wants. All the Bill purports to give is power to deal with distilling wine.

Might I suggest that the amendment be put in the form as it is put in Clause 7, so as to keep the accurate form.

I think that will be better, and I am quite prepared to accept that.

Before you put the amendment let me just enter a caveat here. I think if my hon. friend’s amendment is accepted it will lead to a great deal of evasion. I agree with him that wine here is meant as wine for distillation. But here power is given to regulate removals of this wine. The Committee can see what an opening is given for evasion if the regulation only applies to wine made for distillation. A person will always plead “that the wine I was removing was not meant for distillation, it was meant for consumption” We had better leave that to the regulations themselves, because I think the regulations must try to carry out the spirit and intention of this Act. If the limitation is introduced, which my hon. friend asked for, I am very much afraid we shall cripple the endorsement of the Act, even so far as wine for distillation is concerned. That being so, I hope he will not press his amendment. Not that I have a violent conviction on this point, but I think that we are opening a door which will lead to wholesale evasion and so defeat the regulations of the Act.

I do not know whether there will be any great danger of evasion, because the return has to be rendered showing the quantities of distilling wine which a wine grower has in his possession, and then through the Excise Department that distilling wine can be very accurately checked. If the clause is left in its present wide form, I can see the regulations may have a very adverse effect upon the selling of other than distilling wine.

I would gladly reassure my hon. friend on this point. I know the people for whom he speaks, and who have spoken with such effect and success, are apprehensive of themselves. But after all these regulations will be made by the Government and the Commissioner of Excise will see that there is no regulation of a hampering kind. These regulations, which will be made, will carry out what is the real intention of this Act.

In deference to the wish expressed by the Prime Minister I will withdraw my amendment for the time being, and leave it until the report stage, and shall consult those whom I represent. If those whom I represent are satisfied then I will let the matter drop.

Amendment, with leave, withdrawn.

Clauses, as printed, put and agreed to.

Clause 5 put and agreed to.

On Clause 6,

Oh the motion of the Prime Minister, the Chairman put the amendment proposed by the Select Committee in sub-section (1).

I have certain amendments to move here. The first in line 61 is simply a verbal amendment to improve the language. The words “for potable purposes” are transferred to an earlier place in the sentence. Then the following amendment is material, and that provides that the spirit which is used in brandy, which is to be kept for three years, and can only be sold after having been kept for three years, such spirit shall be good spirit, rectified spirit. The clause as it stands provides that such spirit shall contain not less than 25 per cent, of brandy, but it omits to say what about the remaining 75 per cent. That omission is now rectified by the additional provision that the other 75 per cent. shall be good rectified spirit. I move, as an amendment to this amendment—

Agreed to.

Amendment, as amended, put and agreed to.

moved—

Agreed to.

moved—

1. (4) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in Part III (Rebates of Excise Duties on Spirits) of the Schedule to the Customs and Excise Duties Amendment Act, 1921 (Act No. 35 of 1921), or in this Act, the rebate of duty provided for under that Act, may be allowed on pot-still brandy made prior to the commencement thereof, and such brandy may, from and after the first day of June, 1928, be sold or otherwise disposed of, in terms of section 6 of this Act, provided that the Government Brandy Board is satisfied that it was made, matured and stored in the manner prescribed in the aforesaid Act and in this Act.

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to New Clause 7 put and agreed to.

On the motion of the Prime Minister, the Chairman put the New Clause 8, proposed by the Select Committee.

I have another amendment which is not on the notice paper, but which, I am sure, the Committee will accept and it is this. It is to amend a provision of an earlier Act. Hon. members will remember that in 1921 a Bill was passed which made provision that where pot-still brandy had been kept under excise supervision for three years under satisfactory conditions, a rebate of customs should be given thereon. It, has turned out that there is pot-still brandy which has been kept under those conditions even before 1921. But, unfortunately, the Act of 1921 was not retrospective, and did not cater for pot-still brandy properly matured before that date. It is with the idea of putting pot-still brandy properly matured even before 1921, in the same position as that matured since, that I wish to move the following amendment—

That will put still brandy matured before 1921 in the same favourable condition as to rebate, as pot-still’ brandy matured thereafter.

Agreed to:

New Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

New Clause 9 and Clause 7 put and agreed to.

On Clause 8.

moved—

Agreed to.

On the motion of the Prime Minister, the Chairman put the amendment proposed by, the Select Committee in lines 17 to 19

moved—

I should like the Prime Minister to explain “wholesale trader”. Why should there be any limitation?

I will explain the matter to my hon. friend. We have already in Clause 2 passed a restriction that the society cannot sell to anyone not a distiller or a wholesale trader. The society is prepared to make a concession which the trade is asking for. The society will only Sell to people who buy in fairly large quantities and not to people who buy in fairly small quantities. This is a concession which the society is prepared to make, and I hope you will accept that.

The largest wine merchants in Cape Town will be hit by that. Why make any limitation at all? Why are you not going to recognize any man unless he buys 250 leaguers.

The definition as it stands is unworkable and has to come out in any case. 250 leaguers is a very low limit, and I do not think the hon. member can object to the figure. It only restricts the Society, and that is what the merchants want.

I move as an amendment to the proposed amendment—

Amendment proposed by Mr. Alexander put and negatived.

Amendment proposed by the Prime Minister put and agreed to.

Amendment proposed by Select Committee, as amended, put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to

I want to move a new clause dealing with the danger of discrimination by the organization. There may be a certain measure of discrimination, or agreements may be entered into in the future as in the past, and it is with the intention of preventing this that I propose the amendment. I have drafted the amendment on these lines, and although the terms are very wide and drastic, I do not think they will create any objection. I know it is not the intention that there should be any discrimination as far as the present directorates are concerned, but directorates change and we are subject to their electorates, and therefore, as a safeguard. I wish to move the clause. It will, I think, satisfy the people. I move—

I would ask my hon. friend not to press the last penal provision of the clause which he has just proposed. He has said that any such contract, arrangement, or understanding shall be null and void, and I think that is sufficient. I do not think that we should bail the society up and put it in gaol as the hon. member proposes. I have no objection to the rest of the amendment moved by the hon. member. As a matter of fact the amendment carries out the intention contained in this Bill. I therefore have no objection to it, so long as the draconic provision at the end is deleted. I move—

I’ have no objection to that. I put this penalty in because I thought it seemed to be the conventional penalty under this Bill.

Amendment proposed by the Prime Minister put and agreed to.

New Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On the motion of the Prime Minister, the Chairman put the New Clause 12 proposed by the Select Committee.

moved—

Agreed to.

New Clause, as amended, put and agreed to. Clause 10 and Title put and agreed to.

Agreed to.

House resumed.

Bill reported with amendments.

I move—

I would suggest that the Prime Minister give a longer time than that. There are one or two questions that I know of There is one point which the Prime Minister raised to-day for the first time, and! one would like to have the opportunity of considering that. If the Prime Minister could give us a little more time I think it would be very much appreciated.

Very well. I move—

seconded.

Agreed to.

Business suspended at 6 p.m.; to resume at 8 p.m.

moved—

In moving this motion that the House go into Committee on the Additional Expenditure to be defrayed from the Railway and Harbour Revenue Fund, I think that I can safely say that the amounts overspent have not been large. As regards the additional expenditure out of revenue it amounts to a total of £49,637. Hon. members will find the particulars set out on page 2 of the Estimates, which were laid on the Table some little time since, and will notice that one of the larger items is £13,000 for the extra cost of living, which we allowed to our Durban employees, and then the extra cost to us of the High Commissioner’s office in London. As hon. members are aware, we pay one per cent on our total purchases, which we charge up to the goods. This time we have not had sufficient goods to pay one per cent., so of the total expenditure incurred, part has to be charged to miscellaneous expenditure. Then there is also some assets which have been withdrawn from service. They have had to be made good out of the revenue. We provided in the Estimates for that something over £100,000, but we have withdrawn more than we estimated, and we have had to ask for an additional £20,176. As regards the harbours, there is a small extra cost of living allowance which we allowed to the Durban employees of the Harbour Department, and also certain assets written off from capital. These are small. On the other hand, savings on other items which we are forbidden to use to cover these shortages amount to over £300,000.

How much?

Over £300,000.

Savings?

Yes.

On what?

On expenditure we have had during the year.

What items?

That I will give my hon. friend when we get into Committee. Now with regard to additional appropriation we have to ask from Loan Funds there is first of all a small item, comparatively speaking, which we have to spend extra on the Raapenburg line, that is the line on the Cape Flats, the branch for the new location, amounting to £280. The biggest item is £52,629 which has been spent in connection with the purchase of cold storage works at Durban. The lease of this cold storage was given as a concession by the Natal Government as far back as 1899. It was a 21 years concession with the right of renewal for another 21 years. The first 21 years has passed, and of the second 21 years there is still 18 to run. We find that it is to-day, owing to the rapid development that is taking place at Durban interfering with our work there. At the Cato Creek we want to establish two deep berths, but it would be impossible to provide these together with the necessary warehouses so long as the place was occupied by the cold storage buildings. It may be necessary in the near future to run a mole across the front of the esplanade up to the Maydon wharf, so we have been compelled to purchase these cold storage works. We have paid £52,629 for them, which, personally, I think is a very good price. At first we were asked £59,000, but all our officials there and the Durban Advisory Board stated that the price was high, so we bargained with them, and we managed to get them down to £52,629. If we had taken the matter to arbitration we should have had to pay more, so we thought it best when we got them down to this price to pay. There are other minor items for which we have to ask the House £25,000 extra. In a big administration like the railway unforeseen requirements come up month by month and have to be met. We had a vote last year for these for £176,000, but hon. members will see we require £25,000 extra. On the other hand, we have very large savings. We shall have to bring forward or surrender £1,882,000, but this is a case where we cannot use these savings to cover the money we require for extra expenditure.

