Before the Committee proceeds with the clause, I would like to make it known that I have gone into the matter again, and it seems to me as If there is actually reason to believe that owners can, in some cases, be pestered in areas where there is no stock disease. In the circumstances, I want to move—

That, I think, ought to satisfy the Committee. It will prevent people being unnecessarily bothered where there is no stock disease of any kind.

I am sorry that I cannot agree with the proposal of the Minister. I do not think it goes far enough. I want to move the following amendment—

I have already said that I think that the amendment of the Minister does not go far enough. As he now wants to meet us half way, I would like him to go a little further. The Minister must understand that in every district or circle which has been declared infected, dipping has to be done on the fifth or seventh day, and the farmers, particularly in the East Coast fever districts, have great trouble in connection with the dipping of the stock. When the stock is dipped there is an inspector who attends the actual dipping. The numbers of all the stock are kept, and I want to ask why the owners in the districts which are declared infected, should now also be compelled to keep books. I cannot see it. But even if the owners have to keep books of their stock, what then about the natives? An owner has 10, 20 or even 40 families of natives on his farm. Is he now to keep books, on their behalf, of their stock? Then there is another owner who has two farms 50 or. 60 miles removed from each other. There is also stock running on the farm which he does not live on. Now he has to keep books of the stock on the other farm. Or take a man who has no stock on the other farm, is he then to keep books of the stock of the natives on the other farm? The natives surely cannot keep their own books. They are not able to do so. I think this is placing an unnecessary burden on the farmers, and they will not be satisfied about it. We do not know what regulations are being made in connection with the book-keeping. Book-keeping is a complicated matter. Perhaps I myself am not able to keep books. The inspectors are there, and they exercise supervision. The other day I saw on my farm not only the local inspector, but also the controlling inspector. There was one beast too few, and I had to give an explanation. The matter is being properly controlled, and I think that the Minister is going a little too far. We may not sell stock unless we have a permit. Why then force a complicated system of book-keeping on the owners? We have troubles enough. Then I move the deletion of lines 21, 22 and 23. Under them the department can issue a regulation which is not even contemplated by the Act. They will be able to do anything according to those three lines. They look very innocent, but they would justify the issue of a regulation under which we would be bound, and which might possibly operate very harshly. We want to assist the department. It is in our interests for stock diseases to be eradicated, but we want it done in such a way that we ourselves as farmers are not ruined. That is why I am moving the amendment. We are prepared to bring the stock to the counting places, but it possibly takes a day or more to round up the cattle. Therefore let us know precisely beforehand when the cattle will be counted. The Minister says that he will not put the clause into force in districts where there is no stock disease. Very good, but let him assist us a little bit more. In a district like mine, where I live, we have already been under partial quarantine for 38 years, and now we are to be treated even more strictly than before. I hope the Minister will accept my amendment.

I would like to support the amendment of the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp). I think that if the Minister would carefully read the clause and the amendment, he will find that it is a very fair amendment. As he is out to fight and prevent stock diseases, we are anxious to help him, but he must not go too far. It is not necessary to tell the Minister how hard it is, in many cases, for the farming population to fill up forms, and now it will be made still more difficult. The Minister did not even tell us what the forms were to be, what directions there would be in connection with them. It may be a complicated form. We find that your educated people often find it difficult to fill up Government forms. Then what about the farming population, who are not so well educated? And what, even more, about the natives, apart from the class of native to which the hon. member for Wolmaransstad referred? There are natives who have stock of their own, and who are themselves farming. If it is actually right that the white population should fill up this form, what then about the natives, because the forms will really be mainly intended for natives—I understand that troubles occur especially in Natal. They cannot fill in the form. Therefore I hope, for that reason, that the Minister will accept the amendment. Then with regard to the further regulation, the Minister surely does not now expect that he should be given powers in connection with the destruction of stock, which he absolutely does not need today. This practically amounts to a blank cheque which would have to be given to him, and if he puts that sub-clause through the House, then he will, in the future, be able to issue regulations at any time without coming to the House, when he considers them necessary. It has never yet been the intention of the legislators in the Union Parliament, that such powers should be given to the Minister without first of all being referred to the House. I therefore hope that the Minister will accept the amendment of the hon. member for Wolmaransstad, because he does not need those powers. In our amendment he is given the special powers that he needs to combat stock diseases in every respect. But I want to raise another matter, and that is that I would like to know from the Minister what the intention is, as it seems to me a vague statement to get that the Bill applies to districts where there is no stock disease. Are there districts where there is no stock disease? Surely we have stock disease in some form or other in all parts of the country, or is the Minister referring to epidemic diseases, or diseases which are infectious, or does he mean stock diseases in any form? Then the amendment of the Minister is no concession, because then the Act will in any case apply to all parts of the Union. I hope that the Minister, who is always reasonable, and willing to make concessions, will find it possible to accept this amendment of the hon. member for Wolmaransstad.

It is strange how extraordinary circumstances sometimes lead to extraordinary legislation, and unless vou are acquainted with the circumstances that have made this Bill necessary, it is practically impossible to judge of the necessity for the Bill or otherwise. I am sure that the Minister is absolutely convinced of the necessity for this Bill which is before the House. It goes without saying that when you read through that clause you get the idea that particularly large powers are being granted to the officials of the department in the clause. It is obvious that if you have to deal with a vacillating official who tries to give a person as much trouble as he can, and who does not care how much inconvenience and trouble he causes to the farmers, then it will lead to unpleasantnesses in the administration, or carrying out, of this Act. But if the official shows the necessary tact and goes to work with the necessary commonsense, and administers the Act as was intended, then I cannot but welcome the Bill for reasons that I want to give. It goes without saying, as we sometimes have to deal with pushful vacillating officials, so you also find farmers like them, who make it difficult for the officials to carry out the law. It is usually a small percentage in a certain area which affect the whole neighbourhood, because they will not see to an Act being properly carried out. If an official just bears in mind that he is there for the Act, and not the Act for him, then I cannot see that we shall get any trouble from the side of the official. But if on the other hand we have to deal with a farmer who does not mind how many other farmers are infected owing to his negligence, then it is necessary to deal with him. We know that the order-loving section of the population never need the application of a law, but when you have a small section who will not obey the administration and the enforcement of the law, then you must give powers for such persons to be dealt with. I was particularly convinced of the necessity for this Bill just recently in connection with what took place in these western districts. We had an outbreak of horse-sickness in Clanwilliam. It extended to Piquetberg and further to Malmesbury and Wellington, to Worcester, and went on across Robertson, and to-day it is in Swellendam. It causes one of the most serious positions you could have to deal with in these areas. Every animal is needed to carry on farming operations, and the people in those areas, who have to plough cannot manage without their draught animals, because they are absolutely necessary. They cannot get on with their work without the draught animals. Now I want to know from the Minister whether it is an infectious disease, and I want to ask the Minister whether he will, through the press, warn the farmers if it is infectious, to take the necessary steps to prevent the extension of the disease. I want to thank the Minister for taking immediate action to control the disease and for instructing officials from Onderstepoort who know the disease, to come here and take action, in order to assist us. It seems to me that the disease has assumed such proportions that we will have to take drastic steps, and it seems to me further that in these circumstances certain areas should possibly be put under quarantine. We know that we constantly have to deal with traders in stock, and draught animals, because they go from one district to the other. There is no control over these people and they may have carried the disease from Clanwilliam to any part of the Western Province. We are dealing here with stock which are not only a necessary requirement for the prosecution of the farming industry, but in areas like Worcester, Robertson and Caledon, you find that there are stud farms where valuable horses and mules are bred. If drastic steps are not taken, I fear serious consequences in those parts. For that reason I would very much like to ask the Minister to give his serious attention to the matter, which it deserves. At the same time it has convinced me of the necessity for this Bill, in order to be able to keep the necessary supervision on the traders who buy up stock, and remove them from one district to the other through the length and breadth of these western districts.

