I move—

Agreed to.

Bill read a second time; House to go into Committee now.

On the face of it, from what the Minister said regarding the prices this Bill will enable the farmers to get for their grain it sounds a very useful Bill and they will seize it as they will any straw in the face of a crisis, such as we are passing through, when they think they are getting something that may afford some relief. Ostensibly this Bill offers some help to stabilize the position to some extent, it holds out the hope of increased prices for their wheat and the possibility of a freer sale; but in fact this Bill means absolutely nothing. The Minister has the best of advice at his command, has all the available figures and the knowledge of his experts, but I cannot conceive his being in earnest when he wants to tell the farmers that any advantage whatever is going to accrue to them by the passing of this Bill. He gives his case away when he says that he will not control flour and that the landed cost of flour will control the position. It is just as well that the country and the wheat farmers should realize what that is going to mean. On Saturday, according to the Board of Trade, the price of wheat was approximately 23s. 7d. a bag by parcel; that is, by 100 tons, or a cargo, 22s. 10d., which sounds quite remunerative a price and quite promising if the farmer is going to get that by the assistance of this Bill, and seems to be a ray of sunshine on the horizon. But what are the facts? The price of flour to-day f.o.r., that is including duty and landing charges, is 15s. 10d. per 100 pounds, and if you translate that into wheat value it means 19s. to 19s. 6d. per bag for f.a.q. wheat. From what I can gather, and I have made very careful enquiries, there is only about 40 per cent. of the wheat in this country equal to f.a.q. Australian wheat. The real meaning of this Bill to the farmer is that he cannot get more than 19s. to 19s. 6d. for his wheat, even if the Minister takes the powers conferred on him by the Bill. If a wheat pool is formed and an attempt is made to hold the price on the basis of the landed cost of Australian wheat there will not be one single bag of wheat ground in this country, because the whole of the demand will be met by imported flour at 15s. 10d. per 100 lbs. Here I may say that contracts are offering for six months at that price. The Government themselves instituted experiments as to the cost of growing wheat. They found that it cost 21s. 9d. to produce a bag of wheat at Malmesbury under Western Province conditions, and yet the Minister introduces a Bill which will give the farmers 19s. 6d. The farmers have a right to expect more protection from the Government. Further, the Bill is going to act as an irritant to the consumer. The consumer is very suspicious, and very naturally so, over the introduction of this Bill. What good is this Bill? You upset the consumer, and you give the farmer no benefit. Can the Minister give any reason for going on with it? There is only one step that should be taken—I am not going to move it because the Minister has indicated that he will not accept it—and that is that the Minister should include flour. What is the position of the farmer? He is having burdens tied on his shoulders one after another. Look at the last Rhodesian convention. When the farmers asked for a bounty on meat they were told that the Government could not accept the principle of a bounty. Yet the Minister has given the manufacturers a bounty of 12 per cent. under the Rhodesian agreement. Surely the farmers have an equal right to a bounty on the marketing of their products. Is the shoe always going to be on one foot? Manufacturers are protected more heavily than any other section of the community. Take boots and cotton blankets as examples. Yet this Bill does not give an iota of protection to the farmer. The wheat grower has a right to ask the Minister to give him the same protection which he has given to other sections of the community. I hope the Minister will be perfectly honest in his reply, and will say that he knows his Bill means nothing, that it is merely a sop which will bring no relief to the wheat farmer, and I hope that he will include flour because that is the only possible means by which relief can be given to the wheat grower in this country. There is going to be a very serious state of affairs in this country as far as the wheat farmers are concerned if relief is not given. You cannot give the farmer protection against world prices with regard to his wool, fruit, maize and wattle bark, but here the Minister has got an opportunity. Here is an article with regard to which he can give relief by protective measures. [Time limit.]

I move—

I think it would allay a good deal of feeling amongst the public if it were put into the Bill. It would also make the position clearer between the millers and farmers. In effect the farmer will get a price for equal quality, the same price as that paid for Australian wheat. One would almost think from hearing remarks made in this House that the wheat farmer is not protected, but under this clause of mine he is still protected to the extent of about 6s. 6d. per bag. Surely that is sufficient. If it is not, then we want to tackle the problem from the other end. I hope the Minister will accept this amendment. It is what the Minister stated had been requested. They have complained, but I do not think their complaints have been correctly based. I am informed that at the conference between the millers and the farmers, the millers stated that for equal quality to Australian wheat they were prepared to pay an equal price. The milling industry, with all deference to remarks made against it, is an important industry. The charge made against the millers of not giving a fair price is unfounded. We have had a farmers’ co-operative mill, and last season they did not pay as much as the other mills. I dare say that the regulations framed under the Bill will be reasonable, but I think we should know just where we are, and for that reason I move the amendment.

I hope the Minister will not accept the hon. member’s amendment, because it would mean nothing else than that the Bill would be completely impotent. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. McIlwraith) as we know wants the grade of wheat to be fixed by the millers, on sale. Every farmer brings his wheat and if some of it is bad, then the millers only pay the lowest price, which would be paid for the bad portion. We know that at present there is good grading of wheat in the country, and if we pass the amendment the result will be that the millers will have an absolutely free hand in regard to wheat. I also hope that the Minister will not agree to this amendment. As for the speech of the hon. member for Griqualand (Mr. Gilson), if he feels so strongly that the Minister ought to have more power, why does he not make a proposal ?

Will you support it?

Are you speaking for yourself or on behalf of your party? The hon. member asks whether I will support such a motion. My reply is that I will support any measure which is intended to give the farmer still further protection than what is proposed in the Bill. The title of the Bill only refers to wheat, but if a responsible member, like the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts), introduces a drastic proposal on behalf of his party that not only wheat but also flour should come under this Bill, then such a proposal would certainly receive the careful consideration of this side of the House. My view is that in this matter we cannot at all give the Minister enough power. In last night’s Argus there was an important report on the Canadian wheat market. It describes the conflict between the wheat buyers in Great Britain and other European countries and the Canadian farmers. The latter lost the fight, and the price consequently dropped lower than ever before. With reference to that report the Argus had interviews with several Cape Town millers. One prominent miller says this—

He then continues—

He says further that they will be prepared to close down their mills if it is cheaper to import Australian flour. Another important miller expressed the same opinion and said—

It is therefore clear that we cannot expect the millers—and we can expect nothing else from them as business men who want to make money— if they do better business by importing flour, to mill our wheat. What, in any case, stops a group of millers, or financiers, buying a few ship-loads of flour in Australia and dumping it on our markets? We may possibly hereafter take steps to prevent it, but then the damage will have been done. If the hon. member for Standerton, on behalf of his party, asks for the Bill to be altered to also get control over the introduction of flour, then such a motion will be welcomed by me. I am certain that with a view to the spirit prevailing amongst the millers, and the low prices prevailing, there is still a danger for the industry if the Bill is passed as it stands to-day.

I hope the Committee will consider this amendment of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. McIlwraith). I do not think he will be surprised by the information of the hon. member for Pretoria (District) (Mr. Oost), because the amendment could have a coach and horses driven through it in any event. The Minister was clear that there was a margin between the price of South African grown wheat and overseas wheat of the same quality, and owing to the fact that we have such a lot of South African wheat, the farmer is in a position of having to sell, even though at less than for the same quality of overseas wheat. The amendment proposed protects him against unfair competition, while it also prevents the price of wheat being kept up artificially; and therefore protects the consumers’ interests. Will the hon. Minister explain: is he going to protect the farmer against unfair competition, or is he going further to protect the wheat farmer to such an extent that he will get a much higher price than the quality of his wheat deserves compared with the world price. That is the position we want elucidated. We are drifting into the situation that we are going beyond taxing the wheat farmer so that his prices do not get forced down by a heavy supply resulting in his being made to sell his product for less than it is worth. I agree with this, but if the intention of the Government is that, in order to protect one wheat farmer thousands of people have to pay much more for their bread, then that is going too far. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) wanted to protect the wheat farmer from unfair competition, and I hope the Minister will agree.

I sincerely trust the member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. McIlwraith) will not press this amendment, but will withdraw it. I do not want to go over my speech made at the second reading, but I showed there that this Bill was not strong enough, because it did not prohibit importation of foreign flour. If the amendment goes through, I am sure it will seriously impair the effectiveness of the Bill, because it really leaves the control in the hands of the millers. They have merely to say there is not sufficient first-grade wheat in the country and allow Australian wheat to come in uncontrolled. Our difficulty in this country is disposing of our second-grade wheat. I wish hon. members of this House would realize that this is a very serious matter for the farmers. Second-grade wheat does not necessarily mean inferior flour. It may indicate that a less amount of flour will be milled from an equal quantity of wheat. What happens to Australian second-grade wheat? Is it thrown away? No, they send the best overseas in the same way as we send the best of our fruit overseas and consume the rest locally. Are we to allow thousands of hardworking farmers to be thrown out of work simply because people in this country might have to have a little more bran in their bread? In France they do not have a vintage year every year with their wines. What happens to the non-vintage wines? They are all used. The Government has a monopoly in France for their matches. They are not good matches, but people use them, and the Government keep a lot of people employed, and make something out of the industry too. I am against the amendment which has been proposed. The cry is always raised of dearer bread. We have seen wheat at 30s. per bag, and bread was the same price as it is to-day.

That is the trouble.

Yes, and that is the fact. This will not increase the price of bread. The hon. member for Boksburg (Mr. McMenamin) has pointed out that if a farmer gets £1 for his wheat, by the time it is delivered at the consumer’s door it costs £3 6s. 8d., and the middleman, or the baker, makes £2 6s. 8d. for an article for which the farmer gets only £1.

What about the railage ?

We farmers pay the railage, for the price of wheat is based on the distance from Cape Town. The further away the lower the price. Therefore, the farmer pays the railage. Yes, I would like the hon. member who interrupted to know that the farmer pays for the railage and not the consumer. If we were to put up the price of wheat 10s. per bag, I do not think it would increase the price of bread. It has been proved in the past that when the price of wheat comes down, the price of bread does not come down with it. I sympathize with the consumer. We farmers are consumers. We are the greatest consumers in the country, and we are the only portion of the community who have to buy retail and sell wholesale. What I object to is hon. members on the cross-benches painting us as ogres, like those dreadful pictures one saw in the war of profiteers depicted as fat men with top hats, heavy watchchains, bloated and gelatinous, who sit on bags of money. No, the picture should be of a very lean, hungry, thin, emaciated man with tired and troubled eyes. If I might use the horsecoper’s term, “herring gutted.” In fact, Mr. Chairman, I offer myself as an example, and sitting, not on bags at gold, but upon a bag of wheat, marked down to 19s. 6d. The point is this: that the farmer who produces the wheat. probably only has fresh bread twice a week. The consumer, however, must have his fresh bread every morning. It must be delivered at his door by a Ford lorry, and booked up, and the bill sent in at the end of the month, and when a loaf of bread costs him 8d. he grumbles. It is not that the cost of wheat is too high, but that all this extra work has to be done for him. If he were to fetch his own bread, and occasionally eat stale bread, he would get his loaf probably 1d. to 2d. cheaper, and even more if he had stale bread. The consumer wants his bread fresh. All good luck to him. Why should he not have it? But he should not complain if he has to pay extra for it, or blame the cost of primary production of the wheat. We farmers have to fetch our groceries 20 and 30 miles, why can’t the consumer fetch his bread and save 1d. or more on the loaf? The hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge), benign, kindly, and, if I might say so, rotund, talks about the interest of the consumer, and of the sweated labour in towns. Does he realize that his breakfast toast is produced as the result of the sweated labour of the farmers? Does he realize that the farmer who does his own sowing works 16 hours a day, and if anyone in this world is sweated, he is. I hope the hon. member will withdraw his amendment. As regards the hon. member for Pretoria (District) (Mr. Oost), he says: “Why does not the South African party put up an amendment?” He knows as well as I do that, if we did, we should be voted down. He knows that our amendment would be to strengthen the Bill by prohibiting imported flour, but the mere fact of our proposing an amendment, which would be negatived by the Government, would be misconstrued by his side in the platteland and deliberately twisted into giving the idea that we were against the Bill, which we are not. We only want to make it more favourable to the farmers.

I think the House will feel, and those who support the second reading of this Bill and are in sympathy with the object to be achieved, that it will not be possible to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Mr. McIlwraith) As has been pointed out by the hon. member for Bredasdorp (Maj. van der Byl), if the amendment is accepted, we only protect, to a certain extent, a fair average quality of wheat. What about the other qualities which have been used in the past by the millers in this country and turned into flour for consumption by the people of the country? Our desire is to assist the farmers in the disposal of their second quality, yet still good quality, wheat, as well as the average good quality wheat. The hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford) supports the amendment and asks about the consumer. The consumer is not affected by this Bill one bit, because we do not deal with the question of flour. If I had to accept the view which has been put forward by the hon. member for Griqualand (Mr. Gilson), if that was the feeling of the House, that we should also deal with flour, if the Bill was administered foolishly by the Minister, it is possible that it would mean an increase to the consumer. While we leave flour untouched, this Bill will not affect the consumer one bit. The question of the interests of the consumer does not come in at all. What is our difficulty in connection with the wheat question? In 1926 the whole question was investigated, and Parliament then decided on a measure of protection which could reasonably be given to the wheat farmer and to the milling industry. We have legislation which was intended to protect both the wheat farmer and the milling industry. We have adopted a policy of encouraging the milling industry, and for that reason there has always been a margin of protection for the wheat farmer and the milling industry so as to make it profitable to use South African wheat instead of importing flour. The suggestion has been made that we should increase that margin of protection between wheat and flour. An attempt was made to introduce that question and to give a certain protection to the millers. As I have told the House, I refuse to have anything to do with a bargain of that kind. I told the millers that if they said the position was changed, that question would have to be examined apart from the other. I have instructed the Board of Trade to go into it, but the question of the margin of protection between miller and farmer Parliament must deal with. As a result of the protection granted, for a number of years bread has been sold in this country at a certain price. Then you had a drop in the wheat market in consequence of which prices for wheat in South Africa started to decline. Then representations were made by wheat farmers pointing out that the position must be enquired into again, and that the Government would have to be prepared to increase the protection. That question was investigated by the Board of Trade and Industries, who have sent us a report based on the prices ruling at the time for wheat imported into this country. When the Government considered that report, we thought it was quite reasonable on the part of the farmers to expect an increased protection, and that if it were given, it would not entail a rise in the price of bread. As a result of the acceptance of that report by the Government, I put on the Order Paper a motion which, if passed by this House, will result in a small increase of protection to the wheat farmer. Then the question arose of a new position generally created in this country, under which the farmers were not getting the Australian price. This Bill is not intended to increase the protection to the farmer. Since then, there has been a further decline in the price of wheat in the world’s markets, and we shall have to ask ourselves whether we will not be called upon to review the position again. I could understand hon. members objecting to such a course if there were a prospect of bread coming down. If, as a result, we were going to have cheaper bread, then I could appreciate the argument that we should let the consumer have the benefit. But what do we find? Prices coming down continually. The farmer does not get the benefit, and the consumer does not get the benefit. What we intend to achieve by this Bill is merely to deal with the situation as between farmer and miller, a situation under which the farmer has not been getting what he is entitled to expect.