What are those?

We very often find unfortunately that the Department asks for more money than it actually spends. My hon. friend will remember that we asked for £8,000,000 last year, of which we have been unable to spend this sum of £1.882,000. I may be allowed to say a few words now about the financial position of the Railway Department. During 1923-’24, the current financial year, the total estimated revenue was £22,854,000, and the total estimated expenditure was £23,367,000, showing an estimated deficit of £513,000. Fortunately we have been able to make considerable savings amounting to more than £300,000. As regards the revenue, as hon. members will know it has been very much better than we anticipated. Up to the end of December, that is nine months of working, the revenue over the estimate amounted to £1,130,000, and the surplus at that date after providing for working expenditure and interest was £1,104,000. That is satisfactory from another point of view, because we have got this increase in revenue without any excess of expenditure. In fact, as I have said, there will be a saving. We have secured these satisfactory results by large increases in the goods we have had to carry, minerals and coal. On the other hand, there has been a falling off in passenger traffic as well as in parcels traffic and livestock traffic. By far the most important of these is the passenger traffic, which has shown a considerable shortfall. Hon. members will see from the figures I have given that if nothing unforeseen occurs between now and the end of the current financial year we shall have a considerable surplus. I hope, however, that hon. members will not think that the Railway Department is too well off and has too much money to spend, because I want to remind the House we started the year with a deficit of £2,220,000, and every penny of the surplus has gone in paying off this deficit, and still we shall have a deficit of nearly £1,000,000 at the end of the year. We have still a very considerable load of debt to carry. Rates are still 40 per cent over and above what they were in pre-war days, and fares 30 per cent. So I put it to hon. members is the Department not compelled to-day to follow the same policy of rigid economy that it has observed during the last few years?

seconded.

Die uiteensetting van die Minister van Spoorweë is bemoedigend en groot krediet kom toe aan hom vir die strenge kontrôle wat hy in die Departement toegepas het. Ek kan hom die versekering gee dat die land dankbaar is, dat hy die finansies van die Spoorweg Departement so mooi reggeruk het, maar ek wil graag ’n paar gevalle noem, waar hy skade gedaan het aan die publiek en aan die land. Die vervoer tarief op produkte is nog veertig persent bokant wat die voor die corlog was en vir passasiers dertig persent. Dit geskied ten koste van die landbouer en gebruiker van die Spoorweg. Hy sal hom herinner hoe van hierdie leant van die Huis in die verlede aangedring is op die nodige vermindering van tariewe en in die begin het die Minister van Sporweë hom hard teengesit. Eindelik het hy toegestem en die resultaat is dat hy, nieteenstaande aansienlike verminderinge, ’n groter som ontvang het as vroeer met die hoër tariewe. Die Minister in sy ywer om die balans te laat klop tree onverstandig op. Ek vertrou dat hy so spoedig moontlik ’n verdere algemene vermindering in oorweging sal neem. Ek sal daar nie vanaand op ingaan nie, maar wil daar tog op wys, dat vir vee vervoer uit die met droogte geteisterde distrikte nog verdere vermindering van tariewe moet toegestaan word. Die Minister begin nou in te sien wat ons reeds jare voor pleit, dat dit goed vir die Staat is om die vee van die boer in streke waar dit droog is feitlik gratis te vervoer. Die Minister het dit ingesien en die vragprys met die helfte verminder; dit word geappresieer, maar die Minister moet ’n verdere vermindering van die tariewe in oorweging neem. ’n Ander punt is, dat die edelagbare die Minister in sy ywer om te besuinig te ver gaan’ en die publiek benadeel. Hy het ’n hele aantal stasies gesluit en hy kan geen dinkbeeld vorm nie, hoeveel ongerief daardeur aan die publiek aangedaan is me. ’n Ander saak is dat die Minister in sy ywer om te besuinig onreg doen aan die personeel. Laat my een geval noem as voorbeeld: blanke arbeiders word weg gestuur van die plek waar hulle gekruteer is, na plekke waar hul onbekend is en huise moet huur teen hoë huurgelde. Ek wil die Minister vra dat hy in sy ywer om te besuinig, nie onreg moet doen aan sy personeel nie, want dan sal hy vind dat die personeel natuurlikerwyse gegriefd sal veel en dit sal die Staat nie ten goede kom nie, maar nadelig werk. Die edelagbare die Minister het gepraat van die tekort van twee miljoen pond, maar hy het blykbaar vergeet dat die tekort vier miljoen was en dat die Regeringlaaste jaar, gesteun deur ’n gewillige meerderheid, twee miljoen afgeskrywe het, wat van ons verbeteringsfondse geneem is. Die tekort wat ons gehad het was vier miljoen en die edelagbare die Minister moet vandag reg maak, wat deur die slegte administrasie voor hom veroorsaak is. Maar hy moet nie te vinnig te werk gaan sonder behoorlik in ag te neem die regte van die personeel en die publiek nie. Hy moet bedink die haglike toestand van grote dele van ons land en dat die Spoorweg Departement veel kan doen om verligting te bring. Volgens my opienie gee die Minister nie genoeg aandag daaraan nie, dat daar ’n klousule in ons akte is wat neerlê dat hoewel die Spoorweë op ’n besigheidsbasis meet gedryf word, landbou-belange en industriële belange besonder in ag moet geneem word. Dit is ’n feit dat die Spoorweë sleg geadministreer was in die verlede. Die Minister van Binnenlandse Sake lag, maar dit is so.

Hoekom betaal die Spoorweë vandag dan?

Die tyde is vandag nie beter nie; inteendeel, en tog betaal die Spoorweë nou. Dit is ’n duidelike bewys van die slegte Administrasie in die verlede en die Huis en die land is die edelagbare die Minister dankbaar dat hy die vinger op die plekke gelê het. Nou wil ek die edelagbare die Minister vra waarom hy—in verband met die addisionele begroting—nie gebruik gemaak het van die geleentheid vir arbitrasie in verband met die betaling van die Koelkamers. Die edelagbare die Minister het self gesê, dat £59,000 n baie hoë som is en dat selfs £52,000 deur hom nog as ’n groot som beskou word. Laat my sê, dat die land en die Huis baie meer tevrede sou gewees het as die edelagbare die Minister gebruik had gemaak van arbitrasie. Die koelkamers is natuurlik daarop uit om soveel moontlik te kry; jy kan dit van ’n besigheids standpunt ook nie kwalik neem nie, maar die belange van die land moet beskerm word.

Ek sluit my aan by die opmerkings van my vriend, die edele lid vir Humansdorp (de hr. C. W. Malan).

Ek wil net aantoon, dat die debat heperk is tot items, poste, wat verskyn op die Begroting. Die edelagbare die Minister het ’n verklaring gemaak oor die algemene posiesie en daarom het ek die edele lid vir Humansdorp (de hr. C. W. Malan) toegelaat daar kort op te antwoord, om hom die gelyke reg te gee, maar edele lede kan nie praat nie oor die algemene spoorweg-politiek nie. Alleen kwessies kan bespreek word wat punte uitmaak van die additionele begroting.

Op ’n punt van orde. Moet ek dan opmaak, dat die edelagbare die Minister geregtig is ora ’n algemene verklaring te maak oor die algemene posiesie en dat edele lede van die bespreking uitgesluit is? Is dan die edelagbare die Minister nie buite orde nie?

Die edelagbare die Minister is feitelik ook uit orde. Die Speaker staan die Minister toe om ’n algemene verklaring te maak, meer as ’n kwessie van hoffelikheid.

Mnr. Speaker, ek hoop ek sal my hou binne die perke van u reëling. Hier het ons o.a. te doen met uitgawe uit Leningsfondse vir Spoorweë en Hawes doeleindes. Die Huis word gevra om as addisionele uitgawe te stem £78,000 teen hierdie bedrag en die doel waarvoor dit geyra word het ek niks in te bring nie, maar die opmerking van die lippe van die edelagbare die Minister van Spoorweë en Hawes dat £1,800,000 op Leningsrekening gespaar is, tref elkeen as nie juis nie, omdat dit nie ҆n besparing is nie. Dit is geld wat gestem is deur die Parlement maar nie uitgegee of gespandeer is nie. En hierin sit my beswaar: “Waarom is die geld nie uitgegee of gespandeer op die doeleindes waarvoor die Parlement die gestem het nie?” Twee jaar gelede was deur die Parlement goedgekeur ’n baie doeltreffende skema van Spootrwegbou en Spoorweg uitbreiding in die verskillende dele van die Unie. Persoonlik het ek toen by die edelagbare die Minister van Spoorweë daarop aangedring om vinnig aan te gaan met die voorgestelde en goedgekeurde program en het daarop gewys dat dit verligting sou aanbring in die toestand van ernstige gedruktheid en werkloosheid wat toen heersend was. Dit is nie gedaan geword nie. Hier het ek gedink aan ’n goedkeurende lyn in my kiesafdeling, die lyn van Senekal na Marquard. Van tyd tot tyd is die bou van hierdie lyn in uitsig gehou, maar dit het tothiertoe maar gebly by opmetings. Die geld, is gestem, as dit uitgegee was vir die aangewese doel, dan was daar vandag veel minder werkloosheid en ellende in die land. Dit is nie reg dat die Parlement jaar na jaar groot somme geld stem en dat dan die geld so gestem nie uitgegee word nie. Die edelagbare die Minister vra soveel geld as wat hy meen dat nodig is, en kan gespandeer word. Waarom dan word die gestemde geld nie vir die bedoelde pos uitgegee nie?