Before I deal with the amendment by the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp), I wish to associate myself with what the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. H. C. de Wet) said in regard to the outbreak of disease among horses and mules. I should like to say that in the Van Rhynsdorp division on the Olifants River the farmers have lost no fewer than 1,000 horses and donkeys which represents an amount of about £26,000. That was the loss in that small area, and that pest has spread, and we know that it has been developing more and more during the past two months. We feel that the department has taken very little interest in the way this dangerous plague has spread. They are allowing things to develop and although I said at the very start that it was not the ordinary horse sickness, our farmers doubted it. The symptoms shewn by these animals are not the same as those which one finds among the animals suffering from that disease in the Transvaal. Unfortunately the Minister of Agriculture has only recently had an investigation made so that several thousand animals have already died from this disease. And now he comes along with his investigation. I am afraid it is very late; the outbreak was regarded as not being serious for a start; I feel the Minister has not paid enough attention, and has not shewn sufficient interest in the outbreak of this dangerous disease among draft stock. This is ploughing time, as the hon. member for Caledon has said, and the farmers are to-day without draft animals. Most of those farmers as not well off—they are hard put to it to make their farming enterprises pay. Some of those animals have been opened up by the farmers themselves and it was found that the entrails of those animals are full of fire, — they are infectious — and that is not the sort of thing one gets with ordinary horse sickness. I want to make an urgent request to the Minister not to deal with this question in ’n superficial manner, but to see to it that this plague shall not spread any further over the country. We are dealing here with areas where horse sickness is totally unknown and for that reason we are inclined to believe that this is not horse sickness but something else, something much worse than horse sickness. In regard to the Bill before us I want to say that we have no objection to it, but as the hon. member for Caledon has just said, if we view the past our experience has been that as soon as legislation is introduced certain officials abuse it. They are not tactful in their actions. This type of official approaches the farmer in a high-handed manner. An official like that has the law behind him and he abuses his position, and certain independent farmers are not prepared to tolerate it. With other farmers again it causes a very bad impression when officials of the state are not tactful and do not carry out their work in a friendly manner. While I welcome this Bill, I must draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that he should warn the officials that they should not go to the farmers in the spirit of a dictator but as a person who wants to help the farmers, and they should adopt the attitude of people who want to meet the farmer and assist him with his difficulties. In regard to the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Wolmaransstad, I first of all wish to object to the keeping of a register as proposed in the Bill. This is a fresh burden being imposed on the farmers, and many of our farmers are not disposed to keep a register together with all the details that are required of him. So far as the farmers are concerned, it is to a large extent impossible for them to keep such a register. For instance, they are called upon to give the age of their stock, details in regard to birth and death, the diseases from which their stock are suffering, the remedies which have been used, and all details of that kind, and it does not suit the farmer who lives on his farm to have to note down all those details, and I feel that this Bill goes too far in requiring all these things from the farmer. This constitutes an additional burden and it will make things even more difficult for the farmer than they are to-day. He will often have to employ a bookkeeper or a lawyer, because if he fails to keen his books properly, he renders himself liable to prosecution. The other question is in regard to the gathering of stock and cattle when an official requires the farmer to do so. In ordinary circumstances this will be very much in conflict with the farmer’s interests. An official may perhaps send a notice a week beforehand to let the farmer know that he has to gather his stock; but the farmer in many cases only calls for his mail once every fortnight, with the result that that letter is still lying in the post when the farmer is supposed to have gathered his stock together to enable the official to come and inspect it. Mr. Chairman, I find it very difficult to carry on if the Whips and one of the leaders carry on a conversation as loudly as they are doing. They are the people who take the strongest exception if any conversations are carried on while they are speaking, and we expect them to set a better example. The same sort of thing is going on on the other side of the House, and it certainly does not add to the honour and dignity of this House. More than one member is so distracted by these conversations that he finds it impossible to carry on with his remarks, and this surely is a disgrace. I was saying that we have the position of an official coming to a farm and telling the farmer that he has been given notice that the stock should have been gathered on such and such a date. The farmer has never received that notice, with the result that be renders himself liable to prosecution. The official will tell him that it was his duty to have seen to it that bis mail was collected-These difficulties are going to be very serious. We must bear in mind that the farms are large, the stock may be on an outpost — they are not all together, but in two or three lots, and the farmer has to collect them from all over the place.

I should like to say a word or two about these amendments moved by the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp). In the first place. I do not know if the hon. member realises that the procedure laid down under these clauses, which he objects to is the same procedure which he as Minister of Agriculture and Forestry, was responsible for during all the years he held that office. During the whole time that the hon. member held office. East Coast fever, wherever it broke out on any farm, was always treated under exactly the same conditions, and the only trouble is that apparently, under the old Act, the full powers which the then Minister thought he had, were found to be possibly ultra vires by a supreme court judgment of a recent date. Let me ask the House to look at what the hon. member objects to in his amendment. He wishes to omit sub-clause (m), which prescribes that a record should be kept by owners of stock. East Coast fever is the principal disease we have to combat. I should like to say that natives throughout the native areas are keeping records in the manner the Veterinary Department lays down by regulation. Where there is any difficulty in the matter in the native keeping the records, the dip inspector, when he attends the dipping of cattle, keeps the record. We must be reasonable and consider that the department and its employees are reasonable beings. I put it to hon. members opposite, would they be inclined to support an amendment which lays down that no stock records need be kept? When you have an outbreak of East Coast fever, it is essential that every five or seven days the animals should be dipped, and there should be no question whatever about their straying off the farm. That is why records are necessary. On each day the animals are dipped, the animals are to be counted and all records kept in order to ensure that every animal is properly dipped, and that there is no question of animals straying off the farm. The hon. member is a big farmer himself, and he knows how essential it is in an infected or suspected area, that every animal must be regularly dipped, and that there must be no chance of its straying off the farm, thus carrying infection. This is what the clause asks, and it has been operative in native areas and in European areas for many years in the past. Further, in regard to the assembling of stock, I am afraid that we are rather straining at a gnat, when hon. members raise such questions as have been raised. If the hon. member for Namaqualand (Lt.-Col. Booysen) states that a letter which had been posted did not reach the farmer in time for him to assemble his stock, no court will find the farmer guilty for not assembling his stock. The owner must have reasonable time in which to assemble his stock.

Then why not put it in the Act?

