as chairman, brought up the report of the Select Committee on Asiatics in Transvaal.

Report and evidence to be printed.

announced that the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders had discharged Mr. Pienaar from service on the Select Committee on the Electoral Law and appointed Maj. Roberts in his stead.

May we know what the amendments are?

The words “all other dissemination” have been inserted after “publication”, (and there is a consequential amendment in sub-section (10) “or otherwise disseminate”. then there is an amendment to sub-section (12) in the Dutch. In sub-section (14) the words were inserted “and he may after the expiration of seven days after such notice”.

I have no objection.

Amendment in Clause I put and agreed to.

I move—

Since the question was debated in the House the subject of the Bill was referred to a select committee for enquiry. The cordial reception which the Bill had last time makes me hope that it will have the same reception to-day after hon. members have read the report of the select committee. As for the members of the select committee on this side, I can say that they were as representative as possible, because they consisted of a medical man, a farmer, a merchant, and a man who for years was a head official in our police force. Hon. members opposite were just as representative. One of them was a member of the Jewish community, to represent that as well. I do not know whether hon. members have read the report, but I just want to refer to a few points in the report very briefly. In the first place the select committee find that there is a considerable amount of unnecessary cruelty in the slaughter houses of the Union, and in part 2 of the report we find—

Further, in part 5 they say that this slaughterhouse is often nothing else than a torture chamber. In part 15 it also says—

In the first place the select committee had the proof from the evidence they took that there was unnecessary cruelty in the slaughter-houses in our country. I do not want to enter into the details of the cruelty, because hon. members can read it for themselves in the report, but I only want to point out that the fact was conclusively proved. In the second place, the select committee recommended that this Bill is urgently necessary. In part 3 the committee says—

And in part 5 it is repeated that this Bill is urgently necessary. Some of the objections to the Bill were heard by the select committee, and, although they did not agree with the objections, they felt that these objections might result in the Bill being delayed, and they, therefore, agreed to omit the parts of the Bill objected to so that it could be dealt with now. In the previous Bill introduced by me certain provisions were made which do not appear in this Bill. One of them is the animals to which the Bill referred. In the previous Bill, cattle, sheep and pigs were mentioned. This Bill only mentions cattle, because the inclusion of other animals was objected to. The committee do not say that they agree with this objection, but most of the cruelty takes place in the case of cattle, and they, therefore, agreed to make the amendment. The Bill, however, provides that the Governor-General can include other animals, therefore if it is subsequently found necessary to apply the Bill to other animals, it can be done. The second amendment refers to the character of the slaughter-houses. The first Bill only dealt with the slaughter-houses that were controlled by municipalities. Various witnesses, especially the hon. member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Humphreys), in his evidence before the committee, pointed out that a provision which only applied to municipal slaughter-houses would be unfair. They have, e.g., no municipal slaughter-houses in Kimberley, but it is intended to put one up, and if the Bill were to pass, as originally drafted, it might possibly result in their getting no municipal slaughter-house. The select committee have accordingly seen fit to make the Bill apply to all slaughter-houses. Clause 1 of this Bill says—

1. (a) in any slaughter-house established or controlled by a local authority, or
2. (b) on any land or premises where more than five animals are ordinarily so killed during any one month,

Five animals have therefore been laid down by the select committee as a minimum. I do not know whether the select committee is wedded to that figure of five, but if some hon. members think that the result would be that the Bill would apply to places to which it was not intended to apply, then I personally, at any rate, will be prepared to alter the number. Hon. members must, however, not be afraid that the Bill will apply to farmers.

What about sheep and pigs?

They are not included. Then another question was debated on a previous occasion, viz., the preparation for the slaughter of animals. Hon. members, including the hon. member for Zoutpansberg (Mr. Verster), pointed out that the cruelty chiefly consisted in preparing for the slaughter. This painless killer will, of course, assist in reducing the cruelty, but we must bear in mind that the preparations the animal has to undergo before it is slaughtered may also be cruel. The select committee did not feel called upon to lay down what the preparation was to be, but Clause 5 of the Bill gives the Minister the power to make regulations to carry out the objects of the Bill, and anyone contravening them will be liable to a fine not exceeding £5. I hope that hon. members have availed themselves of the opportunity to go and look at a model of a slaughter-house on the top of this building. It is a very interesting model, which shows how animals can be killed without any cruelty. Many of these things are still in the experimental stage, but it has nevertheless been shown that means can be found to remove the cruelty in the preparing of the animals for slaughter. To make it compulsory immediately upon the town councils will involve expenditure which we do not want to put on them at once. There is another point that I would like to deal with, viz., the exception which is made with regard to meat slaughtered for consumption by Jews and Mohammedans. In this connection I want to point out that in Kimberley 75 per cent, of the meat is slaughtered as if it were used by these two classes of the population, while of course they do not at all constitute 75 per cent, of the population of that town. In Cape Town 36 per cent, is slaughtered in that way, and in Johannesburg 30 per cent. It is clear, therefore, that many more animals are slaughtered in the Jewish way than what are necessary for the consumption of those two classes of the community. This Bill makes the following exceptions—

I may say that the select committee could not find a good translation for the word humane, and therefore the word “painless” has been used. I shall be glad if an hon. member can suggest a better word in Afrikaans. This exception is made to obviate possible agitation against the Bill. As for the Jewish method, it also appeared from the evidence that the greatest cruelty took place in connection with the pulling down and preparation of the animal. Experiments are now being made, however, with a contrivance which pulls down the animal mechanically so that that cruelty can also be eliminated. The attitude of the town council with regard to the humane killer is summarized in paragraph 16. The official of the town council at Cape Town, who is concerned in the matter, is in favour of it. The Johannesburg municipality is not only convinced that the mechanical killer is the best, but it has even decided to approach the authorities to make the use of it compulsory in the Transvaal. The same applies to Durban. I do not want to detain the House any longer in connection with this matter, because I went into all details on a former occasion. To day I have only dealt with the Bill from the point of view of the select committee’s recommendations. The select committee’s report is very favourable to the Bill, and I hope that the House will pass the second reading this afternoon. I know there are hon. members who will not be satisfied with the Bill. I am not quite satisfied myself. More could have been put into the Bill, but it would mean the postponement of the matter. A start is being made and it can subsequently be followed up by a further extension.

I hope the hon. member who moved the second reading of the Bill will forgive me for saying that having carefully studied the report of the select committee and read the Bill, I find the latter hopelessly illogical and disappointing. The committee, after making a careful enquiry, presented a very strong indictment indeed against the present methods of slaughter. Anybody with any spark of humanity must be shocked, sickened and disgusted by what he reads in the committee’s report regarding the present methods of animal slaughter. He read that cattle suffer mostly prior to the moment of slaughter, and not during the act of slaughter itself. In other words, they suffer twice; first from the smell of blood and the consciousness that they are about to be killed, and then they suffer during the act of slaughtering itself. The report of the select committee goes on to say—

In regard to the first stage the Bill does nothing at all; nothing whatever is proposed to minimize the sufferings of these animals in the atmosphere in which they find themselves, or to see that they are slaughtered in a separate chamber from the place where the actual stunning is done. I say that that is most disappointing. Then you come to the provision regarding the slaughtering of most animals, and it is provided that it shall be done by means of the humane killer. Next you come to the case of animals killed under the Jewish and Mohammedan methods, and then I am left wondering by what process the select committee managed to evolve a Bill of this sort. After saying that bad as the Christian methods of slaughter are, the Jewish and Mohammedan methods are very much worse, the select committee proposes to exempt from the operations of the Bill animals killed by Jewish or Mohammedan methods “if such killing is humanely effected.” Let me ask the mover or the chairman of the select committee what does that mean. It means nothing.

They wash and anoint their feet.

Why not let us say that no animal shall be killed by Jew, Christian or Mohammedan, unless it is humanely slaughtered. Cruelty is cruelty whether it be by Jew, Christian or Mohammedan.

Killing is cruel.

It need not necessarily be cruel. We must assume that animals must be killed for human food.

Why?

Because that is the immemorial custom of this country. The point is that the killing should be done humanely and painlessly, and it can be done. It is absurd to say to the Christian portion of the community: “When you kill animals for human consumption, you must slaughter them only with a humane killer,” and then to say that if the killing is to be done according to the Jewish or Mohammedan customs—for Jews and Mohammedans kill for Christians as well as for themselves—they are to be told that they can carry on as before provided that “they slaughter the animals humanely.” By what test are you going to judge it? Are you going to have a S.P.C.A. inspector there and have his opinion as to the test? It does not say so. How is any magistrate or court of law going to enforce this? Surely the gentlemen who drafted this must have realized the absurdity of the position, and they must be prepared to treat the situation logically. If they think the Jewish method is cruel, let them take the responsibility of making recommendations to the House to stop it. They do think it is cruel, but say: “I am sorry, you have to let them go on in their immemorial way.” But the Christian community is told they must do so in a humane way. The Bill is illogical, disappointing and inadequate, and no one realizes this inadequacy more than the hon. gentleman who moved the motion. If there is one thing that makes my blood boil, it is cruelty to animals. I am all for action, and speedy action; but I very much doubt whether action lies on the lines of the present Bill.

I regret that the hon. member has read the Bill and the evidence to such little purpose, and has missed the salient points of it, particularly in the report. The one thing that was emphasized in the report was the urgency. We recognize there is a great amount of cruelty going on, but for the time being, we took our stand on this, that we are also convinced that much of this cruelty is avoidable. It was to avoid any cruelty that could be avoided that we framed this Bill, convinced of its urgency, and brought it before the House. If we go only part of the way in abolishing cruelty, we have done good service to the community. This is not a Bill for splitting logical hairs or for debating points, but it is a matter of the greatest urgency affecting every man, woman and child of the community, who are suffering to-day, morally and physically, from the cruelty that is going on through the slaughter of animals for food. We have tried to be practical and to bring something before the House which will commend acceptance, and put something on the statute book that will obviate a good deal of the cruelty that is going on. No one realizes more than members of the select committee that it is not desirable to put laws on the statute book unless there is public opinion behind them to enforce them. If this Bill does not pass, and it is deferred, we shall, at all events, have done our duty and drawn attention to the matter, and the public can be educated only by knowing the facts. We have drawn up the report with great restraint, and we believe by putting such facts, in the limited time at our disposal, as the public can readily absorb, a certain amount of responsibility passes from us to them. Everyone, man, woman and child, is more interested than perhaps is plainly understood. We see on the contents bill of a newspaper “Death in the milkpan.” We do not know whether there is not death in the frying-pan, too. We know that if an animal is fatigued and a portion of that animal’s blood is injected into a fresh animal, that animal will show all signs of fatigue, too. Surely it is not too much to imagine that an animal that, is killed under circumstances of anger, pain and terror has its flesh not altogether in wholesome state. Perhaps if not all the ills that flesh is heir to, yet a great many may be traced to our methods of preparing food for consumption by human beings. There is no member of the select committee or of the House who would not like to have gone much further, but we were in a position to see the difficulties, and if we attempted too much, we would probably fail in doing anything; and that is why we concentrated on the urgency of doing something now which would have an immediate effect and do away with some of the cruelty; above all, would educate public opinion as to what is going on. We all have a public responsibility. I was horrified when my attention was drawn to this matter, and I was full of self-reproach that I had lived all these years without taking a deeper interest in the way in which animals were slaughtered. After this, no hon. member can evade his responsibility. If he is content to continue on those lines, I will be surprised. This Bill is a mere beginning, at all events, and is something on the way forward towards the great result that we see. I have no doubt whatever that, whatever the fate of this Bill is, it will have a beneficial effect on the lines we desire. The hon. member took us to task for not at once including the Jews and the Mohammedans in the general regulation that all animals should be stunned. I do not say for a moment that the Jews and the Moslems are less humane than we are; there is even some evidence to the contrary, that they are more humane. A distinguished Jewish rabbi pointed out that of all religions, and he did not except the Christian religion, the Jewish religion alone specifically enjoined mercy to animals. I am giving that quotation to show my own mental attitude, and we know how difficult it is to interfere with religious beliefs. We profoundly respect those who hold a belief when it is honestly held. We had evidence from the most eminent members of the Jewish faith in South Africa breathing with a desire to abolish or minimize cruelty in their particular circumstances. The Rev. Mr. Levy, of Port Elizabeth, is under the impression, and said so, that the Jewish method of killing needed improvement. The “Jewish World” of July 27th—the “Jewish World” is a newspaper that I presume carries a great deal of weight in the Jewish world—says—

The committee find that the time has not arrived when we can lay down in black and white that this particular method or the other particular method must be adopted. But we went as far as we could. With regard to the Jewish method, we made particular note of the Weinberg casting pen, which brings the animal humanely, perhaps with no terror at all, to the particular moment of letting out the life practically instantaneously by cutting the throat. Attention has been drawn to other preliminary cruelty. The committee paid a great deal of attention to that. Model abattoirs have been erected in England, with the sole idea of showing how animals, prior to actual slaughter, can be assembled and got into position without smelling blood, or without a consciousness of impending disaster We have gone to the trouble of having a model made and exhibited on the roof garden, so that hon. members could see how animals can be brought to the slaughter place without terror being induced. A good deal of terror occurs in wild animals through being separated from the herd. This model shows the animals proceeding head to tail, one after the other. But we are not yet in a position to legislate on these lines. We know that the humane feelings of the people at large in this country are so definite that they will not be satisfied until perfected arrangements are made with regard to these preliminaries, so that the animals can be despatched without undergoing all the terror that is at present experienced by them. As a first step towards that, we advocate the use of the humane stunner, so that the animal is stunned before it can in any way realize what is going to happen to it later. It is inadvisable to go further now than the people will follow, or than the arrangements at our disposal, and the state of preparation, admits of. But there is one thing quite certain, that it will be impossible in a few years’ time, I hope in a few months’ time, for any butcher to sell meat if it is known that it is killed under inhumane circumstances, and if any butcher advertises that he does kill under proper circumstances, that fact alone will have a commercial value which will be reflected in his business. That will be the reflection of the opinion of the public, who will not be satisfied with eating meat that has not been killed under humane conditions. Let me quote the Rev. Dr. Laudau. I believe he is a gentleman of international reputation. He speaks of the manner of killing the animal, and I will explain once more that when we speak of killing, we refer solely to the actual letting of blood which produces unconsciousness. The Rev. Dr. Landau’s use of the word “killing” must be understood in that way.