I wish to point out that this is not a general debate on the Railway Administration. I have allowed the Minister to make a statement with regard to the railway financial position—and I have allowed the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. C. W. Malan) to criticize it, but further to that the discussion must be confined entirely to the items appearing on the Estimates of Additional Expenditure.

Mr. Speaker, you have allowed the Minister of Railways to make a general statement and the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. C. W. Malan) to criticize that statement. I think the hon. members on these benches should also be allowed to make some remarks.

I think that would be the fairest way, for it only shows the difficulties of the Speaker when he gives the least latitude I will give the hon. member for Stamford Hill (Mr. Creswell) the same latitude.

I am sure the statement made by the Minister of Railways is pleasing to some in the House, but I would like to ask him for more information with regard to the saving of £1,750,000. The Minister of Railways stated that this saving was owing to the engineers not getting on with constructional work. That may be so, but I want the Minister of Railways to recognize that when these Estimates were framed, the Minister of Railways had a big say in the framing of them, and I think hon. members of this House well know how very conservative the Minister of Railways is in considering estimates. I am certain he would go through every item in the Estimates and cut the Estimates down almost to the lowest farthing. I want to ask the Minister of Railways, is it a fact that a £100,000 was saved on the vote for the Salt River Railway Works? When he was framing the Estimates last year, the Minister of Railways had the latest information in front of him, and had naturally knocked the vote down to the lowest penny, yet it is stated that there was a saving there of £100,000 on the original Estimates. I only ask this question for information, and if this is true, that there is a saving, I want to emphasize we do not want such savings, as it simply means more retrenchment and the continued working of short time. Every penny in the Estimates for this item should be spent to keep the men going. This is an important point on which we should have correct information. If saving has occurred at Salt River, there is no doubt that in a smaller degree it occurred in other places, such as Pretoria and Durban. I know the Minister of Railways is very keen on saving money. I had occasion to go through the railway workshops at Uitenhage some little time ago, and I found about £20,000’s worth of timber, which was cut up and already planed, and should have been used for the construction of coaches, yet it has been lying there for over-two years. I would like to ask the Minister of Railways if that stands for economy? This £20,000’s worth of timber had been lying there for over two years instead of being used for the purpose for which it was ordered and had been got ready for the construction of coaches. Yet numbers of these men were working short time. Surely it would have been sound economy to have had the wood used up in the construction of coaches. I believe this has also happened in almost every workshop throughout the country. There is another item: a paragraph appears that at normal times one per cent, is sufficient to cover the large expense for the conducting of the High Commissioner’s office in London. We take it for granted from the speeches of the Ministerial benches, that the great desire is to have as much as possible of our rolling stock constructed in this country and not imported from overseas. I would like to ask the Minister of Railways if he is in favour of the one per cent., for the conducting of the High Commissioner’s office, being augmented by special sums being voted over and above the one per cent. If so this is a very dangerous practice indeed. It has been argued on many occasions that the Railways had to pay more than their reasonable proportion of expenses, and if that is going to be the practice then the Railways are never going to pay. The Railways should pay their due share, but nothing over and above that. When the Minister of Railways was on this side of the House and in opposition there was no one keener to bring these matters before the House. Now, surely it is his duty again to see that the Railways and Harbours only pay their fair share of the High Commissioner’s office. Personally, I want to see the Railways put on a business footing, but I do not want to see them robbed, and that is what is happening to-day. They are called upon to pay more than their fair share, and I again ask the Minister if he is in favour of this. If I read the temper of this House right, then the temper is that we shall construct as much as possible of our requirements as possible in this country and import as little as possible.

Although one is not allowed to go into what are really budget matters, I should like to make a few remarks, and I also want to ask a few questions on important matters connected with the railway staff. I want to know if the Minister intends to make the short time system a permanent institution so far as the railway workshops are concerned. Is it to be understood that we shall continue to maintain our heavy and expensive machinery for the manufacture of rolling stock, and the Minister to continue a policy of permanent short time whilst continuing to import large quantities of railway material. There are many men who are not earning a living wage, of which the Minister is perhaps not aware, but what I am saying here is a statement of fact. But apart from that, it is grossly unfair to the hundreds of young men who are serving their time to be continually working short time, and it will handicap them considerably in their future career. Then there is another question as to whether it is to be a policy to order such railway requirements as are needed from Austria or China or Germany cheaper, because they can be cheaper in those countries. I want to know whether it is going to be the Minister’s policy to order these goods even from Timbucktoo if that should be cheaper, is it going to be his policy to buy things in the cheapest possible market, because if that is going to be his policy, then, the Minister is simply looking for trouble. It is grossly unfair to the workmen in this country and to the young men who are growing up. Another matter is in regard to what I call the dilution of labour policy in the railway workshops at Salt River. Would hon. members be surprised to hear that a deliberate policy has been commenced at this end of the Union in regard to the way in which work is done in the workshops. During the 12 years that I was there, there were not half a dozen bona fide natives in the workshops, whereas to-day they are there by the hundreds, and that is a very serious thing for the European race in this country. Now I can tell from practical experience what will happen. In the wagon shop two Europeans were working together and they have been split, and they have been given a native as a mate. I do not say that the native should not be employed, but what I do say is that you are going to cut the ground from underneath the more highly-civilized population of this country. It is not a question of black or white, it is a question of lower civilization, and it will be a bad day’s work for the Minister to do that. The work will ultimately be taken out of the hands of the Europeans, and put into the hands of a lower-class civilization. If you bring a cheaper class of labour into your railway workshops, then I say that there is very little future for the European youths. The Minister may talk of an economic wage, but I want to know whether the Minister is aware of all this, and I want to know what his policy is. And then there is another matter. Although we have to go into the Budget later on, I want to ask this question now. This is on the question of piece work. Does the Minister know that there is more dissatisfaction on the question of piece work on the railways now than there has ever been? The Minister may perhaps not know of the dissatisfaction which exists because of the continual cutting down of the schedule of piece-work prices, so that it is practically impossible for a man to do a decent job on the piece-work prices.

Where is this particular item on the Estimates?

I thought this might be raised on the vote for miscellaneous expenditure. I thought I might raise this question on that, and I am simply asking whether the Minister is aware of the great dissatisfaction. And then there is another small matter, if the Minister does not mind. Is it a fact that in many cases the rents of railway houses are being raised substantially—that some of the houses have been condemned as unfit for human habitation for years? Does not that mean a substantial reduction of pay for the men compelled to live in these houses? There are cases at Fraserburg Road and Laingsburg of men who have no option but to live there. I am putting these questions now so that I may get an answer during the present debate.

Ek wil nie op die algemene politiek van die Spoorweë ingaan nie, maar net die Minister ’n paar vraë stel en ’n wenk aan die hand gee. Ek sien onder diverse poste die bedrag van £41,915. Ek wil net aan die edelagbare die Minister vra of hy weet dat daar onder die werkmense, die Spoorwegamptenare, op Witbank groot ontevredenheid heers. Hulle het ’n protesvergadering gehou en is baie teleurgestel oor die ophef van die plaaslike toelae. Vir sommige beteken dit ’n vermindering oor die drie pond per maand. Ek kan die versekering gee dat die lewenskoste op Witbank baie hoog is, ek dink hoër as op enige andere plek in die Unie. Dit kom veral deur die steenkoolmyne rondom Witbank en die handelsregte wat daar bestaan. Die amptenare voel baie ontevrede daaroor, dat die plaaslike toelaë afgeneem is en ek hoop die edelagbare die Minister gaan die weer terug gee. Dis baie swaar vir getroude mense om sonder die toelaë ’n lewensbestaan te maak.