You have to tackle flour.

I maintain that this Bill will be a very useful measure,

because I cannot imagine that the millers will be so unpatriotic, while there is an adequate margin of protection, as to ruin their own milling industry merely to spite the farmers or the Government.

Speculators are importing flour.

He has got protection. He can always undersell the speculator. There is an adequate margin of protection between the imported price of wheat and the imported price of flour. That is the position to-day. The milling industry has been carried on successfully, competing successfully with the importers of flour, and why should this position arise suddenly? Let me say again that the question of the margin of protection between wheat and flour must stand by itself, and be considered by itself. I cannot, for a moment, appreciate the sudden necessity which has apparently arisen to increase that margin of protection, a margin which was found adequate until now. I ask hon. members to give this Bill a trial. If you once interfere with these economic laws, all sorts of difficulties arise. I submit it was proved the other day that we can anticipate a certain measure of good from this Bill which deals with the particular question it purports to deal with. The position will have to be examined further, and, if we find that the farmer can get further protection without increasing the price of bread, then that question can be dealt with. This Bill, I submit, is going to be a very useful Bill.

I am very pleased the Minister is standing firm, and will not apply the prohibition of export to flour, but at the same time I cannot see why the amendment of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. McIlwraith) should not be accepted. The amendment only guarantees that people will get good quality bread, because, if there is not sufficient good quality wheat in the country it can be imported, and, in any case, the consumer will have to pay top price for his bread. If the farmers do not produce a first-class wheat, they cannot expect the public to buy the bread produced from it at a first-class price. So long as the Government leaves the consumer in the hands of the rings, including the millers and the bakers, then we have cause for complaint. If the Government will fix prices and guarantee that bread will not be unduly high, then I do not mind what happens. Some people seem to think that this is a question between the millers and the farmers. It is nothing of the sort, the one most interested is the consumer, who has to pay in the finish. If the Government will take advantage of the report of the Board of Trade, and reorganize the baking industry, quite a lot of grievances will disappear. It is all very well to talk about the patriotism of the millers. I have not been able to perceive any of it in their attitude for the past 10 years or more. The whole point is that so long as the Government leaves us at the mercy of these people, we have cause for complaint. Once the Government fixes a price for bread, we have none.

If the Bill is to have any effect at all, it will be nullified by the acceptance of that amendment; this clause will not have the effect the Minister desires, and he should consider some amendment which will enable it to have that effect. He says he does not want to interfere with the economic law, but he is doing so all the time, wherever he imposes a duty. He is doing so here. If he does interfere, let him do it so as clearly to help the farmer. The hon. member for Bredasdorp (Maj. van der Byl) seems to complain about our attitude on these benches towards the farmer, but we are anxious all the time to help him; at the same time to help the consumer. Under this clause, supposing the Minister controls importation, the farmer has still to sell his wheat to the miller, who is perfectly at liberty to reduce his price to the farmer to recoup himself. For this the Minister does not seem to make provision. This matter is being dealt with by way of hasty legislation instead of a complete arrangement being made. If the Minister really wants to protect the farmers, as I am sure he does, he should do so by giving them a bounty. If he wants to protect himself, he can do so by making a provision for every miller using a certain quantity of wheat, having to use a certain proportion produced in South Africa. I fear, in the light of experience, by this present clause you will be giving an excuse to the miller, the speculator in flour and the baker to put up the price of bread. The farmer is understood to co-operate with the miller, but he should do so with the consumer.

There is no question about it that the amendment of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. McIlwraith) is the logical application of the Minister’s assurance in his second reading speech; at the same time, I agree with the hon. member for Bredasdorp (Maj. van der Byl) and the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) that the amendment will affect the usefulness of the Bill and place it in the hands of the millers, and not of the Minister, whether flour shall be imported. It is no use placing this Bill on the statute book if its application is to be left entirely in the hands of the millers. Having accepted the principle of the Bill, with the assurance of the Minister that he does not and will not touch the price of imported flour, I am supporting this Bill. I have yet to appreciate how the farmer is receiving any protection at all as a result of this measure, but it seems to me, as the result of the last intervention of the Minister, the effect is not to ensure that the farmer received a protection of 6s. 6d. per bag on the same quality of wheat as is sold in Australia, but to ensure that a low standard of wheat finds a market by the millers of this country. The Minister has told us of the intention to give some measure of protection to the lesser qualities of wheat. The hon. member for Bredasdorp interjected when the hon. member for Boksburg (Mr. McMenamin) was speaking that “business is business,” and “you cannot expect patriotism from the millers.” That is perfectly true. Business is business, and the whole basis of the Minister’s second reading speech and for intervention is that the millers were prepared to give 2s. or more per bag for Australian wheat than for the South African article. Why? If business is business, the miller must be a fool.

That is used as a means of depressing the price here.

If that is so, all we have is that the miller, although not prepared to buy South African wheat, is offering 2s. less than would have been the cost of the Australian wheat, but he is not buying Australian wheat. The Minister never for a single instant suggested that the miller was buying the same quality of Australian wheat and paying 2s. a bag more than he could pay in this country. From what I can see the effect of this Bill will be this. We have got supplies, I do not say of bad quality wheat, but of second grade or inferior wheat, for it is inferior to this extent that you do not get the same amount of flour out of a bag of second grade wheat as out of a bag of good quality wheat. It is not wheat that the millers sell, it is flour. Therefore, it is inferior. It has a lesser return. The Minister has indicated that he wants to ensure a market for this second grade wheat. What the Minister will do is to prevent the importation of Australian wheat so long as there is any wheat at all in stock in South Africa. But at what price will he allow it to be sold? Will he suggest that the miller must pay the same price for the second grade wheat in this country that he pays for Australian wheat, plus our protection of 4s.? If that is so, it is bound to affect the price of bread, because the miller must get flour, and it is no use suggesting that the miller has the remedy in his hands, and that he can always import flour, unless he can come out on it. The hon. the Minister of the Interior recently gave notice to impose regulations on the importation of flour. It will mean before we can have the flour imported, one will have to see that the mills in foreign parts, such as Australia, grind the meal specially for the South African market.

They do so.

Have they done so since the Minister has excluded bleached flour ?

They are making arrangements.

They will have to mill it particularly for the South African market. The miller will not know at what price the flour will be sold and at that date he would not buy in advance. He will have to request that the mills grind especially for the South African market and deliver in two or three months’ time. I am very much afraid that the protection the farmer will get is (despite the assurance of the Minister of Finance) that the miller will have to pay for second grade or inferior wheat produced by the South African farmers, the same price as first quality wheat from Australia. That is a protection which is going to reflect upon the consumer, and I am not at all satisfied if such is the case, that it will not be reflected in an increase in the price of bread to the consumer. However, I feel that the Minister has given us the assurance that the consumer is amply protected by the free importation of flour. I am prepared to give this protection, such as it is, if the danger of an increased price which the consumer will have to pay can be averted.

I should like to ask the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. McIlwraith) not to press his amendment. We give very large powers to the Minister under Clause 1 and under Clause 2 the Minister has the power of making regulations. I think we must leave it to the discretion of the Minister to make regulations in connection with the matters the hon. member mentions. I would rather fall into the hands of the Minister than into those of a millers’ ring. It will be the Minister’s responsibility to make regulations bearing in mind the local conditions. The amendment of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) gives too much power to a certain class of business people, and he ought rather to leave it to the Minister to issue regulations. I only wish to add this. The Minister has very rightly referred to the margin which is left between the tax on flour, and the tax on wheat. He will know that when the Bill was introduced to apply this tax, I took up a very strong attitude, that we do not make a big enough distinction between the duty on wheat and that on flour. The difference ought to be much greater, so that the duty on flour will be much higher than that on wheat. The price of flour fixes the price of wheat. We cannot get away from that. It is the whole weakness of this Bill that the millers will not pay more for the wheat than that for which flour can be imported under existing circumstances. Allowance is of course made for the milling, etc. To-day the position is that they can sell flour at a price which will put the price of wheat at a £1 a bag. If the millers have to pay more then they do something which is economically unsound. There is no doubt that the price of flour regulates that of wheat, and for this reason the Bill will not much assist the wheat industry. If the Minister wants to put it on a sound basis a different scheme will have to be thought out.

I just want to try to throw a little light on the matter. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. McIlwraith) is constantly hammering on second-class wheat. I maintain that this Bill is not at all intended to exercise any influence on second-class wheat. The Bill arose because the position was such that wheat was imported at 21s. and 22s. 6d., while the farmers in our country could only obtain a lower price. Now it is represented here as if our wheat were of an entirely different quality to the imported article. Let me make it clear that that is quite a wrong impression. In the most extreme case the difference between good first-class South African wheat, and the best Australian wheat, is perhaps 2 or 2½ per cent, in flour. The impression created as if Australian wheat contains so much more flour is entirely a fiction of the millers, and quite wrong. The hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) spoke about the latest duties that were imposed. I just want to ask him whether he has worked out the relation between the protection of wheat and flour. I just want to make it plain that 285 lbs. of wheat produces 200 lbs. of flour, i.e. that 70 per cent. of the wheat is turned into flour. If the protection on a bag of wheat of 200 lbs. is 4s., it will work out at 5s. 6d. to 6s. for the 285 lbs. of wheat that produced 200 lbs. of flour, while the protection on 200 lbs. of flour is 8s. Unless unfair dumping takes place, which no protection can prevent, the proportion is not so very fair. I think there is a good difference. We have heard from the Minister that the South African millers will probably act fairly towards the primary industry. If that takes place I reckon that there will be reasonably fair business for millers and farmers, but I make bold to say that at present the millers have been acting unfairly. If that is so then I think it is the duty of the Government to see that the producer, as well as the consumer, is fairly treated.

I do not think it is necessary to say much about the amendment. I understand the Minister will not accept it. I have been struck by a phrase of the hon. member for Malmesbury (Mr, Bergh). He said: “If we accept this amendment, the farmers will know where they are.” I quite agree with him; they will know where they are. My real object is to ask if the House appreciated the results of the investigations recently undertaken by the Board of Trade which has gone into the matter fully and made certain recommendations. The report was laid upon the Table recently. I would like the House to realize what those recommendations are, because it cannot afford to ignore them. It says—

(b) The board recommends that the Minister should take power to regulate the importation of wheat and also, under certain circumstances, the importation of flour, in order to prevent the frustration of the objects of the Bill by the undue importation of flour.

I do not expect the House to listen to me, but I do expect it will listen to the Board of Trade. The board said that if you do not properly control flour you will frustrate the objects of the Bill by undue importation of flour. I think by the report alone, the Bill stands condemned. The hon. the Minister knows the position he is in and realizes that if he does not include flour in its provisions the Bill will be valueless to us. The hon. the Minister has spoken of the usefulness of the Bill; its usefulness is condemned by the Board of Trade’s report. Does he honestly believe that millers or merchants will or can give 2s. a bag more for our wheat than for the proportionate value of wheat imported in the form of flour? The Minister says: “I do not think the millers will be unpatriotic enough to import flour.” It is not the millers who will do that, it is the merchants. When the Bill is passed, imports of wheat will stop, and you will have shipload after shipload of flour pouring into this country. The duty on flour is more than the duty on wheat to-day, and yet it can be landed cheaper. Does the Minister expect all the improvements in his legislation to come from this side of the House? It has been said that if we put up an amendment, it will be accepted. I have been reading an interview described in the Cape Times with Mr. H. J. C. de Jager (Nationalist), who is reported to have said—

That is evidently the position that there are so few practical farmers that they cannot put pressure on the hon. the Minister to act in their interests. If you put any value on the recommendations of the Board of Trade, you will come to the conclusion that the Bill is useless unless the importation of flour is controlled.

I think that if there is one subject where, from the nature of things, we must try to avoid making party capital, it is matters of this kind which affect a large section of the farmers of South Africa very closely. But what do we find this afternoon? The hon. member for Griqualand (Mr. Gilson) has made an unfortunate, I might almost say a stupid, attack in the first place on the Minister and in the second place on this side of the House, because we do not share his views on this matter. Let me assure the hon. member that if this side were not convinced that the Bill would meet its purpose, we should he only too ready, and so would the Minister, to include flour in the Bill. The reason that is not done is because we are convinced that the powers here given to the Minister regarding the importation of wheat, are sufficient, in the present circumstances. But if the hon. member for Griqualand, and the hon. member for Bredasdorp (Maj. van der Byl) are so very strongly convinced that the Bill will not answer its purpose unless flour is included, why do they not move an amendment. They say that they are afraid that if they do so we will vote against it and make party capital out of it. No, that is not the reason why they dare not propose the amendment. If they did so, they would expose the views of the other side. Then only those two members, and possibly the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) would vote for the motion, but all the other members who represent towns would vote against it. They are not afraid that we will make political capital out of it, but they are afraid of their own weakness and defaults being exposed to light. We, on this side, are convinced that the Bill will answer its purpose, and if it does not do so, it will be time enough to take further steps. We know that the Government now in office looks after the interests of the public and of the farmers, and if circumstances require it, the necessary measures will be taken. As for the other charges against hon. members on this side, that we are practically nothing but lawyers, I would like to recommend the hon. member to correct his arithmetic a bit, and count how many farmers there are on the opposite side. All the talk that this side consists of nothing but attorneys has long since bored us, and the sooner the business men and the attorneys on that side stop such talk, the better.

I am not going to allow this case to become a political matter if I can help it. I am certain that the hon. Minister of Finance will appreciate my silence, knowing what I do. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I am sure he will appreciate my restraint after we have been taunted for not proposing an amendment. The hon. member for Boksburg (Mr. McMenamin) made a remark; that we expect to get the same price for second grade wheat as for first grade wheat. Nothing of the sort.