I thought your whole Bill was based on the preliminaries.

No, on more humane methods, and we are going as far as we can at the present time. The Rev. Dr. Landau said While the manner of killing the animal must not be interfered with, the Jewish community is quite prepared to consider the matter of casting of the animal, so that the cruelty of the killing may be lessened.” There you have the statement of the Rev. Dr. Landau, that there is cruelty existing now, and this cruelty can be lessened. That is the immediate object of the Bill, to lessen this cruelty as far as it is possible. The only criticism that we are open to, and that we share with hon. members generally, is that we did not take up this matter long ago, that we were content to go on killing under these abominable and loathsome conditions all these years, without stirring hand or foot to remedy matters. I am quite sure that the introduction of this Bill will arouse greater humane activities, not only in Jewish and Moslem, but also in Christian circles, to have this matter dealt with as it should be. I do not want to go into the details of the Bill just now. We shall have an opportunity in committee, but it is the desire of many to apply the humane killer to the smaller animals. There is some objection to the stunning of pigs before bleeding, pending further information, and, although there is a certain amount of cruelty in connection with the slaughter of the smaller animals for food, it is in no way comparable to the cruelty inflicted on the bovine animals. That will explain why we have not now advocated a more extensive use of the humane killer. We are more than anxious that their methods should, at all events, be rendered less cruel, as far as possible. There is every reason why they should conform to the other method of slaughtering animals. They profess—and I believe every word of their profession—that they will investigate matters, and if a more painless method can be used they will not let expense stand in the way. It is not generally known that the orthodox Jew will only eat the forequarter of the meat, and when people in this country realize that a vast quantity of meat is offered to them which has been killed under conditions of which they do not approve, that motive will supplement the humane considerations. We have made a distinct step forward, not only in legislation, but in educating people as to what is going on. We find that certain methods are prohibited on an increasingly large scale in many of the civilized countries of the world. Norway has recently absolutely prohibited killing by the kosher method in that country, and it is also prohibited in Switzerland. That has been done not from motives of race prejudice, but because some step was necessary to meet the strong feeling existing. A great deal of the rough work— the most cruel work—at the abattoirs is done by the natives, and they have a different standard of looking at these things to what civilized people have. There is no word in any native language which expresses the idea of cruelty. They have a word meaning ill-used, which is equally applied to inanimate objects. The native is probably callous towards the sufferings of animals. I hope that the conscience of this country will be awakened to some extent on this matter. We have reached the stage where we have to consider the effect of our methods on the civilization of the natives. It is all part of their educative process. What is going on at our abattoirs is retarding their progress to a higher civilization. We are giving the Minister considerable powers to include other smaller animals under the head of animals which must be stunned before they are slaughtered.

Which Minister?

I think it will be the Minister of Public Health. At present we are confining its operations to the bovine class of animals; they are larger and more difficult to handle. When the Bill was introduced there was some objection on the ground of expense. These objections are not well based on the facts and figures. As a matter of fact, the humane killer with long handle costs only £3. Cheaper models cost only £1 11s. 6d. The safety killer for pigs, sheep, etc., costs £2 12s. 6d.

made an interjection.

We have any amount of evidence that fresh blood has no effect on the beasts, although when it is as little as six hours old it seems to terrify them. The consideration of expenses, which are inconsiderable, should not weigh with us for a moment. I am quite sure that a great deal of attention will be devoted now to the arrangement of abattoirs, and to improve the arrangements in regard to the Jewish and model method of killing. Later on, it may be possible to include that numerous class of animals like sheep and pigs in the more humane method. All I can say at the present is that the urgency is not so great. In future we may provide means to deal with those animals more effectively than at the present time. The select committee has taken the unusual course of attaching pictures, photographs and diagrams, to their report in order to make it more clear. That has never been done before, but I am sure it will serve a useful purpose, as it will disclose that methods for a better arrangement towards more humane killing are not necessarily expensive, and will be possible of adoption in small communities. We will leave the matter in the hands of the House, and I am quite sure it will receive, at all events, unprejudiced consideration. It is too big a matter for small debating points. Let the imperfections of the Bill and the report be what they may, we submit that, on the whole, it is as far as we could reasonably have gone in the particular circumstances. We shall feel that a good work has been done if this Bill passes into law, realizing that its effects will be immediate, and will bring about better conditions, a better condition of things that is badly wanted. I think I may fitly conclude by just a few lines that apply more especially to the provisions of this Bill—

I am surprised that the hon. member for Ladbyrand has thought it necessary to introduce a Bill of this nature at this stage. I look upon it as a reflection upon this House that it has been found necessary to introduce such a measure, and that it should be explained as it has been this afternoon. There is nothing set forth in this Bill that is not provided for in the Prevention of Cruelty to Dumb Animals 1914 Act, which the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (North) (Mr. Kayser) and the hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. Swart) could not have achieved, if they wanted to be honest. If they have neglected their duty in the past by not bringing these cases before the public prosecutor they are responsible and not the public. Why come forward now and tell us that we are inhumanely slaughtering cattle? The hon. member for Ladybrand was careful to specify cattle, though the hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron) wound up by saying that he was quite prepared to extend it to sheep. The argument put forward by the hon. member for East London (North) is that there is unnecessary cruelty in the killing of animals to-day. I deny the imputation. I say that in South Africa we are as humane as people in any other part of the world in killing cattle. If you want to kill cattle, and as long as you want to eat beef and mutton you must kill cattle, you must make up your mind to adopt a process of killing cattle. If a farmer wants to kill cattle to-day his process is to shoot the bullock with a bullet which is the quickest and most efficacious method.

Are you in favour of it?

Yes, I am in favour of it. But what I am against is when an hon. member tells us that we are not killing our cattle in this country efficaciously and quickly and that there is cruelty in the method involved. The hon. member forgets that if a human being wants to kill himself he uses prussic acid or lysol. Well, he can do so if he wishes. This is grandmotherly legislation that we are trying to impress upon the country. We are trying to say that South Africa is inhumane, and we we are going, by this Bill this afternoon, to stamp all the farmers in this country as inhumane. I challenge the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Dr. Bremer) to deny that this Bill is not a reflection upon every farmer in this country. This Bill lays down the principle that in future the farmers will have to fall into line and have their cattle slaughtered on the methods that this committee proposes. I would draw attention to the constitution of this committee. The hon. member for Ladybrand took umbrage at it when I asked if there was any farmer involved, and he said Mr. du Toit. I find in the proceedings of the select committee that the members of the committee consisted of Mr. Buirski, who held the brief on behalf of the Jewish community, Brig.-Gen. Byron, who I have not heard of as a farmer, Col. M. S. W. du Toit, Major Richards, and Mr. R. A. T. van der Merwe. These gentlemen attended everyone of these meetings. At the concluding meeting it states that Mr. du Toit was a member of that committee. I cannot find from these proceedings that he was ever present representing the farmers. This Bill will have a reflection upon the farmers, and a reflection upon them both in the final and preliminary stages of this Bill. If the hon. member for Ladybrand wants to occupy the time of the House, there is plenty of material at this stage of the session with which he could occupy it, and with something more advantageous and more useful to the House. Why he should come and tell us that it is not humane to kill a bullock with the knife, and it is quite humane to kill a sheep with the knife, I do not know. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (North) said that if the Governor-General wants to amend these regulations he can do so. It is laid down in the Bill that at any time the Governor-General can amend this Bill by regulation, and compel a farmer who wants to kill a sheep on his farm to comply with these regulations. That is the position quite clearly. I think we have wasted a good deal of time on the Bill. I want to deny any inhumanity in regard to killing in South Africa, particularly on the point raised by the hon. member for Aliwal. I commend him to the evidence of the Rev. Mr. Bender who stated—

The Jews have evolved their own system of slaughter, and it is just as humane to kill a beast by severing an artery as it is by the methods suggested by the select committee. We are wasting the time of the House by considering the Bill. I do not think a single farmer will support the measure, and I do not think anyone will sit down under the imputation that South Africa is slaughtering its beasts cruelly.

I will not go so far as the hon. gentleman who has just spoken in condemnation of the members of the select committee, for they have taken a very considerable amount of trouble over this matter, and are actuated by the most praiseworthy motives. At the same time I confess to a feeling of disappointment. The full title of the measure is a “Bill to provide for the humane slaughter of certain animals.” But when you study its effect I think it will be found to be a very small improvement indeed on present methods. I feel it is necessary to read the following extracts from the report of the select committee in order that hon. members can really appreciate the cruelty inflicted on animals at the abattoirs—

Yet the hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron) says the animals have no fear of the sight or smell of such blood. When all this suffering which may occupy ten minutes has been inflicted on the animal, what happens? We have experts saying that the humane killer stuns an animal a few split seconds sooner than does the pole-axe. All that is dealt with by the Bill is the actual stunning so that the measure reminds me of a mountain in labour bringing forth a mouse. There cannot be a more apt description of the Bill. If we are going to do anything in this matter let us do it properly. We are all agreed as to the necessity of humane killing, but let us tackle the terrible preliminaries and surroundings so luridly described by the select committee. Do not let us say we have passed legislation ensuring humane slaughter when the Bill deals only with the fraction of a second between the time the animal is secured and the penetration of the poleaxe. I do not see how I can support the Bill. So far from it being necessary to pass legislation for making compulsory the use of humane killers, you find that Cape Town, Port Elizabeth and Durban municipalities are already using it, Johannesburg is experimenting. The next point is that regarding bovine animals. The Bill provides that on any land, or in any premises where more than five animals are ordinarily killed per month, the humane killer must be used. According to the definitions “animal” means an “bull, ox, cow, heifer, calf and any other animal which the Governor-General may proclaim.” Paragraph 13 of the select committee report recommends that the Governor-General be empowered to include other animals from time to time and this resolution has been incorporated in Clause 6 of the Bill. The hon. member for East London (North) suggested that in a short time sheep should be brought under the operation of the Bill. There are hundreds and thousands of farmers in South Africa who are killing more than five sheep a month, and that number is the irreducible minimum and above it the humane killer must be brought into use. The person who uses the humane killer has to be licensed so that the native who uses the killer on a farm will have to be licensed. The Bill does not differentiate for it does not say that the animal must be killed for human consumption. On dairy farms bull calves are killed, and under the Bill, they will have to be slaughtered by the humane killer. The Bill, in short, has not properly been thought out, and its implications have not been realized. If the Bill is passed at least it should be confined to cattle, and calves must be excluded otherwise we shall have all sort of difficulties. It may not have been the intention to make the measure apply to farmers, but it does apply to them. The evidence is very conflicting on the point whether the keeping qualities of meat from an animal “humanely killed” are the same as those of meat from an animal whose throat is cut while it is still alive. It will be very dangerous to use these humane killers for the slaughter of animals intended for export until we know the actual result of that method of slaughter. When you read the evidence you find a great deal of it has been given by very charitable enthusiasts who have not had practical experience, but who say they know that certain things have been done with beneficial effects in England. When you get recognized experts who have had practical experience, they give different evidence, and it is not quite the same as those who have given evidence and speak from hearsay. I want again to quote from the report as tar as this slaughtering is concerned. When you have gone through the preliminaries you come to this slaughtering, and this is how it reads—

If you go on a little further you will read—

Is it a sound principle for this House to lay down that an average of something like 50 per cent, of the animals may be continued to be slaughtered under methods described as being of intense agony, and this being embodied in the law of this country? It is a custom, but if this Bill passes, we are going to give it statutory status in the legal system in the country. If you are not prepared to include the Jews and the Mohammedans, it is preferable not to pass this Bill. While we appreciate to the full the feeling which has prompted these gentlemen to bring the Bill before the House, when you consider the many disadvantages to and restrictions on the community, and the small advantages the Bill confers with regard to the almost inappreciable suffering it does away with, the House should not pass this Bill, but wait for some more comprehensive measure.