I would like to ask the Minister of Railways what his proposal is. We are asked to vote £5,380 to make up the railway administration share on the upkeep of the High Commissioner’s office in London. Is it the Minister’s intention that we should pay on the basis of so much material purchased through that office. One might have a large order put through expeditiously, but there would be very little work attached to it. On the other hand there might be a great deal of work with very little result. I want to ask the Minister whether it is not better to give a lump sum towards the upkeep of the High Commissioner’s office. Then there is another point which I wish to raise. This would fall under the Additional Estimates before the House. That is the cost of living allowance for the railway employees of Durban. I want to ask the Minister of Railways on what basis that cost of living allowance is granted. I particularly refer to the case of the railway and harbour employees in Durban. The reason why I ask this is some of these men get an allowance of 8d. a day according to their pay, which works out at 10s. per month. That 10s. per month is added to their emoluments in order to make up for the higher cost of living. Others get £1 per month. In the Transvaal they do not go on that basis. In the Transvaal all the employees get a flat rate of 4s. per day, which works out at about £5 per month, which is the local allowance. That is what they get in consideration of the higher cost of living. But here is the point, the Minister knows that the cost of living in Durban, as officially computed by the Government Census Statistics Department, is now equal to the cost of living in Johannesburg. The cost of living in Durban has increased until it is higher than the cost of living in Johannesburg, and yet in the whole of the Transvaal, not Johannesburg alone, all the railway employees get a cost of living allowance of 4s. a day which brings them out on something like £5 or £6 a month. In Durban, where the cost of living is higher, according to the Government figures, they get 8d. a day allowance up to about £1 or 30s. a month if they are getting wages on the higher scale. How does the hon. the Minister arrive at that? Does he think it is right; on what basis does he compute it? Another point I would like to ask the hon. the Minister to explain is this. If a man is stationed at Durban and working at Durban he gets the extra 1s. or 8d. a day allowance, as the case may be, but if that man is living in Durban and working outside on one of the suburban stations he does not get that amount. It is only confined to those stationed and working in Durban. In the Transvaal it is not confined to Johannesburg, but applies to the whole of the Transvaal. The cost of living in other parts of Natal is high, not as high as in Durban, it is true, but still considerably higher than many of the other towns in the Transvaal. Not for one moment do I suggest that the hon. the Minister should pull the Transvaal down; that, is the last thought to enter my head. Not for one minute am I suggesting that the Transvaal is getting too much, but what I do say is that the cost of living is higher in Durban. Why does he not treat Durban and Natal the same as he treats Johannesburg and the Transvaal, and why does he give them up-country 4s., which is no more than adequate, and in Durban give them 8d. up to 1s.? That seems to me extraordinary, I would like to have the hon. the Minister’s explanation. I would like him to try to defend and justify it. There has been a good deal of discussion and a good deal of heart burning. The Durban men were pleased to get this extra small allowance; they were glad to get anything and they, thought that the Government having accepted the principle, and having given them this extra 1s. a day or 8d., as the case, may be, they might be put on a proper footing. This is the first opportunity I have had of asking the hon. the Minister if he is prepared at the earliest opportunity to put the cost of living in Durban on an equal footing with the Transvaal? The second point is: why confine it to Durban? Why not extend it to Maritzburg and other towns in Natal as they have extended it from Johannesburg to the other parts of the Transvaal?

Ek wil onder die Minister se aandag bring, dat verlede jaar het ek gevra of, aangesien die toelaë so laag is, dit nie moontlik sou wees om die huishuur laer te maak vir Spoorwegbeamptes. In plaas daarvan is die huise gemeet en die mense moet volgens die maat betaal. Dit word gesê, dat die meeste £1 10s. meer moet betaal as vroeër, Ek beskou dit as onbillik. Nog iets: enige jare gelede; nog in die tyd van wyle Gen. Botha, is in my kiesafdeling witmense aangeneem as ongeoefende arbeiders, maar hulle word stadigaan vervang deur kaffers, sodat daar nou, al ruim soveel kaffers is as witmense. Aangesien daar soveel werkloosheid bestaan, ag ek dit verkeerd om kaffers in die plek van witmense te neem. ’n Ander saak is, maar wat hiermee verband hou, dat daar kom baie jong mense uit die skole en daar is geen werk vir hulle nie. Ons sal hulle moet uitvoer na elders ten einde werk te soek—hier is nie.

I see the hon. the Minister of Railways and Harbours has saved, according to his own figures, £1,882,000. I would like to ask whether he has saved this amount, or whether it is chiefly on account of money being voted for work which he has neglected to carry out? No. 2 is: I would like to ask the hon. the Minister of Railways and Harbours what amount he saved through importing the necessary things he requires for the railway. I believe he has been importing certain commodities from Germany? Now, I am not against doing international trade, but I object when there are unemployed in this country to orders being placed in countries, not because they are cheaper but because the Minister takes advantage of the currency in the different countries. We know full well that it is possible owing to other nations, either living on a lower economic standard or else owing to the currency being of a less value to get and purchase commodities cheaper from these countries. I would like to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to history. What does it tell us? It tells us that where a nation has exploited people living on a lower standard, it means the destruction of those living on the higher, and I think it is wrong of the hon. the Minister to neglect to execute and manufacture his requirements in this country, because he takes advantage of the low currency in Germany and in other countries. I was born in Britain, but I believe that every man who lives in South Africa should put South Africa first, and he should aim at building up this great country as one of the finest countries there is on the earth. It is impossible to carry out that ideal when the hon. the Minister is falling where other leaders in other nations have fallen, and that is to destroy his own civilization through exploiting those living on a lower scale.

I wish to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister to the awful condition under which many of our railway servants are living. I refer more particularly to the coloured people. In some places we see these people living under conditions which are a lasting disgrace to this country. No one can pass by in the train and see these things without feeling ashamed, and I hope the Minister will take this condition of things into serious consideration. There are a lot of cottages in the Harbour Division composed of tin and corrugated iron. The rooms are very small; in the summer time they are exceedingly hot and in the winter they are very very cold. There is no room even for a double bed in some of these houses, and I think we should see that these cottages are removed and proper quarters for our railway servants erected. I trust the Minister will see to it himself that something is done, and that the housing conditions of our people are given some consideration.

I wish to draw the Minister’s attention also to the condition of the natives in Port Elizabeth. I have told him before that the wages paid by the Harbours Department towards the men engaged in sea work was less than that paid to the men in stores, and the Minister answered me that it was not the case. I have verified my figures again, and I repeat the statement in this House that the Railway Department is paying the native very much less. The natives have no means of getting redress, they have no trade unions, and I know the Minister always takes the economical view, but I ask him to take this fact into consideration that these men have to travel to and from their locations and they get no concession from the Railways. I want to raise also another question, and that is this local allowance question. I respectfully submit to the Minister, I have no doubt that these economic conditions of the Railways made it necessary in his being stringent, but you cannot reduce rates and raise wages. I do ask the Minister to give consideration to the fact that the wages paid to the natives is not sufficient. I am simply speaking for these men because they have no voice to champion their interests. It cannot be said that I do this because I represent a railway constituency, for most of these men are in another constituency altogether. I would ask the Minister to go into this question again. The Minister once said he believed in giving the men a square, deal, but I would like to know who make the squares for these deals? I could give him the name of an eminent firm, and he could compare the wages they pay to the wages the Railway Department pay to the men on sea work. These men work under the six o’clock in the morning to the six o’clock at night system, and it is wrong to ask the men to do sea work at a wage which is not reasonable. If the Minister gives me the opportunity when he is in the district, I will give him the opportunity of investigating as to whether my figures are correct, or whether those which are supplied to him are correct. I hope the Minister will give the matter full consideration.

In reply to some of the matters which have been raised, I should like to state in regard to the question raised by the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. C. W. Malan) that, we have reduced the rates on agricultural products by £650,000 during the last three years. Investigations are now being made, and we hope to make a further reduction of half a million.

When will this come into operation?

I hope by the 1st of April. We are prepared to sacrifice half a million in the way of reduction of rates, and also to some little extent in regard to fares. We recognize that the rates are still high, but it is the policy of the Government to get rates down as much as possible. It is production and development we want in this country, and we realize that cheap transportation is necessary for that. We have reduced the rates on fodder for drought-stricken districts to a quarter. That ought to be sufficient. I do not think there is a railway on this earth which is charging these rates.

But, remember, you are a State railway.

But we must also remember that they have to pay their way. My hon. friend complains about the closing of stations. Well, we have had to do so in the past for the sake of economy. I know myself what an inconvenience it is to the neighbouring farmers, but as conditions improve and we pay off our debts., we shall gradually re-open them. As regards the transfer of some of the staff, we have had to transfer some of them from the non-paying branch lines to the paying main lines. I would remind my hon. friend that we are still losing every month, £30,000 on branch lines. Somebody has got to pay it. My hon. friend, when he gets into this billet, which will be open to him at some time or other, will realize this. As regards the suggestion that if we had gone to arbitration as to the price to be paid for the cold storage works at Durban that we would have paid less, I say that we would have had to pay more. They asked for £59,000, which is exactly the bond they owe to the Government, but we haggled over it and got them down from £59,000 to £52,000. It could have gone to arbitration, it would have been perfectly simple, but we would have paid more. In my opinion we would’ have paid over £60,000. It was an advantage to the Department to pay the amount we did. We had the support of the Advisory Board; they thought, it was high, but they said we should better get it for the purpose of development than let it slide. As regards loan funds, perhaps I ought not to have said that they were savings, but they have not been spent. Unfortunately, we in the Railway Department have made a mistake in the past, but I am going to try and remedy it. We have generally put more down in the loan funds than we have been able to spend. As regards the new lines, we have been pushing on with them as fast as possible, but when you have twenty such lines over the country, it is a difficult matter. As my hon. friend might know, we have just lately taken outside engineers on to get on with the work, and he may feel assured that we are trying, as far as possible, to find work for the men out of employment. With regard to the question as to the saving at Salt River works, I can say that, as far as I am concerned, I have no knowledge of it. There was a saving last year, but as to this year I cannot say. When we do not want rolling stock, it is not advisable to start on making carriages. The question has been raised as to the contributions made to the cost of the High Commissioner’s office. The position is that myself and the Minister of Finance met some time since. We had a conference, and we agreed to share the cost equally, the State paying half and the Railway Department half. I think we made a fair bargain as far as the railways are concerned. Unfortunately, the 1 per cent. does not cover all expenses, and I think that last year I had to ask for an extra £20,000. The method we have adopted is, I think, the only sound basis. Take any merchant in this town who has an office in London. He does as we do, and pays the cost of the London office by charging a commission on the goods he imports. I can assure you that the basis cannot be improved upon. Some hon. member expressed dissatisfaction—I think it was the hon. member for Witbank (Mr. de Villiers)—about the allowances made to the railway employees. I can assure you that this matter has been carefully investigated by the Public Service Commission, who produced figures which the Administration, after careful investigation, took as fair and just. As regards Witbank, a complaint was subsequently made, and we again went into the matter, and I may say we are’ quite satisfied that we are amply justified in the steps we took. With regard to the short-time system raised by the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Snow), I may say that the last thing we want to do is to make that system permanent. It is more costly, as there are the overhead expenses always going on. As the hon. member knows, we have gone on the short-time system in order to keep men employed. It would pay us better to put off six or seven hundred men and to put the others on full time, but, in considerations of the conditions of the country, we have kept them on. It would be a bad business for this country if the system became a rule.