The same applies to bread.

All that we ask is that we be allowed to sell our wheat at a reasonable price. We do not expect to get the same price for second grade wheat as we get for first grade wheat. But I am surprised at such a suggestion coming from a member of the cross benches, or the left wing of the Government, One of the main stays of trades unionism is to try and make everybody equal, and that the third, fourth and fifth grade men should be paid the same price that is paid to the first grade men. I am surprised at such a suggestion coming from a trades unionist quarter.

Do you want to poison the public ?

By giving them a little more bran in their bread? Don’t be absurd, but I will come to that later. The hon. Minister put his finger on the matter when he said that it was a question of getting rid of our second grade wheat. We have 50 per cent. of second grade wheat in the country. It is not necessarily inferior in quality in regard to flour, but it does not give the same amount of flour per bag. The hon. Minister is quite right when he said that we must have a market for this grade of wheat. The hon. Minister has also said it is difficult, once you start interfering with economic laws, the law of supply and demand, and that you will have trouble. He must expect to have a little trouble, but for that reason do not let us throw it out. I made an interjection to the Minister about imported flour. I did not make that as a hostile interjection, I wanted information. The point is that millers will not import flour if they can help it. They would be killing their own trade. They have hundreds of thousands of pounds of capital invested, and they will not import flour if they can grind our wheat at a profit, for their business is to grind wheat. It will be the speculator and the storekeeper who will kill their trade. It will not be the miller who will import, but the speculator. I would like to ask how he is to be stopped from importing flour? It has been said that he will be stopped by the duty, but my point is that the world’s price for flour might fall to such an extent that he will be able to undercut locally grown wheat ground by our millers. I agree with what the hon. member for Griqualand (Mr. Gilson) has said in his very able plea for the wheat farmers. It is the speculator who will import the flour, and not the miller. The millers at least are a South African industry and are giving South Africans employment. They are a necessity to us, to grind our wheat. If it were not for the millers we should have to send our wheat overseas to be ground and bring it back again, which would ruin us. Therefore, if we break the millers, we break ourselves as well, for we must have someone to grind our wheat. I indicated in my second reading speech the danger I foresaw, if the world’s price of wheat went down, that flour would be imported into this country at a rate which South African ground flour could not compete against. That is my point. Since I warned the hon. Minister in that speech an article has appeared in the Cape Times of February 22nd to regard to cheaper flour from Australia. I shall not waste the time of the House by reading the article. In this morning’s paper a similar article appears. It says that 200,000,000 bushels of wheat are being held in Canada at the moment which can suddenly flood our market. I should like to point out that the whole world has been increasing its stocks of wheat since 1926 up to this year. Russian wheat is coming in for the first time since the war, and I fear that we can be flooded with flour ground overseas, in which case we shall not be able to sell our South African wheat. The Minister, in his second reading speech, told me that he was watching the position. I entirely accept his assurance. However, I want him to say how he will deal with this matter. Can he expeditiously control the situation? Can he do it quickly enough to stop speculators importing flour? I think we have rather missed the boat already by this Bill being introduced so late. The farmers have a bumper crop, and cannot sell it. Can the Minister stop importation of flour quickly enough if he sees that things are going wrong, and the country is being flooded with this imported article? He told us himself that Australia can get very much more for their bran than we can, about 7s. 6d., while we get from 4s. 6d. to 4s. 9d. Therefore they can mill wheat cheaper than our millers. I should like to ask how will he control the situation and deal with it, and if he has the machinery immediately at hand to do so if there is a danger of the country being flooded, so that the farmer can be protected adequately.

The hon. member has raised several important points and they must receive the attention of the Government. As has been pointed out, if there are new developments and the object we have in view can be defeated in that manner, our remedy should not be to stop the importation of flour It then becomes a question of whether our tariff is sufficient to meet the position. If Parliament is prepared to retain the wheat industry for this country, it will be possible for us to deal with the matter by giving notice in this House to alter these duties.

My amendment will facilitate the handling of the matter. The whole basis is on the price of wheat. When flour comes down, wheat will come down, and we cannot control the price of wheat any more than we can control the price of oranges. Let us tackle the question from the value of yield per morgen. Some farmers get from 30 to 40 bags per bag of seed others get five; in the Koeberg district they get 15. I am not unsympathetic to the farmer, but I want him to obtain a bigger yield per morgen. There has been a lot of loose talk on this subject, but no one will take up my challenge. It has been said that millers paid 25s. a bag for imported wheat, while they will not offer South African farmers more than 19s. Quality for quality, however, that is not the case. I proved last year that I personally offered a Caledon farmer to buy his wheat at the landed cost of Australian wheat, but he wanted 2s. a bag more. What fools millers would be to depress the price of South African wheat. No miller can afford to pay 5s. a bag more for wheat than his competitors pay. And if the large millers depressed the price of South African, then the Farmers’ Co-operative Mill would be in a fortunate position of having only cheap wheat to mill. The millers and the farmers have had a conference. I am sorry the results have not been published, but I hear that the farmers could not substantiate their statements. I am a competitor of the millers as I import small lots of flour and I am not in love with the millers, but I like to see them have a fair deal. With the leave of the House I will withdraw my amendment seeing that the Minister will not accept it.

With leave of the committee amendment withdrawn.

The hon. member for Griqualand (Mr. Gilson) accused us on this side of not being practical farmers. He gave a press interview which appeared in a newspaper, but I am concerned about the practical farmers on the opposite side of the House, —and I assume that the hon. member for Griqualand and the hon. member for Bredasdorp (Maj. van der Byl) are practical farmers, because they at least objected to the amendment of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. McIlwraith)—if they have to leave it to “a practical farmer,” like the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) to move an amendment here on their behalf. He moved it and withdrew it and now he is not in the House, but if the hon. member thinks that there was no ground for the statements of the farmers, that the millers have been guilty of certain practices, why then was there a conference in Cape Town between the millers and the farmers, and why could the millers give no explanation there about the difference of price from 4s. 6d. and 5s. to 6s. 8d. that there was between South African wheat and imported Australian wheat of the same quality. Why then did the millers offer to pay a higher price for our wheat if higher protection was given to flour? But what I would like to mention is that we, as farmers, must not foul our own nest. The hon. member for Griqualand says that only 40 per cent. of our wheat is first grade. The hon. member for Bredasdorp also says so. The one is the mouthpiece of the farmers opposite and the other represents a wheat district. They make that statement here, in spite of there being no grading system for our wheat. They say our wheat is bad, and then they are surprised that the millers want to exploit us. It is f.a.q. wheat which comes her from Australia. It is not first-grade wheat, and now the hon. members want to persuade the farmers that our wheat is poor. As long as we, as farmer members, permit it, and as long as the farmers opposite allow the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) to be their principal speaker, and introduce their amendment, things will not go right with the farmer, and they must not reproach us for not being practical farmers on this side of the House.

I am sorry the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. McIlwraith) has withdrawn his amendment. In its place I will move the following—

I am still of the same opinion that there must be some limit to the powers of the Government in regard to dealing with a very important commodity such as wheat. I dislike the Bill, but if we are going to have it I should prefer seeing a provision that a definte amount of South African wheat should be milled for every 100 lbs. of weight of Australian wheat. That would have got over the Minister’s difficulty of getting different qualities of South African wheat consumed; and the millers would know better where they were. You have the advantage of a more scientific method of putting South African wheat on the market. That is the Minister’s difficulty. We are sitting here with a very big wheat harvest, and the Minister very naturally wants, and the House is with him in that, to lift that wheat. The Minister’s argument is that the price of bread does not come down with the price of wheat. There are many things connected with a reduction of price. It is probably within the knowledge of the Minister that we have had wage determinations made by the Wage Board. There is no doubt whatever that the cost of milling and distribution, particularly the latter, has gone up very much owing to the wage determinations giving very high wages to certain people. Many persons engaged in delivering and making bread have seen in the course of the last 12 or 18 months their remuneration gone up 30, 40 and 50 per cent. It is quite clear that if you want to raise wages throughout the country the person who is going to pay for it is the consumer. For years we have explained that to the gentlemen on the other side of the House, and they have not appreciated it. Here is a concrete instance of how the thing works. If there had not been a fall in the price of wheat, there would have been an increase in the price of bread to pay for the increased wage determinations. My amendment is aimed at giving the wheat farmer a fair price for his wheat.

Why should he not get the world’s market price?

I do not mind it.

Your amendment would make it impossible.

If it does, I am perfectly willing to amend it in that regard. What I ask is that when the farmer can get 22s. a bag for his wheat, this Bill becomes inoperative, and he has to accept the world’s market price, provided it is 22s., and the Minister has no more power to control the importation of wheat, taking into consideration the duties put on. After listening to the speeches this afternoon the Minister will recognize why I am rather sceptical. I suggest the Minister will give a great deal of satisfaction to consumers if he will give them the assurance that he does not intend to control the price of flour. I hope he will accept my amendment. If its effect will go beyond what I have said, I will be only too pleased to alter it.

I regret I cannot accept the amendment. The hon. member will see that the state of affairs we want to remedy is where the farmer is not getting the world’s market price. He does not ask more, but he is entitled to claim nothing less. Here we find it is possible—I think it was accepted by the committee—that as a result of a number of circumstances for millers to depress local prices a few shillings per bag below the world’s market price. That is the state of affairs we are trying to cure, and that will not be achieved by the amendment, when prices may be still below the world’s market price.

I want to controvert the statement of the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford) that our dear bread is largely due to the operations of the Wage Act. The Minister of Agriculture the other day, in addressing a meeting of farmers, stated that the effect of the Wage Board determinations was that the price had been increased only by one-tenth of a penny per loaf, or one-twentieth of a penny per pound, so I do not think there is much in the hon. member’s argument about the Wage Board and dearer bread. At any rate, in Australia, where they are all working under Wage Board conditions, and only white men are employed, a two pound loaf costs 5½d. whereas we are paying 8d.

Amendment put and negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

On Clause 3,

I move—

It is agreed that this state of affairs is exceptional owing to vast harvests practically throughout the world. The same state of affairs is not likely to occur again. The conditions of this Bill are such that there is not another Bill on our statute book giving such autocratic powers to any man in the country. I think the Bill should be made returnable in February of next year, because at that time Parliament will be in session again and it can be re-enacted if necessary. I think it would be very unwise to leave it on the statute book permanently, and for that reason I move the amendment standing in my name.

I support the amendment of the hon. member who has just sat down. This Bill has been brought in to meet an extraordinary position, in that we have had heavy importations of wheat in a year that we have had a record harvest and that is not likely to occur again. I think this matter is so important that it should be left in the hands of Parliament in the way the hon. member has proposed. The wheat farmers have altogether too much influence in this House in proportion to their numbers, especially when you consider the fact that for every wheat farmer you benefit, you injure many other people. It would be very useful if Parliament had to consider this matter again next year. The Minister of Finance has told us that he refused to agree to a bargain suggested by the farmers and millers, but he will not be always there and other Ministers may be more pliable. The Government will, no doubt, have great pressure brought to bear upon it to continue the Bill, and it will be very difficult to resist this pressure. The strength of the wheat farmers is such that we find that hon. members whose urban constituents are badly treated by this Bill do not open their mouths, and are absolutely obedient to the party whip. I think the amendment will be useful not only to the country but also to the Minister, for if the Minister has got to come to Parliament next year to re-enact this Bill, it will assist him to resist the pressure which undoubtedly will be brought to bear upon him, and the publicity will be a protection for bread consumers.

I support this amendment. I have not intervened in the debate because I thought that under the exceptional circumstances the farmers should be helped, but I think the powers that the Minister asks for in this Bill are such that the measure should be passed for one year only. There is no doubt that we must accept the position that the world’s market tor wheat is falling, and we must face the fact that if prices were operating at the level in South Africa which the world’s market dictates, then the South African consumer would get the benefit. Having regard to the fact that the wheat farmers have a right to some protection, we are prepared to give them consideration and to support the Bill. It is, however, fair to say that the Bill should be for one year only. The consumers have their rights, and they are not altogether protected by the provision which enables flour to come in under certain circumstances. To-day there is a depression in this country, and that depression will have to take its course, but in ordinary circumstances economic laws come into play, so that when you have a depression, you also have falling prices, and lesser wages are compensated for by lower prices. But under our protectionist system, the economic laws do not work. In order to minimize the ill-effects of this Bill because you are protecting wheat, which represents the staff of life, I think the amendment to make the measure operative for 12 months should be agreed to.

Will the Minister accept this amendment ?

I am not prepared to accept it.

The Minister this afternoon told us that this is emergency legislation as a result of special conditions which exist at the present moment. He went further and he told us that there is probably going to be another change in the situation. That being the case, surely the Minister should take up the position that on the statement he has made to the House he should review the whole position and introduce legislation to deal with the whole position. Why not accept the amendment to provide that the Bill shall come to an end next year, which will give the Minister an opportunity of dealing with the matter as a whole later ?

I am unable to accept the amendment. We have had experience of this sort of legislation before. Parliament has been asked two or three times to provide for a situation in this way which has lasted for ten years. Eventually we said no, this sort of thing must end. Next year probably the same position will obtain, and I do not think we should occupy four or five days during the next session of Parliament discussing the matter again. Our experience has shown that it is very easy for the millers to take advantage of the position and depress the prices. That will be required not only for one year, but also to obviate the return of the conditions we have now, which have necessitated this action on the part of Parliament.

The hon. Minister has astonished me; he now takes up the position that these powers are going to be permanently used, to prohibit and regulate the importation of wheat. I understand that from now, for ever hereafter—or at least during the hon. Minister’s term of office—no miller will be allowed to import wheat without the consent of the Minister of Finance. One of the most difficult trades carried on in this country is going to be hampered by Government interference. I submit there is no country outside Russia that has such a measure on its statute book. Every human being in this country will be virtually at the mercy of the Minister of Finance. No Government can possibly follow the trend of wheat production all over the world; it is going to lead to constant fluctuations in the banning of wheat in this country, and before the Minister has had a couple of years of it, he will regret that he ever adopted these inadequate and ridiculous provisions.