It is quite plain it would be impossible to bring in this comprehensive Bill for which the hon. member for Griqualand (Mr. Gilson) asks, which would involve the expenditure of enormous sums of money by municipalities and other local bodies, but we do feel, and I do feel strongly still, that this Bill will be the beginning and a pivot on which we can work, and it will be of great value for propaganda purposes to get the attention of the public on this matter in order to induce local authorities and the owners of abattoirs to introduce every method and improvement that can possibly be introduced. While admittedly this Bill touches only the very fringe of the subject, we have endeavoured to bring a Bill forward which will be accepted, and as a result of which a beginning can be made. The hon. member for Griqualand says that whatever we work for in this Bill, is already an acomplished fact. There I do not agree with the hon. member. There are a great number of smaller, and perhaps larger, slaughter-houses in which methods are used which are uncertain, and in which many mistakes are made which have cruel results. If it was only for the relief of suffering caused in 10,000 or 20,000 slaughtering cases, it would be worth having this Bill, but the number is larger than that. We slaughter 500,000 head of cattle every year in this country, and it is a well-known fact that in a large number of these abattoirs and slaughterhouses they have not attained the perfection that can be attained in the rapid slaughtering of animals. If only the small matter of uniformity is introduced, we will do away with a great deal of unnecessary cruelty. I was amazed and surprized at the attitude of the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Munnik) that he should attempt to make out we were acting against our country. A more absurd mistake has never been made. Cruelty in the slaughtering of animals there is all over the world, and if there is something which gives us faith in human nature, it is the desire to improve methods and make them more humane, and to have human kindness, as far as possible. We want to be no exception to this rule, which applies to all civilized countries of the world. We know that in Norway and Sweden, and in Switzerland they have not even excluded the Jewish community from this method of slaughtering, and they have made it compulsory it should be uniform, irrespective of creed. We in this country have tried to meet the susceptibilities of Jewish and Mohammedan citizens, and, perhaps, we have not gone far enough in the matter, because we know that the Jewish community in other parts of the world are trying to perfect methods in which cruelty shall not be applied. I feel that the Jewish community in South Africa—in fact we know —would be quite willing to introduce such a method, such as Weinberg’s, as soon as they can do so. As soon as the method is valid, it must be made binding on the Jewish and Mohammedan communities as well. It would involve 16,000 hours less of cruelty to animals, but if we could reduce it by only one minute, it would be worth while to put through this Bill. The hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Munnik) referred to the farmers of this country. It was so unnecessary and so uncalled for to pretend that we, who have been on this select committee, had any desire to make out that the methods of the farmer are inhumane. We know that the farmer’s method is most humane. He kills his animals one by one. He brings his beast into a small pen and shoots it down, without it having any preliminary knowledge that it is going to be killed. It was absurd for the hon. member for Vredefort to drag the farmers into the discussion. We feel that the standardization of the methods used in the abbattoirs, and that the standardization of the plants of the abattoirs, is also very necessary, but we think that the time is not ripe, and that it is not possible to insist on those improvements at this stage. Our opinion is that by propaganda and education these methods will be introduced and used. The larger municipalities are anxious to do the right thing, and the smaller local authorities are just as anxious to do what is right, but have not, as yet, as much knowledge. We feel that this Bill will be in the nature of propaganda as well as a step forward in other respects, and that it will stir the conscience of the people and of the municipalities to improve their abattoirs. We feel that the Bill is worth while, and that there will be opportunity enough in the future to improve the requirements, and to make further provision for standardizing abattoirs and for further standardization of methods. I hope this Bill will go through the House rapidly, and assist the country in doing away with what some people have described as a very great stigma not only on this country, but on other parts of the world. All parts of the civilized world are trying to get rid of inhumane methods of slaughter.

I welcome the principle of this Bill. As a farmer I feel that such a Bill should long since have been introduced. Every farmer who goes to our slaughter poles feels pain when he sees how cruelly the animals are treated there. I went out to Maitland and saw how the sheep were ill-treated. Their throats are cut, and they are jostled up against each other with their legs in the air to die. I also visited the Johannesburg abattoirs and saw there how the cattle are dragged in through the blood while they bellowed with anxiety. The farmer who uses oxen loves them, and it revolts him to see how those animals are treated. He raises the calves, ploughs with the ox, and has a great horror of what happens to the animal when he sends it to market. I think every farmer ought to support this measure. I do not say that the Bill is perfect, nor do I say that it ought to be extended to the farms; there is no unnecessary cruelty on the farms; the animals are killed quickly or are shot. For these reasons I support the Bill.

As a member of the select committee I should like to say that I yield to no one, and that my race yields to no other race, with regard the desire to avoid cruelty to animals. It is a part of our religion that cruelty to animals should be avoided. We hear a great deal about Jews, and about cruelty in connection with their slaughtering, but if you look at the evidence you will find that I asked every gentleman who gave evidence before the committee as to whether the Jewish method of slaughtering was more horrible and more cruel than any other method. Every witness in reply said it was not crueller than the other methods.

Not in the preliminaries.

I think my hon. friend will agree with me that I put the question I have mentioned to all the witnesses, and that I questioned them as regards electric prodding to get the animals in position to be shot, or for casting. We are splitting hairs in respect of the question of killing and the preparatory arrangements in bringing these animals to slaughter. There is no doubt that the best method of killing an animal is with a sharp razor-like knife, as has been done by almost every denomination, and particularly by the Jews. I do not want a slur to be cast on the Jewish people with respect to their old traditions, traditions of 6,000 years old or more, laid down by Moses and others. The Jews are quite prepared to accept any method whereby cruelty can be lessened before the actual operation of the knife. It has been suggested that there is a certain mechanical box, or what is called the Weinberg pen. This has not been tried in this country, but I believe it has been tried in Europe. If that is a successful method, I can assure the House that it will be willingly adopted by the Jews; in fact a statement to that effect was voluntarily made by the rabbis Dr. Landau and Mr. Bender. All killing is horrible, to my mind, in whatever manner it is done. We must try to reduce the pain. The only objection that can be raised with regard to Jewish methods is the method of bringing the animal up to the position when the knife is inflicted, but we are quite prepared to accept any improved method in that respect. I am pleased to think that there has been no race prejudice exhibited in connection with this Bill. When we were considering the measure in committee, I was impressed with the manner in which the committee very often tried to assist me, although I could see I was in a hopeless minority. But there is one matter in connection with the Bill which we, as a race, feel casts some little slur upon us, and that is in the reference to Jewish and Mohammedan methods in the measure. There are some words there which I think should be excized. The committee at no stage reported that the method of the Jews is not humane. At the committee stage an amendment will be made asking the House to delete those few words, because we feel they cast a slur upon us which we do not deserve. Otherwise I welcome this Bill, and am prepared to support it.

I just want to say a few words in support of the Bill. I do not think there is any reasonable person who takes an interest in animals who will not support it. I had an opportunity of visiting the Cape Town abattoir and I must say that I was pained to see the way the animals are slaughtered here. Most of the work is left to natives, who, of course, have not the least sympathy for the animals. We all agree that animals ought to be killed in as humane a manner as possible. I, for my part, will support the Bill. There is only one point that I want to ask of the hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. Swart), viz., to introduce the necessary amendment to meet my objection. The Bill says that it shall apply to slaughter-houses or any ground or plot where more than 5 animals per month are killed. I am afraid that it may possibly be applied to farms as well. It will not apply to the slaughter of cattle on farms, because the rifle is also considered as a mechanical instrument, but the Governor-General can apply the Act to other animals. We feel that this Bill is incomplete and that amendments are possible, but I should like us to accept the principle, making it clear that the Bill cannot be applied on a farm where a man slaughters for his own use. I hope that the hon. member for Ladybrand will bear this in mind and will see to the necessary amendment being moved. That is the only objection I have to the Bill.

I think everybody is in favour of the principle of humane killing. If this Bill had applied only to bovines, there would have been no opposition to it, but it seems the Minister will have the power to include any other animals by getting the assent of the Governor-General. For that reason I cannot support the Bill, and must vote against the second reading. If the hon. member who introduced the Bill is prepared to delete the words giving power to the Governor-General to include other animals—will the hon. member give me that assurance?

Personally I am in favour of that.

In that case I withdraw my opposition to the Bill.

I support this Bill. I think the time is long overdue when provision should be made for the humane killing of animals. But the Bill does not go far enough. It provides for the application of the humane killer, but there is nothing to provide for where the bleeding should take place, and that seems to be one of the weaknesses of the Bill. I would like to see a provision that when the animal has been stunned, it should be taken to a different place where the bleeding should take place. Then there is another point with regard to the small butcher who kills three or four animals a month. Perhaps the mover may be in a position to make some provision in cases of this kind. Otherwise I am in full accord with the Bill, and I hope the second reading will be accepted.

I also rise to support the principle of the Bill. I have been greatly interested in the remarks of the hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron). After his speech it is clear that the committee did its utmost, although faced with considerable difficulty, and this Bill is undoubtedly a step in the right direction. It may have defects, but in the course of experience those defects can be remedied. There is one point I wish to refer to and that is the point raised by the hon. member for Woodstock (Mr. Buirski), dealing with the Jewish community. I agree with him that as the clause reads now, the presumption is that slaughtering is not humanely done by the Jewish community according to their religious rites. I think all the members agree that that part of the clause should either be deleted, or so amended that it cannot in any sense give offense. As I understand the clause now, any officer in charge of the execution of the provisions of this Bill could view the slaughtering done by the Jewish community to be not done in a humane form, and thus a slur might be cast on their religious rites practised for so many centuries. The hon. member who moved the second reading and the hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron) made the point clear that we, as a Parliament, are determined to respect religious rites. When we come to the committee stage I hope the necessary amendments will be made to make the Bill generally acceptable.

I am sure all members of this House are agreed that, if at all possible, everything should be done to make slaughtering humane or as humane as possible. I must say that I cannot follow the logic of some hon. members who have spoken, because, so far as they are concerned—take the hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel), he is a great hunter in South Africa. I often have wondered whether it is a humane thing to go to the Karoo and hunt animals, and whether it is humane to indulge in warfare. Now we come along and we say we are going to kill animals as we must have the food for consumption, but we shall do it as gently as possible. I certainly cannot see any logic in that position. On that point I agree with the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) that it is wholly illogical. I feel that the object is to see that the slaughtering of animals for consumption shall be as humane as possible. According to the evidence, all are agreed that the cruelty involved is not so much in the final acts of killing an animal, as it is in all the preliminaries leading up to the killing of the animal. As a matter of fact, anyone who has studied the evidence will see that most of the authorities who gave evidence, and also most of the medical authorities quoted, agree that, so far as the preliminaries are concerned, there is really no distinction in cruelty between the preliminaries of the ordinary methods of slaugther and the preliminaries in the Mohammedan method or the Jewish method of slaughtering. All these preliminaries are cruel. I must say this, that the Jewish people, like everyone else, want to do everything they can to avoid this cruelty. If a Bill were introduced which provided that the preliminary methods should be dealt with and applied in a humane way, so far as they are concerned, the Jewish people would be the first people in South Africa or anywhere else, to accept it. But this Bill does not deal with the real preliminaries, with the real, cruel portion of the slaughtering. It deals with the last point, the matter of a moment. In so far as the evidence which has been given before the select committee is concerned, some of the highest medical authorities quoted to the select committee, went to show that the Jewish method of slaughtering, the cutting of the throat of the animal, is probably the least cruel of the methods involved, because it brings about instantaneous unconsciousness so far as the animal is concerned. In addition to that, from the point of view of consumption and of the people who have to eat the meat, this method is the most healthy. Quite a number of instances were quoted, both by way of general evidence and by way of medical authorities, which show that from the point of view of the health of the community, and of the people who eat the food, it is much healthier to have the blood taken as it is by cutting the throat of the animal, than by the process of stunning. From the point of view of trade and export, the Jewish method, as far as the last act is concerned, is much more desirable and satisfactory and secures much healthier food than any other process. We have evidence before the select committee of people who have studied the matter, and have gone into the matter, and have quoted authorities from such men as Lord Lester and others, which goes to show that, so far as the actual act of killing is concerned, the Jewish method is certainly as humane, and probably more humane, than most of the other methods. The Bill does not touch the preliminary, the real acts of cruelty at all. It deals with the last point, the momentary act of slaughter. In connection with that, a clause is put in which exempts from the operations of the Bill the Jewish and Mohammedan methods of slaughter. That exemption, in my opinion, is nullified, or it is contradicted by the last sentence in Clause 2, which provides “if such killing is humanely effected.” That evidence shows that such killing is as humane as anything that can be designed and the medical authorities go to show that that is right. Hon. members talk about the preliminaries, and on that we agree with the hon. member for East London (North). So far as that is concerned, we welcome any arrangement that can be made and enforced to show that the preliminaries shall be done as humanely as possible. The only act which is religious and of ritual significance is the actual cutting of the throat. So far as that is concerned, all the medical authorities go to show that that actual process is as humane as anything that can be designed and brings about instantaneous unconsciousness of the animal. The point I am putting to the hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. Swart) and the hon. member for East London (North) is that, that being the case, it surely is a reasonable request that the last sentence in Clause 2 should be deleted. If you do not delete those words, who is going to be the deciding authority as to whether it is being done humanely or not? In Johannesburg they say they are absolutely satisfied that, so far as that process is concerned, the process is as humane as it can be. From other abattoirs the same evidence was given. You may have very small places in which there is a petty official who has never studied the question from the scientific point of view. He may come along, and through prejudice, or ignorance, suddenly decide that that method of slaughter is most inhumane and he will prohibit it. That is the power you are giving by including those words. I submit that the real intention, if there is a serious and honest desire on the part of the promoters of the Bill and of the members of the select committee, to exempt, so far as the method is concerned, the Jewish and Mohammedan methods, is to delete those words. In regard to the regulations in Clause 5, they also leave the matter open. The Governor-General may make all sorts of regulations which may be quite contrary to the provisions of the Bill, and no one would have any security whatever in connection with the matter. In any case, I submit that I shall be very much in favour of a Bill which definitely deals with the preliminaries. In the absence of that, I submit that you are only touching the fringe of the matter and by using the words in Clause 2 you are, in effect, nullifying or minimising the exemption you are giving to such an extent that it would render the Jewish communities in every part of South Africa subject, not to the provisions of the Bill, but to the whim and the will of any official who may decide that the Jewish method of slaughter is inhumane. I am prepared to vote for the second reading, but I hope that in committee, the House will see that the exemption is made effective.