You cannot have screeds of that description laying down all these details in a Bill. Surely the hon. member, if he has not a lot of commonsense, must have a little commonsense. I am hoping so, at all events. The only objection that has been taken to clause 2 is that the operation of this clause was far wider under the clause than in the past. In the past it was confined practically to infected and suspected areas, and thus the net was thrown open very wide, and we agreed that it was preferable to confine the regulation, so that under these powers it would apply to infected and suspected areas, and the Minister has met us in the matter. Can he do any more? Can he do any more than insert the words that the powers shall be confined to infected and suspected areas? So far as the hon. member for Vryburg (Mr. Du Plessis) is concerned, he seemed to have some trouble in regard to the definition of a suspected or infected area, as to what actually an infected area was. If he looks at the original Act, he will find the definition clause of an infected area says that “an infected area was an area of land declared under and for the purpose of any provisions of this Act to be infected with a disease.” The disease must be diagnosed on the ground and the land declared under the Act as an infected area. Surely that is a sufficient safeguard. Surely it is a sufficient safeguard if the Veterinary Department demonstrate the actual presence of the disease and declare it a disease. There is no ambiguity about it. I think we welcome the Act as a whole, because we realise we are improving our farming methods. The more we improve our stock, the greater supervision should be exercised over diseases for the protection of the owner of the stock himself. You are not, by so doing, protecting the Veterinary Department or the Minister, against disease. We are here passing an Act which protects ourselves, and we should be reasonable in granting the necessary powers for the Act. I want to express our thanks, I think of all the farming community, to the Minister, for drawing up this provision, and we thoroughly welcome the provision which limits these powers to infected and suspected areas. I think that we can be thoroughly satisfied with the clause. When I say that, I speak with these safeguards which are embodied in the Minister’s amendment. I say to the hon. member who has moved the amendment, that he should realise again that everything that is laid down in the powers provided here, has been used for many years past, and has been successfully used to eliminate East Coast fever and other stock diseases.

When we deal with the question of stock diseases I am at once prepared to give the Minister the assurance that we shall support him in every possible way as far as we are able to do so in order to get the best possible Bill passed in this House. As a farmer I do not want the idea to be entertained that we are opposed to Bills aiming at the combating of stock diseases. I cannot see how there can be any objection anywhere, however, to the acceptance of the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp). The hon. member for Griqualand East (Mr. Gilson) got up here and said that the hon. member for Wolmaransstad did exactly the same thing as the Minister of Agriculture is now asking authority for in this Bill. But where the hon. member left us in the dark is when he failed to tell us why they have now come forward with this Bill if the Minister as long as five years ago possessed all the necessary powers to do these things.

A judgment of court showed that he did not have those powers.

Well, I am only saying that the hon. member did not tell us why it had become necessary for this Bill to be introduced; he failed to tell us why it was essential that this Bill should be passed by this House, and why the amendment proposed by the hon: member for Wolmaransstad should not be accepted. All the hon. member for Wolmaransstad wants is that farmers shall be given a reasonable time to gather their stock together. If we add those few words “subject to a reasonable period” the position will be considerably improved. Why should the Minister not accept that? We are talking here this afternoon of farmers, and we are anxious to assist the Minister to put this Bill into proper shape. May I mention an instance to show the reason why I ask the Minister to accept the amendment and why it is essential to my mind that this should be done? I want to say that I speak with a greater knowledge of this matter than any hon. member who has yet got up to speak from the other side of the House. I am a cattle farmer and I have a cattle farm myself, and I know that it may happen when any cattle pass through the thick bush that they sometimes get mixed up with the cattle belonging to my neighbour; but what happens if one of my beasts wanders off and gets into my neighbour’s kraal? At the time that that is happening the police or an inspector may come along and I may be involved in a court case for having allowed my animals without a permit to enter my neighbour’s kraal. That is how a regulation may be construed. Those animals have been grazing alongside each other all day long — my cattle and my neighbour’s cattle have been grazing together all day long, and when they go home in the evening one of my animals accidentally joins my neighbour’s stock. Then the inspector happens to visit my neighbour’s farm and he asks him what my animal is doing on his farm. If my neighbour says that the animal belongs to me the inspector will ask whether I had obtained a permit to allow the animal to be there.

Only in certain areas.

This had also been designated an infected area. Hon. members over there do not realise the difficulties that arise. Now I am summoned because one of my animals has landed in my neighbour’s kraal. All day long my 100 or 200 or 500 animals run about with my neighbour’s 500 animals, and there is nothing wrong with that, but if in the evening one or two of my animals are in among those of my neighbour’s then I am summoned under the Stock Diseases Act; and a farmer living in those far away parts may have to travel 100 miles, or 150 miles, with cart and horses through the sand to go and attend court. He is away from his farm for four or five days, and all that time those animals are running together, and before the farmer is back on his farm, before he has returned from the court, where he has had to account for the fact that one animal had strayed at night into his neighbour’s kraal, a much more serious case has arisen against him, and that is the way in which the farmers are being ruined. That is going to be the effect of this measure as sure as anything. The Minister should make it possible for an inhabitant of this country to carry out the law, and be should not make it impossible The man should not have to live in a continuous state of anxiety because some action may be brought against him. I ask the Minister to accept this amendment. The hon. member for Caledon (Mr. H. C. de Wet) spoke here with a show of authority such as one only gets among people who have no knowledge of the matter they are speaking on. He spoke about horse sickness which will infect other horses. Let me reassure the hon. member on that point. Horse sickness is carried by mosquitoes and is not infectious. The veterinary division recognises horse sickness a long way off, and the hon. member need not be afraid of there being any great danger in that respect. But what I do say is wrong, is that the hon. member should state that there are frivolous farmers and frivolous officials. I do not really know what the hon. member means by “frivolous”—we usually apply the word to women. I assume that the hon. member wants to differentiate between people who do their duty conscientiously and others who do not do so. And now the hon. member says that if it is only the official who is frivolous there will be no difficulty—the farmer has also to be frivolous if trouble is to result, and for that reason it is the farmer’s fault. That sort of thing is typical of the hon. member’s way of thinking.

Cannot you people deal with the matter without being personal?

I only want to point out how badly founded are the foundations on which the hon. member builds his theory. The official is there to serve the public and the farmer has the right to expect to be treated decently and reasonably by the official. For that reason I ask the Minister to insert those words that the farmer shall be given reasonable notice, so that they will have the opportunity of gathering their cattle together at the proper time. We do not want to make the work of the official more difficult, nor do we want to make the carrying out of the law more difficult, all we ask is that it shall be made possible for the farmer to comply with the provisions of the Act. If the Minister will accept the amendment this Bill will be through the House in half an hour, but if he does not accent it he must expect the strongest opposition from every farmer in this House. The hon. member for Griqualand East (Mr. Gilson) has assured us that no farmer will be found guilty for failing to carry out a regulation.

I said if he did not get reasonable notice.

But assuming a farmer did receive reasonable notice, and the official arrives? I should like to know whether the hon. member can give us the assurance that if the farmer has been unable to carry out the provisions of the law he will not be prosecuted.