I understood from the Minister—he made it fairly clear—that he was faced with a grave emergency, and that this emergency was of an extraordinary character, which had arisen out of a clear sky. The Minister said that the emergency had compelled him to put on one side the administration of ordinary law, and that he had had to dip—much against his will—into the economics of the country. I now understand that, so far from being an emergency measure, it is to be permanent in character and to be carried on indefinitely. I submit that a very different vote might have been taken had the Minister used the words at that time which he has used now.

Well, you can have the vote now.

We are going to have it now. This disposes of all the Ministers arguments as to the extraordinary and emergency character of the position with which we are faced. It seems this is the ordinary way of the hon. Minister in meeting ordinary conditions in the world at ordinary times. If that is the last word about wheat imported into South Africa, it is a confession of weakness on the part of the Minister, and an inability to deal with the matter which has caused the present position in the wheat market. I strongly support the amendment which has been moved.

Amendment put and negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to. The title having been agreed to,

I move—

Hon. members will see from the second print of the supplementary estimates laid on the Table that the additional expenditure amounts to £140,913, in connection with which they will find particulars in the supplementary estimates. On the other hand, savings amount to £116,090, but, according to the provisions of the law, it is not possible to use the savings on the additional expenditure, and therefore it is necessary to vote the full amount of £140,913. The actual net increase in the expenditure for the year is, therefore, only £24,823. The particulars of the separate items are given in the white book, but it is, perhaps, desirable to say a few words on certain items. Under “train running costs,” we asked for a sum of £109,401, that is due to 2,793,272 additional locomotive miles during the course of the year. It means an increase of the mileage distance run of 4.52 per cent., while the increase in expenditure was only 4.25 per cent. It is, therefore, quite satisfactory. Under the heading “traffic expenditure,” an additional amount of £29,862 is asked for. Hon. members will remember that better wage conditions for certain grades of the staff were put into force during the course of the year, and that, at any rate, to some extent, is the cause of the increase. Then there is an amount of £1,150 under the heading “general.” This refers to expenditure in connection with the South African Shipping Board. Hon. members who have seen the recapitulation which I laid on the Table will admit that very good work has been done. Further, there is an additional amount of £500 under the heading “interest on capital (Harbours).” It win possibly be interesting to hon. members if I indicate what the expectation is for the end of the financial year. Hon. members will remember that at the start of that year we expected a deficit of £105,171 and budgeted for it. The latest available figures are those for December. We, therefore, have the figures for the first nine months of the financial year, and there was a surplus of £13,341. Since the commencement of December, as a result of the general depression in our country, there has been a steady reduction in our revenue. The revenue during the period from the 1st December to date was not only lower than the estimated revenue for the period, but actually lower than for the corresponding period of last year. As hon. members therefore see, the Railway Administration at once feels the general depression in the country. I want to tell the House that immediate steps were taken to cut down our expenditure as much as possible, but hon. members will realize that it is quite impossible to do so in a short period, for the simple reason that we do not intend to discharge anyone. I want to say that it is our policy not to discharge anyone, and, therefore, the state of affairs can only change over a period of months, and by way of the persons who leave the service in the ordinary way not being replaced. That is the policy that is being followed, and in that way the number of employees on the railway is reduced. As I have already said, on a previous occasion in the House, we have in South Africa to do with a very difficult state of affairs. From August to December the traffic and transport is very heavy, and a large number of men are required. If, however, we employ too many during those months, then it means that for the period we are now passing through—which even in ordinary circumstances is a slack period —we have many people for whom there is not sufficient work. We try, therefore, to limit the staff as much as possible to the highest point of travelling, without expecting unnecessary long hours to be worked, and too much overtime to be done. On the other hand, we discharge nobody when the lean months come. I think I must defer a complete statement until we are a little closer to the end of the financial year. It is impossible to give an accurate prognosis of the state of affairs now. I can only say that, although measures have already been taken, there will be a deficit at the end of the financial year. As a result of such a step, however, the deficit which there will be will probably not be too large. In any event, it will be within reasonable limits. As for the loan estimates, hon. members will see that we ask for nothing extra. What we want voted is balanced by economies. We ask for £308,981, against winch there have been economies amounting to £298,981, and the other £10,000 we propose to take out of the Betterment Fund. I do not think that it is necessary to give further particulars. If hon. members want to know any more, I can give the details.

seconded.

It came somewhat as a shock to us to find the Minister’s improved outlook on the finances of the railways. The Minister has given us some indication of what you may expect in the near future. I rather regret that he has not gone more fully into matters at this stage, because from what we can find from bulletins and so on, one is led to believe that there is really a serious position in regard to the railways. I am glad to see that the Minister only asks for £450,000. That is a very great improvement and one which we have been urging him for years. Of this £450,000 a sum of £413,000 is actually made out of savings, which improves the position still more. In other words, the Minister is asking, instead of the usual £1,500,000, some £35,000 only. We congratulate him on it. It is a very hopeful sign, because it shows that at last he is awaking to the fact that his policy of the past has been far too extravagant. Taking the first item, the capital, we find there are savings there on items 1, 5, 6 and 7. I do not quite appreciate why the Minister mentioned these items, because the steamships item No. 5 is not a saving, because there was no amount voted last time. Nor under item No. 6. There is an item—construction of railways. I want to know how this saving has been brought about. We want to know whether it is due to the stoppage of any further construction or to a saving on labour. It seems to me that those are the only two items on which savings could have taken place, and I should like the Minister’s explanation in regard to them. I congratulate the Minister also on his policy, on requiring further money now, because what has been expended on the separate votes over and above the amounts voted, is due chiefly to the speeding up of the work. In several of these cases—the work at the docks, for example— it is necessary to speed up the work in order to make provision for the larger boats that are coming in, and for which there is not proper accommodation now. I congratulate the Minister on that. But I will not congratulate the Minister on importing new rolling stock to such an extent as he has done. We have been importing rolling stock into this country regularly for the whole of the past year, and on a heavily falling revenue, he is asking us to vote 40 more engines over and above all the others which have been brought in, and 50 new coaches, at a cost of £85,823 on the additional expenditure from revenue funds. I think out of the additional £189,763 that a sum of no less than £91,980 is required for wages. If, as the Minister says, it is not to fill wastages, then we shall ask for some explanation in regard to it. Is it that there have been extra labourers taken on, or other extra men employed, or what is the position? Passenger, mineral, coal and goods traffic all show very serious declines, but wages are going up and more rolling-stock is being bought. That requires very careful explanation. The working expenditure compared with the increased takings, for the period June to November last seems to be very high; in November the expenditure exceeded the takings by £20,000, so that, instead of the expenditure being reduced when the income is falling, we find that proportionately the expenditure is being increased. We are very greatly handicapped, because we can speak only on the items before us, and seeing that the whole country feels that an explanation of the railway finances is required, I suggest that the Minister should not wait until he makes his budget speech, or we consider the Appropriation (Part) Bill, but should at once make a full statement on the subject. The public are very nervous in regard to the whole situation, as they do not know what is happening, and the reports in the Railway Bulletin are inadequate. The Minister would do a public service by giving a full account of the position. He would enlighten the public on matters in which they are very keenly interested, and perhaps he would show that the position is not so bad as most people imagine.

I agree with the last speaker that if the Minister would make a full statement regarding the railway position, he would probably save a great deal of time when we discuss the estimates. There was one item in the vote to which we are entitled to a very full explanation. I refer to the importation of 40 locomotives, and I should like to know how many of these engines have been imported from Great Britain, Belgium and Germany respectively. I am not raising this matter from a racial point of view, but from two other standpoints. I want the Minister to tell us whether, in view of the fact that a fair wage clause is included in Government contracts, does the Minister impose a similar condition when he places orders overseas. I am informed that in Germany the hours of labour in locomotive-building shops are nine hours a day, whereas the hours in Great Britain are eight, while wages in Germany for locomotive-builders are something like 10 per cent. less than they are in Great Britain. Will the Minister explain why, in face of these facts, he has shown a preference to Germany. The second point deals with a matter which was raised in the House of Commons a few days ago when orders for six locomotives were placed in Germany. The explanation apparently was this: not only was the price lower, but the engines were urgently needed and Britain could not give such early delivery as Germany. Surely the management of our railways knows in advance what locomotives are required, and it is unbusinesslike that all of a sudden the management should discover that they must have additional engines, and that, unless they get them quickly, the railways will go to wrack and ruin. Is that the real reason for giving these orders to Germany or is there some other reason?

I support the request of the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge), and I hope the Minister will tell us the age and origin of the engines which are being scrapped. There is a feeling of uneasiness in regard to the position of the railways, and if the Minister could make a statement on the lines indicated by the hon. member for Sea Point (Maj. G. B. van Zyl), he would ease the minds of the public. I should like an explanation regarding Head No. 4, which includes an amount of £9,562, being additional expenditure on electric lighting for coaching-stock. The footnote states that this is for the installation of a new type of accumulator for lighting coaching-stock by which it is expected reduced maintenance cost will result. Apparently, this is a new type of electric apparatus, and its installation should not be a charge against running expenditure, but against the Renewals Fund. We are importing 40 locomotives to replace engines which are to be scrapped; presumably these engines to be scrapped have been written down, and if so, there must be a credit against them in renewals on some other fund. Why then should the cost of the new engines be debited against capital account.

I should like to join in with the hymn of praise that has been sung by the hon. member for Sea Point Maj. G. B. van Zyl) on the subject of the supplementary estimates of the Minister of Railways. It is what I call a good budget to come this year, and only to ask for £24,823 more than what we voted last year. I think the Minister and his staff are to be much congratulated on our not having again this year to approve of a large extra sum. What also is gladdening is to see how, notwithstanding the large increase in mileage, viz., 4.52 per cent. more than last year, the increase in expenditure was only 4.25 per cent., and this, although there was an increase in wages granted to certain sections of the staff. On the estimates other provision is also made for the increase of the sum we voted in connection with the work of the Shipping Board. I would like to go into this a little to show what good work the Shipping Board is doing for the benefit of the country. The Minister some time ago laid on the Table the report of the work done by the Shipping Board. When we read it we find a number of cases where very good work has been done, inter alia, by the reduction of freight. Let me give a few examples This statement is of much interest, because it shows in what instances the efforts met with success, and other instances where the Shipping Board was unsuccessful, and then there are several cases which are still under discussion. The Shipping Board, e.g., has succeeded in keeping the freight on wire for nail-making from Europe unchanged, while the Conference Lines intended to increase the freight. The freight on paint and raw materials for making paint was reduced on representation from the Shipping Board from 45s. a ton to 40s. a ton. The freight on tin from Europe was increased to 45s. a ton, but it has since been reduced to 40s. a ton. Another case where the Shipping Board acted successfully, and which is of great importance to our agriculture, was the reduction of the freight on oats from 28s. to 18s. 8d. on 2,000 lbs. That is, of course, a reduction of not less than almost 10s. per 2,000 lbs. Then there was a shortage of shipping accommodation for lucerne hay to Europe, and, as a result of the board’s representation, the Conference Lines found the necessary accommodation. As for the freight on lucerne hay, the board managed to get the freight of 40s. temporarily applied to lucerne which is pressed into 130 cubic feet per 2,240 lbs. There are other matters on which the board approached the Conference Lines, but failed, e.g., in the case of the freight on dairy machinery from Europe, and the freight on tinned crawfish to Europe, and also the freight on calcium carbide to India and on wool and other produce to Europe in bales. There are also various other cases still under discussion.

The hon. member must confine himself to the causes of the increase and expenditure.

I suggest that the additional work of the Shipping Board was the cause of the higher costs.

The hon. member may proceed.

They are, e.g., negotiating about the freight on hides, extract of meat, etc., for Europe, in which products competition is difficult for us owing to unfavourable tariffs. There are further matters with which they have not yet occupied themselves, such as the freights for lucerne, flour, maize, etc., for Europe. I only quote these examples to show that the appointment of this board was very useful. We see that they have tackled a lot of matters successfully, and that they are still trying to get many important questions with reference to shipping and freight improved. We cannot do otherwise than congratulate the board on its work. One also feels a certain sympathy with the Minister and his department on the position he has set out, but I do not think it is fair of hon. members opposite to ask him to give a complete statement of the position. There will be sufficient opportunity of discussing the matter on the debate on the Partial Appropriation Bill for Railways and Harbours. I think hon. members must wait until then, and I suggest that the Minister should delay his statement until all matters can be debated, and the Minister will also be in a position of giving us a fuller statement than he can to-day.

I would like to ask the Minister to make a statement to the House with regard to item No. 26, interest on capital. It is a small item, but a matter of very great importance, and involves in principle a very much larger sum of money. I understand that it is agreed that there is a difference between the money which is being paid as interest—

That is policy; you cannot raise it on this.

I will not go into that. If the Minister will make a statement with regard to the position, as to whether there is any chance of getting this interest, and if it can be recovered, I would be pleased. I would like to know what the position is with regard to the Administration and the treasury upon this matter.

Seeing that Natal gives you one-third of your revenue, we are very modest in not taking a more prominent part in railway matters. We are very proud to see that whatever is invested in Natal gives the country a very good return, and, therefore, we do not come here with any spirit of fearfulness when we ask for more. We were glad to hear the Minister say that there was a profit, which reflects credit on the Adminstration, but if you analyze it, it will be found that Natal has given him the bulk of that surplus. I think the Minister should allow us at this stage to advertise the good work done by the province of Natal in regard to revenue. We must congratulate the Minister on the first nine months of working, and we are sorry that he is filled with gloom as to the turn of events during the last few months. At any rate, we are assured by him that he is giving every attention to the position. It has been stated that he is speeding up the construction of new coaches.

The hon. member must not discuss policy.

Provision is made here for new coaches, and we are pleased to note that these coaches are going to be built in the country.

The hon. member can only discuss the reasons for increase.

Well, then, we appreciate the reasons because the increase is going to be spent in the country. May I say a word in connection with the explanation as to why the amount for new engines is not provided under renewals fund. There must be a huge fund accumulating to provide for renewals. Seeing that these engines are going to be scrapped, is the renewals fund not strong enough to pay for new engines? We hope that provision is not only made for the paying of interest in the running of the railways, but that you are making provision for replacements. If you are going to scrap your assets and sufficient funds are not available to renew them, you are going to renew them out of capital, and then you will be in a very sorry position. I think the position in regard to the railway is not as bad as it has been painted, and that the country should look forward to the coming months with some confidence. I think we are too pessimistic. Farming produce may fall, but surely the other activities of the country cannot go the same way in so short a period. I hope that the Minister in dealing with the question of the employees will deal with it on the basis of not making up wastage. If retrenchment takes place, I think this House should be taken into the Minister’s confidence.