I am sure it was a most difficult matter for the select committee to deal with the preparation of animals for slaughter. What the committee recommend obviates to a great extent the suffering of the animals. I am sure the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet impressed the House with his speech by showing the enormous amount of pain that would be saved dumb animals by the passing of this measure. Throughout the length and breadth of the country are a great many people who have been anxious about the methods of slaughter followed in South Africa. I have visited great packing houses in New York, but I have never seen the knife used until the animal is stunned. It was suggested to me that certainly the stunning process involved less suffering. When the debate began, I received the impression that the Bill was a veiled attack on the farming community, and we know what happens when that feeling gets abroad. But then I found that the farming community need not worry because provision is made for a farmer to kill five animals per month without coming under the operation of the Bill, and I do not suppose that any farmer in South Africa slaughters five oxen a month for his own use. As to the fear that the Bill may be extended to sheep and other animals, that should be left to the future. It is not a sufficient reason for rejecting a measure for which there is a very strong demand. I think that, on the whole, the select committee has brought forward as reasonable a Bill as could be expected, and I have much pleasure in supporting it.

The intention of the Bill is right, but in one sense it is ridiculous, for if you are going to save animals suffering, that must be done not in the final stage, but in the preliminary processes. One has only to witness the animals’ agony to realize their suffering in the early stages. The severing of an animal’s juguler vein with a sharp knife is just as quick and as painless as the use of the humane killer. The barbarous methods that have been referred to are those that take place in the early stages. The most essential point is the complete bleeding, especially of animals intended to be exported. When an animal is to be slaughtered, it should not be allowed to smell blood, but should be bled away from the place where animals are collected for slaughter. The hon. member for Weenen (Mr. Abrahamson) favours the exclusion of small stock from the operation of the Bill. But I think it is just as essential to use the humane killer for the slaughter of sheep as for the destruction of larger animals. For every bovine killed, I suppose 100 small animals are slaughtered. I certainly oppose the exclusion of small animals from the Bill. I shall support the second reading

As to the opposition to this Bill, some are against it because it does not go far enough, and others are against it because it goes too far. It is rather difficult to meet the objection of hon. members who want to vote against the Bill because it does not go far enough. They seem to agree with its principles, so far as it goes, but rather would have no bread than half a loaf. It is difficult to meet opposition of that kind. I hope the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) and the other hon. members, will assist us in this attempt, at any rate, to alleviate the sufferings of animals. Although they and I feel and realize we would have liked to do much more, and gone much further, as the committee pointed out in its report, for the sake of getting the Bill through the House this session they have decided to drop these other points in order to secure an easy passage. I do not think hon. members are reasonable in opposing the Bill on those grounds. Of certain objections which have been raised against this Bill, the chief seem to be the question of preparation for slaughter. Many hon. members seem to have missed the point with regard to the stunning. This really obviates very much of the cruelty and suffering. Many hon. members have had the privilege of seeing animals being stunned, and will have noticed that in those cases there was very little suffering. All this preliminary jumping about and bellowing are to a large extent obviated by the mere fact that the animal is stunned as soon as it comes to the place of slaughter. Provision is made in the Bill for certain regulations as to how the killing shall be done. To have power to make such regulations is obviously doing away with most of these preliminaries. A further objection has been raised as to the possible inclusion of pigs and sheep. As I said to the hon. member for Weenen (Mr. Abrahamson), I am prepared to accept the amendment, which I think is fair and reasonable. The inclusion should be by resolution of this House. For instance, in regard to certain levies for agricultural products, existing legislation provides that “product” shall mean tobacco or ostrich feathers, or any other product put in by resolution of the House. It shall not be a separate Bill, but merely a resolution of this House or of both Houses, which will meet the objection of the hon. member for Weenen and other hon. members. If any attempt is made to bring sheep and pigs under this Bill, the House, at any rate, will have a say in the matter. The hon. member for Boshof (Mr. van Rensburg) asked me to insert in the Bill that an exception should be made for animals used for personal consumption. I agree with that, and there should be no difficulty with regard to that point. I must say I am very thankful for the support given to this Bill by a number of farmers, such as the hon. member for Albert (Mr. Steytler), the hon. member for Boshof, the hon. member for Weenen, the hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel) and others, and the fact that they have done so shows that the remarks of the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Munnik) are altogether unfounded. Why this Bill should be regarded as a reflection on the farmers of and an aspersion on South Africa, when we are dealing with cruelty to our cattle, I am afraid I do not see. Other countries have seen fit to pass measures of this nature, and by that they do not admit that they are practising more cruelty than other nations. We have to admit there is cruelty in our public slaughter-houses in this country, and every right-minded person who visits these abattoirs must admit that; if that is so, why should we not stop it? It does not mean, necessarily, that we are casting aspersions on ourselves. Most of the points raised by hon. members who are in favour of the principle of the Bill, but are afraid of some of the provisions contained in it, we will be able to meet in the committee stage, and therefore I hope the House will accept the second reading.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time: to go into committee on 20th May.

I move—

This is in order to meet the point raised by the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) (Mr. Coulter).

seconded.

Amendment put and agreed to.

On new Clause 4,

I move, as an amendment—

The intention is obvious.

I move—

As the clause stands, as amended in the committee, it is by no means clear to whom “he” refers. It might be taken as referring to the Minister, or as referring to the administrator. I have put the matter to the Minister, and I think he agrees that it is necessary to clear up this point. I think also it will probably be agreed that such conditions can better be laid down by the administrator, who is aware of the local circumstances affecting the local authorities concerned, than by the Minister. If the laying down of such conditions is left with the Minister, then provincial authorities, who ought to be primarily concerned in this matter, are left with very little say indeed. All that will be necessary then will be that they should be consulted. That consultation may in certain cases amount to very little. I think it will be admitted that the provincial executive committee should have an effective say, and in order that they may have that effective say this amendment seems to be necessary.

seconded.

I agree to the amendment.

I move—

This matter slipped through in committee by the pace being a little too swift for some of us to follow, and sub-section (d) of this clause was, therefore, passed over somewhat lightly. The proviso, which I move now should be deleted, is really in conflict with the principle embodied in the first part of this sub-section, which is to provide that female natives shall not come into a proclaimed urban area unless there is sufficient accommodation for them. If the municipalities can provide them with this accommodation, then they can come in without the necessity of relying upon this proviso, but the proviso comes into operation when there is no accommodation for these females, and the practical difficulty of a municipality carrying out the clause as it stands is this. You are not to allow females to come into your urban area unless there is accommodation there, but you shall be compelled to allow females to come in, in pursuance of the terms of this proviso, notwithstanding the fact that there is no suitable accommodation, if it is the fact of a female native whose husband, or, in the case of an unmarried woman, whose father has been resident or employed in the area for a period of not less than two years. The municipalities, or some of them, take very strong exception to this proviso, and particularly the municipal association of the Transvaal, which is one of the most representative institutions who have exercised themselves in this matter. It seems to me that we are going back in the terms of this proviso on what is really an essential principle of the whole Bill. You say responsibility shall rest upon municipalities for providing decent and proper accommodation, and yet in the case of females you are going to say, notwithstanding the fact that there is no accommodation there, notwithstanding the fact that you may be overcrowding your municipalities, they are to be compelled to admit certain females, if the husband, or, in the case of an unmarried woman, the father, has been resident there for two years. This is felt by municipalities to open the door to the admission of females on a fairly large scale. The practical difficulty of a municipality is how to prove that a woman who claims to be married is married, and how they can find out, in the case of an unmarried woman, whether she has a father there or not. The practical difficulties are such that the municipalities, or many of them, cannot see that it can be carried into effect, and they think that it will lead to very undesirable conditions. Take the genuine case of a woman married to a man employed in domestic service. A native who is employed in domestic service is living in accommodation provided in the house of his master. There will be no accommodation there for the woman. The woman will have to go into the native location, and in the native location ex hypothesi there is no accommodation, and it is because there is no accommodation for that woman that you are going to compel the municipality to take her in. There is no justification for this; it is contrary to the principle of the Bill; in practice it will be found that you cannot enforce the condition here laid down, and if you could enforce it, you are going to overcrowd your location with women for whom there is no accommodation.

seconded the amendment.

In general I support the views expressed by the hon. member for Roodepoort (Col. Stallard). I had occasion to go into the question of native women in locations with the municipality of Boksburg, as the Minister knows, and the Minister will remember what particular stress was laid upon the position with regard to unmarried daughters. The superintendent of a location finds it quite impossible to determine whether a woman is a daughter of a particular man, and, secondly, whether she is an unmarried daughter. He has not the material for instituting the necessary enquiry. In practice he is compelled to accept their statements whether true or not, because if he refuses a particular woman’s admission because she has not shown whether she is married or not, and he is wrong, he or the municipality behind him are liable to an action for not carrying out the provisions of the statute, and would be mulcted in costs. In the case of a wife coming to join her husband, it does seem harsh to exclude her from the whole area in question, especially where the husband has been resident and continuously employed for two years, but if you are going to admit all and sundry native women on the plea that they are unmarried daughters without any age limit, then this proviso will nullify the value of the words that precede it. There should be an age limit. You should say “married women under the age of 21 years whose father,” etc., because she is being admitted on the ground that her father had been resident for two years. That might operate in the case of a minor daughter, but when a woman has reached the age of maturity she is no longer entitled to form part of her father’s household. I beg to remind the hon. the Minister of the difficulties pointed out by the municipality of Boksburg in regard to these unmarried daughters as to whether they are daughters and whether they are married. It is not as if the majority of these women were married by Christian rites and the marriages were registered. I would ask the Minister whether he is prepared to accept the amendment—

seconded.

So far as the difficulty raised by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) is concerned, while I admit there it is a difficulty arising in practice, that in itself is not a reason why the amendment of the hon. member for Roodepoort (Col. Stallard) should be adopted. As a matter of procedure, it would not be difficult to lay down some form of marriage or paternity proof that would be required from applicants. With regard to the question of the restitution of an action at law by a woman who had been excluded, certainly since 1925 when the Act first came into practical operation, no case of this kind has, so far as I can remember, come into court. But if a difficulty of that sort does occur, it can be dealt with by an amendment to insert after the word “years” a clause which would make it clear that the onus of proof is on the applicant, such amendment to read as follows—

Such an amendment will completely overcome the difficulty of the onus of proof. I quite see that I am throwing the onus of proof on the husband and father. The woman concerned will have to join them in some way in the application. Dealing with the other points raised by the hon. member for Roodepoort, proclamation does not occur until a municipality has provided proper accommodation, i.e., sufficient accommodation for the probable needs of single natives and married natives. Otherwise, if I understand the administration of the Act, no such proclamation would be sanctioned. It is an essential preliminary to any such proclamation that proper accommodation should be provided. Indeed, the courts of law, even before this date, have laid down that no municipality can secure the prosecution of a native who refuses to live in a location unless it is shown that accommodation was available for that native. That point, I think, cropped up in Johannesburg. We now propose to alter the law, but the principle still remains. As a matter of administration, the Minister would never, I imagine, sanction the issue of a proclamation compelling natives to live in a location or native village, until it was shown that the municipality had provided to his satisfaction accommodation for the reasonable needs of the natives. When dealing with accommodation, we presuppose, before Section 5 is applied, that this accommodation has been provided. If I am right in saying that neither Section 5 nor Section 12 can be brought into operation until accommodation is provided, then the only question is whether there will be sufficient accommodation later on to meet the increased needs of the native population. If a native male is to be allowed to work for two years within the area, and the municipality see fit to increase the number of natives beyond that number for whom they originally provided accommodation, they must be prepared to provide additional accommodation. They will not be bound under this Act to allow additional natives to come into the municipality, unless they have that accommodation. They will also have a greater degree of control.

They say they would be compelled to give the natives accommodation.