The hon. member for Delarey who has just spoken says that he probably has greater experience of stockfarming than any other member of this House. I am only a small stock farmer, but I have had the unfortunate experience of living right in the middle of East Coast Fever for the last 20 years, and I do not think any member of this House has attacked the late Minister of Agriculture more than I have on this particular matter, and I don’t think there is anybody who has met with less sympathy than we have in the Transkei from him. His regulations that he imposed in the Transkei went so far that a deputation of magistrates accompanied the Native Councillors right up to Pretoria in order to interview him and try to get a relaxation of the regulations. We did not meet with much sympathy. These regulations have been in force for a great many years. I do not think the member for Delarey (Mr. Labuschagne) understands the position. Owing to a recent interpretation in the Supreme Court, there has been found a slight flaw in the law, and these new regulations are being put before the House with the object of removing that. Since the late Minister has departed from the scene we have had much more sympathetic treatment and there is much more satisfaction in the Transkei, so far as these regulations are concerned, but this is the point I want to put to the Minister. The late Minister of Agriculture imposed these regulations in the Transkei and there they have been in operation for a great number of years. Fortunately we are now getting rid of East Coast Fever and we have practically got rid of it but we are getting infection from over our borders. Only a few days ago I wrote to the Minister complaining that we were getting infection from farmers on the border who are not carrying out the regulations, and that is the danger that all farmers are faced with. The honest and conscientious farmer is agreeable and willing to carry out these regulations, but when his neighbour fails to do so he endangers the whole area and then we have these difficulties. My only difficulty in this matter is in regard to the definition of an infected area. I represent an area that extends from the borders of Natal right down to Queenstown, a distance of 400 miles, and they have declared the whole of that an infected area. If we get an outbreak on the borders of Natal the whole area of my constituency right down to Queenstown is declared an infected area. The Minister knows that in the St. Mark’s district of the Transkei there has never been East Coast Fever within 60 miles, and yet these regulations are imposed year after year, and the export of cattle has been prohibited except under severe restrictions. That is the point I want to bring up and I want the Minister to listen to it very carefully. The result of imposing these stern regulations prohibiting the export of cattle from the Transkei, has been to create a huge surplus of cattle which is bringing about erosion and a number of other difficulties that are facing the Government to-day. There is another dangerous result and that is that it is bringing thousands of donkeys into these native areas. The restrictions preventing the native from taking a sledge from one location to another have led the natives to buy large numbers of donkeys until in one district in Natal there are I believe more donkeys than cattle. The position is so acute that they actually brought in a regulation to castrate all male donkeys with a view to meeting the position. Everybody knows what it means when you introduce a large number of donkeys into a country. Everybody knows that then that country is on the down grade. It is a most serious matter and I am going to appeal to the Minister, who I know is sympathetic, to see that these regulations are carried out in a reasonable way. One thing I do say, and that is that I agree very much with what the member on the other side said. The Government has been sending young veterinary surgeons who have no experience in dealing with natives into these areas. They take up an arbitrary attitude, and I know from experience that one of these young men was almost killed one day because he was disrespectful and maltreated a very important chief. That is one of the matters which I think the Minister must take into careful consideration. He must try to send into these native areas men who are a little more responsible and have some knowledge of the natives. I would like to direct the attention of the Minister to the agenda which is coming before the Bunga, the native general council in a fortnight’s time. He will there find some 30 items dealing with stock diseases and ten dealing with East Coast Fever. In conclusion I want to say this to hon. members on the other side. I have been farming for 16 years and I am still subject to these regulations, although I have never had East Coast Fever and the disease has never been within 50 miles of my farm. In spite of that I am not allowed to send a beast out of that area except under quarantine regulations. I think this question of the definition of infected areas should be gone into very carefully, and the Government should not declare 16,000 square miles an infected area because there is an outbreak on the borders of Natal. And this applies to infectious diseases. I am drawing the attention of the Minister to these facts that the Administration of the department has improved greatly, and we are getting rid of East Coast Fever. I think it is the duty of everyone to try and assist in that direction and make the restrictions as stringent as possible.

But not unnecessarily so.

Even unnecessarily so. If the hon. member had been a native, he would have gone into rebellion long ago. I have felt like it myself. The court has to determine what is unreasonable and there can be no objection to that. I think the Department has East Coast Fever in hand, and we should encourage them to go on along the lines they have been adopting in the last few years, and we should try and get rid of East Coast Fever as soon as we can.

I want to point out that we cannot take this matter any further by all this talk. Let us come to a vote on this matter and finish it. I have tried to meet hon. members although I thought that it was quite unnecessary to go any further. This is a Stock Diseases Bill and a Bill of this kind is only going to be applied where there are stock diseases. My department has quite enough work to do to eradicate stock diseases where there are stock diseases, without going to any clean areas. I thought that I was meeting hon. members’ objections by my amendment, and I may say that this amendment is being introduced against the views of my officials. They feel that this amendment is weakening the Bill, but I was disposed to meet hon. members.

What areas are you referring to that this Bill will apply to — which special parts?

Principally Natal and most of the Bushveld parts of the Transvaal. I only want to make sure that we do not accept anything which we may have to amend again later on. Now let us come to the remarks made by the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp). His main objection is that farmers now have to keep books. But he was one of the first to introduce bookkeeping. Here are the books asking for those details to be recorded, and this is all that is being asked: the date, the total, increase or decrease, and the signature of the inspector, that is to say his initials, and if the farmer is able to sign he may also do so. That is all that is being asked. I feel therefore that we are meeting the objections of the hon. member for Vryburg (Mr. Du Plessis).

Why do you not put that in the law?

Because it is not in the law to-day and a man can refuse to-day and say that he is unable to keep any books. We are now going to legalise what the hon. member for Wolmaransstad has been doing for years.

I do not agree.

Well, that is the custom which has prevailed for years. In regard to the natives, the native goes to a dipping tank where the cattle are recorded by the inspector.

Why do you not put it in the annexure to the Act in that form?

But the Act has been carried out in that way for the past twenty-eight years. Is my hon. friend now going to tie down the department in such a way that it will be impossible to carry out the law at all? Why should a man ask for more, and if it does not work why should he then come back to Parliament to have it changed? I cannot do any more. This also applies to the second part of the amendment of the hon. member for Wolmaransstad, which reads as follows—

Who is to determine what is a reasonable period of time? It is taken for granted that a reasonable time is given, but what happens in practice? The hon. member for Wolmaransstad is a cattle farmer, and he knows as well as I do what the position is. I carry on farming on two farms which are a long way distant from each other. I farm with cattle, and the manager of the farm knows when the inspector is coming to check the cattle. If a change is to be made why should not the inspector give a reasonable period of time? Who are the people who carry out the Act? Most of them are our own people, farmers’ sons.

To-day they are khaki knights.

Sometimes they are very arbitrary.

I am prepared to accept the hon. member’s statement that there are cases where they are arbitrary, but I want to say at once that the farmers are not slow in registering any complaints, and I must say that I have not had many complaints of inspectors being unreasonable. But hon. members can take it from me that where there are instances of inspectors being unreasonable or, as the hon. member for Namaqualand (Lt.-Col. Booysen) has put it, acting dictatorially, they will be dealt with, at any rate while I am head of the department. For that reason I am unable to accept the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Wolmaransstad. We are unable to accept his request that ten or twenty days notice should be given. This is a matter which should be left to the department. I feel that hon. members must trust the department not to give a man unfair notice. In practice it is found that this question hardly ever gives rise to any difficulty. Then the hon. member for Wolmaransstad objects to the last three lines of the clause. I am quoting from the middle of the clause—

I cannot see the objection raised by the hon. member for Wolmaransstad. I do not want to deal with the definition of “infected” or “suspected” area, because I feel that the hon. member for East Griqualand (Mr. Gilson) has put the case clearly for the benefit of the hon. member for Vryburg. In regard to the question of the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. H. C. de Wet) I can only say that horse sickness as such is not an infectious disease, that is to say one horse is not infected by another; but I am not going to say here that this is not a special kind of horse sickness. I have had no experience of it and this may be a disease which we are not familiar with. At Clanwilliam it was the ordinary horse sickness which broke out, which is not infectious; it is a kind of disease which we also have in the north. But as this disease has come down as far south as this, and as there is a possibility of it being something which is particularly serious and dangerous, I asked Onderstepoort to have an immediate investigation made, and they are working night and day on this investigation.

To investigate whether it is infectious?

Yes, naturally, to investigate that aspect and to prevent it from spreading.

Don’t you think it essential to inform the public of the steps which are being taken?

When it becomes necessary we shall do so.