But you import things.

We import a lot that we cannot get in this country. Objection has been raised to our buying in Germany, but the rails which we buy are not made in this country, and we pay 30 per cent, less than in Britain. Whenever we can place an order in this country we do so The next important point raised is that of the employment of natives in the workshops. That is the first I have heard of this, and I shall go into it. I rather sympathize with the hon. member who raised this point. As regards the piece-work system, this is the first time I have heard any dissatisfaction with regard to it Let me say at once that, with regard to the rent of railway cottages, I have before me a report of the Committee which sat in 1919 in regard to these rents, and there they state that it is common knowledge that the rent of railway cottages are from £3 to £5 less than those outside. We have gone into the matter, and we find that taking maintenance at 3 per cent., depreciation at 1/2 per cent., sanitary charges, etc., at 1.25, and interest on capital at 4 per cent., it works out at 8.7 per cent., which it costs us. Taking this into consideration, we lose £88,000 per year on our house property. Do you expect that we can go on subsidizing a small portion of the staff at the cost of the railways? It would be rather rough at present to raise the rent to the full extent, and we said we would raise it half, cutting off £44,000 of the loss. The highest increase on any building has been £1 14s. 3d. per month, and the other figures are mostly 17s., 15s., 12s. 6d., 6s. 10d., etc. We have been extremely moderate. For these houses to pay what they cost us in the shape of interest, etc., I think that we are quite justified in what we have done. The hon. member for Durban (Greyville) (Mr. Boydell) raised the question of local allowances. These local allowances were based on salaries. At Durban we simply followed the figures of the Public Service Commission, and they went thoroughly into the matter. We took advantage of their recommendation, and it was on that basis we gave these allowances. The hon. member says that it costs as much in Durban to live as on the Rand. We often hear these statements made, but when you get down to bedrock and examine the figures you find that they are not borne out. The figures were most carefully examined, and we think we have gone as far as we can. It costs, us £21,000 to pay these allowances. I think I have answered all the points raised, and I think we should now go into Committee.

What about the point I raised?

I will enquire into it.

Motion put and agreed to; House to go in Committee now.

House in Committee.

Expenditure from Revenue Funds.

Head 15, £100, “Interest on Superannuation and other Funds—Railways,” put and agreed to.

On Head 17, £211,915, “Miscellaneous Expenditure-Railways,”

The Minister of Railways has just replied to a question of mine and a more foolish reply I have never received. He said the Public Service Commission had gone into the figures very carefully. The figures on which my statement was made are figures appearing in the reports of the Census Statistical Department, which are published every month showing the cost of living in every town. If he wants proof of the cost of living, I have got the proof here and I will read it to him if he likes. This is on food, fuel, light and rent. The index figure for Durban is 1287. The index figure for the Witwatersrand is 1256. The increase in the cost of living in Durban according to the these figures is 36 per cent, and on the Witwatersrand according to the same figures it is 17 per cent. Will the Minister deny this. The fact of the matter is this. The Public Service Commission went into this question. They did not deny the cost of living in Durban was as high as in Johannesburg. But what they did was to give Durban as little as they thought Durban would be satisfied with. They gave as little as they could. They started with 8d, per day and it goes up to about 1s. per day. Now I want to ask the Minister if he considers, seeing that the figures, his own figures, show that the cost of living is higher in Durban than in Johannesburg, that it is fair to give in Durban 10s. per month to the low paid man and £1 per month to the higher paid man, while £5 per month is paid to all the Transvaal, where the cost of living is less. Then a single man in Durban does not get a cost of living allowance at all. In the Transvaal they all get it. Then there is another point. If a man is living in Durban but working outside, he does not get it. It is most extraordinary. The railwaymen living in Durban but working outside Durban., do not get it. I hope the Minister will go, into this matter personally; if so, he will have to admit the justice and the fairness of the claim. He cannot get away from his own figures. The Public Service Commission did not attempt to justify this small allowance on its merits. They gave as low an amount as possible and the Minister brought the railwaymen into line, and he says “we do it because we follow the example of the Public Service Commission.” The Minister can get all the evidence he wants on this point. It is all before him. How can it be justified? It is no use the Minister challenging or denying this. He can read the evidence for himself. I want to ask the Minister if he will take steps to alter it. The men in Durban and Natal have raised this frequently, and it will be raised time and again until justice is done. I am now asking the Minister to make up his mind to do something in the matter, and as soon as he does so the better it will be for everybody.

I am glad the Minister of Railways has made a promise to go into the questions of piecework and the employment, of natives. I can tell him that he is misinformed on the question of rents. In most cases these houses are the only available houses in the neighbourhood. Take the case of Fraserburg Road. The men have to live there in those houses or otherwise they have to go into the open veld, and I might tell the Minister that some of these houses were built over 30 years ago, and have been paid for over and over again. Yet we know now that these rents have been substantially increased. It is not a small matter at all, as the Minister said. Fifteen shillings a month is a large matter for a man on small pay. These men have to struggle desperately hard to keep going, and this sort of thing is grossly unfair. In regard to all this talk about private enterprise, let me remind the Minister that in private enterprise the landlord sometimes gets done out of his rent, but where men are living on railway property the Government never lose anything. It is a very serious matter for these men. They are compelled to live in these out-of-the-way places, and on top of that to come and increase the rent is nothing more nor less than to make a decrease in their pay, and I hope the Minister will go very carefully into this question also.

I would like to ask the hon. the Minister whether, in addition to the amount that he pays to the High Commissioner’s office, it is not a fact that he also has to contribute to the representative on the Continent? Also whether Mr. Spilhaus, as our representative in Germany, did not do the transactions with Germany and why he then allotted the amounts which he has stated to the High Commissioner when the High Commissioner had nothing to do with it?

May I have a word with the hon. the Minister of Railways? It is on this question of rents. May I know from the hon. the Minister whether he is applying this percentage increase all round? Does it apply to every house that is owned by the Railway Department, and to which railway employees? May I particularize? Does he apply this percentage increase to those cottages to which my hon. friend the member for Cape Town (Gardens) (Dr. Forsyth) was referring, viz., those tin shanties—they are nothing more—tin ‘shanties which are situated just outside Ebenezer Road Station on the Sea Point line? The Minster ought not to be charging any rent at all for those cottages; they are the most disgraceful exhibition of mismanagement and gross carelessness on the part of the Minister that it is possible for us—[Hon. Members: “Order!”]

Order. I am afraid the hon. member is not in order. I do not see anything with regard to rent raised in the Head now before the Committee.

Mr. Chairman, those houses are let in order either—

Which item is the hon. member speaking on? The hon. member is referring to rent. I do not see any reference to rent in the Estimates now before the Committee.

It is under “Miscellaneous Expenditure.”

If the hon. member will refer to the explanation in the note below, he will see the items which may now be discussed; and I do not see “rent” amongst them.

Only in this way—and I put it for your consideration—that the Minister would have to ask for considerably more if he could not raise the rents.

No, no.

You do not permit me, then?

No.

Then l will take another opportunity, when you will agree that I am right in attacking the Minister on this question. There are one or two other matters which are mentioned in the explanation to which I want to address myself. I notice that the Minister has got here the remainder of the additional amount to be voted: (a) £20,976. The House will agree that there is a paucity of information there; you have a globular figure there, nearly £21,000, and the Minister in any airy, breezy way dismisses it and asks us to dismiss it, or, rather, to agree to ask him to dismiss it. There is in the vote provision for bad debts and sundry losses, £2.905. Now, I think, the Committee ought to address itself particularly to that item, because it may be that we have incurred bad debts and sundry losses owing to the maladministration of the Railway Department; it may be that the Minister will tell the Committee if we are to impeach him—[Hon. Members: “Order!”] I am assuming that he is telling the truth. I have never accused the Minister of never telling the truth, so he is trying hard to do so. It may be that it is mismanagement on the part of the Minister of Railways and his staff that we have incurred bad debts and sundry losses, and we should take the most meticulous care of matters of this description before we lightly and airily pass them as if they were of no account at all, especially when, in order to meet this increased expenditure, you have to raise the rents of such miserable shanties as you have at Ebenezer Road, where the lavatory is 6 feet from the kitchen door, and the sanitary authorities would shut them up if they were privately owned without any equivocation at all. When we realize that men are being discharged in order to square the ledger, it behoves us to enquire most closely into matters like this. When we realize that men have to be working short time, that men have to be working under-waged, that men have to be working on starvation wages in order that these little items shall be met, I say it is a matter for this Committee to take the most careful consideration, and serious consideration, of; and I do urge upon this Committee that they trounce the Minister for every act that he performs in the direction of raising rents and not supplying suitable, decent and healthy sanitary accommodation for his employees. They have not the right to use the rent of those shanties.

Order! The hon. member may not discuss the question of rents.

I am not discussing it. I am only trying to show why they should not try to raise the rents.

The hon. member should not try to evade my ruling.

I am not trying to evade your ruling, Sir, or go against it. What I am trying to do, and I have every right to do, is to draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that we are incurring bad debts and sundry losses and are asked to vote increased amounts in order to meet assets which are written out of capital account, while on the other hand we are raising the rents of the houses that the poor unfortunates are living in and who have to provide the money we are asked to vote. I hope the Committee will not pass such things as this until we have a clear, explanation from the Minister, and an undertaking from him that he will raze those houses to the ground and build new homes that he can decently charge a rent for.

Where we got all those bad debts from it is impossible for me to say now. Let me remind my hon. friend the member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) that all these are set our in full in the report of the Auditor-General.

But we are passing the money.

Yes, but my hon. friend, does he think that we have stolen it? He will give me credit for that. We may have been careless. I do not say we were. Each of those matters will be investigated and set out in the report of the Auditor-General next year.

It will be too late then.

What can we do? Does my hon. friend want to now charge me with it?

I want to know about it.

I cannot give the hon. member the particulars right away.

Then the hon. the Minister is not doing his job.

About the amount written out of capital account then. These items are sometimes for buildings. For instance, let me give the hon. member an example. If we find a building is of no use for some reason or another, perhaps change of traffic or direction of traffic, and we have to take that building down, possibly to remove it to another place, that is an item which has to be taken out of capital. It is decreasing capital and we have to replace that capital by a payment from the revenue account. That is the position. Then we often charge labour costs to this account. For instance, we widened the Pankop line on the Springbok Flats. We took up those rails and now have laid them down in another part of the country. The original labour cost of laying the Pankop line will be written out of capital account and of course will be made good out of revenue. They are all small items, but in the aggregate they amount up. As regards the matter raised by the hon. member about the rents—

I am sorry I cannot allow that.

Perhaps another opportunity will occur. I think my hon. friend, the member for Durban (Greyville) (Mr. Boydell), will have to wait another opportunity, and I will go further into this matter of the cost of living.

I cannot follow.

It is impossible for me to have all the details before me now; I can only say, as I said before, that we followed the report and figures of the Public Service Commission. My hon. friend, in his figures, simply took the cost of articles; they also took into account the matter of rents. I have told the Committee the manner we arrived at it. We followed the figures of the Public Service Commission.

We do not know where we are. These figures which are sent round to us are published as a guide to the circumstances in these various areas. Wages are based on them and now the Minister tells us that he has some particular index figures of his own.

No, I didn’t say that.

These are the Government’s official figures. We are not supplied with the Commission’s figures, we have to go by these. As between town and town, such figures represent the index number in regard to light, rent, fuel and food.

Why are the figures higher in Durban?

I do not know why, but I know that they are. Here we have these facts and the Minister passes them over by saying that he has got some Public Service Commission figures. That is not at all satisfactory. And not at all satisfactory to the men themselves. The Minister has spoken of having a surplus of a million and a quarter, and he has told us that that has to go to wipe off deficit, but we think it should also go to wipe off the deficit incurred by these people through the cost of living. When this matter was considered by the public servants and the railway servants, the Public Service Commission estimated that the cost of living was altogether higher than what it had been and was on a par with the Rand. Whatever may have been the position of the Minister’s colleague, the Minister of Finance, it must be remembered that the Minister of Railways is at the head of a big industrial concern, and it has a surplus of a million and a quarter. I hope the Minister will look into this matter and see his way to put these people in a position which corresponds to their cost of living.

The Public Service Commission used these very self-same figures. They are the only figures available in this country for basing wages on. The Chamber of Mines use these figures, so do the Durban Municipality for the rise and fall they pay to their employees. The Typographical Union does the same. The Public Service Commission used these self-same figures, and the Commission estimated that on the figures for food, fuel, light and rent the cost of living in Durban was higher than on the Witwatersrand, but what the Public Service Commission did not do was that it did not grant a sufficient local allowance which would meet the position. I might tell the Minister that the public servants themselves in Durban were insulted when the Public Service Commission offered them the small local allowance of 20 per cent. They were not going to refuse it—who would refuse a pound a month? They accepted it, and then the Railway Department comes along, limping lamely behind, and when the railway employees asked the Railway Department to grant them, an allowance they only received the allowance which the public servants got. The public servants and the railway servants are not getting the figures they are entitled to. I would ask the Minister to give this matter his personal attention and make a more equitable adjustment than that which is given by the local allowance. Surely, it is a fair and just appeal. Surely the Minister will go into it himself and find out; can he not make a more equitable adjustment which will be a fair deal. I hope the Minister will give me a promise to go into this and see what can be done, so that a greater measure of justice will be given to the public servants and railway servants in Natal.

I will promise to go into it, but I will not promise anything further.

Then that is the first step, and I will leave it to the railway employees to make the next step.

I would also like a promise from the Minister, and it is this: when he next compares the prices for his requirements for the Union of South Africa with the prices paid overseas that he will take into consideration that he has to pay half the cost of the High Commissioner’s office in London and albo a large amount to our representative on the Continent, and if he will add the percentage which he has allotted to his different commodities he will find that the cost is not the same in the Union as overseas.

It will not amount to more than half.

Then I hope he will give it, and then we shall know where we stand.

Head put and agreed to.

Head No. 27, £7,622, “Miscellaneous Expenditure—Harbours”, put and agreed to;

Estimates of Additional Expenditure from the Railway and Harbour Fund to be reported without amendment.

Expenditure from Loan Funds.

On Head 1, “Construction of Railways, £285”,

I see that the hon. the Minister is putting up a brick station at Vijgekraal. I take no exception to that, but I ask him if he has had time to inspect Monument Station.

I went down personally to inspect Monument Station, and we will see if we cannot make some improvements.

I would like to ask the Minister whether, in view of the shortage of construction engineers which we are suffering from, he has employed any of the young University graduates on any of the new lines?

I notice that a small piece of work has been undertaken at Monument Station, making the place very comfortable for foot passengers. At Sea Point a similar piece of work would be very much appreciated.

Head put and agreed to.

Head 6, £78,000, “Unforeseen Works”, put and agreed to.

Estimates of Additional Expenditure from Loan Funds to be reported without amendment.

House Resumed.

The Chairman reported the Estimates of Additional Expenditure from the Railway and Harbour Fund and from Loan Funds without amendment.

Report considered and adopted and a Bill brought up

I move—

The two amend mentis depend on each other.

Are they consequential?

Yes. My reason for moving these amendments is this. Under the clause as it now stands independent and individual’ members of a trade can only apply for a conciliation board if there is no organization which, in the opinion of the Minister, sufficiently represents them. Now, I think that this is not a principle which the House should adopt. I opposed it when in Committee and I wish to press my objections at this stage of the Bill once more. The result of this provision as it now stands is this, that if there is a small organization of a trades union or of employers, although they represent a very small proportion of the men or the masters in that trade, the men or the masters in the trades who do not belong to the organization cannot be heard in any dispute and have no means of laying their points before the conciliation board. Take another case. Suppose there is an organization and there is a split among the members of that organization, then, although the large bulk of the members of the organization may be among those who have left the organization, they cannot be heard in any dispute whatever because they do not belong to the organization to which perhaps only a few members belong. The hardship is magnified by the provisions of Clause 4, which lay it down that if there is an organization registered, which in the opinion of the registrar sufficiently represents the men who are employees in the trade, then no fresh organization can be registered so that those people who do not belong to an organization cannot even form a new organization to be heard, and while they do not belong to an organization they cannot be heard before a conciliation board, nor have they any means whatever of placing their views before the board. Take another case. Supposing that the men or the masters who do not belong to the organization are not satisfied with the conditions of affairs which prevail at any moment. The members of the organization may be perfectly well satisfied. Yet, although the men or the masters who do not belong to the organization may be more than the men who do belong to the organization, they have no means whatsoever of placing their grievances before the conciliation board. These are the reasons why I move these amendments, and they have the effect of allowing the members of a trade, where the employees do not belong to an organization, to get an opportunity of applying for a conciliation board. That is the effect. In moving these amendments, I wish to withdraw part of the amendment that I gave notice of on page 195. I do not think the second part of that amendment is required, so I would like to withdraw all the words appearing on page 195 after the word “employees” in the first line. That amendment then will be simply—