They would be compelled to give those natives accommodation for their wives or daughters. What is the alternative for the municipality concerned? If for the purposes of its citizens a municipality desires to have male natives working within the municipality, they must realize that they must have sufficient accommodation for the family of the native who has established himself after two years’ continuous work and residence therein. That seems to me to follow necessarily from the policy underlying this Act. I think the Minister will agree with me that my starting point is right. The rest follows logically from it. At the outset, an estimate must be made of the accommodation that can reasonably be foreseen to be required for married natives. It must be provided. If that is so, and if that is a reasonable interpretation of the law, if the numbers are not increased there will be no need for increased accommodation. If, however, the municipality allows additional male natives to come into the area, and stay there for two years, it must recognize that it will have to provide additional accommodation. I do not think the matter is quite so serious as has been suggested, because male natives are constantly coming and going. If an increase in the manned quarters did become necessary, that is one of the obligations which lies upon a municipality, just as much as the obligation to provide accommodation for single natives. You must make provision for the fact that there are men who are married and are entitled to have their families with them. I can quite understand the argument put forward by my hon. friend the member for Roodepoort (Col. Stallard) that this would throw an additional burden upon the municipality. But then why do they want these areas proclaimed? They choose to take the initial step, and they must, therefore, realize their consequential obligations. We all agree that if a municipality wants to exercise this power, it must be prepared to spend money to provide accommodation for single natives. It, therefore, follows that they must provide accommodation for married natives. We are making provision for a simple elementary fact of human existence. I move at the end of the clause, the words I have read.

I second the amendment, and I appeal to the Minister to accept it. It will obviate some of the difficulties which have been pointed out in regard to this clause. The cases in which the proviso will come into operation will be a comparatively limited number. It will only come into operation in the case of natives who have been for two years continuously in employment. I think the Minister will agree that cases of that kind are comparatively rare. For a native to be continuously employed for two years away from his home, is a comparative rarity. On the other hand, a native who have been in employment for two years or over has established himself in regard to his employer that he has been a decent and respectable native. It is a comparatively rare thing for a native to be here for two years continuously in employment, and as a general rule, if he is, that is a guarantee that he is a respectable native. I look at it from the aspect of family life. When the native has his family with him, that is a certain safeguard against obvious evils against the community, safeguards against black peril. I appeal to the Minister not to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Roodepoort (Col. Stallard). It is based on assumption that this proviso is a negation of the principle of the Bill. With the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) (Mr. Coulter) I do not think that any real objection can be taken to the proviso.

The amendment does not meet the difficulty. Let us assume that the municipality has not only made accommodation for the natives in its midst, but has made reasonable accommodation for those likely to come in. That is an obligation which might very well rest on the municipality. Let us assume it has been carried out. Then, under the operation of a portion of the clause the production of a certificate that accommodation is available will be no hardship at all, and it would be a condition precedent to a female native being allowed to come in. But in the proviso where a reasonable expectation of the municipality providing accommodation for natives has been accepted the demands might exceed the reasonable estimate made by the municipality. I still say it is outside the whole principle of the Bill, if in spite of all the municipality has done to anticipate any expansion that might reasonably be outstanding accommodation is not available. Then under the proviso you are going to compel a municipality to receive females for whom there is no accommodation available. I cannot understand how anybody, in the interests of the natives themselves, can possibly suggest that it is right that municipalities should receive females under these circumstances. A Minister may not proclaim an area unless he is satisfied that reasonable accommodation has been given. I am not contesting the eventuality, for I am in agreement with the hon. member in that respect. It is because every reasonable anticipation has been met that this proviso has been inserted. This is regarded as a very serious matter up north, and it is not the case that usually the natives have come in for domestic service and demand the presence of their wives. On the other hand, it is the very prevalent custom for natives to work in towns, and then go back to their homes on leave after say six, twelve or eighteen months’ service in a town. It is not the custom for natives always to bring in the whole of their families to live in a location in the town in which the head of the family works. In spite of that, you are going to compel a municipality to receive natives outside the limits of its accommodation.

It makes them provide the accommodation.

Before a municipality can do that the matter has to be discussed by the council, an appropriation has to be obtained; meanwhile what are these women to do—are they to be crowded into the locations? The altruistic motives of the hon. member for Mowbray (Mr. Close) are always predominant, but in this case the true interests of the native will not be advanced by what the hon. member advocates. I hope the House will reject both the amendments and delete the proviso.

The natives in the reserves are just as much opposed to their daughters going into the towns to work, as the hon. member for Roodepoort (Col. Stallard) is. They realize that once their young daughters drift into the urban areas and get the taste of town excitements there is little chance of their ever returning to their homes, but when you come to refusing the right to a man who has worked continuously for two years in a town to get his wife to join him, it is a different thing. Surely we have put enough restrictions on the women in the locations already under the Bill, and we should not go further at this stage. If a man has been continuously employed and is a decent man, surely he should have the right to say he wants his wife there. You will get very few natives of the decent type who have worked in an urban area for that period continuously who desire to get their wives into the town, but those who so desire should be granted that right and you should not force them to resort to other means to satisfy their human passions. If there is a financial burden placed on the municipality by reason of the increase of male natives, it should pay for that burden. We should realize the native is an asset, and has the rights of an ordinary human being. Johannesburg is one of the few municipalities which is facing the difficulty, and it should face it in the same way that other municipalities are facing it or will have to face it. I hope the amendment of the hon. member for Roodepoort will not be accepted. At the same time I realize the difficulty. The amendment of the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) (Mr. Coulter) is perfectly fair and reasonable. As to the amendment of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell), it seems difficult to prove a woman is over 21. We have women wandering about the country who are apparently able to get anywhere and are a danger to the community and the onus should be on them to prove that they are the wives or daughters of the husbands and fathers who desire their presence. The native who works in a town cannot probably afford more than one wife so there is no need to fear that any native who is a bigamist will wish to introduce half-a-dozen wives as one member seems to suggest may happen.

I think the hon. member for Roodepoort (Col. Stallard) and other hon. members have lost sight of the fact that this proviso applies only to natives who at the date of the proclamation shall have resided there for two years, but I do feel considerably the force of the argument of the hon. member, and I do think some provision should be made. The first part of the sub-section does not deal with accommodation generally. A female should produce that certificate, but there must be accommodation for her; it does not speak of accommodation generally. There may not be accommodation for that particular person, so that the inconsistency the hon. member for Roodepoort sees in the proviso does not really exist. But I think that if the hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Coulter) were to allow an addition to his amendment the position might be met. He proposes that after “women,” in line 53, the insertion of the words “and whose husband or father, as the case may be, shall produce satisfactory proof at the date of application of such relationship”. I suggest that he add the words “and that he is able to suitably accommodate her”. I am sure the hon. member for Gardens does not expect a native to have his wife or daughter with him if there is no suitable accommodation for her.

He may not be able to control his accommodation.

Put it this way, “and that suitable accommodation is available”.

The Prime Minister suggests—

I think that would meet the whole position. I move the insertion of those words.

seconded.

May I point out that we are getting into a tangle? The certificate in each case is the same but is referred to now under the Prime Minister’s amendment as if it were a different thing in the different cases.

My hon. friend must not forget the meaning of the first part. He knows it is very necessary. The Minister of Native Affairs has pointed out that the accommodation must be available in the first place. It does not mean that the accommodation is not there, but the accommodation is not there for the particular applicant. She must have a certificate that there is accommodation for her. That is what your authority will certify to. Then we say: “Provided your husband or father has been there two years you are a person entitled to have accommodation.”

It is a certificate of qualification, not of accommodation?

It comes down to that. It is only two senses in which the word “available” can be taken.

Can we now have the amendment proposed by the Minister?

Mr. SPEAKER read the amendment.

One begins to wonder whether the clause does after all express the Intention of the committee that considered it. Let us take the clause “at the said date”. Personally, I am not prepared to vote for that, but there is a defect in the Minister’s interpretation to which I invite his attention. Proclamation under Section 12 must in some cases already have been issued. That is really only a matter of draftmanship. The Prime Minister said the certificate will relate not to a question of fact, to which the municipality will certify, but to a question of opinion. They will not be bound to apply their minds to the question as to whether there is accommodation available; they will simply say: “We do not think there is accommodation available for you.” They will give, in effect, an untrue answer to prevent a native coming in. I cannot imagine Parliament setting out deliberately to pass a section which is intended to enable a municipality by an incorrect expression of opinion to exclude a native woman. It should not be an administrative device for exclusion. The amendment now proposed by the Minister cuts away the meaning of the proviso altogether. By putting in the words “provided that subject to the necessary accommodation being available” something or other may be done, it merely means that if you left out the proviso the hon. member for Roodepoort suggests, he urges you have exactly the same result, namely, that the proviso will apply only when accommodation is available. The substantial difference between the two points of view is this. Apparently the hon. member for Roodepoort (Col. Stallard) wants the municipality to say that under no circumstances, unless it provides accommodation, can this clause operate. According to the proviso as passed by the Committee, when a native has been living for two years continuously within its area, the municipality will be bound to increase the quarters that are available for married men, as the needs of the location demand. That is the substantial difference between the two points of view. If any point of view is reasonable, why not leave the clause as proposed, so that the municipality will be bound to develop its location as the needs of the natives require?

Amendment proposed by Col. Stallard put and negatived.

I move—

seconded.

Agreed to.

New paragraph (c), as amended, put and agreed to.

Amendments in Clauses 3, 4, 5 and amendments up to line 24, on page 8 of Clause 7, put and agreed to.

On amendments in paragraph (d) of Clause 7,

I move—

1. (g) by the addition at the end of sub-section
   1. (3) of the following provision:—
      If such a person is an employer and if such offence consisted of the payment of a wage or rate to any person employed by him lower than that which he was required to pay to such person under the terms of any agreement or award published and made binding under this section the court convicting such employer may also order him to pay into the court an amount equal to the difference between the amount of the wage or rate actually paid by him to such person employed by him and the rate or wage which he should have paid in accordance with such agreement or award and the court may further direct that the whole of such amount, or such part thereof as the court deems equitable having regard to the circumstances under which under-payment took place, shall be paid to such person so underpaid, and that any balance of such amount shall be paid to the industrial council of the industry concerned.
      Any order made by a court under the provisions of this sub-section shall have all the effects of and may be executed as if it were a civil judgment in favour of the Crown.

The amendment is a similar one to the one I moved when the Bill was in committee, and which the Minister said he would consider. Those members who were present will remember that my argument was that the great danger of this Bill, and of all Bills of this nature, is the difficulty of administration. Many persons will evade the provisions of the Bill if they have the opportunity, and that causes the greatest injustice to the fair employer and the fair employee. It is only through very careful and considerable inspection that these evasions can be found out, and, even then, many of the evasions are not discovered, which causes very great discontent amongst the people who are trying to carry out the spirit of the law. My view is that when a delinquent is found out and convicted, he should be very severely dealt with. That is the only deterrent one can see to prevent such practices. In many cases, it is only the employer who is to blame. In many cases, the employer knows more about the Act than the employee, and when he is found out, the extreme penalty should be imposed upon him. But in some cases there is collusion between the employee and the employer, and in those cases, after the magistrate has enquired into the circumstances, I consider that both parties should suffer some penalty. It is for the magistrate to enquire into the circumstances, and to decide to what extent the employee is guilty, as well as the employer. In many cases the employee is subject to very great temptation. Perhaps he is out of employment, and practically penniless before being engaged, and it is a very great hardship for him to be subject to such temptation as can be offered by an employer. In those cases I take it that the magistrate will give the employee the whole difference between the wage that he has received, and the wage he ought to have received under the award of the industrial council. Under the Bill, if the magistrate considers that the employee has not sufficient excuse for what in Labour circles is called “scabbing on his fellow-men,” and if the magistrate does not grant him the whole of that difference in pay, that automatically lets off the employer from part of the punishment he should bear. My amendment is framed so that the magistrate, in any case, makes the employer pay the whole of the difference between the wage paid and the wage that should have been paid, and the magistrate decides what amount of that difference should be paid to the employee. Any balance left over is paid to the industrial council concerned, towards the expenses of their institution. These industrial councils have considerable expenses, and in this way they get the benefit of any difference which is not paid to the employee. I hope the Minister will accept this point of view. I know he has considered it very carefully, and I think it will strengthen the Bill. It will, at any rate, act as a very great deterrent on the employer, because he knows that he may get a fine imposed upon him, and that, in any case, he will not get off paying the difference in the wages. I am convinced that the great difficulty in working these Bills is going to be the necessary inspection, to see that every employer, large and small, carries out the wage determinations under the Industrial Conciliation Act.

I second that amendment because it appears to me to be a very reasonable one from every point of view. I want to congratulate the hon. member. It is evidence of his forward march in these matters.

I have not marched forward at all.

I am only too happy to find that is the state of the hon. member’s mind at the moment, and I hope the Minister will accept this amendment. It does seem reasonable to suppose that the man who has been short-paid should ultimately receive the amount which he has been short paid. In the case of the man who wilfully and deliberately agrees to work less, he should suffer in some way as a result. I agree with the hon. member entirely. In the vast majority of cases it is the employer who brings pressure to bear. Under all the circumstances I urge upon the Minister the desirability of accepting this amendment. There is a danger of hurting the fair employer who does not need any legal pressure of this kind.