I am sorry that I did not have the opportunity of bringing a point to the Minister’s notice before he rose to reply, because he would then have been able to reply at once. First of all I support the amendment of the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp). The Minister must not get the idea that we are introducing this amendment with a view to opposing the Bill or of putting obstacles in the way. But we do not want to put anything into this Bill which the Department may later use as an excuse. I shall show what is being done to-day. What I want to bring to the notice of the House is clause 3, sub-section 2 (p) which reads as follows—

We do not want to oppose this, we agree that the Minister should have the right to prevent stock from coming into the country and bringing stock diseases into this country, but I feel that the Minister and his department should also be reasonable and should not hide themselves behind a clause of that kind.

We are always reasonable.

I want to show the Minister where they have been very unreasonable, where they could have been considerate, but where they made the position absolutely ridiculous. A case occurred a year ago of a farmer in my constituency who made application to be allowed to import an Arab horse, a stallion, from Kenya. After a long delay he received a reply that permission could not be granted as there was a certain proclamation, not a law, but a proclamation, No. 68 of 1924, which prohibited the importation of horses from the north of Angola, Northern Rhodesia and Mozambique. That farmer wanted to buy two horses, but eventually when he arrived on the scene one horse had already been sold, and imported into Southern Rhodesia. But this prohibition only applies to areas to the north of Northern Rhodesia. What was the result? That farmer was able to import that horse from Southern Rhodesia but he was not allowed to import it from Kenya. The department took refuge behind proclamation No. 68 of 1924.

That we cannot help.

Why not?

We can only impose a prohibition in respect of animals north of Southern Rhodesia.

The one horse came into the country through Beira to Southern Rhodesia, but the other one was not allowed to be imported into the Union from Kenya through Beira. The Department did not give any reasons, it simply said that proclamation No. 68 of 1924 was the obstacle. I want to ask the Minister with reference to the clause I have read whether he proposes replacing, or repealing that proclamation, and whether that proclamation will still be invoked if anyone wants to import a horse, so that the department can still take refuge behind that provision. I should like to have an answer from the Minister whether that proclamation is to be repealed or whether it is to remain in force. If the Minister is not able to give a direct answer then I would move to add to this clause that proclamation 68 of 1924 be repealed.

I am sorry that the Minister is not prepared to accept this amendment which we regard as being very reasonable. He will naturally use his majority like a steam roller to force this Bill through, but whether it will be to his advantage or whether it will benefit the country is something which we shall have to judge afterwards. What has struck me is that the Minister shewed us this little book, and stated that the natives are obedient, that he has no trouble with them as they comply with the policy laid down. But it is the white people in respect of whom these powers have to be used. The Natal members have told us that this Bill has to be passed because the natives in Natal evade the existing law. The Minister on the other hand tells us that the law is meant for the whites, but I know the white farmers; they are honest people who, if they are given reasonable instructions, will carry out those instructions. It is strange that we never had any of these difficulties when the Nationalist Party was in power. The department was satisfied, and the people were satisfied, white as well as black, and it is strange that as soon as the other side is in power martial law is to be proclaimed and difficulties of this kind are experienced. Not only do we get martial law and indemnity Bills, but measures such as the one we are now dealing with have to be introduced for the purpose of coping with the agricultural position.

More than a year ago we had trouble and this Bill was actually in draft last session, but we did not have time to introduce it.

May I ask the Minister in how many cases people failed to carry out the instructions that have been given this year? I say that there were no such cases. This again is merely an instance of powers having to be used to undermine and destroy the liberty of the farmer and of the Afrikaner. Ninety per cent. of our farmers are Afrikaans-speaking, and they are now to be compelled to keep books and to do certain things for which the Minister and the department are being given the necessary powers. I have complete confidence in the majority of our officials. I have inspectors in my district and there have never yet been any difficulties there, such as the Minister referred to. It is unfair to go and pass laws which I know will make people dissatisfied. But there is another important Bill in connection with the wine farmers which I want to see passed, and for that reason I do not propose going into this question any further. In regard to horse sickness it is strange how little some people know about it. Are we going to be compelled to prevent the mosquitoes from flying to certain areas? Still I want to repeat that I do not wish to delay the House any longer. Let the Minister outvote us. We shall see the consequences of his action in days come. I have done my duty to the Platteland, by moving this amendment, and I do not propose going into this matter any further.

I should like to have a reply from the Minister to my question.

It has nothing to do with this Bill. The hon. member is out of order.

Question put: That all the words from “prescribing” in line 48 down to and including “stock” in line 49, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the Clause.

Upon which the Committee divided:

Ayes—60:

Abrahamson, H.

Acutt, F. H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Bawden, W.

Bell, R. E.

Botha, H. N. W.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowie, J. A.

Bowker, T. B.

Burnside, D. C.

Christopher, R. M.

Clark, C. W.

Collins. W. R.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

Deane, W. A.

De Kock, A. S.

Derbyshire, J. G.

De Wet, H. C.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, R. J.

Faure, P. A. B.

Fourie, J. P.

Gluckman, H.

Goldberg, A.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Hirsch, J. G.

Hooper, E. C.

Howard, F. T.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Long. B. K.

Madeley, W. B.

Marwick, J. S.

Molteno, D. B.

Mushet, J. W.

Neate, C.

Nel, O. R.

Payn, A. O, B.

Pocock. P. V.

Reitz, L. A. B.

Shearer. V. L.

Smuts, J. C.

Sonnenberg, M.

Steyn, C. F.

Steytler, L. J.

Sutter, G. J.

Trollip, A. E.

Van Coller, C. M.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Van der Byl, P. V. G.

Van der Merwe, H.

Wallach. I.

Wares, A. P. J.

Tellers: L. D. Gilson and W. B. Humphreys.

Noes—45:

Bekker, S.

Bezuidenhout, J. T.

Boltman, F. H.

Booysen, W. A.

Bosman, P. J.

Bremer, K.

Conradie, J. H.

Conroy, E. A.

De Bruyn, D. A. S.

Du Plessis, P. J.

Du Toit, C. W. M.

Fullard, G. J.

Haywood, J. J.

Hugo, P. J.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Labuschagne, J. S.

Loubser, S. M.

Louw, E. H.

Naudé, S. W.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Pirow, O.

Booth, E. A.

Sauer, P. O.

Schoeman, B. J.

Schoeman, N. J.

Steyn, G. P.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Strydom, J. G.

Swart, A. P.

Van den Berg, C. J.

Van der Merwe, N. J.

Van der Merwe, R. A T.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Venter, J. A. P.

Verster, J. D. H.

Viljoen, D. T. du P.

Vosloo, L. J.

Warren, S. E.

Wentzel, J. J.

Wilkens, Jacob.

Wilkens, Jan

Wolfaard, G. v. Z.

Tellers: J. F. T. Naudé and J. H. Viljoen.

Question accordingly affirmed and the amendment proposed by Gen. Kemp negatived.

The amendments proposed by the Minister were put and agreed to.

Question put: That all the words from “whether” in line 21 to the end of paragraph (iii), proposed to be omitted, stand part of the Clause.

Upon which the Committee divided:

Ayes—59:

Abrahamson, H.

Acutt, F. H.

Alexander. M.

Allen, F. B.

Bawden, W.

Bell, R. E.

Botha, H. N. W.

Bowker. T. B.

Burnside, D. C.

Christopher, R. M.

Clark, C. W.

Collins, W. R.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

Deane, W. A.

De Kock, A. S.

Derbyshire. J. G.

De Wet, H. C.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, R. J.

Faure, P. A. B.

Fourie, J. P.

Gluckman, H.

Goldberg, A.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward. G. N.

Hemming, G. K.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Hirsch, J. G.

Hooper, E. C.

Howarth, F. T.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Klopper, L. B.

Long, B. K.

Madeley, W. B.

Marwick, J. S.

Mushet, J. W.

Neate, C.

Nel, O. R.

Payn, A. O. B.

Pocock. P. V.

Reitz, L. A. B.

Shearer, V. L.

Smuts, J. C.

Sonnenberg. M.

Steyn, C. F.

Steytler, L. J.

Sutter, G. J.

Trollip, A. E.

Van Coller, C. M.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Van der Byl, P. V. G.

Van der Merwe. H.

Wallach, I.

Wares, A. P. J.

Tellers: L. D. Gilson and W. B. Humphreys.

Noes—39:

Bekker, S.

Bezuidenhout, J. T.

Boltman, F. H.

Booysen, W. A.

Bosman, P. J.

Bremer, K.

Conradie, J. H.

Conroy, E. A.

Du Plessis, P. J.

Du Toit, C. W. M.

Fullard, G. J.

Haywood, J. J.

Hugo, P. J.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Labuschagne, J. S.

Loubser, S. M.

Louw, E. H.

Naudé, S. W.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Rooth, E. A.

Sauer, P. O.

Schoeman, B. J.

Schoeman, N. J.

Steyn, G. P.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Strydom, J. G.

Swart, A. P.

Van den Berg, C. J.

Van der Merwe, N. J.

Venter, J. A. P.

Viljoen, D. T. du P.

Vosloo, L. J.

Warren, S. E.

Wentzel, J. J.

Wilkens, Jan.

Wolfaard, G. v. Z.

Tellers: J. F. T. Naudé en J. H. Viljoen.

Question accordingly affirmed, and the further amendment proposed by Gen. Kemp dropped.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Remaining Clause and the Title put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

The CHAIRMAN reported the Bill with amendments.

Amendments considered.

Mr. SPEAKER put the amendments in Clause 3, which were agreed to, and the Bill, as amended, adopted.

Third reading on 8th April.

I move—

Mr. Speaker, as the long title of this Bill signifies, it is the intention through this Bill to provide for the control of good wine. The Wine Commission which reported in 1937 found that the partial control given by the Act of 1924 had proved insufficient. The effect of stabilising the price of distilling wine had not affected the price of good wine. The anticipation that the stabilisation of the price of distilling wine would automatically raise the price of good wine has not been realised. Instead of the margin price of £2 per leaguer in favour of good wine which is generally, I believe, accepted as reasonable and fair, it was found that the price has in many cases dropped as low as 10s. per leaguer above that of distilling wine. There is, therefore, no encouragement to make good wine. In giving effect to the recommendation of the Commission it is proposed to give the K.W.V. the power to fix the minimum price for good wine in relation to that of distilling wine, and institute effective measures of control so as to maintain such minimum price. In order to prevent this disparity between the price of ordinary good wine and that of high quality good wine—which term as hon. members know refers to sparkling wines, ports, sherries and natural table wines of the highest class—it is proposed to empower the K.W.V. to fix the minimum price for high quality good wine in relation to ordinary good wine as well. It will be observed that the basis of price relationship between ordinary good wine and distilling wine and between high quality wine and ordinary good wine is not laid down in the Bill, but provision is made that these will be fixed annually by the K.W.V. subject to the approval of the Minister. The reason for this provision is to permit a certain amount of elasticity in order to accommodate changing conditions. In the discussions which the department had with the different interests prior to drafting the Bill, the following basis was agreed upon, and unless unforeseen circumstances arise necessitating a departure therefrom, the K.W.V. will be expected to adhere to this basis when making price determinations each year.

1. (a) There shall be a minimum margin of £4 per leaguer in favour of quality wine between the minimum price of good wine and that of quality good wine.
2. (b) There shall be a difference of £2 per leaguer in favour of good wine between the price which the farmer receives for distilling wine, and the minimum price of good wine; provided the latter shall not be less than £5 10s. per leaguer.

These fixed prices will, of course, only apply to the Union, and provision is made in the Bill for the K.W.V. to vary the price of wine purchased for export as well as other non-potable purposes, such as vinegar manufacture, moskonfyt, grape juice, etc. Attention is also directed to the fact that whereas the Act of 1924 prohibited the K.W.V. from selling wine for distillation or spirits for potable purposes in South Africa, South of the Equator, at less than the fixed minimum price, this Bill alters that and restricts the K.W.V. only to the Union in respect of fixed minimum prices for both good wine and distilling wine or spirits. The reason for this alteration is that it has been found that this restriction has prevented the K.W.V. from supplying spirits at a cheaper price to merchants to enable them to compete with overseas brandy in Rhodesia for instance. This Bill proposes to correct that, and to allow the K.W.V. to supply wholesale merchants in wholesale quantities only at below the fixed minimum price operative in the Union, for sale to territories in Africa outside the Union. At the same time the K.W.V. has given merchants the undertaking that it will not compete with them in those countries and territories outside the Union to which the merchants have developed an export trade. Under the Act of 1924 as well as the Liquor Act the K.W.V. is prohibited from supplying its own members with matured liquor in exchange for the raw article. The Liquor Act, however, allows the farmer to distil free of excise duty 30 gallons of brandy at proof strength for his own consumption. Now the Bill proposes to give the K.W.V. power to supply its own members with a limited quantity of matured wine, and brandy in exchange for the raw article. But this quantity of wine and brandy is limited to the equivalent of 15 gallons of proof spirit. I think the result should be that our wine farmers will in many cases be able to offer their friends who visit them a better drink than has hitherto been the case. Now, coming to the control machinery, the Bill provides that the K.W.V. shall operate the control together with the Department of Customs and Excise. It is at once admitted that the control of good wine will be more difficult than that of distilling wine. I am not going to weary the House by going into detail except to say that machinery is provided which, together with comparatively heavy penalties for evasion, should assist in making the control of good wine fairly effective. In order to finance the control machinery the Bill provides for a levy of 10s. per leaguer on all good wines — 5s. to be retained by the K.W.V. to cover costs of its side of the control, and 5s. to be paid to the Government for providing the increased excise supervision. I take it that there should be no objection to this charge. It will be recalled that the Wine Commission also recommended that an advisory board should be established. The commission had in mind that the advisory board should act partly as a protection to the other interests which would be affected by the K.W.V.’s control. The K.W.V. strenuously oppose an advisory board as they fear that such a body might unnecessarily interfere with their control and might make it difficult for them to carry out the control properly. It is proposed not to proceed with the advisory board, but to widen the scope of the appeal board by providing that any person affected by this exercise of control by the K.W.V. may, subject to the approval of the Minister, appeal to the appeal board. The existing machinery for establishing an appeal board has been remodelled to function properly and to obviate any chance which the K.W.V. has under the existing Act of obstructing the functioning of the appeal board. To my mind the reorganised appeal board along the proposed lines will constitute a greater amount of protection to the other interests than an advisory board which, after all, would have no real power, in any case, apart from advisory. After all the appeal board can give a decision whereas the advisory board in the last instance has no power. I come now to the last and let me say the most important provision in the Bill, namely that of giving to the K.W.V. the power to limit in certain circumstances the production of alcohol. The Wine Commission has reported that the K.W.V.’s control under the Act has been a success from practically every point of view “but that it has failed to establish a proper equilibrium between production and consumption and thus to stabilise the industry.” The reply of the K.W.V. to this criticism was that it was unable to do so because—

1. (a) Its control was confined to distilling wine, and
2. (b) the Control Act of 1924 did not vest it, the K.W.V., with the necessary power to limit production.