I second. I think this an amendment that the hon. the Minister might very well accept, because the qualifying words exist in the clause after “number of employees,” “considered by the Minister to be sufficiently representative in that area.” He would not be obliged to appoint a board merely on the demand of a few irresponsible members of any particular trade. He would only grant that request if the members of that trade making a request were considered by him to be sufficiently representative of the trade, so that I do not think any great harm would be done by consenting to the deletion of the words as suggested by the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Webber), that is the words “or if there be no such organization.” If there is an organization, however small, however weak, however unrepresentative, then the Minister is debarred by the presence of the words sought to be deleted from granting the request. Now that organization according to the text of the Bill as it now stands need not be registered. I know the Bill provides that within three months a trade union shall apply for registration. I know that the Act shall provide that failure to apply shall be treated as an offence. Yet, nevertheless, there will be considerable reluctance to apply the provisions of the criminal law to persons who do not register. In any case the trade union need not register for three months, and perhaps may fail to register for a considerable period after that time; yet as the Act now-stands the mere existence of any organization, however weak, however unrepresentative—it may be in process of dissolution, it may be moribund—but still as long as it exists (and it is rather a difficult task to determine whether or not it does exist or at what stage it can be said to have died), so long as it may be said to exist on paper, then the Minister would be debarred from calling, into existence the machinery provided by this particular clause. He can call this machinery into existence at the behest of the employer even though the employer does not belong to any organization, but if the employee or body of employees are not grouped together in some organization, then they are left without a weapon. I myself, as hon. members know, am one who has always strongly favoured all employees joining proper-unions, but at the same time there may be certain circumstances where it may be impossible. Take the state of affairs in the mining industry on the Rand to-day. We know that the South African Mine Workers’ Union has been in an almost defunct and moribund condition since the revolution. We know that the number of its financial members is very small in proportion to the numbers of underground workers in the industry. I hope that state of affairs will not continue, but we must recognize the facts as they exist at the present day. So long as that union has any sort of existence, however small it may be, it can bar the way to a large number of mine workers in that industry obtaining redress under this clause. I think this state of affairs is unsound, and I think the amendment of the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Webber) is one that should be accepted by this House.

I think in this matter as in most matters there are two ways of killing a thing. One way is to kill it outright, and the other is to kill it by kindness. I am not at all surprised at the amendment which the hon. member has moved, the effect of which would be to nullify the utility of this Bill. It is up to those people who move to delete these words to tell us how a conciliation board could be appointed without the use of the organizations which are spoken of here. It is obvious that if there were no organizations there would be no conciliation board. There could not be a strike without organization. The word organization is not defined as a trade union. Furthermore a provision exists by which a trade union if it is not sufficiently representative can only receive a partial representation on the conciliation board. Unless when a dispute occurs the Minister knows some responsible person to whom he can send his officer with a view to investigation, he will have to deal with a mob, with no one in authority. How can he negotiate for a conciliation board to be appointed under such circumstances? I hold that this amendment is conceived in a spirit of persecution to trade unionism.

No, no.

This has been conceived from outside.

No, it has not.

Does the hon. member want me to believe that this has emanated from his own great brain? I know that the suggestion was made a long time ago from outside that we should cut out all recognition of trade unionism in this Bill. It is the same antagonism which killed the Industrial Dispute Bill in the Transvaal. This amendment is a slight on trade unionism, and I advise the hon. member to withdraw it if he wishes the Bill to be a success. The Minister will have a lot of trouble through this clause. When signs of trouble appear this clause is going to lead to endless confusion. You will have all sorts of conciliation boards set up for the same disputes, and there will be no finality to the dispute. When any trade union in this country has remedied a grievance, everyone outside the union has always been ready to share in the benefits that have resulted. They get these benefits on the cheap. They are blacklegs at heart, but they are always ready to take the benefits which have been obtained through the activity of the trade unions.

I hope the Minister will not accept this amendment. Some hon. members who have spoken have practically told the House that there must be a trade union and nothing else. There must be a trade union or an organization. They do not necessarily mean the same thing. When it comes to a question of conciliation, and when there is danger of not getting industrial peace, you make use of the organization. The Minister at any time of industrial strife may state that he could not deal with the organization as he did not think the organization was sufficiently representative, and was applying to other people to intervene. By doing that he was inflaming passion. Is this amendment going to lead to industrial conciliation or not? Personally, I think it will lead to industrial warfare. In industrial warfare, as in any other kind of warfare, you must deal with organized bodies, and not with individuals. You are encouraging members to remain outside of the organization by giving them recognition. For both master and employees the best thing they could do for the country is to join their own unions. In some parts of the world a law has been passed that if a man does not belong to his union, and if that union manages to get benefits, he is not allowed to take advantage of these benefits. It has been laid down by law in these countries that no non-member is allowed to share in the benefits which only apply to those who are in the organization. The more we encourage men to join unions the better it is, because when you have a body of organized workmen you have less difficulty in settling disputes. It is because you have had so many unorganized workmen in the past that you had so much difficulty. I want to ask a question with regard to the Government Printing Works at Pretoria. On the last occasion I read a telegram from the technical staff asking to be excluded, and afterwards I received a telegram from the Typographical Union stating, “Telegram re exclusion of G.P.W. from Conciliation Bill entirely unauthorized, no works meeting having been held.” The hon. member for Pretoria East (Mr. Giovanetti) has received a telegram from the technical staff again wanting to be excluded. I should like to know from the hon. the Minister what is the position, as it is certainly confusing.

The hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Webber) has stated that supposing there were a split in the organization that that was one of his reasons for introducing his amendments. Does the hon. member know why these splits have occurred in the past? Does the hon. member know what is at the bottom of these splits in the trade union movement? He will find that when splits occur it is largely on account of personal ambition and jealousy, and not on account of principle at all. We have certain individuals who split from the parent organization and form other organizations. That has happened in the past, and that is happening to-day. I suppose the hon. member is not concerned with the internal broils of the trade unions; he is not concerned with the question whether Tom Jones is to be secretary or John Smith the president, and whether someone else is going out to form an organization on his own. He also says that under the clause as it now stands, if people do not belong to an organization they cannot be heard. They can be heard if they are only as loyal to their organization as the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Webber) and the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) are to theirs. They can be heard if the workers are only as loyal to their own organizations as the professional class are to their organizations, and they can speak with one voice with all the more effect than if they are speaking with half a dozen voices. The hon. member says that the effect of his amendment will be to allow the men who do not belong to organizations to apply for a board. The effect will be chaos in regard to conciliation matters in South Africa. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) has spoken of the confusion arising in regard to representations from Pretoria, and he says that that is one of the reasons in favour of the amendment. It is one of the reasons why we should not vote for this. If there were one body speaking for these men we, Parliament, would know what is wanted, but because there are two or three bodies this House is left in a state of uncertainy as to what should be done. There is no doubt that if you have half-a-dozen different organizations intending to speak for one industry, there is going to be chaos and misunderstanding. That can be the only possible effect. Various arguments, various views on different questions instead of them all coming together and letting one view go forward to a conciliation board, but where you have various views, various organizations with various views and one organization on the part of the employers, you have then less chance of ever coming to an agreement. These men are not permitted to belong to one organization representing that industry and thrashing out their own differences inside that organization and coming to some common agreement, and letting that common agreement go before the conciliation beard. You will never have settlement at all. The men have to thrash out their own grievances in their own organizations instead of having half-a-dozen different representatives and half-a-dozen unions speaking with half-a-dozen different voices, how are you going to get it to settle? It will lead to absolute chaos and the breakaway of men who are not satisfied with the findings of the conciliation board. They in turn will form another organization and want another conciliation board, and if somebody else is dissatisfied you will have another breakaway, and they will have the right to ask for another conciliation board. For goodness sake try to let us arrive at this position if we are out sincerely and conscientiously to make conciliation a success. Let us bring as representative a body as we possibly can on the side of the employers, able to speak for the mass of the employers as a whole, and let us do all we possibly can to see that we have a representative body on the side of the workers able to speak for the men in the industry. For goodness sake let us have two bodies sitting together and not half-a-dozen organizations on one side trying to deal with the differences of opinion on the other. If the hon. members will think it over they will realize that the only hope of success in this matter is to have representative bodies on both sides and bring as many matters under the scope of this Bill, and give conciliation a chance in this country, and see if we can arrive at some method of conciliation and some method of peace between employers and employed.

I quite agree with the arguments put up by the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston) and the hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Sampson) that if this Bill is going to be a success, you must look to the organizations and make them as representative and as responsible as possible. That is at the basis of the whole thing. It seems to me, however, that with regard to the amendment there is some confusion. Sub-section (1) of this clause deals with who can apply for a board, not how the board is to be constituted. That is the object of sub-section (2). Clause 4 only says who shall apply for a board, and it is left to the discretion of the Minister whether he shall grant such a beard or not. Now it seems to me that it will make very little difference who applies for the board. The important matter is really how to constitute a board under sub-section (2), and if the argument of the hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Sampson) and the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston), and to a certain extent the hon. member for Cape Town (Castle) (Mr. Alexander), really are germane to sub-section (2) of this clause. Now, I think that it would be unwise to limit the parties who can apply for a conciliation board. Take the case of a trade union being in existence, which, for some reason or another, is against conciliation, and do not apply. Or a case arises in connection with a man who is outside. The trade union does not want to take up his case; a matter of principle may be involved, and the hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Sampson) was very anxious, and is repeating his amendment here to widen the discretion of the Minister and to say that in no case not even when it is an individual application, no application be made because he wants to have the field for application as wide as possible so that the amendment of the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Webber) now seems to me to be in the sense of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Sampson) that he wants the field for application to be as wide as possible,

No, the pretext.

Yes, but I am putting the case. Supposing the trade union takes up the narrow view and says we will never deal with this dispute or with a dispute if it touches one of our own members, and you have a number of employees outside who do not belong to that organization, if it is a trade union, and we limit it to trade unions, then again the organization on the other side would have been stronger, to my mind, because there you have a trade union registered on the books and so on, but an organization is something very much more than that. It may be an organization ad hoc. It may be an organization ad hoc merely for this dispute, and you may have a trade union not taking any action, and you have an organization outside who want a conciliation board, but then they cannot apply. The difficulty has been pointed out, but that is not the object of this clause here, that you may have two people applying in the same area and the same industry. That is dealt with in subsection 2. If the outsiders apply, you can go to the trade union and say: “You will have a part representation on this conciliation board.’ The point really arises in Clause 14. If you encourage the establishment of more than one trade union in an area, then, of course, you will have the difficulty in having two trade unions applying, and it will make it a much more difficult matter than if it were one organization. In view of the fact that this deals with who shall apply, I think I shall be justified in accepting this amendment. Then you say that a trade union can apply, or an organization can apply, or outside people, if they are sufficiently represented, can apply. If you get an application by any of these, then sub-section (2) comes into operation and you proceed to form your board. The Minister must have only one board for one particular area. I am prepared to accept the amendment.

I am sorry indeed that the Minister has signified his intention of accepting this amendment, because I had believed hitherto that his sole object was to bring about what we wanted on these benches that this Bill shall be a conciliation Bill. The hon. the Minister has known enough of industrial troubles and does not realize that this is going to be one of the things which is going to be a bone of contention as between the organized men and the un-organized men? It is competent for us to immediately enquire into the motives that underlie this amendment. Why is it that the hon. member who moved the amendment and the other hon. member who supported him—I am glad that only one member has supported him—have seen fit to ask this House to remove in the eyes of the House and the Government the preference from the trade union which might be particularly concerned. What we are asking for is conciliation, what we are asking for is a building up in anticipation that you shall have good feelings between the governing party in the country and the trade union concerned. But when the governing party says: “We look upon you as one of the ruck” you set up friction which will prevent any settlement. The Minister did strain rather our credulity in the instances he quoted. He said “you may have an ad hoc organization” He knows as well as I do that there is no such thing; there cannot be any such thing.

The hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Sampson) says there can be.

You want to stop the continuance of organizations such as trade unions, to throw the whole thing into the melting pot, break up the organizations and reduce the whole of the industrial world to a state of chaos—every man’s hand against his brother. Our point of view is that you have to render every inducement you can get to bear to get all these men into an organization. You are either in favour of trade unions or you are not—there is no halfway house. If you are in favour of trade unions encourage them, but I suppose they must be trade unions after your own heart. Some members stand committed not to support the amendment, not that they object to trade unions themselves but that they are acting for those who advised them—the Chamber of Mines.

May I rise to a point of order?, Is the hon. member in order in insinuating that I or any member is acting on behalf of the Chamber of Mines? I consider that a gross insult.

I do not insinuate that the hon. member has been briefed by the Chamber of Mines. If he looks at it in that way I withdraw the statement, as I had no intention of charging him as appearing here as a paid representative of the Chamber of Mines.

Not their representative, paid or unpaid.

I claim to appear here as representing the trade unions, and I am not ashamed of it. If the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) is ashamed—

I am prepared to say that I do not appear here on behalf of the Chamber of Mines. I never had any connection, direct or indirect, professionally or otherwise, with the Chamber of Mines.

No, I think the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) must in fairness accept the repudiation of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) of the fact that he specially represents the industry represented by the Chamber of Mines.

Certainly. Again there seems to be a misunderstanding. I said that I directly represent the trade unions here, and I am not ashamed of it. I shall say no more about it, but I repeat that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout’s (Mr. Blackwell’s) point of view closely coincides, absolutely coincides, with the point of view held by the Chamber of Mines, and I leave it at that—and the hon. member can make what he likes of it. If he feels any heart-burning about it—well, I am sorry, that is his fault and not mine. Now I reiterate that we have the right to enquire into the motives underlying the remarks of these hon. members, and I say that the object of these hon. members, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) and the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Webber) is not to build up trade unions, not to help them or support them, but to break them down. It is the old story! They are insidious in their methods in this direction, and perhaps it is as well—it has strengthened trade unions, not only in this country but in every other country in the world—and I am speaking for myself—I would rather have trade unions formed in spite of the opposition of the boss, than because of the favourable opinion of the boss; because you will have a stronger organization then, standing on its own feet on behalf of the principle of trade unionism and not because they think the boss agrees with it, and they are prepared to toady to the boss. That is my personal opinion. But it is most remarkable that the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Webber) and the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) are the two men in this House to stand up and advocate any reference at all, any support, any favouritism to detached individuals. They more than anybody else in their walks of life have to belong to their own particular trade union. They are bound to belong to it by law—they insist upon it by law.

The hon. member is wrong in my case.

They have to appear in the courts before they can be admitted, but nobody in the ordinary trade union circle has to do that. It is a purely voluntary arrangement.

So is mine.

A man cannot get any work if he does not, and that is pressure of an extraordinarily potent character.

There are many men who do not and are earning a good living all the same.

That is not the hon. member’s fault. Now, this is only one other phase of that constant warfare that is going on between employees and those who hold the same views as the employers, who are so well represented in this House on the other side. We know the views of those who do not belong to the organizations, but who want to get the benefit of these organizations on the cheap. And only recently we had an instance of it. Here is the Chamber of Mines, whose viewpoint is held by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell).

I do not even know what their viewpoint is.

They can rely upon the hon. member all the same, as surely as though their viewpoint were written out on the desk in, front of the hon. member. Here we have an instance of what the Chamber of Mines does. Only recently—and the Minister knows it—the Chamber deliberately went out of its way to try and split up the Engine Drivers’ Union, and they tried to take advantage of the personal jealousies and disappointments, to

ERRATA.

WEEKLY EDITION No. 4.

Page309.—In lines 3 and 4, first column—for “ het edele lid voor Lichtenburg (de hr. Roos) ” read “ het edele lid voor Hoopstad (de hr. Conroy) ”,

WEEKLY EDITION No. 5.

Page 418.—In line 9, first column—for “ second time ” read “ third time ”.

WEKELIKSE UITGAVE No. 4.

Bl. 309.—In regels 3 en 4. eerste kolom—in plaats van “ het edele voor Lichtenburg (de hr. Roos) ” lees “ het edele lid voor Hoopstad (de hr. Conroy) ”.

WEKELIKSE UITGAVE No. 5.

Bl. 418.—In regel 9, eerste kolom—in plaats van “ second time ” lees “ third time”.

which my hon. friend the member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston) has referred. They took advantage of that personal jealousy of a man in the trade union to get him to endeavour to form a rival and opposite organization out of the same men, but he was not successful. The men, thank Heaven, are beginning to realize the tremendous import of remaining loyal to their trade organization. This is an instance, and the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) will understand its importance. He was unsuccessful, but the effort was there, and now there is another effort being made. I want to be perfectly frank, as I have said. When we had a Recognition of Trade Unions Bill once before in this House, I do not care whether you recognize trade unions or you do not recognize trade unions, as soon as men become sufficiently educated in their own interests and have realized the advantages and the benefits to be derived from trade union organizations, they will become members, they will become stronger, and then your employers can remain on the other side, and you have the one pitted against the other, two strong bodies which must inevitably bring about equilibrium between them. That is the attitude I take up, and if I were to consult my own feelings with regard to trade unions themselves, so far as they are concerned, I would whole-heartedly support the amendment of the hon. member over there, because it is going to make for the complete failure of this Conciliation Bill, and by having constant conciliation, constant boards and constant consultations, all the sharp edges are going to be rubbed off, and I am surprised my hon., friends over there do not see the advantage it is going to be to them and in, the end men will be prepared to negotiate on things on which they would absolutely refuse to accept under other conditions, when their spirit was of a different kind. But I have also realized that I am a member of Parliament, I have also realized that it is bad for us to be faced with industrial strife in the country. God knows I have enough experience of it, and I know what it means, both to the men, concerned, to the employers, and to the general public of the country, especially if the strike is of a widespread character. I understand that, only too well, and because of that, as a representative of the people, in the House, I am prepared to do everything I can to make this conciliation measure a real conciliation measure, and in these circumstances I am going to oppose tooth and nail the amendment moved by the hon. gentleman, and I hope even now the hon. the Minister will be prepared to reconsider his position in the light of the arguments put before him, and understand that no good purpose is going to be served by conciliation. Rather is he going to start bickerings and opposition arid personal feeling between man and man, and man and organization, and the result, in the pregnant words of the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston) is going to be absolute chaos.

I am very sorry that the Minister has not accepted this amendment. He seems to be going in a ’steady decline. When the Bill left the Select Committee it read—

and so on. Then during the recess the Minister listened to people who wanted to make it wider.

It was only as to the party who can put in the application.

The last two lines.

“Any number of Employees”; the same seductive voices prevailed. That left with the Minister a preference for the trade union organization or any other Organization, shops committees, or any regular organization, but now this has gone by the board and men who are outside any organization are entirely on an equal footing with the trade union for the purpose of application.

Business interrupted by, Mr. Speaker at 10.55 p.m.; debate to be resumed to-morrow.