I entirely accept the amendment of the hon. member, but with certain amendments which I wish to move. The first is—

The next amendment is—

I think on the whole that does not detract from the hon. member’s object. Then—

The reason is twofold. A man who deliberately goes in to lower the wage at the expense of his fellows does not deserve much. Then a man may be going on in collusion for quite a long while, and I am inserting this to induce the man to come forward with information which will bring this employer to book.

made an interjection.

First of all, he scabs on his friends, and then he scabs on his employer. Then I move—

I think it better that the balance should be paid into the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

Let it go to the industrial council.

No, I cannot agree to that suggestion. But I am very grateful to the hon. member for his suggestions. If a magistrate thought a man did not deserve much, the employer got off scot free, and this is a great improvement on present law.

seconded the amendments.

On the last amendment of the Minister, I should be glad if he would explain to us why he wants to make that change. It would be a greater inducement if any balance had to be paid to the industrial council concerned. I can conceive a case where an industry has not reached the stage of having any industrial council. But I do not know that the Consolidated Revenue Fund has any more claim to the amount than the industrial council.

With the leave of the House, I should like to say that I am advised that the following portion of the hon. member’s amendment—

has to be paid in to the industrial council. To put that right, we have now arranged that it should be paid into the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

In the original amendment that I put, the balance was to be paid into the Consolidated Revenue Fund. It was pointed out at the time that, without the Governor-General’s warrant, it could not be done. This has now been got over by the hon. the Minister. By paying it into the Consolidated Revenue Fund, we are able to get the same amendment both in the Conciliation Act and the Wage Act. In the Wage Act it is evident it must be paid into the Consolidated Revenue Fund, because the Wage Act, we hope, in most instances, will only be used where there are no conciliation boards at all.

My difficulty, in regard to this last sub-section, “any order made by the court, etc.”, is this: Apparently, if the court has found that an under payment exists, it may direct that a portion of the underpayment be made to the man, and another portion, the remainder, be paid to the Consolidated Revenue Fund. In regard to the latter portion, I can well understand this provision being made, but will the Minister tell us how, in regard to the portion which is to be paid to the man himself, you can say that an order made by a court shall have the effect of an order executed as if it were a civic judgment in favour of the Crown? How can we have an order in favour of the workmen for wages which should be paid in, treated as if it was a civil judgment in favour of the Crown? Perhaps the hon. the Minister can put this right in another place.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Amendment proposed by Mr. Stuttaford, as amended, put and agreed to; amendments proposed by committee of the whole House dropped.

Remaining amendments in Clause 7 put and agreed to.

On new Clause 8,

I move—

seconded.

Agreed to.

New clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Amendments in old Clauses 8, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 put and agreed to.

Bill, as amended, adopted and read a third time.

I move—

I do this because I can see no valid reason for permitting any state department to escape from the arrangement laid down in regard to industry outside those state departments. I have never yet been able to see why the state, which should be setting an example to all private industry, should, under any circumstances, be allowed to pay less wages and impose less favourable conditions for apprentices than is the case with regard to outside industries. It is rather a painful commentary that the Government should plead to be relieved from doing this.

It is not necessary.

If it is not necessary, then there is no necessity for the proviso. The Minister, out of his own mouth, has helped us to remove the proviso. I do not think he was joking; I think he meant what he said. If, however, the conditions are worse in state departments than are those we are seeking to impose on outside industry, then the deletion of this proviso is very necessary indeed. I never yet heard an argument that convinced me of the desirability of allowing a state department to pay less than a private employer does. I was very much amused yesterday to hear the Minister of Public Works urge that there should be different conditions for apprentices in the postal department than those that prevail in private employment. In our state department in which I had some little influence on occasion, the apprentices are on all fours with apprentices in other industries. I am speaking of the Public Works Department, whose workmen get rather better conditions and leave privileges than obtain in private employment. If you can do that in one Government department, why not lay it down as a rule right through all the departments, and more particularly in the Railways and Harbours Administration? In the old days the Minister of Labour stood shoulder to shoulder with me and put up a strong opposition to any differences between the railway department and private employment. Has his viewpoint changed and, if so, what motives have actuated him in going back on his old principles when he made the rafters ring in this House? I do not know what influence has been brought to bear on the hon. gentleman, but it pains one to see a man turn his back on his old beliefs when he finds himself in a position of authority which is only brief. I urge on the Minister the desirability of consistency, which is an excellent thing. Can anyone argue that the state should not have to give the same conditions as any outside employer gives? I could understand the argument that the state should give better conditions. The Minister and I have often stood side by side, arguing that the state should be a model employer and give a lead to all industry, more particularly in the case of apprentices—youngsters who are on the threshold of life. Under the circumstances I hope the Minister will be induced even now to agree to the deletion of the proviso.

I second the amendment, because I would like to save the Government from the charge which may be levelled against it in the future of being guilty of rank hypocrisy. I am sure that after all the promises the Government—and more particularly the Minister of Labour and the Prime Minister—gave to the people in days gone by, they will be grateful to the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) for coming to the rescue.

There is no baking powder in the pie crust.

That is why they cannot rise to the occasion! In the past they have always protested that they were going to give a fair deal to every person. It does seem to me a most curious and amazing anomaly that the Minister of Labour can dictate to the private employer what conditions he should lay down, and what wages he should pay, whereas, on the other hand, the Railway Department is to be absolved from all liability, and every moral obligation. One has only to look at the recent report of the Wage Board for the three years ended February, 1929, in order to get reinforcement for one’s argument. I am here to try to get the Government to bring about some consistency in their methods. If the Government wants to dictate to private employers what they should pay, surely they ought to set an example and be bound by their own recommendations. It is not only in the interests of consistency but of truth—not only political truth but ethical truth.

Talk about something they can understand.

Sometimes it is difficult to get down to the level of the Government.

Don’t try.

In the report of the Wage Board there are certain standards or ideal conditions laid down, which the Minister seeks to enforce on private employers. The report states that some employers take a deep interest in the welfare of their employees, but some do not take any such interest, and the latter are condemned. Yet here is the Minister giving his tacit approval to the Minister of Railways and Harbours, who apparently takes no interest in the welfare of his own employees, being exempt from the provisions of this Act. In order to get rid of this political hypocrisy I am sure the Minister will accept the amendment. The State is here to set an example, and the Government should do so. It should be the first in the body politic, after laying down ideal standards of labour, to follow those standards. You cannot expect private employers to have ideal conditions unless an example is set by the Government, and I feel that one has only to remind the Minister of his own principles of the past, to get him to accept the amendment. After all, there are some people who have wrongfully accused the Minister of forgetting his promises of the past! When one is in office, however, one may be inclined to become somnolent, but I am sure one has only to jog his memory. It is only the “still, small voice” of the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) which is doing the jogging, but it should be sufficient to arouse the mind of the Minister to the necessity of accepting the amendment.

I think the speech of the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence) is the most astounding tiling I have heard— he, a lawyer, to make such a speech! The paragraph in the principal Act is defining the power of the apprenticeship committees who are constituted under this Act. The railway apprenticeship committees are not established under this Act, but under one of their own. I do not know why this proviso appears in the principal Act or the amending Bill, as no outside committee can recommend anything with regard to the apprentices on the railways. They have nothing to do with it whatever. I agree with the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley); the State should be a model employer, and wages should be regulated, although when he and I were apprentices we did not get big wages. These apprenticeship committees have no authority, even if we take out the proviso, in regard to apprenticeship in any of the Government services.

I must also oppose the deletion. I think a little bit of commonsense might be used, and playing up to the gallery continually is not to the interests of the country. I think we ought to take our work more seriously, instead of raising points which do not carry very much weight. As I see it, if we are going to take each trade and put it under its individual apprenticeship committee as it exists in private employment, what a state of affairs would exist! As one who has been a member of the apprenticeship committee, and served under this Act, and has dealt with this, I say let us for heaven’s sake use our commonsense in dealing with these matters. I ask hon. members not to bring sentiment into these matters. Have any apprentices ever appealed to the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) who are working under the railway system or any State department, to have their conditions improved? If the hon. member has, I have not. We find on the whole that apprentices are treated very well, and their opportunity for learning their trade is very satisfactory. Then why raise all these questions? Let us use our experience in dealing with these practical matters.

I am not surprised at the hon. member who has just spoken, and judging by what he has said, he would do away with Apprenticeship Acts altogether.

Nonsense !

And pay apprentices as low as some private employers. The hon. member speaks of talking to the gallery; he is speaking to the Minister to judge by his attitude. I am more inclined to take the view of the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence), who does represent the working man, and knows their conditions and requirements more than the hon. member for Durban (County) (Mr. Eaton) does. With regard to what has been said by the hon. member for Germiston (Mr. Brown), this Bill is one to amend the principal Act, and if there are certain defects in the principal Act, surely our business is to get rid of them. One of the most important improvements to be made in the principal Act is to put the Government departments on the same footing as private employers. It is unreasonable to take up the line that, while these particular provisions apply to private industries, the Government must be allowed to apply conditions which are worse than those allowed in private industries. If you lay down certain conditions for private enterprise with regard to apprentices, surely apprentices in a State department should have the same conditions. The proviso should come out. If, as a matter of practical experience, the conditions are as good in the railway department, or in other Government departments, as they are in private enterprise, to allow the proviso to remain in the Bill would mean that the Government has inserted a proviso for the purpose of making the conditions worse. There is no reason for the proviso if the conditions in the State departments are as good as they are in private industry. In Great Britain efforts to improve conditions in industry were made in the English House of Commons in the ’nineties, when the principle was laid down that Government departments should give a lead and be model employers, and surely in 1930, the Government of South Africa should not be allowed to take to itself the right to be a sweating employer. My answer to the hon. member for Germiston is that the fact that such a proviso is in the principal Act is no reason why it should be in this Bill. If this proviso is deleted, the section of the new Act will provide certain conditions to be laid down without any exemption.

I am almost tempted by the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence) to save the Government from an accusation of hypocrisy hereafter, to consider his objection, but I can assure the hon. member that no sane man will form such an opinion of this Government. I am amused at the hon. members over there who, having swallowed the camel, now strain at the gnat. They have swallowed the camel of giving the Minister the power, after consultation with the apprenticeship committee, to prescribe by notice in the “Gazette” the rates of wages, except in the railway department, and now they are straining at the gnat of the apprenticeship committee being excluded from making recommendations. On the general principle I agree that the Government ought to observe the same rules as those imposed upon employers outside. The people in the Railway Administration are, however, governed by another Act, the Railway Act, and how am I to lay down something which my colleague, the Minister of Railways and Harbours, will do under another Act? The hon. member for Salt River should not pass censure upon his own leaders who framed this Act. He should be more careful. I know his voice here is raised in the hope that it may be heard in Salt River, but it may be heard in other quarters also. I can assure the hon. member that in making all this fuss about the matter, he is barking up the wrong tree. This Act relates to persons outside. Every Minister is responsible to Parliament for the way in which he treats the employees in his department.

I do not quite follow the Minister. Under the original Act, under Clause 20, the Government employees came under the Apprenticeship Act in all respects except wages. The Minister said there is no use in dealing with the matter, because the Minister of Railways and Harbours deals with his people under separate Acts. But the Minister of Labour takes up the position that he can deal with railway employees in all respects except as regards fixing wages. That seems illogical. I have a great deal of sympathy with those who maintain that there is no reason why the Government should legislate themselves out of this Act. One of the unfortunate things that happens in this country is that when you want to get a measure through, you propitiate the Government by saying, “We want everyone to be subject to these conditions except the Government itself.” The best test as to whether an apprenticeship wage is high or low is whether the Government will pay it themselves. There is no justification for the Government laying down in the original Bill that the Minister has absolute power in regard to all conditions in apprenticeship except as regards wages.

What committee would represent the railway wages?

I am not worrying about that. That is a matter for the Minister, but in the engineering trade, for instance, which is closely allied to railway work, the wages must be uniform throughout the country except in the case of the railways, and that does not seem fair.

I understand this Act is to supply a want that is not supplied elsewhere. The Railway Administration have already provided apprenticeship boards on which the staff and the Railway Administration were represented. The apprenticeship boards under this Act are to operate where there is no other means of dealing with apprentices. As an old member of an apprenticeship committee, I would welcome it if we could insist on the terms of apprenticeship that obtain in the railways, and see that every apprentice gets a thorough training as an artizan.

With all due respect to my hon. friend we cannot lose sight of the fact that it would be a case of “God help the member of any apprenticeship committee in the Railway Administration, if he bumped against the administration or the Minister of Railways and Harbours.” If the Minister says that it would also affect the Railway Committee it behoves us to examine the Bill more closely. When the Minister took the line that because Clause 8 had been passed, we swallowed the camel, but strained out the gnat, I cannot see this point, because if the amendment of the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) were accepted and we cut out all the words after “provided” in line 50 to the end of that sub-section, it would be quite consistent with Clause 8, sub-section (c). But if the Minister is prepared to suggest that our ruling is wrong and his is right, it would be better for us to recommit the Bill and come back to this point. I am quite sure the Minister does not desire to put through an amending Bill on the suggestion that he had been a bit clever—I do not suggest legerdemain. Then let us argue the matter out. It would take only five minutes and it is of sufficiently serious importance to justify us in pointing out to the hon. member for Durban (County) (Mr. Eaton) that it is not playing up to the gallery as he thinks. It is serious to this extent.