I am not going to argue whether the reply of the K.W.V. is sound, and whether it could really have obtained a very large measure of limitation of production if it had desired to do so. I shall be content by saying that this Bill proposes to create the necessary machinery and its application is still left in the hands of the K.W.V. The responsibility for the application thereof still rests entirely with the K.W.V. It has been given all the power it has asked for, and it is now up to the K.W.V. to use its power wisely and in such a manner that it will indeed stabilise the industry and if necessary limit production. If it now fails to do so there can be no excuse, and failure in these circumstances can only mean an admission that a producers’ co-operative society is constitutionally unfit to be entrusted with statutory control over an industry. If I am allowed I would venture to say to the K.W.V.: “Don’t fail; don’t disappoint Parliament.” Finally, Mr. Speaker, I have been asked by the different parties to take the Bill through select committee to give those vitally interested the opportunity of presenting their case, and I have agreed to take this step. I propose accordingly to move that it be sent to select committee after the second reading has been accepted.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

I move—

I second.

May I just ask this? I understood that there was to be a time limit of fourteen days.

I do not think it will be necessary to lay down a time limit. I can assure the hon. member that we shall not delay this Bill. I should think that the select committee will be appointed on Monday, and will start its work at once. It is difficult to say how much time the select committee will require, and that being so I do not think it would be desirable to lay down a time limit.

Motion put and agreed to.

I move—

Mr. Speaker, I understand that there is a tacit agreement between hon. members on this side of the House and hon. members on the other side, that the House shall adjourn round about 5 o’clock. I want to assure my hon. friends that I shall not be long in what I have to say, and I hope, after a brief introduction by myself, that hon. members over there, realising that this Bill is entirely non-contentious, will be in agreement in regard to the carrying of the second reading before 5 o’clock, reserving anything they may have to say until the committee stage. This is in the nature of an appeal to my hon. friends, and I am throwing myself on their mercy. I should like to say that this Apprenticeship Bill is the first of a series of industrial legislation designed to improve the conditions, and circumstances, of the workers of this country. It is a pleasant reflection to me, sir, that the public conscience has been so aroused that they will not only tolerate but are actually expecting and demanding progressive and improving legislation of this character. I say it is a matter of the most extreme delight to myself to observe that. It is appropriate that we should begin this series, to which I have referred, with the youth, with the training and the fitting out for the future of our young people in South Africa as the artisans of the future, not only to their own advantage, but I will submit, to the advantage of the State ultimately. There is one thing, I certainly will endeavour to give it direction if this Bill becomes law. There is one thing that this Bill, I hope, will accomplish, namely, the setting up of a standard of artisanship, if I may coin a word, which is at least equal, if not superior, to that of any other country in the world. I say that most emphatically. I am speaking myself as a craftsman. I cannot help remembering that certain manufacturing countries in the world, especially the heavy manufacturing, the heavy industries, owe not only their reputation, but their success to the fact that these industries have been built up on a higher quality of artisanship, and notably in England, I would explain, if hon. members opposite would have no objection to my saying it. I have a peculiar and intimate knowledge of the effect of the high quality of artisanship upon the manufacturing industries of the world. One of the objects, perhaps the main object of this legislation I am introducing this afternoon, is to accomplish just that for South Africa which has put England on the industrial map of the world. With just these few introductory remarks, I want briefly to recount the history of this particular legislation. Hon. members will notice that we propose, in this legislation, to repeal all other apprenticeship legislation. Therefore, this Bill, whilst repealing all other apprenticeship legislation, is, at the same time, in the nature of amending legislation from the apprenticeship point of view. The present legislation has been in existence for 18 years, and it unquestionably requires revision. Some of the detailed provisions of present legislation are entirely out-of-date, and certainly have proved difficult in administration. We had the Industrial Legislation Commission which reported in 1935, and, among other things, as the result of conducting an investigation into the operation of the Apprenticeship Act, it suggested a number of amendments to the Act, but it did not recommend any departure from the principles upon which the Act is based. I can assure hon. members that there is no intention in this Bill of altering the principles upon which that legislation has been based. Now, most of the amendments incorporated in the Bill arise from that Industrial Commission’s recommendations. Hon. members need not fear that the advent of this awful Socialist into control of the Labour Department is responsible for introducing something that they cannot swallow. I am only giving effect in this Bill to the recommendations of the commission of 1935. Now, may I give a brief history? Apprenticeship to skilled trades is at present controlled by the Apprenticeship Act of 1922, and is 18 years old. Prior to that date there was no statutory regulation of apprenticeship at all, save for incidental references in the laws governing masters and servants, a most unsatisfactory state of affairs. Like all other industrial legislation in this country, the Apprenticeship Act was the result of increased industrial activity arising out of the last Great War, a matter upon which I urge hon. members to ponder very carefully. Prior to 1922, systematic apprenticeship was the exception rather than the rule, save in the mining industry and in the railway administration. In other industries only a few individual firms took definite steps to train young lads in their employ, and fewer still thought it worth while to enter into written contracts of apprenticeship. Up to 1914 South African industry had drawn the bulk of its skilled artisan labour from overseas. During the Great War, the demand expanded, but the supply decreased, and it became obvious that South Africa would have to set about training its own skilled workers. That was a very desirable state of affairs, I submit to hon. members opposite. The movement towards the establishment of a statutory apprenticeship system was given direction and impetus by the Juvenile Advisory Boards, which were brought into being during the war period to assist in dealing with the comparatively new problem of juvenile employment. The 1922 Act was largely due to the pioneer work of these bodies. The 1922 Act was by way of being an experiment. It was a highly successful experiment. Amendments were made in 1924 and 1930, but the principle underlying the Act, the regulation of apprenticeship by the State, acting on the advice of representatives both of the employers and the employees who were concerned in the matter, was not changed. It is not proposed to change it now. It has stood the test of time, and has achieved the results required. That is the history, sir. Let me now turn to the Bill, and give a brief résumé of the effect of the various clauses of any moment. The pivot of our apprenticeship system in this country is the apprenticeship committee system. The Act is administered on the basis that all matters connected with apprenticeship in any industry, are first considered by the apprenticeship committee concerned, which consists of an equal number of employers and employees, nominated by the trade unions and employers’ organisations concerned, with an independent chairman. No change in this system is proposed. It is based on the principle that in apprenticeship matters, as in all matters relating to working conditions, the persons whose livelihood is at stake should be consulted. If committees give wrong decisions, there is a right of appeal to the inspector of apprenticeship, an impartial public servant who is responsible for the administration of the Act subject to the direction of the Minister.

An HON. MEMBER [inaudible].

They may give decisions subject to an appeal to the Minister. If the committee gives wrong decisions, there is a right of appeal.

I mean in regard to certain matters.

Yes, it would have its effect in the case where it is considered there is a difference of opinion, for instance, as to whether there is sufficient room for the training of apprentices here or there, or not.

They cannot give decisions in regard to provisions to be applied to a particular trade?

This public servant who is the controller of apprenticeship, is responsible for the administration of the Act, subject, of course, to a reference to the Minister, and there is a final appeal to the Minister himself, if it is thought fit. In the new Bill this inspector of apprenticeship is called the controller of apprenticeship, but his functions remain precisely the same. The chief functions of apprenticeship committees are (a) to advise the Minister in regard to the designation of trades, and the conditions of apprenticeship in the trades and areas for which they function; and (b) to submit recommendations to the inspector of apprenticeship in regard to applications for apprenticeship, or for the transfer or cancellation of contracts of apprenticeship. There are, at present 40 apprenticeship committees functioning under the Act, regulating apprenticeship in the building, engineering, motor, vehicle building, baking, butchery, leather, furniture and hairdressing industries, and in the occupation of dental mechanicians. Most of these committees operate on the Witwatersrand, but there are apprenticeship committees for all the more important industries at all the bigger centres. Only three committees have the whole of the Union as the area of jurisdiction, namely, the National Printing Apprenticeship Committee, the Government (Building and Engineering) Apprenticeship Committee, and the Railway (Building, Engineering and Carriage Building) Apprenticeship Committee. In private industry there is only one national apprenticeship committee. The two last-named draw attention to the fact that, unlike other industrial laws, and this is an important consideration for hon. members, the Apprenticeship Act and the Bill now before the House, do not exclude state employees. I think that is a step in the right direction, and as time goes on, and if the country permits me to remain any longer in this office, I hope by constant endeavour to arrange that labour controls the conditions of the workers in all branches of activity in the country, be they state employ or private.

But there are a lot of provisions excluded.

Yes. The wages and conditions of service of apprentices indentured to state departments, are governed by the laws regulating the public and railway services. There I cannot interfere. The Industrial Legislation Commission pointed out how essential it was that members of apprenticeship committees should be actuated by desire to do what is in the best interests of their industry, and the youth of the country. Fortunately, experience has shown that apprenticeship committees are constituted in such a way as to meet this requirement. The only criticism the Industrial Legislation Commission had to make was that, in some cases, the trade union representation was weak. Two possible remedies were suggested, namely (a) greater care in the selection of members, and (b) national apprenticeship committees. That is a most desirable object. I have it in view, and I will use my best endeavours to bring such a state of affairs to pass. But I also think, at the same time, that representation by trade unions is a matter of their own concern, but the urge may be given to them by the Labour Department to put their house in order, and judging from the happenings of the last couple of weeks. I have come to the conclusion that trade unions are now on a much sounder basis than ever they were, in recent years at all events, in South Africa, and can be well left to themselves to get the right representation on these apprenticeship committees.

You make no provision for the exclusion of European representatives?

I make no such provision. The trade unions will nominate to these committees just those persons that they themselves desire. The Commission realised that the latter suggestion postulated the organisation of employers and employees on a national basis. I can assure hon. members I propose to do all I can to bring that about. The principal object of the apprenticeship system is to ensure an adequate supply of trained artisans. Before the Apprenticeship Act came into operation the principal industries in this country were largely dependent on men trained overseas. To-day that position has been reversed. Since 1923 over 18,000 young South Africans have completed their aprenticeship under the Act, and at the end of 1939 there were another 11,358 apprentices being taught skilled trades in workshops in this country. Now, that is something for us to take some pride in, especially in the comparatively short time that our Apprenticeship Act has been in operation.

Mr. VAN COLLER [Inaudible].

I would like to say to my hon. friend that trade schools do not pretend to turn out journeymen. I should strongly object to it myself. There is no training to beat the training that is derived from the association of young fellows with a journeyman who is actually doing a job on the job. Trade schools give you the preliminaries. Techinical schools do much the same thing, but the fact remains both from the equipment point of view and from the point of view of variety of work it is a sheer impossibility for either a trade school or a technical class to give the practical experience which must inevitably extend over years. I hope you will forgive me if I cite myself as an example. I found when I had reached the age of 35, my apprenticeship having been supposed to extend over five years, I still realised at 35 I did not know my trade. You are ever learning, ever developing and the best and most rapid development that your artisan can get is workshop experience and association, which is most important, association with the journeyman himself, the man who knows, the man who can direct the apprentice’s operation and can tell him why and can show him why this is the result of that. The achievement represented by these figures is sometimes overshadowed by the fact that in the abnormal circumstances which followed our abandonment of the gold standard, there were insufficient artisans available in this country to meet the requirements of certain industries, notably the building industry. That was not the fault of the apprenticeship system. During the depression the facilities for training apprentices were simply not there. Apprentices cannot be trained in workshops where there is no work and in consequence no journeymen. That is the point I was making to my hon. friend, you can have the finest machinery and equipment you like in a shop but without the knowledgeable journeyman, the skilled man who knows his job, it is a sheer impossibility to train an apprentice. Trade schools can teach the rudiments, the rule of thumb stuff, for instance they will show how to cut a thread, and in the case of woodwork they will probably show them how to do a bit of morticing, but the varied work is not there.

They have journeymen teachers in technical colleges.

Yes, but he has to dissipate his teaching energy over a whole class, and you miss the close association between journeyman and apprentice, and you must have that before the apprentice can imbibe the knowledge and practical experience that is necessary. Since trade improved the apprenticeship statistics responded and an indication of the recovery made is given by the following figures in regard to contractual apprenticeships. In 1933 there were 1,231 contracts registered and 5,767 contracts current, at the end of that year. In 1936, 2,360 contracts were registered and 7,617 were current. In 1939 there were 2,909 new contracts, and 11,358 current. Since 1936 the number of artisans entering this country has declined rapidly, a most desirable state of affairs from a patriotic point of view, except of course we should find ourselves unable to properly train our own artisans, a position which I don’t contemplate for one single moment if you will give me the opportunity through this legislation for the proper training of these apprentices. In 1936 we imported 1,948 artisans; in 1937, 1,299; in 1938, 914, and 1939, 496. It is clear, therefore, that the abnormal position arising from the industrial boom which followed the last great trade depression no longer exists. This is an important point that I want to make to the House, and it is apropos of the interjection of my hon. friend with regard to the effect of the journeymen working side by side with the apprentice. In considering applications to indenture minors, apprenticeship committees are required to have regard to the interests of the minors, but the Act contains a provision prohibiting any limitation of numbers designed to restrict the future number of journeymen. The only practical effect of this restriction has been to cause confusion as to the circumstances under which the inspector of apprenticeships can refuse to register a contract. It is essential that the number of apprentices should be restricted in the interests of all concerned, as the whole apprenticeship system becomes ineffective if an unlimited number of apprentices is allowed. The principal guiding factors in fixing the number of apprentices in a particular industry or workshop are (a) reputation of the firm as an employer; (b) the plant and equipment of the firm in trades where this is of importance; (c) the business stability of the firm, and its ability to provide continuity of employment and training for the period of apprenticeship; (d) the number of apprentices already employed, the periods their contracts still have to run, the average number of journeymen employed by the firm and its capacity to train an additional apprentice; (e) the quality of training received by apprentices who have completed their contracts and their proficiency as journeymen; (f) the class of work normally undertaken by the firm whether of a varied or repetitive character. The industrial Legislation Commission expressed the view that information on these points was essential to enable the authorities concerned to come to a proper decision on applications for apprenticeships, Well, hon. members I think by this time will agree that I have given them a fairly complete history and analysis of the position which has obtained hitherto, and the results thereof. I do want to say this, however, that the Industrial Legislation Commission specifically examined the effect of the Apprenticeship Act on employment. Paragraph 799 of the report sums up the position admirably—

What I want to do, sir, as much as I possibly can, is to instil into the minds of our apprentices when they become journeymen, a pride in their craft. Once we have established that in the minds of our journeymen artisans in South Africa we need fear no competition in regard to quality of work from any quarter of the industrial globe. I want that and I hope the House will agree to support me in endeavouring to bring about what I regard as that very happy state of affairs. Well, sir, I have not quite finished, because I want to review the Bill as it stands for hon. members’ edification, but I promised that we would agree to the adjournment of the House round about five o’clock, so I will now move—

I second.

Agreed to.

Debate adjourned; to be resumed on 8th April.