It is not going to take place.

I am glad to hear that. Then no wastage should be made up. The Minister’s position is a very happy one, and I think the coming months should give him confidence, if he has the confidence in the country that most members of this House possess.

I see that the Minister proposes to spend £80,000 odd on constructing. Has any part of that expenditure any reference to the proposed new line on the Esplanade at Durban? I understand that there has been an exchange of land quite recently in connection with the proposed construction. I should like to know what the position is.

There is an item under Vote 4, Harbours, Table Bay Harbour Modified Southern Scheme. I understand there is a dredger there, the Sir Thomas Price, that was removed from Buffalo Harbour, and converted into a hopper dredger. I understand she has been doing very good work there.

I am afraid there is no connection between the Sir Thomas Price and the item the hon. member refers to.

What is she doing there? Will the Minister tell us ?

With regard to item No. 4, head No. 3, for the importation and erection of 40 engines, £20,000, I should like to know further details. I understand the item is for the replacement of engines to be scrapped. I wish to ask whether included in these engines were any of the 19a class Swiss engines, which have recently been put out of commission owing to defects; and further, whether tenders were called for.

I shall deal with the question of the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence) first. I have no information whether payment for these Swiss engines is included in the item £20,000. The delivery of engines has been expedited, which make the additional amount necessary.

One of them was delivered on the 17th October last.

I cannot give any further information on this point. In reply to the question regarding tenders, tenders are always called for except in the case of fish plates and rails. The hon. member for Durban (Stamford Hill) (Mr. Robinson) asked me about the Durban Point line. Negotiations are proceeding, and I think it would be unwise for me at this stage to say anything except that no amount is included in these estimates. In reply to the hon. member for Roodepoort (Col. Stall-lard) who raised the question of interest, it would be better if this were raised later. Several hon. members asked questions about debits to revenue, capital and renewals. There are definite rules under which the chief accountant makes these allocations. I do not think hon. members will expect me to go more fully into these matters at this stage. The hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Sturrock) asked what types and makes of engines have been scrapped I will get this information for him. The hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) raised the question of 14 locomotives. The tender which was accepted from a German firm is £5,989 per engine, with delivery in 22 to 28 weeks. The lowest British tender came fifth on the list, with £7,296 per engine and delivery in 28 to 34 weeks. There is therefore a big difference between the prices, and a distinct advantage in the date of delivery. I do not think the hon. member will expect me again to discuss the principles underlying the acceptance of these tenders. The hon. member for Sea Point (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) asked questions about construction. We have been able to save on this item. The statement which the hon. member is thinking of, which I made yesterday, refers to lines which have not been commenced. He asked why we are spending £99,000 odd more on running expenses. I have already stated that this is due to increased mileage; namely, over 1,793,232 engine miles. I stated that the weekly revenue had not only fallen below our estimate but also below the figures of last year.

What is the cause?

My hon. friend must be ill-informed if he does not know there exists a condition of depression in the country. I thought 1 had made it clear—it is a pity this House is not fully bilingual—that we were not retrenching, but that we were not filling wastage. We have no intention to retrench. It would be foolish to put men in the streets when they will be required again in August. We are not filling wastage and in that way the position will be eased. We shall have a deficit, but it is impossible to say how large it will be. The steps taken will keep the deficit within reasonable limits. We have as my hon. friend must know £500,000 set aside in the Rates Equalization Fund, and there is no reason whatever for alarm about the financial position.

Motion put and agreed to; House to go into committee to-morrow.

I have before me certain amendments from the Senate.

I have not seen them.

We have not heard what the matter is at all. May I ask what the amendment refers to.

Senate’s amendments to be considered tomorrow.

I beg to move—

Until when?

Until the two following orders have been disposed of.

Cannot we get an undertaking that they will not be taken to-night?

I move, as an unopposed motion—

seconded.

It is very inconvenient to have this constant changing of the Order Paper. It has already been changed once to-day, and we are now making another alteration. Hon. members interested in Orders Nos. 5, 6 and 7 have left the House because they thought that Orders Nos. 3 and 4 would first be disposed of. They are now away. It is unfortunate the Government cannot make up their minds as to the order in which they wish things taken by 2.15 o’clock in the afternoon.

The reason we have asked for these orders to stand over is not due to the reason suggested by the hon. member. The hon. Minister responsible is engaged in another place, otherwise the orders would have come on.

Motion put and agreed to.

When the Bill was last before the House it was accompanied by a good deal of praise and acclamation from members on both sides of the House. It rather made those of us sitting on these benches think that when there is such an overwhelming welcome to a conciliation bill, it requires to be examined all the more closely. One has always to remember this. Some years ago, before the Conciliation Act was actually passed by this House, we had the spirit of collective bargaining, and that spirit of collective bargaining, as you know, was carried on very satisfactorily from the employers’ point of view until such time as they did not see the necessity for it, and we had that halocaust in Johannesburg in 1922. Fortunately, after that terrible happening, we had the position of the Conciliation Act being introduced into the House as we have it to-day. I want to put this to the Minister. With the working of that Act, he is quite familiar, and he is quite aware of the many difficulties we have to contend against. We are very glad that the Bill is going to select committee, and there are a few points in it to which I direct the attention of the Minister of Labour. With regard to Clause 3, the Minister proposes to restrict the membership of industrial councils to officials, but I suggest that it would be fairer that any person nominated by a trade union should be eligible for membership of any council. After all, if trade unionists nominate someone outside their industry because they feel he may be better qualified to state their case than they can themselves, or can one of their own officials, the Minister should accept such a nomination and thus comply with the general desire of the workers. With regard to Clause 10, sub-sections (8) and (9a) require modification. The Minister might consider the point of fixing the qualifications of membership, remembering that occasionally a strong union gets into the position in which it finds that it is difficult to collect subscriptions from its members, and there is a further point that you cannot always judge a trade union by the numbers of its subscribing members. Subsection (2) of Clause 12 also needs further consideration.

The object of the amendment is simplification.

It could be made simpler without this overlapping and extra expenditure. As it appears that this little group of members is not likely to be appointed to any select committee, this is the only opportunity we have of bringing forward these points in the hope that they may be carried to the select committee so that that body may consider them. We shall welcome any improvement in the Industrial Conciliation Act, which we want to be worked as smoothly as possible, and we desire to assist the Minister to achieve that end. Under a Conciliation Act acceptable to both employees and employers, there should be no necessity to have recourse to a Wage Act. I think it is a better solution and one that is more acceptable both to employer and employee, and for that reason we intend to see a Bill as perfect as we can make it, and brought into effect without any undue delay.

Generally speaking, I believe the amendments proposed will be accepted by all responsible employers and employees. The suggested amendments are the result of the working of the Act during the last four or five years, and the experience that has been gained in carrying out the Act by various interests concerned. With regard to the point of sending it to a select committee, the building trade was not consulted on these amendments, and feels it should be consulted. From my practical knowledge of the working of the Act, I think most of the additions to the Bill will be accepted by the builders. There is just one point which has been raised by the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford). I am rather inclined to agree with the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Sturrock) as to the question whether officials should be on the Conciliation Board. In our experience we found the official is a more efficient man and has a working knowledge of the conditions. He can see the point of view of the employer as well as the employee, whereas the employee has little knowledge of the other side of the question. Our experience of that in the Transvaal was that a claim was made some time back for increased wages, and it was pointed out to the employees it would hold up the building trade and the erection of houses if this amount was agreed to. Something like 40 per cent. of the plans put in were accepted, and were on the present rate. The man who could see that point was an official. The ordinary employee stood out for the larger amount. The official was able to convince the men of the wisdom of the provision. The hon. member for Hopetown (Dr. Stals) rather thought that the extension of this Act in the country districts was dangerous to the farming interest, and would affect farm buildings. In every case, I would like to point out, the country districts have been treated in a very sympathetic manner, and farm buildings have never come under the working of the Wage Act. Of course, it applies to houses; it has not been applied to ordinary farm buildings. I know that the Minister of Labour has dealt with that matter most sympathetically, and the builders have also met the farmers in that connection.

I want generally to offer my support to the Bill. I think it will make a considerable improvement in the original Act. There is a feeling amongst industrial people that the more work that can can be given to the conciliation board instead of the wage board the better. The wage board must be the last resort. I think that is the intention. A great many matters can be settled without sanding them to the wage board. The effect of this Bill is that the work on the wage board will be lessened and the work of the conciliation board will be increased. I think that will be of great value to the country. One or two of the clauses seem to be rather ambiguous. It is difficult to find a reason for the amendment made in clause 11 by the deletion in the definition of employer of the words “Two or more employees” and the substitution therefor of the words “any person”. It is rather difficult to make out why the change was made. Perhaps the Minister will give some explanation or the clause may be amended in committee. With regard to clause 14 which deals with bogus partnerships, I think this clause cannot be too carefully worded, as these partnerships have created more difficulty than anything else in connection with the working of the Act. I see there is provision for a month’s notice, and I think that will have to be revised.

It only creates a presumption that there is something wrong.

It is a very important section, and one that will require great care in wording.

I am gratified with the reception of this amendment Bill and to find that the general feeling is that the amendments are necessary. I will deal with the last question first. The hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Henderson) referred to Clause 14. I would like to reassure him there. In the case of many of these clauses, I am sending them to select committee so that in the atmosphere upstairs the clauses may be tested so that no loop-hole remains. In this clause you merely lay down certain conditions which create a presumption that this is not a genuine partnership. Then he refers to Clause 12; that is for the purpose of getting rid of an evil, of which the Industrial Council complains, that business is undercut by the one-man employer. It is necessary to check that, as it is found to be interfering with the working of the Act. The hon. member for Pretoria (East) (Mr. Giovanetti) said I did not consult the building trade. I did not consult, any industrial council. I found it would have been too large a gathering to be practicable, but I would not like the Building Trade Industrial Council to look upon that as a slight or as a lack of appreciation of the valuable assistance they have always given us. The hon. member for Langlaagte (Mr. Christie) spoke of Section 10. The hon. member will see that obligations placed on me in numbers of cases to assure myself that a trade union is sufficiently representative of the employees in an area and I can only act if I know what the representation is. The hon. member was not here when I moved the second reading. There is a provision that I can, at any time, ask for leave for these figures, and I am conscious that that is placing a burden, not upon certain of the old-established trades unions, but upon many of the newer trade unions who have only a part-time secretary. The other point he raised was the question about conciliation boards. Taking it all round, the compromise that I arrived at was a compromise fairly discussed at a very representative meeting of employers and employees, and I think it will work. I do want to confine it to officials of trade organizations, whether of organized bodies of employers or of employees, so that you do not have any sort of extraneous element entering into it. There is one other matter I must refer to. While acknowledging the kindness of the Opposition in their attitude towards this Bill, a statement was made that this Conciliation Bill is entirely their work, and was a measure introduced by the South African party. This is the original Bill introduced in 1923 as read a second time. And this is the amended Bill, Hon. members are familiar with the form in which an amended Bill comes to this House, and if they take it up, they will see that pretty nearly all the old clauses have been cut out and pages and pages of new clauses have been inserted. That was mainly the work of my hon. friend, the present Minister of Public Works and of Mr. Strachan. I merely wish to put that right.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time and referred to select committee for consideration and report; committee to have power to take evidence and call for papers.

I move— That the Bill be now read a second time.

Many of the clauses of this Bill are merely administrative, so I will confine myself to those amendments which are really material in carrying forward the objects of the principal Act. The first point I will deal with is the question of the employment of minors which, in some cases, amount to an evasion of the intention of the principal Act, which lays it down that no minor may be employed in a designated trade for longer than six months without being indentured. The object was to give a probationary period so that a boy could get to know whether he would like the particular trade, and to afford the employer an opportunity of judging whether the boy was likely to be any good at the trade. Unfortunately, there have been very grave abuses of this six months’ probationary period. Boys have been taken on for 5½ months, dismissed, and then re-engaged for another spell of 5½ months. The result is that they reach manhood without having learned their trade. It was suggested to me that the probationary period should be only three months, but that will not get over the difficulty, and I do not know that six months are too long. A further proposal urged by some aprenticeship committees was that no minor should be engaged without the consent of an apprenticeship committee, but that would be out of keeping with the main object of the Act which regards these committees as advisory. The method I have adopted is to say that no boy can be engaged in a designated trade for more than six months which would be inclusive of any period he had worked in the trade without being indentured. The obvious objection is that a boy may work for five months and then he can serve only for a probationary period of a month with some one else, but we give him leave to serve again with the consent of the department. In the principal Act the clause giving power to the department to make regulations is so terse and wide that it leaves doubts as to the points upon which we can frame regulations. We particularize there, and particularize in a direction in conjunction with another amendment for the deletion of the schedule which lays down the actual contract of indenture, and at the same time admits of such departure as is necessary in particular cases. That schedule has now had its turn. By regulation the articles of indenture are set up under the exigencies of their particular trade with the permission of the department, and we think it far better to lay that down by regulation in conjunction with the apprenticeship committee. It has been the subject of some discussion, the number of years of a boy’s indenture during which he may by regulation be compelled to attend technical classes. It has been represented to me, on the one hand, that it is useless to make a boy attend these classes when really he is taking no interest in them: on the other hand, it is represented to me that he should go to these classes right through his five years’ indenture. I do know a good many technical education authorities take a different view, but the view I take is usually a boy is indentured somewhere about 16 years of age; for the first two years the technical colleges are generally engaged in general technical education, and in the third year, when his education is closely conjoined with the work he is doing, he is about 19. When we were 19, when the opportunity was there, it depended on us whether we took advantage of it or not, and to be forced to take a class when you do not want to, well, most of us would not like to do so. I have very largely an open mind on the matter, but I rather adhere to the view that when a boy gets to that age he ought to appreciate whether he will make as full use of his opportunities as he can or not. The next important amendment is the proposal to delete the second schedule of the Act; giving power to the Governor-General to add or to delete industries from the scheduled list. With the continual changes that are taking place it is extraordinarily clumsy and an unnecessarily clumsy procedure to have to amend an Act of Parliament when under the apprenticeship system some new industry or branch of industry is to be included in which by common consent boys should be indentured. I know there are objections. Some suggestions were that commerce should be included. Of two distinguished members one was strongly against the inclusion, and the other strongly in favour of apprenticeship being extended to certain branches of commercial life. There are others; there is diamond-cutting, which we hope will be a permanent industry. The time will come undoubtedly to see that these boys are not made use of without the use of skilled men. There is another matter which is rather misunderstood; where I propose to alter the present wording of the Act to alter “specified area” to “areas”. At present you have an apprenticeship committee in Durban, and it has been supervising in Durban and Maritzburg. We want something which will enable us to set up the same committee for two areas technically contiguous, but not geographically so. In certain cases these indentures “must be registered with the inspector” within three months, which is quite impossible to do, and we are altering that to “must be lodged with the inspector”.

I feel myself in rather a peculiar position because, with one exception, I agree with the Minister. We do not oppose the Bill because we are against the system of regulation in apprenticeship. We agree a certain measure of regulation is probably necessary, but our objection to the Minister’s proposals is rather that he goes too far; regulation with him becomes control, and we are rather afraid that if too large a measure of control is insisted upon, it will militate against apprenticeship. Under the original Act very wide powers indeed were given to the Minister. It is true some of them are not very clearly defined. But these powers in the original Act are not nearly as wide as in the Bill. Although in the original Act they applied to a limited number of industries, there has been a good deal of trouble in their application. I have heard of a case where an apprenticeship committee tried to prevent a father from apprenticing his own son. If we have had trouble in the past, with a limited number of industries concerned, how much more trouble shall we have if the door is thrown open to the extent the Minister now proposes? The Minister is going to do away with the schedule, and to give the Governor-General the right to delete industries from that schedule, and to put other industries on it. He now defines “industry” as not only including industry as we understand it, but also including any trade or occupation or any branch thereof. I would like to refer to a letter from the Durban Chamber of Commerce, which points out that the Bill seems to give the Minister a general power to apply the Act whenever he thinks fit. The chamber says that this is a further example of legislation by regulation, an exceedingly dangerous form of legislation, and that, in effect, the Minister is asking Parliament to agree to a general principle that compulsory apprenticeship shall be applied at his discretion. It is strongly maintained by the chamber that Parliament should be the sole authority to lay down the industries to which compulsory apprenticeship should be applied, and that these should be set out in the schedule of the Bill. The view of the Durban Chamber of Commerce is, I think, the view held by most members on this side of the House. The Minister may, of course, and no doubt will, assure us that all the very wide powers he is asking for will not be used, and that he will not apply the Act to all industries, trades, branches and occupations, and, in fact, that he will not apply it unless he is satisfied that the trades and occupations to which he decides to apply it are suitable for its application. While that is the Minister’s view, and while we shall probably have that assurance from him, we have to remember that changes take place on the ministerial benches, and that Ministers, after all, are influenced by local committees, and by people who may recommend the application of the Act. The Minister referred to the fact that at the Pretoria conference we found that in the original schedule of industries to which this Act was to be applied, there was set out the industry of commerce. It did not take us very long to prove that commerce was altogether too wide a term to which to apply the word “industry.” It is quite obvious that you may train a boy in a ship-broker’s office, but he will be no use as a salesman in a store. If the Minister applies it to the small sub-divisions of commerce, he may find himself in a difficulty. I believe that at that conference it was agreed that commerce should be excluded, but subdivisions of commerce were included later on. Take a grocer’s assistant as an illustration. An apprentice to the grocery trade would have three alternative shops to which he could go. There is the large grocer who sells groceries primarily, but who always sells hardware and probably tobacco and one or two other little sidelines. There is the large departmental store, and there is also the general dealer who sells groceries with a large number of other commodities. If an apprentice goes into a large general grocery store, he must deal with hardware and tobacco and other things. He will probably find that he is trespassing on the preserves of the hardware salesman. As a grocer’s assistant he has no right to deal with hardware, just as a painter has no right to do the work of a carpenter. At the end of his apprenticeship is he a competent grocer’s assistant with a smattering of hardware knowledge, or is he a competent hardware man as well as a grocer’s assistant? Take the case of the apprentice who goes into the departmental store. There he can confine himself solely to groceries, but there are all the other departments, hardware, grocery, soft goods, etc., and where is the master to draw his material from to supervise the whole of the store. At no point is he training anyone who is taking charge of the whole departmental store. As regards the general dealer, this is hopeless. A general dealer would never teach a boy the elements of grocery salesmanship. If you cannot take an apprentice into a general store, you are, under this Act, prevented from taking anyone else as a junior for a period of more than six months. Therefore, it is impossible for a general dealer to employ a junior under this Act. If that position arises, you are going to put thousands of juniors out of work. I think that illustrates the difficulties that apply to one particular branch of commerce, and you will see how difficult it is to apply hard and fast law of this kind to anything so variable in its nature.

How would you designate these trades ?

Well, the same thing applies, however you designate them. You cannot take a salesman and say he will be a salesman in commerce. You must confine these salesmen to specific activities. There is another feature of this, so far as commerce is concerned. There are cases where you are allowed to employ juniors for six months, but that will stop the moment the Act comes into operation, and all juniors will have to go. I will read a letter—the Minister knows who it is from—

That is a statement by Karl Gundelfinger, who, presumably, knows a good deal about this question. I wish to show how necessary it is to make sure to whom this Act is to apply. I hope the hon. the Minister will see his way to extend this schedule to anything this House may agree to. I believe there are several directions in which it may be usefully extended. The hon. the Minister makes a great deal of a schedule laid down by Parliament, but really there is no difficulty, as Parliament will assist him in the matter. There are in any apprenticeship contracts three parties; the apprentice himself, the parent or guardian of the apprentice, and the employer. One would think if these three want to make a contract between them, the only thing with which the Minister need deal is the question of the validity of the contract—that it cannot be got over by any of the parties. The Minister would also satisfy himself that the apprentice will be given an adequate training. As far as I can see, these are the only two points which should interest the Minister. Under the old Act, the Minister’s powers go much further than that. The apprentice himself has got to learn the rudiments of his trade, but he will have no say as to what he will learn. That rests with the Minister.

You do not suggest what he should learn.

The Minister fixes the number of classes which the apprentice must attend. The apprentice must learn, but there is no option as to what he must learn. The employer must pay for his tuition, but he has no say as to what classes the apprentice shall attend. The parent is probably planning the future of the boy, and he wants him to learn certain things, but the Minister says: “I am sorry, in this particular trade he cannot learn this; according to my apprenticeship committee he must learn that.” I hope the Minister will not insist on doing away with the schedule, as at present it is the only safeguard against weaknesses of this kind. On this side of the House we want to see a schedule retained and extended. If the Minister refuses to give us a schedule, then we want to see the Minister’s powers modified. Then there is the matter of a quorum. Under the old Act, the quorum was laid down, but now the Minister fixes the quorum. This gives him very wide powers of discretion.

I think we feel that we have a great many youths in the country who are living in the towns, and we wish to make as many of these apprentices as we possibly can. The name of Mr. Gundelfinger was mentioned by my hon. friend (Mr. Sturrock). I discussed the matter with him also. He told me that he had to dismiss from his employ certain apprentices who had worked with him because the conditions of the Act were not such that he could keep on employing these youths. I feel that we, who are in constant touch with our young men in the towns, feel that the Act does not give the youths of the country a chance to be employed as much as should be possible. It does not come up to the scratch. That is what I feel. We who live in the towns come into touch with these youths, and we are trying to get work for them. Some of them finish the course of the technical college, and their courses of instruction, and we do all in our power to get them work, but we fail to get them work. Where the fault lies I do not know, but something must be done. The question is whether the Minister is going to help us to solve this problem. I feel that we who have studied the Bill are of the opinion that some of the powers of the Minister may, perhaps, help us to solve this problem. If it does not, then it can be discussed in the select committee. I am sure the Minister feels that some of these regulations and clauses of the Bill are not what they ought to be, and the select committee will be able to thrash the matter out and reform the Bill, so that we can alter the clauses and help to get these youths the necessary employment. I wish to bring these points before the House, because I feel strongly that something must be done for the 3,000 or 4,000 who are leaving school to get employment for them. If this Bill does not provide the necessary help, something must be done to help them to get work in other ways. The second point I should like to mention is this. It has come to my knowledge in Pretoria that some of our builders there employ apprentices for six months, and then let them go. They are there for a time. They do not teach them the building trade, or make carpenters of them. Before they know their trade they are sent away. Then they employ another lot of youths for six months. This the Bill will rectify. Personally, I think that many of the clauses of this Bill are absolutely to the advantage of our young men. Although I feel once more what is said by the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Sturrock), that we must go carefully into the matter, I repeat that something must be done for the youths of the country to find employment for them.

I have followed very closely the speech of the hon. Minister. Generally speaking, the clauses of this Bill deal more with administration than anything else, except on one or two vital points, which the Minister has rather enlarged upon in connection with the parent Act. The Minister has said that he intends to refer this Bill to a select committee, and I have no doubt that we shall have plenty of opportunity to thrash out the Bill and to lick it into shape in accordance with the requirements of the country. It was my privilege, a few years ago, to visit practically every important factory in the industrial centres right throughout the Union in connection with the particular trades and industries mentioned in the schedule in the parent Act. I had the opportunity of watching closely the work done by our apprentices in all those industries. If there is one conclusion I came to more than another, it was that if a young man has got to learn a trade the best thing to do is to apprentice him in that trade, and let him work under workshop conditions, and get his full training, where he will have all the discipline of the workshop and will realize that there are matters like economics, and that not only must he produce a good article but that he must produce that article in a given time, in order to make a living for himself. Under all these conditions he still has the Apprenticeship Committee watching his interests, and the Factory Act looking after his health, as well as the Workmens Compensation Act. Quite apart from the discipline and training of the workshop he will have the educational advantages of the technical colleges and continuation classes. I remember a significant statement being made, a statement which made a great impression upon me, as I am sure it will also on hon. members of this House. It was made by a gentleman who holds a very important position to-day on one of the boards under the Minister of Labour. The effect of it was this: there was no greater tragedy in a man’s life than that when having made a success of his calling in life he found himself, through lack of education, unable to give expression to the innermost thoughts of his soul. I think that is a most significant statement, and one which hon. members in this House will endorse, especially in a democratic country like South Africa. Every man should be given the full advantages of education. In this respect it is pleasing to note from the annual report of the Department of Education, that we have to-day attending our technical colleges 3,830 full time students, and 16,298 part-time students. I was pleased to see, in replying to a question put to the hon. Minister of Railways and Harbours by me the other day, he showed that his department was not unmindful of the duty it owed to its apprentices in that 900 of its apprentices were attending technical colleges and continuation classes. I should like to see it 100 per cent., so that these boys can have the opportunity of acquiring that education which, in after life, will help them to fight the battle of life for themselves. I notice particularly in connection with this Bill, the matter of compulsory education so far as apprentices are concerned. That is a sore point between the employers of the apprentices, and I am going to appeal to the Minister to be firm on this point, and while those students are making the sacrifice the employer, also, must make a sacrifice. The employer must not only pay the fees of the technical college and transportation charges and the cost of books, but he should allow certain time during which that boy is employed, he must surrender some of that time and let the youth see that the employer does take a real vital interest in his education. It is not done in all cases. This is a very difficult and knotty question in many of the factories. I do hope that there will be a certain obligation placed upon the employer as well to surrender a certain amount of time during the boy’s apprenticeship, from the employer’s time, so that he may attend continuation classes or technical colleges. There is the danger of the apprentice becoming “fed up” if he is not met half way by the employer allowing him to attend classes during the employer’s time even if only on one or two days in the week. We have made provision for our town boys, but have we done the same for our country lads? When I visited the industrial and trade schools in the country I feel very sorry for them, as their inmates are not being given a fair chance. I do not desire to find fault with the system of industrial education in the country because the industrial schools serve a good purpose in allowing a boy to find his feet. I wish in passing to pay a tribute to the tremendous interest displayed in them by the churches. I do not wish to make any invidious distinctions, but I can never forget the great part played by the Dutch Reformed Church, which I believe has spent over £200,000 in buildings alone for this purpose. When one looks at an institution like that at Uitenhage one feels proud of what the Dutch Reformed Church has done in this direction, but there is a danger because the boys there are not fully trained so that when they leave these institutions they cannot possibly compete with skilled artizans. Being unqualified or half baked craftsmen they drift to the smaller towns as blacksmiths, carpenters or shoemakers where they come into active competition with unskilled craftsmen, some of whom are coloured, whose standard of living is on a lower level than that if the European and against whom he will find it almost impossible to compete. The annual report of the department of education shows that the training of these boys is not only very costly but leads to a tremendous wastage, as a large percentage of those trained do not continue in the trade. The percentage of those who remained at the trades in which they received instruction at the various institutions was: King Williamstown, 62 per cent.; De Wet’s Dorp. 48 per cent.; Heidelburg, 43 per cent Each boy trained at an industrial school costs the state approximately £81 per annum. I appeal for a chance to be given to our poor boys in the country and that provision should be made for the establishment of hostels subsidised by the state and that young apprentices from the country should have a preference in these hostels, of which the churches would willingly undertake the management, thus leading to economy. The state could pay these hostels £50 for a boy’s first year and £36 for his second year. The training the boys receive does not help them to become craftsmen, and they have to compete with people living on a lower scale than that which Europeans are expected to maintain. Training in these industrial or trade schools is costly and wasteful; also as to the time in the lad’s life for three years training in these schools only count as one year for apprenticeship purposes. There should be a liason between the industrial schools and the apprenticeship committee which are at present working in water-tight compartments under the Minister of the Interior and the Minister of Labour, while the town boys get all the benefits of training and education there is no active organization interesting itself on behalf of the country lad to get him apprenticed to the trade he may wish to take up. I know of a case in which a boy wanted to become a wagon maker, but he was told to go into the tailoring department because at the time there was no vacancy in the former department. There should be some connection between the industrial schools, the apprenticeship committee and ultimately the workshops, so that the country lad should also learn his trade under ideal conditions which I maintain is by being apprenticed to the trade or industry he seeks to follow. I hope the select committee will not lose sight of this important aspect of the question.

There will not be any difference of opinion that it is essential that our youths should he trained properly. The schedule of the Act is really the important feature of the measure. There is a well-founded fear in commerce that the idea of the Minister is to have compulsory apprenticeship in commerce. In the Transvaal during the last seven or eight years we have had a voluntary apprenticeship system which has worked remarkably well under the aegis of the Juvenile Affairs Hoard. The Wage Board swept this system out of existence as it decided that apprenticeship might continue only on the basis of wages fixed by the wage board. The one essential of the apprenticeship system is the sympathy of the employer, but the wage hoard’s decision did away with the good feeling between the employer and the employee and inflicted very great harm. Some form of apprenticeship is desirable. The youth of the country ought to get the training they deserve —I am speaking of commerce—and such training can be secured, But you want to be quite sure that you have some training to give when you apprentice your boy to an employer. That is the difficulty that confronted the wage hoard. If there is no apprenticeship or means of training beyond what has been decided by the wage board at the present time. I can see the youth of South Africa will not be trained in commerce, because the present position is a week’s notice for all juniors. I see the difficulties. There may be conditions imposed on commerce, neither desirable for the employer or the employee. I suggest, therefore, as the hon. member for Pretoria said, that this matter has to be treated with very great care, and a voluntary system of apprenticeship, such as existed in the Transvaal for some years and has been so successful, by which youths have been able to get a training on a fair and sound basis, should be provided for the whole Union, with such superintendence by the apprenticeship committee as the Minister suggests. But there is far too much “Minister” in this, and for a Bill to be presented which would place the power entirely in the hands of the Minister to put on the commercial community what he desires, would certainly not be acceptable. I am not pleading for this Act but for training, and rather than accept this Bill, I would have no training at all; rather than leave everything in the hands of the Minister I would do without apprenticeship. The one thing needful is training for our young South Africans. There is no such thing as training in salesmanship here to-day, and as things go on, our young South Africans will slip down the ladder, and those coming from other countries will go-much higher up.

I believe there is just a little bit of misunderstanding with regard to the object of the Bill. The basis of the principal Act and of these amendments is complete training of boys in scheduled trades. I do not quite understand the point taken up by the hon. member for Pretoria. This Bill does not deal with the employment of boys and girls at all, but that in certain scheduled trades there shall he complete training. I remember when the principal Act was passed I had a conversation with the Minister in charge, who today is a senator, and who said it was one of the most constructive pieces of legislation which have ever been brought into the House. At that time we had a large number of boys who were exploited by unscrupulous employers. We had a large number of men who were accepting top wages and were not trained at all, and we were bringing into the country a large number of trained men to run our industries, while we had a large number who were half trained or barely half trained. The railways were as much to blame as anything else; we had rough painters, rough carpenters and rough I do not know what. Nine times out of ten it was found a costly affair to employ these men. The whole basis of the Bill was that the youth of the country must grow up, not half-tradesmen, but skilled tradesmen, so that it would not be necessary to introduce skilled men from other countries. I agree with what the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr.Sturrock) said about sub-section (2), which I do not like. As this Bill is going to a select committee, it makes it difficult to criticize any part of it. The whole crux of the Bill is that scheduled trades only shall be the trades to which the Bill shall apply. I do not like the idea of the Governor-General-in-Council—which means the Government—having the power to delete or to add any other trades with, one might say, a stroke of the pen. The reason is that undoubtedly pressure will be brought to bear on any Minister, and officers of the department, to have this little trade or that tacked on; or worse, to divide the trades already scheduled to be scheduled independently in the Act. I hope the Minister will be prepared to reconsider it. I have given it much thought and I do not like it. I do like the compulsory sending of the boys to the trades schools. Unfortunately we have the wrong kind of trades school in this country. I have mentioned this more than once; we have technical colleges on which we spend very much money to erect and the technical college adds considerably to the appearance of that street in Pretoria; but it is the wrong kind of school. I would like to see in this country trades schools on the basis of the German trades schools. In Germany every apprentice must attend classes in these schools. In Italy also, it is compulsory for boys to attend a trades school, but our technical colleges are training boys for the higher walks of professions and trades, and not for work at the bench. Our trades schools are wrong in their methods. There is one other thing I would like to mention. I think there has been some mistake on the part of some of the apprenticeship committees as to the nature of their duties. Some of the apprenticeship committees have got the idea that they are occupying a position they do not occupy. Mistakes have been made by some of the committees. They have stepped in and prevented boys from being employed in occupations that were not designated as trades. They have narrowed down employment too much. The Act lays it down that the apprenticeship committee shall be responsible for the proper training of boys. The committees have Taken upon their shoulders work it was never intended they should do under the Act. With reference to remarks made respecting the wage board, I think that commerce has been very foolish, both employers and the employees. It has always been a puzzle to me why they should have asked the wage board to interfere with their industry. They ought to be so organized to-day that they would be able to decide all their affairs in an industrial council. Commerce is entirely to blame for any difficulty that has arisen. The Bill is going to select committee, but I hope the House will pass the second reading, and that those who may be chosen to go on the select committee will be able to bring back to the House a real advance in our legislation, so that our boys and girls may not merely serve five years as apprentices, but may at the end of their period of apprenticeship become highly skilled in their work.

I find myself, like the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Sturrock) under the impression that this Bill is good in parts and not so good in the other parts. Though there are some aspects in the Bill which apeal to us, those aspects which we on this side of the House are willing to support, there are some which are very highly controversial, and I welcome the decision of the Minister to allow the Bill to go to select committee after the second reading. With regard to the clause which embraces the principle of legislation by regulation, may I ask if the Minister has decided to give up altogether the ordinary principle of consultation and government by agreement? Does the Minister contemplate issuing regulations applicable to all branches of industry? That would be possible under the Bill. That is a very highly contentious clause, and one that should receive a great deal of attention at the hands of the select committee. One provision in this Bill appeals to me as one that is really wanted. That is the clause designed to prevent the exploitation of juniors during the six months of their probationary period. Whether this method of prevention is the best possible I am not prepared to say, but as far as I am acquainted with the working of this Act in Durban, this clause is needed, or this reform is needed, and I think the Minister has done a very wise thing in introducing this provision. The need for this provision, of course, arises from the fact that certain employers have engaged youths for six months and dismissed them before their time was up, and then reengaged them. I understand it has been largely done by Indian employers, and it has resulted in thorough disorganization. The need for reform is urgent. The hon. the Minister referred to the conference held at Pretoria when so many of these proposed amendments were under discussion. I would like to point out that to that conference he failed to invite the representatives of the Master Builders’ Association. The building industry is one of the biggest of the organized industries of South Africa, and yet he failed to invite representatives. Representations have been made to me by the builders of Durban who felt the omission to invite them very severely. They have been trying to apply the Apprenticeship Act conscientiously for the benefit of the youth of the town and of the industry generally. I do not know who the people were who were invited, but it has been definitely stated to me that the builders were not invited, and I would suggest to the Minister that that was a serious omission on his part. I say there is no industry in South Africa which has been more diligent and more serious in its enacts to see that the principles of these Bills should be carried out in the spirit in which they were framed. On page 4, Section 6, amending Section 11, it is proposed, as I interpret the clause, that workers and workers’ representatives may be invited to sit on apprenticeship committees. It has been found in Natal that where workers’ representatives are allowed to sit on an apprenticeship committee, representing their men, the results are not always successful. These reprentatives are sometimes not workers—occasionally they are mere agitators. In some instances they have gone to a meeting with no other intention than that of upsetting the apprenticeship committee. There is one section that was only referred to in passing by the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Sturrock) and that is the quorum. It seems to me a mistake to leave the quorum to regulation. There should be no difficulty in deciding what a quorum should be for any apprenticeship committee consisting of a given number of members, and I think it might well be embodied in the Act. Another clause is sub-section (b) of clause 8. Under this it will be found the Minister may fix different wages for different areas. Why? How does this square with that often enunciated principle of equal pay for equal work, which I think is an excellent maxim for application in connection with this Bill. Does the Minister seriously mean this? In clause 9, amending clause 14, I notice that the Railways and Harbours employees are omitted. Again, I ask why. We have a tremendous number of complaints arising on this point and strikes have been caused by this distinction as for example the strike of carpenters in Durban not very long ago. Regarding the remarks of the hon. member for Wonderboom (Dr. van Broekhuizen), he suggested that organized trades would be inundated with as many apprentices as applied. I believe no organized trade could stand this. They are all anxious to take as many apprentices as possible, but if they are to be compelled by legislation to take more than the industry can stand, then the object of the Bill will be defeated. The hon. member for Germiston (Mr. Brown) said that he liked one point and that was that boys would be compulsorily sent to certain schools which he disapproved of. This is a singular cause for pride.

About a fortnight ago the Minister of Agriculture introduced a Bill which aimed to secure autocratic powers regarding butter. Yesterday, autocratic powers were sought to control the fruit industry. This afternoon the Minister of Finance tried to get autocratic powers to control wheat importation; and now the hon. Minister of Labour—not to be outdone—is seeking autocratic power to deal with all trades and occupations. In order that nothing may be missed he is changing the definition of a trade to cover every occupation and to bring under this Bill every trade and occupation without reference to Parliament or anyone else, to deal with every wage-earner in the country. He can insist on there being an apprenticeship’s scheme for insurance clerks or bank clerks. I confess I am getting somewhat tired of the autocratic powers which Ministers are taking. The main villain of the piece is the Minister of Labour, who is supposed to be a strong democrat. Now, I do not think these powers should be given to the Minister. The powers of amending a schedule should only be given at the recommendation of the trade itself; otherwise, the Bill should—as the old Bill did—require the hon. Minister to come to Parliament and ask it to extend or amend the schedule. In the mechanical trades, or, as my friends the hon. member for Germiston (Mr. Brown) designates the skilled trades, it is customary for all entrants to that trade to be apprenticed. It is the custom of the trade, and there is very little difficulty about applying it. Then we come to commerce. Why I mention commerce is that it is difficult to know what the intention of the Minister is in giving himself the power he now desires, except to bring under the Bill certain occupations which at present are not under the Bill, but which in his personal opinion should be in the Bill. When we come to commerce, apprenticeship is not to-day general. There is a certain amount of apprenticeship in commerce, but not to anything like the extent there was twenty or thirty years ago. It is gradually decreasing.

Here or everywhere ?

Everywhere, but more particularly in our country. I will give the Minister the reason. The reason does not arise principally from the employer. The objection to-day arises principally from the parents, the reason being that the parent to-day wants his or her child to be earning money at the earliest possible moment. The days when apprenticeship was in force and customary in commerce, there was practically no pay attached to the apprentices. The position is that you cannot have it both ways. If you want your child to be educated, that must be the first consideration, and the question of remuneration must be the second consideration. If you want your child to earn money quickly, but perhaps not efficiently, that child will not be so valuable when he comes to an adult age. Then the position is that you cannot expect that child to have a full education. If the parent requires a large remuneration for the child, that child must be immediately put on to a job and kept in that one job so that every six months he can become more valuable in that job. But that does not fulfil the proper conditions of apprenticeship. The proper conditions of apprenticeship are that immediately that child has become reasonably proficient in one section of the work, he should be immediately moved to another section, and in a period of three years the child has had a large experience of the trade. Now the hon. Minister comes along with a wages determination or something or other of commercial employees. He says that you will in the first six months earn £4 17s. 6d. a month, and then £5 8s. 4d. in the second six months, and then £5 19s. 2d. In those circumstances the employer will not take on an apprentice if that employer is honest. The first aim is to teach the apprentice his business, and not to see that he can earn the remuneration which he is getting. The hon. Minister recognizes the difficulty. Supposing we take on an apprentice at £4 17s. 6d. a month, and, at the end of 18 months, he has had his third transfer to another section. The manager of that section will turn round to the employer and say: “No, I shall not give that boy £7 a month. He knows nothing about my business. Give me a new apprentice at £4 17s. 6d. a month, and I shall take him on.” These difficulties are small when looked at on the floor of this House, but when it comes to treating with apprentices, the Minister will find that it is almost impossible to get boys apprenticed today under the conditions which he stipulates. I will give something within my own knowledge. The wage determination that has been brought in has sent boys overseas to get their training. Boys, whose parents can afford it, and see the enormous value of it, send their boys overseas to get proper training. The boys will not be taken on under the wages determination. The employers say they are not prepared to educate the children of other parents.

That is laid down under the apprentices Act.

You want cheap labour.

We do not want cheap labour. The hon. member knows a good deal about business, and he knows that there is nothing dearer in this world than cheap labour. What we do want is that if a child is not to earn his remuneration well, then he cannot be expected to be paid that remuneration. Let us take the case of a boy going to a technical institute. You would think it absurd if, instead of the employer asking for fees, the boy demanded to be paid for it, and the value that a good employer can give to an apprentice is infinitely greater than the boy can get at a theoretical technical institute. The proof is in existence within my own knowledge. I know boys who are to-day learning their trades in England because they cannot get employment in South Africa, because we are not prepared to teach them under the same conditions that they are taught under in other countries. I am arguing against the whole labour theory of the present Government which is doing more harm to the worker than it has ever done, or will do, to the employer. Now the hon. Minister thinks, I suppose, that the next step he will have to take is to see that an employer takes apprentices. I can assure him that he will not succeed. What is going to happen? What is going to happen is this: that, under his scheme, these apprentices will not be taken by employers. The employer will rather pay a higher wage and get an efficient man. That efficient man will come out from overseas, and your boys and our boys will be left on the shelf doing the donkey work. The only people you will have to thank for that are the gentlemen sitting on the Government benches. The Minister is going to send the Bill to a select committee, so that the details can be thrashed out there. The hon. member for Germiston (Mr. Brown) has objected to the Minister having so many autocratic powers. Perhaps the joint persuasion of these hard-hearted employers coupled with the persuasion of the hon. member for Germiston, who is a trade unionist, will soften the heart of the Minister; if he has not become too autocratic in the past few years, and have given up the idea of forcing things down people’s throats, he will succeed and will not disorganize trade more than his predecessor did, which is saying a very great deal. The wage determinations for commercial employees was the biggest farce for which any Labour Minister was responsible.

Commerce has already very fully expressed itself on the apprenticeship question. Some three or four years ago the Minister attended a meeting of the Associated Chambers of Commerce at Harrismith, where the question of apprenticeship was debated, commerce strongly supporting the voluntary system, at the same time expressing itself very definitely against any form of compulsion. As I read the Bill, the Minister can apply it to commerce and make it compulsory, with the result that every commercial business in South Africa will be compelled to adopt the apprenticeship system.

No.

The Minister has stated that he is prepared to apply the system to one section of commerce. How is it possible to do that in the case of a large departmental store? The system might certainly be applied to one particular section of commerce, but the proprietor of a large departmental store might employ any number of lads in the other departments. The Act states that it refers to minors which, I take it, include both male and female, and that means that every minor, of either sex, must be apprenticed if the Minister so desires. [The Minister shook his head.] The Act has gone very much further than even the Minister intended, but if that is the intention, the wording will have to be altered, otherwise there will he conflict with the Wage Board which has laid down wages for minors up to £17 per month. If a firm indentures an apprentice at 18 or 19 years of age, it will not do so at the rate stipulated by the Wage Board. The hon. member for Germiston (Mr. Brown) says that the Act stops unemployment, but surely, if it compels every firm to engage apprentices, the result must be unemployment, as employers will not apprentice youths unless they feel they are fitted for the work. Tradespeople will engage natives to do work hitherto done by white boys. Is a firm going to bind itself to engage a large number of minors for a fixed period of years if it can avoid doing so by employing a certain amount of native labour? You have done everything to encourage the employment of white lads, and I think that has been very successful. There is a very much better feeling over the question of the employment of white youths, and there has been a very earnest desire on the part of trades and industries right through the country to give white boys a “show.” Trades and industries have, as far as they possibly can, eliminated the native, but you have to be very careful not to make conditions such as to encourage a certain type of employer to obtain the cheaper kind of native labour. Then you have to overcome the antipathy of certain parents against their sons starting at the bottom of the ladder. There is a strong feeling that many jobs are degrading to white lads. It has been the custom to call on the natives to do this, that or the other thing, and white lads grow up feeling it is infra dig to perform work hitherto done by natives. That spirit is gradually being broken down, but it will take a long time to eliminate it entirely. In some respects I am not altogether sure that the Wage Act has been so detrimental to firms which honestly try to carry it out, and to give the best conditions of labour. There I differ from the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford). If a firm is compelled to pay these wages, and firms not considered in quite the same category are also compelled to pay these wages, the firms which do carry on the trade well must benefit. Wages may go too high, but speaking generally, I think a wage determination of that sort must be to the benefit of the firms which are honestly trying to give the best conditions. I think the Minister would get far more support if he will make it perfectly clear that some voluntary, instead of compulsory, system can be introduced. I know of many cases where young South Africans, after having served a period in this country, have gone overseas and got additional experience. They have come back and immediately got good jobs. It must be perfectly clear what section of trade they are going to study; but all these are matters of detail.

I think if there is one thing that ought to give the Minister encouragement, it is the speech of the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford), and I am quite sure that after hearing that hon. members of the Opposition benches equally with those on the Government benches will agree with the necessity of having the Apprenticeship Act more strictly enforced than before, because the very things the hon. member complained about are what makes this Act a necessity. If ever a Minister should thank an opponent, he should be very thankful to the hon. member. I give credit to the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. Pocock) who dissociated himself from the hon. member for Newlands, which I am very glad he did, because if there is one thing the great mass of the people in this country want to do, it is to do their best by their children. Some are better placed than others, and perhaps the hon. member for Newlands was better placed than most when he was put into industry and was taken through the counting house and the general office, while many others have had to begin from the lowest stage and to battle through to better conditions. They also have this difficulty that whereas the one is firmly entrenched in the order of progress, the others are faced with this that when their wage rises, or reaches a certain level, it is easier to get them out and to get others in. That is the cheap labour policy. The Bill cannot entirely eliminate that, unless you lay down the trade union policy of having so many apprentices to so many qualified persons, which is the only ultimate hope of doing away with the wrongdoings of those big firms of which the hon. member for Newlands has so well spoken. The hon. member for Pretoria (Central) spoke of certain young men and women going overseas to broaden their experience, and while we agree that travel always broadens the mind, with the trade journals, newspapers and the increased education of apprentices, our apprentices can keep in touch with thought in Europe and America, and the apprentice who does not do so is not facing the position. I do recognize the weakness is still there, in so far as apprentices can be taken on so as to make them liable to the exploiter. I would like the Minister to look into the Medical, Dental and Pharmacy Act which was passed under the guidance of the Minister of the Interior, and in which it is laid down that one who is apprenticed to a chemist and druggist should be circumscribed and the regulations are in the hands of the pharmacy board.

Not the Minister.

Approved by the Minister. The regulations are framed by the pharmacy board, and approved, in fact, issued, by the Minister.

That is for the chemists; that is what we demand.

The chemists are elected by the chemists. Under the Pharmacy Act, only one apprentice is allowed to a chemist’s shop. Further, the definite wage to be paid to that apprentice is also laid down, and he has to go through a yearly process of increase of his wage. There is no question of exploitation. The hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. Pocock) said that many of them would come in and would not be apprenticed at all. Under the Medical, Dental and Pharmacy Act that would not be possible. They are definitely apprenticed, and immediately they are apprenticed they come under the control of the apprenticeship arrangements laid down under the Act. If the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford) thinks that he would prefer that the position should be dealt with by a board of employers—

No, a board consisting of half employers and half employees.

That would be entirely unworkable. Chemists and druggists are not concerned with an employer’s or employee’s point of view. They are concerned with apprentices getting to know their business. When you make an apprentice, you don’t know what he is going to be in after years but you make him an efficient man in his business. The whole statement of the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford) was solely guided by the idea of employers getting cheap labour. That is not apprenticeship. The whole object of apprenticeship is to make them thoroughly efficient for the benefit of the industry, and to see that while learning their business, they will be secure, and that no opportunity will be given of cheap labour being obtained under the name of an apprenticeship.

I may say that in essence I am thoroughly in agreement with the Bill up to a point, especially with regard to skilled artisans. With regard to the remarks of the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Sturrock), who was concerned as to what line the Minister would take in establishing apprenticeships in commerce, it seemed to me that by regulation it would develop into something farcical. A future minister, not the present one, might ask that apprenticeship should be instituted in the occupation of secondhand dealers, or even in that of pawnbrokers, thus making the whole thing ridiculous. As far as my friend the member for Langlaagte (Mr. Christie) is concerned I think I have pinned him to the statement that the pharmacy board was elected by the body of registered chemists of this country, and I will admit that that is the proper way to set about the thing, as well as with your artisans generally. We want to have skilled men in all the skilled trades. But the hon. member says that we are exploiting people, and bringing in apprentices to bring down the wages. We are doing nothing of the sort. What we want to do is to train apprentices in such a manner that they will be capable and efficient citizens. When the hon. member was apprenticed he had to start with manual work. In my apprenticeship days, I had to go through the gamut of washing windows and bottles and of learning the uses of the various appliances, and I had to work myself up. Reference has been made to the technical side. I am sorry that the Minister is not here. The Minister, referring to the clause regarding students attending technical schools, gave it as his opinion that the first three years were the essential years in the technical schools. In that I agree. I do not say it should be carried on during the whole of the five years, but I do say that in any trade, in the skilled trades, a boy has got to “swot” up the rudimentary knowledge of his work in the first two or three years. The technical side of his education should come after that. The hon. member for Germiston (Mr. Brown) has spoken about our technical colleges. I—like him—am much concerned about these great big buildings. We have one at East London which cost £48,000 and we have got to find redemption and interest on that money and we cannot in consequence find money to equip the workshops; and I think that is the general position throughout the various Technical Colleges in the country to-day. Regarding Clause 6; sub-section (e) which provides that the chairman of that apprenticeship committee shall be appointed by the Minister, someone might be appointed who knows nothing about the various trades. If you are going to appoint chairmen of apprenticeship committees; have men who understand the job; who are capable and have a thorough knowledge of the work. The hon. Minister possibly may not know the local conditions of, say, Port Elizabeth and East London; and it lays itself open to abuse; even, if I may say so, the establishment of a job for a pal. If an apprenticeship committee established under this section ceases for any reason within any area, the Minister may by notice to the “Gazette” discharge the committee and order that any or all of its powers shall for a period at his pleasure be vested in the inspector. Here again we have an inspector brought in, and we are not always sure that the inspector who has control of the various trades understands his job. Again I say abuses might come about. In fact one late member of this House told me that at one time an appointment was made of a shop inspector and the man who was appointed had only had experience as a telegraph linesman.

This is the inspector of apprentices referred to in Clause 3-. of the original Act.

That does not alter the fact that he may be a man who is put in by the Minister and totally unfitted for the job. I could have wished this Bill had been sent to select committee before the second reading. I am convinced that before very long mistakes will be found in this Bill and the whole business will have to be gone over again.

In spite of the promise of the Minister of Labour that this Bill is to go to a select committee I rise to protest on behalf of the Durban Chamber of Commerce to some of the amendments of this Act. They object very strongly to the autocratic powers the Minister is seeking. These powers of governing by regulation and ministerial powers without first consulting the House. There are one or two points I would like to make. The rest I will reserve for the committee stage, but would like to be allowed to present them in the select committee. There is a distinction between commerce and learning a trade. Trade usually only employs males and commerce employs both males and females. It it not possible for obvious reasons to apprentice women and that is one objection to the Bill. Another is that in commerce you cannot make an apprentice go through each branch of a general store, for instance hardware, grocery, etc., because by the time he has qualified, he would be receiving the old age pension. On the whole the chamber takes the view that a lot of the amendments, in this Bill could be thrashed out in select committee with advantage to all parties concerned. They object also to compulsory apprenticeship which does not benefit either employer or employee, and I hope these points may be laid before the select committee.

After hearing the speech of the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford) I feel that he really tried to portray me in my true colours as a desperate autocrat, but I do feel flattered that I am at least a little less autocratic than some of the Ministers with whom he has compared me in that the power sought would not he wielded by me but by the Governor-General in council. At all events I am not allocating to myself as Minister these various powers. It occurs to me to wonder where is the spirit which used to animate the merchants of the two countries from which the two main stocks in South Africa are drawn. Two or three centuries ago the spirit of the merchant adventurers of England and Holland were above all things full of courage. Where has that courage gone? In any one of these industrial measures if there is any suspicion you are going to touch commerce, members rise up and say “Oh, don’t touch us poor commercial people, you will ruin us all.” The hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Sturrock) who I am afraid is somewhat of a hybrid in his training,—being an engineer and also a commercial man,—I think he has acquired some of the nervousness of commerce in this matter. In the course of my remarks I mentioned commerce, and I have drawn down all this terrible criticism upon my head. I am not familiar with the details of commerce. The hon. member for Pretoria seems to imagine that if an industry or commerce is a scheduled industry, then every single employee in that industry has got to be indentured. He, and many other hon. members, have clearly not read the principal Act. The principal Act does not say that in a scheduled industry, say engineering, every individual minor employee must be apprenticed. It does not say that in the printing industry every employee must be apprenticed. Nor does it give the Minister the power to lay down what trade in that industry shall be designated. Nor does it ignore the employers and the workers in that industry, as one hon. member appears to think. Section 11 says that subject to the provisions of this section, the Minister may establish in a defined area an apprenticeship committee to advise him in accordance with this Act on all matters governing the apprentices of any scheduled industry within that area. How is that apprenticeship committee constituted? It is constituted as follows—

So you see the apprenticeship committee is completely representative of the industry itself. And then the hon. member over there says that the autocratic Minister wants to appoint the chairman. What did the pundits of his own side who framed this Act say? They laid down that an independent chairman should be appointed by the Minister and for very good reasons. The party on the other side, occasionally, I am free to admit, at comparative intervals, had lucid intervals and that is a very salutary provision. They insisted on putting in a clause which alienated all co-operation on the part of the organized labour. I do ask hon. members over there who represent commerce, not to be frightened. No one is going to hurt them.

We can look after ourselves.

They were terribly injured and the crime that was committed was the effrontery of the Government, the bare-faced, wicked, detestable audacity of directing the Wage Board to look into their affairs, and they have hardly got over it yet.

They made a mess of it.

The hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford) thinks in his estimation that there is no prudence on this side of the House, but there is a certain amount of common sense. Let us assume for the sake of argument, that commerce was on this schedule. What will happen? The hon. member, and various other hon. members, painted most awful pictures of what would happen. According to the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. Pocock) I would at once proceed to issue a ukase under which no minor male or female in commerce, should be there a day longer unless he or she had been apprenticed for five or seven years.

I did not say so.

The Act enables me to set up an apprenticeship committee in that industry. Then we come to the powers and functions of the apprenticeship committee. The Act says that it may recommend to the Minister the designation of a trade or branch of a trade in any industry, specified in the first schedule, to which the provisions of this Act in respect of apprentices shall become operative. That is to say, in an industry of many parts. There are some callings in an industry which are a proper subject for apprenticeship. There are other callings where apprenticeship would be idle and useless. In a scheduled industry, that does not mean that everyone in the industry is necessarily apprenticed. The apprenticeship committee is representative of employers and employees. It would then proceed to say “is there any occupation, or any trade in this industry that we can recommend to the Minister should be designated a trade to which the provisions of this Act should apply”. If they cannot find one, they do not recommend it. If they do recommend one, the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) and his hon. friends, representatives of the Chambers of Commerce, and the representatives of the commercial employees—if they recommend that there are certain callings which are susceptible to the designation of benefit— then I suppose I can rely upon the combined efforts of that body to deal fairly in designating that particular line of the persons employed to be subject to the provisions of this Act.

Must they act unanimously ?

No, by a majority. There are other occupations besides commerce which it is necessary to include in the schedule.

That was not disputed.

When the hon. member gets the Hansard report of his speech, he will find that his remarks are entirely based on the assumption that once an industry was scheduled, every minor engaged in it must be indentured as an apprentice. Both sides of the House are entirely agreed that the more you can extend the field of regular training of our youths, the more we shall reduce to a minimum the risk of their being used selfishly by employers and then turned out very poorly trained. Many of the remarks which have been made during the debate have been utered in ignorance of some of the most fundamental features of the whole matter. I appreciate the remarks of the hon. member for Cathcart (Mr. van Coller) and the House recognizes the earnestness of the interest he takes in these matters, but he pointed out that we should make it compulsory for these lads to attend technical classes in their employer’s time and at their employer’s expense. There is nothing I should like better, but one must not thrust obligations on the employer to such an extent as to make him unwilling to indenture apprentices. The debate confirms me in my view that both sides of the House are in agreement with the main objects of the Bill, and we shall make a much better measure of it by thrashing out difficult points in a select committee than by arguing them at length in Committee of the whole House. The hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Sturrock) will find that very many of his fears are groundless.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time and referred to Select Committee on Industrial Conciliation (Amendment) Bill for consideration and report.