Why did you not give evidence before the select committee?

I will tell you why I did not give evidence before the select committee, because this party wrote to the select committee and said that if this party is going to do its duty to this House and to the country, they should be represented on the committee in order that they could lead evidence and arrive at decisions.

Why did you not deal with it in the committee stage?

I wrote to Mr. Speaker and protested in this House that our place should be on this committee, and my hon. friend now says to us why did you not argue it in committee? We are a party. It is not for us to give evidence to the select committee, but it is possible to lead evidence in a select committee, and it is for us to take our share in arriving at a decision and bringing it to this House. If we are debarred from going on this committee, leading evidence, arriving at a decision, and reporting to this House, this is the only opportunity we have on which we can address the House.

This is the report stage; why did you not deal with it in committee?

Is it right that the hon. member for Durban (County) (Mr. Eaton) should say how we should deal with the thing when they have debarred us from the right of dealing with it in select committee? The whole House has debarred us from dealing with it in a certain way, so it is up to us to deal with it in another way. We shall deal with it so long as we keep within the limits and rules of this House. We shall deal with it with the object of achieving what we think is best in regard to the particular thing before us. In this case it is this particular amendment. If you take that out you will prove to the country that this Government is an ideal and model employer.

That does not require any proving.

Let me say this to the Minister and to the hon. member for Germiston (Mr. Brown) that when we exempt the Government from any particular order dealing with wages and conditions of employment, then it would appear either that the Government do not require it because, like Caesar’s wife, they are above suspicion, or they are afraid the time will come to repeal this amendment. It says, “all state departments”, It is just as well that we should get down to this in view of the interruptions. We do not want to misunderstand the position. Either Government is a model employer and does not require this, in other words, they are above suspicion, or they fear that this might be used against them on some future date. I say this, that my knowledge of the present position on the railways indicates why they are afraid that any Government department should come under an Act such as this. There is no question in my mind as to that. We want to help you and your Bill, but we certainly do take strong exception to the suggestion that you have secured a point in the previous clause and for that reason we must not now object. I say that we have considered this position and that one is consistent with the other. If the Minister’s only difficulty is that, having accepted one, we must accept the other, I say that he must play cricket and recommit the Bill and we shall soon put the position quite plain and the Minister will probably have a better conscience afterwards.

Question put: That all the words after “desirable” in line 50, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the paragraph,

I move—

seconded.

Agreed to.

New paragraph (a), as amended, put and agreed to.

On amendments in paragraph (b).

I move—

1. (c) by the deletion of sub-section (2) and the substitution therefor of the following new paragraph:—
   1. (2) (a) Any employer or employee who contravenes sub section (1) of this section shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable, on conviction, to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds.
   2. (b) If such offence consisted of the payment of a wage or rate to any employee lower than that determined as aforesaid the court convicting such employer may also order him to pay into the court an amount equal to the difference between the amount of the wage or rate actually paid by him to such employee and the rate or wage which he should have paid in accordance with such determination and the court may further direct that the whole of such amount, or such part thereof as the court deems equitable having regard to the circumstances under which underpayment took place, shall be paid to such employee, and that any balance of such amount shall be paid into the Consolidated Revenue Fund.
   3. (c) Any order made by a court under the provisions of paragraph (b) shall have all the effects of and may be executed as if it were a civil judgment in favour of the Crown.

My reasons for the amendment are exactly the same as those I advanced for my amendment on the Industrial Conciliation Bill.

seconded the amendment.

I move, as an amendment to the amendment—

seconded.

We feel that the Minister has improved the Bill very much, and where we have told him we disagree with him we also tell him where we agree. It is a valuable addition to this Bill, and makes its provisions much clearer and better, particularly when they have to deal with cases that come before them. Just as we recognize there are unscrupulous employers, we do realize that we have occasions when employees take advantage of other employees and try to gain by it, notwithstanding by his action, an employee has queered the pitch of more loyal, genuine and honest employers. It is only right that, when a magistrate has to deal with a case like this, he can weigh up the position of employers and employees in each particular case. He can see that the employer will secure the wage as a penalty, but all back payments will be paid entirely to the court, which may, of course decide how much the employee will get of that money. I think that is a good thing, and I have enough confidence in the magistrates of the country that, when they see the position, very rarely will a decision be an unfair one. We cannot get the Bill perfect, and we recognize there are on both sides efforts to get around it—on the employers’ side—and sometimes on the employees side.

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

Amendment proposed by Mr. Stuttaford, as amended, put and agreed to; amendments proposed by committee of the whole House in paragraph (b) dropped.

Amendments in Clauses 8, 9 and 10 put and agreed to.

Bill, as amended, adopted and read a third time.

I have again to deal with the power to levy a duty on butter. I see that the select committee has still left in the objectionable clause that in addition to the tax of 1d. a 1b. on butter it may, with the consent of the Minister, impose a levy in excess of 1d. per lb. I have the very greatest objection to the provision. There is no limit to the amount. It is a form of taxation which so far as I know is entirely contrary to parliamentary practice. If you want to levy taxation you have to do it by a motion of ways and means. Here you have a provision under which the Minister can put on any tax he likes on butter. It: is a serious imposition on the consumers. There is no reason whatever why such a power should be given to the Minister. We should not give the Minister power to levy taxation without coming to Parliament. I move—

An extraordinary precedent has been created here in this particular legislation, and I quite agree with every word the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford) has said. I admit you cannot put a levy on butter or any other commodity without putting an impost of a like amount on the like commodity imported from oversea. I am not objecting to this tax of 1d. per lb. being put on butter from overseas, if a similar levy is imposed on butter in the Union. What I am objecting to is giving to any board, or any other body, the power in effect to impose a customs duty on a commodity imported into the Union. We have only followed one course hitherto in regard to taxation. The Minister of Finance formulates his taxation proposals, lays them before this House, and we go into committee of ways and means, and discuss them. We agree to the proposals, and then they become effective. Here you are saying that it shall be left to a board to impose at any time not only a levy on the produce of its own people, but a tax on any particular commodity imported from overseas. I say it is entirely wrong, and it will establish a doubtful precedent I can imagine my friends who represent the sugar industry asking that a board in control of that industry, if such a board comes into being, shall put a levy on locally produced sugar, and side by side impose a possible everincreasing tax on sugar. And so with wheat and other agricultural commodities. I think Parliament would be doing an evil thing so far as parliamentary government is concerned if it consented to surrender this power of taxation to any hands but its own, or to a secondary body such as this. Another point is that we are not only writing out a cheque to a subordinate body, but we are making that cheque a blank cheque. We are saying that this body can impose a levy of 1d. per 1b., on local butter, and imported butter, and, with the consent of the Minister, it can increase that levy as much as it likes. There is no limit to the blank cheque we are asked to write. I believe that tax of 1d. per lb. is equivalent to 7 per cent, of the value of the product. Where are you going to stop? Apparently 1d. per lb. on a product of this nature is not sufficient, and we are asked to give the Minister of Agriculture a blank cheque to fill up to any amount he may think fit. This is absolutely unsound legislation. It means a tax on the consumers up to 7 per cent, of the value of the commodity, and up to 70 per cent, of the value of the commodity if the Minister of Agriculture can be induced to agree. I hope the committee will accept the amendment of the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford).

Let me say that my hon. friends opposite are quite wrong if they think that this penny is a tax which will go to the consolidated revenue fund. It is a tax which the people will bear themselves in order to stabilize their produce on the market. At the moment there is already a tax on butter which is imported, and that tax goes to the consolidated revenue fund. The object of the tax is to enable people to compete with foreign butter. Now our dairy farmers are going to tax our own butter with a penny a pound and the hon. member wants the butter that is imported not to bear that tax with the result that it will be in a favourable position to push our butter off the market. It is a pretty explanation that the hon. member has given, and yet hon. members opposite say that they are the friends of the farmers. We must tax our own people, but we must not put any levy on imported butter.

You did not listen to what I said.

The customs duty on butter is already in existence, and as I have said it goes to the consolidated revenue fund, but as we are imposing a levy on local butter it would be wrong to allow imported butter not to pay the levy. Another objection is to the Minister getting the right of making the levy more than a penny. The select committee felt that there might be times of great overproduction abroad. Prices will be low and the levy of a 1d. will not enable us to export butter. In those circumstances the Minister ought to have the right to increase the levy. It will probably never happen, but we surely must provide for the contingency. We had a select committee from both sides of the House and the committee was unanimous about the matter. They felt that it would not be right to put a levy on our own people while butter could come in free from outside. I am surprised at the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) taking up that attitude against the producers here. The matter was possibly not clear to him, and I hope he will now change his views. We repeatedly hear from the opposite side of the committee that we ought to do something to improve cattle farming Here where we are trying to assist cattle farming we find hon. members opposite once more taking up the attitude that we ought to put our own people at a disadvantage with respect to butter from abroad.

I am very glad the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) and the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford) made it clear to this House that they did not object to a levy of a 1d. a pound on butter and they did not object to a levy on imported butter but they only criticized the way in which the levy has been made.

The Minister of Agriculture deliberately misrepresented me.

This is quite different to an ordinary tax. You have the precedent of cigarettes, matches and tobacco and wherever you place an excise on these articles, you place a customs sur-tax on the imported article. If you place an excise of a penny a pound on any article it is easy to put a sur tax on the imported article to bring it to an equivalent amount. The difficulty of adopting another system of imposing this levy is that the amount may vary from time to time. In bad years, your production may be only just sufficient to meet the needs of the Union and no levy will be needed. The amount of the levy will be constantly changing to meet changing conditions. This is an unusual method of imposing a tax but it is the only way in which the provision can be met in view of the varying amount of the levy. This Bill is framed to meet a difficult position. The only way to stabilize the market in order to get a fair value is to impose a levy and pay a bounty to the exporter of the article. I hope that while these hon. members are making their protests, they will realize that although it is an unusual method, it is the only possible way to meet the position.

Did I understand the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) to say that the Minister had deliberately misrepresented him? If so, he must withdraw.

I withdraw.

I join in the objection of the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford). The hon. member for Griqualand (Mr. Gilson) talked about this rather lightly as an unusual remedy for a difficult state of affairs. I think we are committing ourselves to a very dangerous principle when we propose to allow people to tax the food of the people in this way. Here we have a tax of one penny a pound not imposed on producers’ own goods, but on imported goods. If they decided to tax their own goods to help themselves, that would be of course truly carrying out a principle of self-help. But here the tax is to be imposed by a board. Neither the taxpayers nor Parliament appoints the board. It is a board appointed with the consent of the Minister. By Section (2) of the Bill, the board shall consist of the superintendent of dairying and eleven other members appointed by the Governor-General, not elected by anybody but by the Governor-General, of whom one shall be an officer of the public service, four shall represent the farmers supplying cream to creameries, or milk to cheese factories, four shall represent the owners of creameries or cheese factories, one shall represent makers of farm butter, and one shall represent the distributors of butter and cheese, and not a single representative of the consumer or anybody outside these producers. I have every desire to see the dairy-industry established on the firmest and soundest basis. But you are permitting persons to levy a tax, with rights of unlimited taxation—upon a body of people which has not a word to say in the matter. You are taxing the food of the people, which should only be done by Parliament representing the people who have sent from there. I object very strongly to the method, although I have every sympathy with the object, and my objection goes further than that of the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan). I object to any levy imposed by an unrepresentative body of people appointed by the Government, representing nobody but the producers.

The board is elected by the producers.

Who pays the levy?

Who pays the levy? You and I pay the levy, if we are not dairy farmers. Everybody who buys a pound of butter helps to pay the levy. It comes out of a person’s income. It comes out of the income of the poor man in the country who has to look into and examine it, and see what he can afford.

In many cases the farmer will have to pay.

And I am sure that the hon. member would be glad to see the farmer does pay his fair share. But the farmer under a system of a compulsory levy has ample opportunities of helping himself, but here, without the consent of anybody else, the farmer is able to tax other people.

The Bill does not say so.

The Bill does not say so in so many words, but who is going to pay the levy?

The farmer.

If a levy is made of 2d. per lb. on butter, who is going to pay it?

It may be 2d. less than the price paid to-day. We do not fix the price of butter.

But somebody has got to pay, and the man who buys it has to pay. The principle is that you can do all this if you have it done in a proper way. There can be provision made by Parliament for taxing measures on imported butter. Let us have that proposition before the House, to have a tax on imported butter for the purpose of protecting the dairy industry, and give it as a protecting tax, but do not do it in this way by a body over whom we have no control at all. That is delegating from the rights of Parliament, and going away from the sound principle that there should be no taxation without representation.

I think the hon. member for Mowbray (Mr. Close) does not quite appreciate the position. Does he, e.g., want ou dairy farmers to allow a levy to be put on our butter to be able to export the surplus, and on the other hand to allow butter or margarine to come in free? I agree in part with him when he says that the consumer will probably have to pay a part of that levy, but it has cost the dairy industry a great deal to reach its present stage. The object of the levy is not to increase the price of butter, but the right is only granted to the producer to export their produce. What would happen if we were to tax our own butter and allow other countries such as Australia and New Zealand to dump their surplus here? Then the Bill would be meaningless. If the Minister wants the Bill to produce any advantage then I hope that he will not give in to hon. members opposite. The Bill says that no levy can take place without the Minister’s consent, but the board to be appointed has extended powers and represents all the producers, and they will first consider the matter and when they think it necessary they will ask the Minister to impose a levy. The Minister, himself, will not impose a levy without a demand coming from that quarter, and consequently a levy will only be made when the board thinks it very necessary in order to assist producers.

I apeal to the Minister of Finance to know if he is satisfied with the method proposed to be adopted in connection with the levy. I do not think the principle of the imposition is objected to, but it is the method that is taken exception to. On January 22nd the Minister gave notice of motion in connection with going into committee of ways and means. Surely, it is in this form that this matter should be dealt with, and not by the extraordinary means of a levy. We do not object to imposing a certain amount on imported butter, but we do object to the manner in which it is proposed to be done, as it is an infringement on the powers of the Minister of Finance who should govern the whole of such matters. Call it what you will, the proposed levy is really a customs duty. When the matter was put to Mr. Speaker he was very dubious indeed as to the right of Parliament to move in the direction set out in the Bill. I beg the Minister of Finance to put us right in this matter. He can do so by imposing a suspended duty, and I think the Whole House will be with him.

If there is anything that surprises me it is my hon. friends opposite. They are constantly holding themselves out as protectors of the farmers, but if I am to take their attitude to-night, I do not know what I ought to say. They want to assist the people in the outlying areas, but when our farmers are themselves prepared to pay a levy on their butter they are not prepared to assist our farmers against the foreign butter. I think that the hon. members opposite are aiming at protecting the consumer, but surely the producer ought first to be protected. What will be the position of South Africa if our farmers get no protection against the foreign article? The whole object of the Bill is to protect the producers, and I therefore hope that hon. members opposite will no longer delay the Bill, but will give the necessary assistance to our farmers by means of this Bill.

I must say I appreciate the point of view put forward by some hon. members opposite, where they point out that as far as the imposition of what really amounts to a customs duty on imported butter is concerned the House in this section will be laying down an extraordinary procedure. I understand that hon. members opposite who have stressed that point do not object to the assistance which is intended to be given to our dairy industry, or the imposition of this countervailing in cases where they levy a duty on their own products, but they point out that by giving this power to the board we are departing from well-established financial procedure. I must say that I do not like the thing myself, but the difficulty is, can we assist the farmer, as we all want to do, by adopting the usual procedure? Hon. members say why not proceed by ordinary ways and means and propose it as a tax? My hon. friend (the Minister of Agriculture) is not wedded to any particular procedure, but the only difficulty is we do not know what the duty may be;. it may vary, as the hon. member for Griqualand (Mr. Gilson) has already pointed out. We may impose a duty which might be too much, and penalize the consumer quite unnecessarily. We may consider if it is possible to impose this duty in the ordinary way, without fixing a definite amount which might unnecessarily penalize the consumer. Perhaps the best course would be for my hon. friend to allow the clause to stand over, and he could best see how to meet the situation. We may probably devise some measures to achieve what we desire to do.

I do not want the Minister of Finance to be misled in this matter. I do not agree with an increase in the tax on butter. The Minister of Agriculture wants an unlimited increase. It is not only the method with which I disagree, but the amount. I think 1d. is quite enough. Under the suggestion of the Minister of Agriculture the more you import the bigger will be the bonus on the export, which is a peculiar position. We shall get to the position we got in Durban, where one ship came in with a cargo of sugar, off-loaded that at the wharf, and loaded up with Natal sugar to take somewhere else. You may be bringing in New Zealand butter, charging a big duty on it, and that will go to pay a big bonus to the same ship to take away from our country butter produced here. The method is unsound. I think that the limit has now been arrived at for the taxation of the people’s clothes and food, and the sooner the committee recognizes that the public are, if I may so express it, “fed up,” and cannot stand any more taxation, the better it will be for the country and for hon. members. Take the duty on butter. The one penny that is suggested amounts to something between £9,000 and £10,000 a year. That is quite a substantial contribution from the consumer to the dairy industry, because that is what it means. The consumer has got to pay.

I move—

To enable the Minister of Finance to consider it.

I would like to say that I think the Minister of Finance has done a wise thing in telling us that he is prepared to give this particular matter further consideration. I tried, apparently with entire lack of success so far as the Minister of Agriculture is concerned, to make it plain that I had no objection to this one penny per pound being put on imported butter, if a similar levy is imposed on butter in the Union. I made myself plain to everybody except to the Minister of Agriculture. It is right that this clause should stand over, in order that the matter may receive further consideration. The hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford) raises a further point. He says that not only do we object to the machinery proposed, but to the blank cheque portion of the proceeding.

Order! The hon. member can discuss that matter when the clause is before the committee again.

Motion put and agreed to.

On Clause 16.

I move—

Hon. members will understand that the clause, as it stands, makes the levy payable on all butter, and according to Clause 20, also on all cheese made in a factory during the preceding months. I, therefore, move that the levy shall only be paid on cheese or butter when it is offered for sale. If the clause is passed in its present form, factories would often have to pay on butter or cheese which they may have to retain in stock possibly for a long time. Small co-operative factories which have possibly only just been established and have no clientele, will possibly find it difficult to pay the levy, as they may possibly not sell the butter and cheese. It often occurs that butter or cheese has to be kept in the store a long time, and that it spoils, and if they have already paid the levy they will be paying it on butter or cheese which they will never sell. I hope hon. members will assist me in meetings the factories by this amendment. Old established factories will not possibly find it so difficult to pay the levy, but in future we shall possibly have new factories on our irrigation works with small capital, who will find it difficult at the commencement of their existence to pay the levy, as they may possibly find no market for their produce.

My hon. friend the member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. le Roux) now moves that the levy should be paid on butter and cheese offered for sale. What does " offered for sale” mean? Suppose it is offered for sale and not sold? I therefore do not quite understand his motion. Last year we had a voluntary levy, and there was no factory that did not pay regularly. The levy on cheese still exists, and there is no trouble. What will happen if the factory goes insolvent? Then the board will lose the levy on which it has reckoned. I do not think that the factories will be so weak as not to be able to pay. The factories at any rate have made no objection to this provision. The hon. member says that further associations may arise in the country. It is just on that account that we must take care. There are already so many dairy factories in the country that the expenditure is high. If the levy had to be paid monthly then we should probably not have so many factories. I do not think there will be any trouble in connection with the co-operative societies, because we also provide that money can be lent to such factories by the board.

I want to ask the hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. le Roux) to withdraw his amendment, because it creates a very great danger to the dairy farmers. I want to point out that it is not the factories, but the producers who pay the levy. The levy is deducted when the producer delivers his produce, and when the factory takes the butter into stock the levy has therefore already been paid. If we pass the amendment it will lead to the possibility that strong capital, as in the case of some creameries, may send up, or bring down the price of butter. The amendment is therefore a danger to the producer, because he has already paid when the manufacturer gets the produce.

I am sorry that the hon. Minister has not seen his way to accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. le Roux). It seems to me that the hon. member has raised a very important point. I do not know that the hon. Minister has really understood the point. The point the hon. member made is that a creamery may manufacture a quantity of butter and may never reach the point of selling it because it may be damaged, or become unsaleable or be destroyed by accident, such as a fire, or by any one of a number of accidents that may happen. Well, under this provision a creamery would be obliged to pay the levy on that butter although it has never got a penny back for it. It seems to me that that, is a point of substance, and I hope the Minister will reconsider the matter and see if he cannot accept this amendment. Then the hon. Minister raised the question of a factory going insolvent. Of course, the position is that the trustee will have to pay the levy so that there will be no loss of levy on that point. I do hope the Minister will reconsider the point raised and accept it. It would be grossly unfair that a factory should have to pay on everything it manufactures irrespective of what it sells.

The creamery will not have to pay. It is the farmer who has to pay. He will pay on delivery of his cream to the factory. I think my hon. friend has misunderstood the position.

There is one further point I should like to explain. If any butter or cheese is manufactured, in the first place the levy is not payable until a month afterwards. If there is anything in the nature of a free market in the Union that butter will be sold long before the end of the next month. If the butter is to be exported, I would point out to the hon. member that under new Clause 13 one of the functions of the board is to advance money from its funds to any owner of butter or cheese under the control of the board. So you see that, in either case, if the butter is sold in a free market or handed to the board for export, there will be no difficulty about the payment of the levy. If there is a surplus of butter, it is handed over to the board and it immediately advances to the owner or the maker sufficient money for the purpose of carrying on, which will include the levy. The hon. member need not be afraid that there will be any hardship imposed on the creamery under this amendment.

After the explanation that has been given I want to withdraw my amendment.

With leave of committee, amendment withdrawn.

On Clause 27.

Would the Minister please explain the necessity for this clause, which provides that the Governor-General may, on the recommendation of the board, prohibit the importation of butter or cheese, or any substitute, into the Union generally, or prohibit such importation from any particular country or place. We have general provisions in regard to dumping, so the object of the clause cannot be to prohibit the dumping of butter. In the ordinary way, if some butter-producing country were to dump its surplus butter in South Africa at unfair prices, the Minister of Finance has ample power to stop him. For what reason are the drastic powers in this clause to be given to the Governor-General, which, of course, means the Government? I remember year by year the wine farmers, especially when the present Speaker was a private member, trying to prohibit the importation of wines and spirits from overseas. If the sugar people could get a simple little clause like this to prohibit the importation of sugar they would be perfectly happy and not ask for increased protection, and the same with the boot or ready-made clothing manufacturers. Why is this new departure to be made in the case of the dairy industry? Surely it is very unwise to give powers of this sort, as it will inevitably be set up as a precedence, and people will ask why should not the principle be extended. I suggest to the Minister that as the hour is late, and this is a particularly contentious clause, and should be discussed with the Minister of Finance, he should either accept a motion to report progress, or that this particular clause stand over. I move—

I am willing to allow the clause to stand over, but let me say at once that the only object is to prevent the importation of too much butter.

Motion put and agreed to.

On new Clause 31,

This clause is not quite clear about farm butter. By the definition of what constitutes farm dairy butter, it is going to be very difficult to decide if, by any chance, a farmer produces, say, 55 lbs. of butter in any one month, and he will be subject to a heavy penalty of £50 if, during the month, he has labelled and sold his butter as “farm butter,” which is exempt up to 50 lbs. weight, and at the end of the month he finds he has sold more than 50 lbs. weight, not only the excess, but the whole amount should have been labelled “farm dairy butter,” and borne the levy stamp of 1d. per lb. on farm dairy butter. As the penalty is very severe and will hit the small producer very hard, I would like to be quite clear on the point.

We have provided that a person has the right to sell 50 lbs. of butter free. It is in the definition clause. The hon. member now asks what will happen if a person makes 54 lbs. of butter. He will then have to pay on all. It will be best for him to use the 4 lbs., and only to sell the 50 lbs. We surely must draw the line somewhere.

The Minister did not quite get my point. It is stated here that the farmer can sell up to 50 lbs. of butter fret. The farmer begins to make butter at the beginning of the month, and he cannot say whether he will make 50 or 60 lbs. during that month. During the summer months he will possibly make 75 lbs., and in winter 25 lbs., but as soon as he sells 1 lb., and he makes more butter during the month so that he exceeds 50 lbs., then he will be liable to a fine of £50 for selling that 1 lb. of butter at the beginning of the month.

If he makes more than 50 lbs. he must pay.

But how is he to know at the beginning of the month how much butter he will make? The farmer possibly thinks that he will make 40 lbs., and he sells 1 lb. without paying a levy, but it happens that later in the month he makes more and exceeds 50 lbs. He can then be fined for selling the 1 lb. without paying the levy, and for putting the words “farm dairy butter” instead of “farm butter

made 51 lbs. He is entitled to sell 600 lbs. a month. 50 lbs. is free. We are not going to send the police to enquire whether anyone has made 51 lbs. He is entitled to sell 60 lbs. a year free of tax. If, however, he sells more than 50 lbs. a month he has to pay tax. We must draw the line somewhere, and have exempted 50 lbs.

I do not object, but is the 50 lbs. free?

The law says so.

If he sells more than 50 lbs. he comes under another clause, and then has to pay in respect of the whole 51 lbs.

If anyone sells 55 lbs., does he not only pay on 5 lbs.?

I can follow the hon. member’s difficulty very plainly. The hon. member is making 40 lbs. of butter every month, and he starts off this month with the intention of making 40 lbs. of farm butter, but he makes over 50 lbs. and brings himself within the terms of the law. If the hon. member is an honest man, and he has made over 50 lbs., he will send his cheque forward to the board for the amount of his levy, and I am certain that no action will lie against him.

On the motion of Mr. Stuttaford it was agreed to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

House Resumed: