laid upon the Table—

Papers relating to:

1. (81) Proposed grant of about 4 morgen of commonage to Mount Fletcher Village Management Board.
2. (82) Proposed sale out of hand of residential sites at Middelvlei, Caledon.
3. (83) Proposed reduction of allotment price of portion “H” of farm “Spitzkop” No. 349, Zoutpansberg.
4. (84) Proposed reduction of allotment price of holdings comprising Hendrik Theron Settlement, Hoopstad district.

Papers referred to Select Committee on Crown Lands.

I move—

seconded.

Agreed to.

I move—

seconded.

Agreed to.

I move—

In moving the motion standing in my name, I would like to point out that this is a matter which definitely commends itself to the members of these benches, who want to remedy what we consider the biggest evil of the day. It becomes worse when we notice in the paper this morning the Governor of the Reserve Bank stating that the cost of living is going to increase. We are continually receiving complaints—particularly from the Transvaal—about the high cost of living, and the patience of the people is about exhausted. The Government which came into power largely as a result of the discontent prevailing owing to the high cost of living, has lamentably failed in any action to reduce the cost of living more in consonance with the wages paid to-day, which are no higher than in 1914, although the purchasing power of the sovereign has been reduced by 25 to 30 per cent. People unemployed or destitute find commodities dear at any price, but thousands of mechanics and small shopkeepers are also having a hard struggle to make ends meet. Nothing has up to the present been done to assist these people, and nothing can be done except by the Government. We are told the Government have not been long in power. That is true, but the conditions under which the people are living seem to me a far more important matter than many of the measures we have had before this House. The Government will be failing in its duty if it does not deal immediately with this question, and members of Parliament who tacitly assist the Government in this inaction, will be equally to blame. We know that members of the Ministry have been overwhelmed with work in their departments, and on this account may be excused, but now that the matter has been brought to their notice, I trust they will give it the attention it deserves. The Government are providing for unemployment by tariff amendments to foster industries, but these will be absolutely useless unless you first of all have cheap living as a basis. The price of bread is very important indeed, for the reason that many poor citizens have practically to depend on bread as a means of subsistence. It is a paradox that dear bread is the only thing many poor people can afford to buy, but the price of bread is vital to all sections of the community. Although the cost of living, according to statistics, is 21 per cent. higher than in 1914, the price of wheat and flour is not less than 50 per cent. higher. I hope the Government will realize these figures and bring about some measures which will ensure that the price of commodities will have some relation to the cost of production. For some time bread has been dearer in South Africa than anywhere else. Last year, I think it was, the Director of Census, in his statement, stated that if the people of South Africa could obtain their bread at the same price as the people in Australia, they would save 2½ million pounds in the process. I would quote from the May bulletin of Union statistics, which showed that bread was in Australia 2½. per lb., in the United Kingdom 2¾d., and in South Africa 4d. Wheat in Australia was 9s. 10¼d. per 100 lbs., in the United Kingdom 10s. 11d., and in South Africa 15s. 7½d. Flour per 100 lbs. was in Australia 20s. 2d., in the United Kingdom 21s. 3d., and in South Africa 29s. 11d. The cost of milling, being the difference between the cost of wheat and flour, was in Australia 20s. 7½d., in the United Kingdom 20s. 8d., and in South Africa 28s. 7d. per sack. These figures show a great discrepancy in costs or profits. Let us assume that a shipment of flour leaves Australia and a portion is unloaded at Cape Town and the remainder goes on to England. Anyone unacquainted with the facts would probably say that the poor beggar in England must pay very heavily for his bread on account of the extra freight, but, as a matter of fact, after the flour has been carried an extra 7,000 miles and baked by white men, the English consumer gets his bread 30 per cent. cheaper than the South African consumer, though the baking here is practically all done by natives. Quite recently the Conservative Government in England appointed a food commission, which has just reported that the price of bread is too high and shows too high a profit. If that is the case in England, that can be said of South Africa. I would like to refer again to these official figures and to say that, notwithstanding the fact that all the milling in Australia is done by white labour whereas in South Africa it is practically all done by coloured labour, it costs 8s. more in South Africa to mill a bag of flour than it does in Australia. I would like hon. members on the other side who say we have a wonderful asset in our cheap labour in South Africa to explain this. In connection with the alleged loss in weight of flour through the milling, I would like to show that that is not borne out by the facts. I have made enquiries and find that at present prices the result of milling flour is as follows: 21 per cent. superfine flour valued at 49s. per 200 lbs.; 30 per cent. No. 1 quality at 43s.; 25 per cent. No. 2 quality, 36s., and 24 per cent. bran. About 10 per cent. of the bran is used for brown bread, and therefore has the same selling value as flour. There therefore remains 14 per cent. of bran compensated for by 21 per cent. superfine flour valued at 49s. per 200 lbs. and used for confectionery. Baker’s flour is a mixture of the two lower qualities of flour, and is to-day valued at 40s. a sack. The cost and profit on bread is a matter of simple arithmetic. Wheat is to-day high in price, 29s. per sack, but when it is delivered to the consumer as bread he has to pay 4d. a lb. for it, or £4 6s. 8d. in all. Owing to the addition of water, 260 lbs. of bread was obtained from 200 lbs. of flour. This proved that 200 per cent. was added to the cost of the wheat, which seems to be altogether out of proportion for the service rendered by the millers and the bakers. To further prove the unfair price of bread I would like to quote the discrepancy between the price of bread in Johannesburg, Cape Town, Port Elizabeth. East London and some other places as compared with Durban. In Durban there is one small bakery making bread at 4½d. per 2 lb. loaf, as against 8d. in other places which I have mentioned. There is also a mutual service stores, which I understand is quite a large establishment, selling bread at 5d. I will read you a portion of the advertisement of this concern—

Anybody who has investigated the ways of the Durban bread ring would not find it difficult to reply. A very informative report was circulated recently by the Board of Trade, which investigated the rise in the price of bread in Durban. They stated that the evidence was very contradictory and suggested that in future evidence should be taken on oath. They found that the bakers were pledged under a penalty to maintain prices, and that while flour advanced 4s. per 100 lbs., equal to ¾d. per loaf, this was made an excuse to raise the price of bread by twopence! Obviously the old profiteering habits are being maintained at. Durban. Last year in Durban for some time, bread was sold for 6d. owing to one man standing out of the ring, but subsequently differences were settled and the price was raised to 7d. At that time grocers were getting 1¼d. a loaf for selling the bread, which they did not think sufficient, and when the price was put up they went to the master bakers and said their profit was not enough, and so a compromise was arrived at. A compromise was easy, because there was no necessity to consult the consumer. The master bakers said—

The grocers do 80 per cent. of the distribution of bread in Durban, and under this arrangement they were getting 1½d. per loaf or 18 per cent. profit for merely handing it over the counter. In England, where bread delivery is done by white men, the cost is reckoned at a farthing a loaf. The Board of Trade reported that the increase from 7d. to 8d. was not justified, and as soon as the report was published, the price was reduced to 7d. The drop was attributed to a decrease in the price of flour, but flour was actually dearer then than when the rise took place. In the face of facts like these, I wonder why people continue to say—

You might just as well say—

For, if they are not interfered with, there will soon be nothing left to burgle. But this is not a fair comparison, for if the burglars were caught they would be punished, but the profiteers escape scot free and have the protection of the law and the encouragement of the gentlemen of the Opposition. Coming to the price of bread in Cape Town, the Cost of Living Commission expressed curiosity about three years ago regarding the reason why bread was dearer in Cape Town than in other parts of the Union, and the commission came to the conclusion that the reason was that out of the 74 licensed bakers in the Cape Peninsula only two were independent. The former term themselves miller bakers—that is, they are supplied with flour by the supporting millers at a price fixed by the millers. I am informed the same position obtains to-day, and unfortunately the system of tied bakers has spread to Johannesburg and elsewhere, and the only people outside the ring are a few small bakers who have practically to do as they are told. The amount of the dumping duty is infinitesimal as affecting the price of bread, but it is always made use of as an excuse to increase the price of this necessary of life. I think, however, that the Government would be well advised to make the duty applicable on the date of the purchase of the flour or wheat and not on the date of delivery. If there are any honest bakers who want to import flour, they should know what it is going to cost them. The cost of labour in this country can not in any way be taken as a justification for the high prices which bakers charge. At Durban the bulk of the work is done by natives, and at Johannesburg it was found that certain bakers employed 118 natives and 14 Europeans, while some bakeries were manned entirely by natives. One bakery—to its credit be it said—is worked entirely by Europeans. The result of my investigations show that, considering how essential bread is. I am more than ever convinced that it should be controlled, produced and distributed by the Government. As things are at present the unscrupulous trader has the advantage every time. Owing to the fact that bread must be sold by weight, a well-known miller explained that there must be a fall of 10s. 10d. on a sack of flour before the consumer can obtain a reduction of one halfpenny on a loaf, On the other hand, if flour rises 5s. a sack the baker immediately increases the loaf by a halfpenny. I have no time for a system which operates so unfairly on the consumer. The remedy is that the price of bread should be regulated according to the price of flour and people should be able to buy sixpenny worth or a tickey’s worth of bread. But, to carry this out, the people who make and sell bread should have no pecuniary interest in the profit, or otherwise the weights would be unfairly manipulated. If, however, State bakeries are too much of an ideal at the present, then Government should control the price of bread. This is not a new idea in South Africa, for in 1920 the selling prices of sugar, rice, matches, paraffin and petrol were fixed, but flour, wheat and bread were not fixed. The Cost of Living Commission stated that the limiting of prices had had a remarkably steadying effect on prices. In 1920 the cost of living was a very live subject, and an election was fought on it, and the Government got a mandate to deal with the question. In my opinion it is equally necessary that prices should be controlled to-day. In the session of 1920 the present Minister of Defence moved a vote of censure on the South African party Government for not fixing prices. The right hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) who was then the leader of the Unionists—a party much chastened and reduced by the election—suggested that there should be a board of control and moved an amendment calling upon the Government to control prices of foodstuffs. The amendment was lost. The 20 Labour members were assisted in the voting by Messrs. Brown, Close, Giovanetti, Sir David Harris, Henderson, Jagger, Macintosh, van Zyl and Sir Thomas Smartt. Neither in 1920 or 1925 would these gentlemen vote for anything they do not agree with, and would not vote for mere political expediency, so I confidently expect their support to-day. It may be said that 1920 was just after the war, and conditions were abnormal, but we are still passing through a reconstructing period, and prices are still abnormal. As rewards war, it seems to me that war or plunder is being waged by the baker on the consumer continuously. The Government has the machinery for fixing prices, and I trust the Government will take advantage of the existence of the Board of Trade and deal with the matter. As to State mills, we know very well the Government proposes to pay £1,000,000 to acquire certain railways in the interests of a number of farmers. If the Government contemplate paying this money for the benefit of a small section of the community, surely they can contemplate spending money for State mills for the benefit of the whole. As matters are at present the wheat farmers are entirely at the mercy of the millers. Farmers know that when crops are ready representatives of the millers wait upon them and fix the prices. There is no round table conference to discuss the price of production, but the price is fixed on the necessities of the sellers. The millers have matters all their own way because wheat is not saleable until milled, and if anyone should import flour they would be unable to sell it as the bakers are controlled by the millers. Economists say that to decrease the price of commodities we want to stimulate production. That is not the case with wheat. We only produce two-thirds of our wheat requirements, and even if we produce the other third we would still have to go to the millers. I have been referring only to flour milling. There is the question of mealie meal milling, which, as far as quantity is concerned, is a much bigger one. We read in the papers that the new High Commissioner has been advertising the South African mealie meal. I am informed there are great possibilities for South African mealie meal, but before you can increase the export trade for it you must have State mills to give the farmer a fair deal. The elevators should be provided with mills and then a finished product could be turned out and the farmers would not also in this matter have to depend on private millers. There was another argument for State mills intimately affecting the public health. During the last few years three large mealie mills have been erected in the Transvaal, and in addition to the milling machinery they have installed machinery for extracting starch and oil from the mealie. The meal sold is the residue of that, and has no vitamine or life-sustaining properties, and anybody depending upon it is going to have a bad time. In children it brings on rickets, scurvy and a predisposition to meningitis. This meal is all right for people who can afford to have a well-balanced meal, but for the poor people who depend practically upon mealie meal it is very bad indeed. I am not merely predicting, for it has been proved that this class of meal brings about scurvy and other things. Some years ago in the Cape Colony mealie meal was imported from America and undercut the local product, for the reason that oil was extracted in America and the residue was sold cheap. It had not long been imported before it was found the natives in the diamond mines were victims of scurvy, and investigation traced it to this meal. The effect on the natives is not very important because mines will not retain sick natives, and if fat is required balance their diet with meat. But in the case of whites it is a serious thing. The poor white problem in this country is alarming, and if in addition to poverty we are going to permit thousands of physical deficients on account of slackness in this direction, then it is going to be a very sorry and expensive thing for South Africa. I have not heard of anything that the Government is doing to protect the public against this spurious mealie, of which thousands of sacks have been put into circulation. With State mills deception of the sort I have referred to would be impossible. Therefore I say, in order to be absolutely safe in a vital matter of this description, I think the mills should be in the hands of the Government. We are told the milling companies are very wealthy, and some of the balance sheets show very large cash reserves, they have large properties and have paid big dividends for a number of years. I do not blame the companies for this, it is their business, but I certainly blame the Government for not protecting the public and seeing that they get a fair deal. With Government State mills the millers and their profits would be cut out. If this were done the farmers could get a better price for their wheat and the consumer would get his bread cheaper. In a circular by Mr. Gawith discussing flour, he states that if we imported flour instead of wheat we would save £275,000 a year, and that would more than pay all the wages of whites in the milling industry. Then there is the question of sugar. I am sorry the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls), who is our sugar expert, is not in the House. Cuban sugar can be landed at Cape Town at 17s. 3d. per 112 lbs., and if you add the duty, the disgraceful duty, in my opinion, of 4s. 6d., which is 25 per cent. of the cost price, and the landing fee of 9d., you get the landing price at £1 2s. 6d. Natal sugar per 112 lbs. is quoted free on rail at Durban at 26s., which shows 3s. 6d. difference after paying the duty of 4s. 6d. in favour of imported sugar. The sugar industry in this country is not one of the industries which members on these benches can regard with any satisfaction, for it has been built up on coloured labour and it is an industry which has done a tremendous amount of harm. We know that owing to the sugar industry we have had the Indians imported into Natal, and the people who are at the present time running that industry will never be able to repair the damage which has been done to this country by the introduction of Indian labour. Some little time ago the sugar growers appealed to the Government to allow them to charge world’s prices. As I pointed out, they have got to come down very considerably in their present quotations to get to world’s prices, and I would be rather interested to know how the Government is going to treat them if they come along and ask for further assistance in the way of extra duties or a dumping duty. There is one outstanding fact in regard to sugar, that is if the public could import Cuban sugar to-day and not pay the exorbitant duty, not only would the retailers get 25 per cent. profit, but the consumers would get 1d. per lb. off sugar right away. It is rather unfortunate for this discussion that the exhaustive report which, I understand, has been drawn up by the Board of Trade, is not yet available to the public in regard to the meat question. I do not intend to discuss that matter in any detail. All farmers know the great discrepancy between the prices they get for their cattle and meat prices. In conclusion I would like to say that I consider that the Board of Trade, which has been subjected to so much discussion and ridicule in this House, by investigating this important question are doing a great public service, and, as far as I can see, they seem to have very solid arguments behind their recommendations. I do hope that the Government, having had the courage to appoint these young men to these responsible posts, will also have the courage to adopt their recommendations. I would just reiterate that the position is very bad in the country and Government intervention to reduce the cost of living is extremely necessary, and I trust that the Government will give this proposition their sympathetic consideration.

I second the motion. I think that, after the very informative speech of the hon. member for Boksburg (Mr. McMenamin), it is not necessary to go into any details in respect of the resolution he has submitted, at any rate, at any length. In submitting this resolution from these benches, we are simply following the policy that we have pursued as a Labour party for many years, and I think I am safe in saying that; although, perhaps, the need is not so great as it was during the war period, because the cost of living is not so high as it was then, there is at the same time a very considerable need to deal with the question of the profiteering that is going on in the matter of the food supplies of the people. It is true that the prices of foodstuffs have gone down, but wages have also gone down to such an extent that the masses of the people are worse off now than they were during the war period. With the return to the gold standard there is going to be further deflation, and the value of the sovereign, although it will be stabilized to a considerable extent in its relationship to external currencies, will not be stabilized in so far as foodstuffs are concerned so long as prices remain unstabilized and the cost of living is in excess of what it was in 1914. According to all the official statistics that we have, we are still in the position that the sovereign in South Africa only buys something like 15s. worth of commodities. It is, therefore, imperative that something should be done to restrict the cost to the consumers and, where that is not possible or adequate, to take some other steps in the directions indicated by the resolution, so that the people of South Africa will get their food supplies at the most reasonable possible price. The principle outlined in this resolution is neither new nor is it revolutionary. During the war period almost every part of the world, which was affected by the war, definitely adopted a policy which was called Socialism, and which, to-day, is called Socialism, but which, during the war period, was called national necessity, and we claim that a policy and a principle which was applied during the war period for patriotic purposes because it was found necessary—when we accepted the position during the war that the cost of food should be controlled, that prices should be fixed, that in many directions private enterprise should take a back seat, and that the work should be done by the community as a whole through State enterprise—surely, if that were right and necessary during the period of war in order to save the nation, then it is equally right and necessary in times of peace in order to secure that the masses of the community shall be well supplied with the necessaries of life at a reasonable figure. The principle is just the same. The only difference was that, during the war period, the need to placate the masses, who were required as fodder for cannon, and to get them to go and fight, was so great that it was necessary to do something in order to make them more comfortable and satisfied. Having done that, there is no reason whatever why the Government of this country, or any other country for that matter, should not, during the period of peace, see that the same principle shall be applied in order to secure the greatest comfort and the greatest contentment. The question of dumping has been mentioned. I agree that the effect of the dumping duty, of which we have heard so much during this session, is really an infinitesimal matter in connection with this question of the cost of food stuffs. According to the report of the Board of Trade, we find that in any case the dumping duty was only accountable for one-third of 1d. per 2-lb. loaf of bread. What is chiefly accountable for the high cost of bread and the necessaries of life is the chaotic condition of private enterprise; it is the fact that, instead of the supply of foodstuffs and bread being well organized on a systematic basis, you have chaotic private enterprise which regards the question simply from the point of view of how much profit can be made out of the needs of the people. Mr. Cousins is reported to have said last year that if, in South Africa, bread could be supplied at the same price as it is supplied in Australia, we would be saving something like £2,500,000 per annum. That is a figure given by the chief director of census, and a figure which calls for a great deal of attention in this House and in the country. But over and above that, we have to consider the amount that would be saved by applying State enterprise to the supply of bread instead of its being left in the hands of private individuals. In England enquiries were made by various commissions and reports were presented in the House of Commons which show a startling position. The bread supplied in the case of the ordinary 4-lb. loaf was sold by private bakeries to private individuals at the price of 11d.; whereas the same loaf supplied by the military authorities to soldiers only cost 7d. This showed that, under the military organization, which supplied bread for use and not for profit, it was possible for them to supply a 4-lb. loaf at 4d. less than the ordinary price. In that connection I should like to quote from a book by Sir Leo Chiozza Money, who was one of the Ministers during the war period. With regard to the bread supply of England, during the war period, he showed—and I have no doubt the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) approved of the same thing during that period—that there were 44,000 bakeries; of these, 4,000 supplied four fifths of the bread, and the remaining 40,000 supplied only one-fifth. The variation in efficiency amongst these bakeries was such that the cost of producing bread, per sack of flour, ranged from as little as 7s. to as much as 27s. It was found that the nation, by State ownership, whilst retaining in its service the proprietors of the bakeries, and those who worked in them, and guaranteeing them as good a living as they enjoyed, or a better one, and by the establishment of proper machinery in well equipped works, could give the people far better bread with a saving of from £12,000,000 to £20,000,000 per annum. The figures all go to show that the excess price of bread in South Africa is due to the fact that bread is supplied by chaotic private enterprise. In the interests of the community this chaotic position must be put a stop to, and steps should be taken in order that the supply of bread to the people shall be organized by the State. It is interesting to note a statement in an Australian paper dealing with the meat supply to England, dated February 28th. It states—

Our agricultural produce, the value of which was £55,000,000 to the farmers, amounted to £73,000,000 by the time it came to the wholesalers. The difference was taken by the intermediate men. From this we can very well imagine what would be the price of these various commodities by the time they came to the retailer and the consumer. It shows conclusively that something definite should be done in the direction of preventing the waste that is going on; and by adopting State preventive measures we would put our farmers in a much better position than they are to-day, and the consumer would be able to get his food much cheaper. As the result of our experiences during the war in this country, I do not think that taking up the question of prices alone would answer the purpose; it is imperative that the policy should also be accompanied by a policy of State enterprise, by the State providing these requirements at cost price, and not making a profit out of them. That can be done so far as the bakeries are concerned; if the army could do it for the troops, then there is no reason why the State should not be able to do it for the whole mass of the community. There is no doubt the profits made by milling companies are exorbitant; they are making them at the expense of the farmers on the one hand, and the consumers on the other. I see no reason why we should not do what is done in other parts of the world, that is, to establish State mills so that the flour may be manufactured at cost in the interests of the community, and in addition to supplying the needs of publicly-owned bakeries, may be sold to private bakeries at fixed prices, conditional on their also supplying bread at a fixed price. I submit that the proposal before the House is not revolutionary, but reasonable, and simply accepts the principle which this House has already accepted. As a Labour party we believe that there are three essentials that have to be protected by the State: The supply of food, and fuel, and the provision of shelter. In regard to housing, this House has already, by legislation, accepted the principle that a property owner is not entitled to do what he likes with his property, but that the interests of the community must be superior to the interests of the private individual, and in pursuance of that principle we have established rent boards. It is, therefore, only logical that where we find profiteering is going on in the supply of foodstuffs, and that the people in proportion to their wages have been charged excessive prices for their food, we should apply the principle of controlling the prices and, where that is not adequate, to do what has been accepted as a general principle—and for the State to enter into the carrying on of these duties just as the State to-day, through the municipalities and the Central Housing Board loans, is supplementing the building of houses for the people. I venture to say that the sections of the community who would benefit would be the producers—the farmers—and the consumers, and the only people who would in any way suffer, and rightly suffer, would be the middlemen and the people who are exploiting the producer and the consumer. I hope the Government, influenced by the Labour party Ministers, will have no hesitation in accepting this resolution, and will accept it, not merely as a pious resolution, but will take steps to give effect to it.

What is amusing hon. gentlemen?

Your hesitancy.

Even a cat can look at a king.

This motion is stated too broadly. The Government is not prepared to accept it in so far as it refers to State mills, and as to other necessaries of life, the hon. member will appreciate that it would take an enormous amount of time to enquire into the control of other necessaries of life. I do not know what all its implications are. As regards bread, the staff of life, the hon. member is aware that in this report of the Board of Trade and Industries, number 43, a recommendation is made to the following effect—

That covers everything possible in connection with the staff of life. The hon. gentleman has also stated that the board has just completed a report on the meat question, one of the other necessaries of life. Perhaps the hon. member does not appreciate the enormous cost of the board in enquiring into the meat question and completing its report.

Yes, I do.

I am glad the hon. member has paid a tribute to the much-maligned and underrated Board of Trade and Industries. The board is at present also enquiring into the question of sugar, and for the information of the hon. gentleman who has given an instance of the price of imported sugar as compared with the price of Natal sugar, showing a difference of 4s. 6d. per 100 lbs., I may state that a shipload of Cuban sugar is on the water at present, and when that arrives the difference in the price, as compared with the native product, will probably be as much as 8s. 8d. per 100 lbs. instead of 4s. 6d. only. The Board of Trade has already anticipated the request of the hon. member as regards sugar and has enquired into the matter, and all I can say is that the Government is prepared to take steps to facilitate the enquiry of the Board of Trade and Industries as proposed and recommended in its report in regard to bread and in regard to sugar and in regard to any other principal necessary of life. Of course, that will take time. I hope the hon. member will take steps to lay information before the board when it makes these enquiries, and that he will himself appear or bring evidence to the Board of Trade with reference to the matters in regard to which he can give them valuable information. Further than that, we are not prepared to go, and I hope the hon. member will not press his motion in its very general terms. At the same time this is my answer to the question put by the hon. member for Pretoria (East) (Mr. Giovanetti) (the question that was on the Order Paper this afternoon). The Board of Trade, by the statute creating it, is the only body indicated for these purposes, and these enquiries will be made from time to time. The board has been so overwhelmed with work that it has had the greatest difficulty to complete its enquiry on the meat question, for instance. If hon. members see that report they will see how voluminous it is and what an enormous amount of work that alone must have entailed on the board.

When is it coming?

It was laid on my table to-day and it will be placed before the House as soon as possible.

I refrained from answering the argument put by the hon. member for Boksburg (Mr. McMenamin). Although I was not in the House when he made his speech, I am aware of what he stated; but I did not reply because I thought the Minister would give the House all the information. The Minister has mentioned the shipload of Cuban sugar, and the Minister is quite right, but the facts are these: The American sugar interests control the whole of the Cuban output, and the sugar is refined in the United States, which keeps what it needs for its own requirements and the remainder is dumped in other countries, with the object of killing other sugar industries, such as those of Natal and Queensland. People who try to discredit the working of the Natal sugar industry should be Careful, or they will only bring about a state of things which will lead to the abandonment of that important industry. The Board of Trade has gone into the matter on the representations of the Natal sugar industry, which has pointed out that there is a danger of sugar dumping from the refineries of New York. A New York sugar journal gives the following prices of sugar in New York: March 26th, home price, 6.25 cents per lb.; January 28th, export price, 3.80 cents per lb.; April 8th, home price, 5.95 cents per lb.; export price, 3.70 cents per lb., a difference of something like 8s. per bag between the home and the export price. On that information being given to the Board of Trade the Commissioner of Customs cabled to New York and those figures were corroborated by the Union’s customs authorities in New York. It is not a question of sugar being produced cheaper, but merely a matter of dumping to suit the New York exporters. Sugar is the lowest protected agricultural commodity produced in this country, the duty on sugar being only 12½ per cent. ad valorem. We hear all over the country that South African sugar is protected, but everything is protected that is brought into this country, with the exception of ice, which would melt before you could get it here. I have always refrained from talking sugar in this House, but let me say that the Natal sugar industry is labouring under a great handicap compared with sugar industries in other parts of the world. We have a crop every two years, as against one crop every year elsewhere; we grow a cane which has not such a high sugar content as the cane produced elsewhere, but in spite of this, we are able to sell sugar cheaper than most parts of the world. Australia protects its sugar to the extent of £6 8s. 6d. per ton, whilst we have a duty of £3 10s. a ton.

What are the wages in Australia?

We pay as much in our mills to produce a ton of sugar as they do in Queensland. A ton of cane in Africa is worth 15s.—in Australia it is worth 40s., but the Commonwealth Government has imposed an embargo on the importation of all sugar for three years.

Because we use black labour.

What are we going to do with our neighbours? The white men working in the Natal sugar mills would not work for the wages which they would receive in Australia. Either this country has to continue the duty on sugar, or it must agree to the abolition of the sugar industry. What will happen to this country if the sugar industry goes, and the trade gets into the hands of people who are trying to corner the sugar industry of the world? If we close down the industry thousands of homes in Natal will be affected, and there will be an immense amount of unemployment in Durban. Then how long will you continue to get cheap sugar, and how long would it be before people would have to pay 6d. to 8d. a lb. for sugar? For South Africa would then be a country which sugar producers could exploit to their hearts’ content. The production of sugar requires the investment of a great amount of money. You sink the money to-day, but do not get any return until five or six years hence. If, as the result of any foolishness, we get rid of our sugar industry, this country will be at the mercy of people who will bleed it white. Let me take another argument. Hon. members have talked as if we should not grow wheat here, but that we should import it from abroad, or else that the wheat growers are making too good a thing out of it. I would like to give the House a few facts. New Zealand produces 31.1 bushels of wheat per acre, while South Africa produces only 9.9 bushels per acre.

Use fertilizers.

What hon. members want is the fertilization of their intellects in these matters. Wheat, like sugar, can only be brought into consumption after milling. Imagine this country in a time of war in such a position that it had no wheat and no flour mills. Why we should be in the hands of speculators abroad. It is in the interests of this country that we should continue to support the South African wheat mills.

We want to increase them.

You want State mills. The difficulty with regard to wheat is this: That, whilst in Australia you have markets for your bran, which they feed to their dairy cows and stock, we have no such market in this country and, consequently, there would be a greater loss. The Australian miller produces flour at the world’s f.o.b. price, and they have a large export market for flour. We have not. In fact, we don’t produce enough for our own consumption. There are many arguments my hon. friend should consider before bringing these things forward which would enable them to present their case in a better way, and in the best interests of the country. One moment our friends are rabid free-traders, and the next moment they are out for protection. One moment they call for higher wages and the next moment they are crying out for the cheapest goods in the world. Their whole arguments are contradictory in everything they bring forward. I am sorry the Minister did not give the House more information.

The cost of living in South Africa is a matter that interests me a good bit, and I am glad to see our friends on the cross benches have wakened up a bit to that question.

We are awake, all right.

We haven’t noticed it. You claim to represent the poorer people, and they are the people who suffer most from the high cost of living, and not a word do we hear from the Labour benches. You are too much in the pockets of the Government, and you dare not say a word. You, hon. members, seem to be out to raise wages and that is all. And that only applies to certain organized trades. There are thousands of people in the country whose wages you cannot raise, and they suffer from the high cost of living. If you raise wages you raise the cost of production still more. I am out to reduce the cost of living every time. There is no question that the cost of bread is dear. The cost of bread in the United Kingdom is 2.56 pence per lb. In South Africa it is 3.98 per lb. Of course it is dear. Can you be surprised it is dear when you have a duty of 2s. 11d. per 100 lbs. to pay, as well as the dumping duties? Why have hon. members not concentrated on bread more?

Who put it on?

Never mind who put it on; it is there, and you had the opportunity of taking it off if you had supported us. It is recommended by the Board of Trade, who said in the report as far back as November last, that the board recognized that the withdrawal of the dumping duty on wheat and flour was in the interests of the South African consumer. We have brought this before the House before, and hon. members on that side have never said a word. Fancy coming forward at (his time of day with these wild schemes! They cannot control the price of bread. It has been tried in Australia. If you fix it, it is either too high or too low. And if it is too low, you drive bakers out of the trade. You know the Government cannot compete with the miller. What the Government requires if it goes into trade is monopoly. That is where the Government succeeds with the railways. They cannot succeed in shipping because they have no monopoly. This scheme is not practicable, and the hon. member for Boksburg [Mr. McMenamin) brings a scheme like this forward to salve his own conscience. There are easier and simpler methods of getting down the cost of living than these methods. With regard to the cost of bread, why don’t you agitate and act for yourselves, and insist upon the dumping duty on bread and flour being taken off?

And what would that mean?

It would mean you would get it taken off, and that you would do more for the poor people of this country than by all your Wages Bills. There is that duty of 2s. 11d. on bread. Why don’t you get that taken off? You sit there quietly, except for the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow), and you are going to support the duties. What are you going to say when the cost of bacon and ham is put up another 2d.?

Who put it up?

Your own Government. Look at the Votes and Proceedings, page 379. Scotch oatmeal is being put up considerably. Quaker oats is being put up considerably, and cheese is being put up 3d. per lb. What’s the good of talking like this? It is votes that appeal to the Government every time. It is no use talking on those benches about getting down the cost of living when you know all the time it is necessary for you to support the Government. Let us get down to bed-rock on these matters. There are other things you might call for. I would like to see the duty on condensed milk reduced; I would like to see the duty on sugar reduced. These are the necessaries of life that the people have to buy every day, and they want these reduced.

Do you approve of the profit being reduced?

The profit is very small indeed. It is not the merchant who takes the profit. There is another thing you are going to support—an increased duty on boots. You are going to vote for that. Every head of a family has to buy boots for himself, his wife and the kiddies, and you are going to vote for an increased duty. It is no use hon. members on the cross benches talking in this fashion at all. They must get down to solid business, and solid business means votes, and if they are not prepared to support a cheaper cost of living by their vote, they are not going to do any good at all.

You are a free trader and you supported the dumping duty on flour in the last Government.

The point is that I want to take it off.

I did not intend to say anything with regard to this debate, because the reply that the Minister has made expresses the feeling of this side of the House, but the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) has given such a wrong impression that I must say a few words. He makes out as if the whole difference between the price of bread and corn is only due to the dumping duty that the Government will not remove, and therefore he throws the whole blame on the Government and also reproaches the hon. members on the cross-benches that they do not assist him in compelling the Government to take off the dumping duty. He is, of course, not himself guilty of that because he himself voted for it! But let me just give a few figures. The price in Durban is 7d. for a loaf weighing 2 lbs. that is 3½d. per lb. One bakes 261 lbs. of bread out of a bag of meal; it works out that for sieved meal the bakers get £3 16s. Does the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) now wish to tell us that where the farmers only get 25s. or 28s. for a bag of meal the whole difference between £3 16s. and 25s. is due to the dumping duty of 2s. 5d., or one-third of a penny per lb.? No, the whole cause of the position is that the South African Milling Company have the whole control of the distribution of corn, to which must be added that nearly all the bakers are affiliated with the company which exercises full control over the price. We can break these powers if our farmers cooperate, but if they do not do so then we shall be obliged to protect the consumer against the plundering by the middlemen, who put all the big profits in their pockets.

Motion put and negatived.

I move—

By this motion I desire to get two petitions that are now on the Table of the House referred to the Government for favourable consideration. The petitioners have been knocking at the door of Parliament for many years, asking for an unconditional pardon for sins alleged to have been committed at the time of a strike in Natal in 1909. These so-called agitators were subsequently re-engaged in the service, and the breaks occasioned by the strike have been condoned, but for pensionable purposes only. Various privileges extended to men who have over 20 years’ service with the administration are denied the petitioners, such as a first-class pass when travelling on their annual leave, also the long service leave, and, what perhaps is the most important of all, the long service increment. These men are good servants of the Government; in fact, in this connection, I may mention that it has been necessary to delete from the petition the name of one who was recently killed on duty on the railway in Natal. He was one of the men who stood by his fellows during the strike. These men believe that there is a more sympathetic Government in power to-day, and that is the reason why they are petitioning Parliament now. They desire to have restored to them the various privileges mentioned. The Minister of Railways and Harbours no doubt knows all there is to know in connection with this case, and I hope the Government will give favourable consideration to this petition. I move the motion.

seconded.

I would also like to add my plea in favour of the motion. I understand that these men on whose behalf the hon. member has been speaking were the same men who petitioned Parliament some little time back and whose petition came before the Select Committee on Pensions. I may say, as a member of that select committee, that the committee recommended practically that these men should be forgiven and that they should be fully reinstated in the positions which they would have held if they had not transgressed by going on strike. It was only afterwards we found that difficulties had arisen under which it was stated that they could not possibly be reinstated. I do hope that the Minister, who has been appealed to as being more sympathetic than the previous Government, will find some machinery under which these men can be fully reinstated. The whole case was gone into very carefully by the select committee and we unanimously recommended that these men, after this long period, should be fully reinstated. There surely must be some method by which these men can be put back into their positions. I do not quite recollect what the difficulties were, but I must say that I was not impressed that the difficulties were insuperable. I hope the Minister will be able to accede to the request of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (North) (Mr. Strachan) and, that after this very long space of time, considering that these men have already done good service, they should be put back where they were and should be given all the privileges to which they would have been entitled had they not gone on strike.

Motion put and agreed to.

Before calling upon the hon. member for Ladybrand, I wish to point out that although similar motions to this have been agreed to by the House in the past, there appears to be no precedent for the motion being repeated in connection with the same Bill except where a general election has intervened and the ensuing session has been too short to dispose of the matter. This has been the case with regard to the South African Society of Accountants (Private) Bill. The House agreed to suspension in the first session of 1924, and again in the short second session of that year, which followed the general election. Whilst I am not prepared to rule the motion out of order, I have thought it right that the House should know the position, and it is, of course, open to the House to accept or reject the motion.

I move—

I hope there will be no opposition to this request to-day. Hon. members know the history of this Bill. As I said on a previous occasion, this Bill has been hanging in mid-air; it was brought into this House in the first session of 1924, and it was before the House again during the second session and this session. It is a private Bill which has cost the promoting societies something between three and four thousand pounds. We have had the very remarkable spectacle of men coming from overseas to oppose this Bill; three men came out from London to do so. It was referred to a select committee which sat for six or seven weeks day after day. During the debate in the House there was determined opposition, with the result that we did not get much further. All we ask now is that the proceedings shall be suspended and that the Bill shall have another opportunity of coming before this House. I may say to those particular members who opposed it that it was impossible for the promoting societies to do anything with the points of opposition raised by such members during the present session, because the representatives of the societies who were down here could not go beyond the resolutions of the combined societies of the four provinces; and certain points had been decided upon and these representatives had no authority to depart from these resolutions. The points raised by hon. members will, however, be discussed during the recess. It is hoped that means will be found to introduce the Bill next year with amendments that will meet the views of hon. members. The societies promoting the Bill have realized that if this determined opposition goes on there will be no opportunity of getting the Bill through in its present form, so they have decided to discuss the matter once again, and see whether it is possible to meet the objections which have been raised. If this motion is not passed, it really means the wrecking of the Bill altogether, because the societies feel they cannot spend another two or three thousand pounds to bring another Bill forward next year. I submit that the Bill has been thoroughly thrashed out by the select committee, and it would not be just for a new Bill to be brought, in and another select committee appointed, which would mean all this additional cost. I hope the House will take the assurance from me that the promoting societies will do everything possible, during the recess, to meet the points raised by hon. members who object to the Bill, and I, therefore, have pleasure in moving this motion, really on behalf of the hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) who is not at present in this country.

I wish to second the motion.

I have much pleasure in supporting this proposal, and my outstanding reason for doing so is that the four provincial societies of accountants are going to have a conference. I think this shows common sense on their part; because we believe these societies can settle the points which have been brought up in the House. I think it is only fair that the House should give the concession asked for, so that no further expense may be incurred by the promoting societies. I feel that if the societies do not become more reasonable during the recess that, considering the education which the House and the public has had through the discussion of this Bill, the Government may possibly bring forward a measure which will be fairer than the one introduced this session.

I regret I cannot agree with the last speaker. The reason he has given for agreeing to the proposal is really a better reason why the Bill should be brought up anew. If that were done, there is no doubt that the House would give a sympathetic hearing and sympathetic consideration to any fair Bill placed before it. The difficulty of taking up the Bill where it was left off is that in committee a very contentious clause has been passed, and that the committee cannot come back to it, and this clause makes it impossible for the Bill to be accepted by the large number of people in whose interests it has been proposed. As a matter of fairness to everybody, it should be taken up de novo. The House should understand thoroughly the position and should appreciate the fact that the difficulties which have been expressed by the hon. member for Lady-brand (Mr. Swart) are simply due to the intolerance of those who introduced this Bill. Instead of introducing the measure which was to concern those engaged in that particular occupation of accountancy, and protect their interests, they tried to make it so general as to exclude from making an honest living by the practice of accountancy those very people I have referred to. I appeal to my hon. friend to support rather the introduction of an entirely new Bill. I am afraid that if the Bill is taken up at the point at which it has been left, we will find the promoters trying to slip it through with the very point we are fighting included. If the Bill is brought up anew, there will be no greater expense or inconvenience than in taking it up at the stage at which it was left.

I want to support a point or two put up by the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hay). I do not think that anything is going to be gained by allowing this matter to be taken up where it is left off now. We are asked to give up everything which has been gained in opposition to the steam rollering of the Bill through the House, and, at the same time, we have no assurance, in return, except a rather pious hope on the part of the hon. member for Ladybrand, that in the meantime something definite will have been arrived at, and that an amended Bill will be presented. If it is true that the people concerned in the different provinces are going to compose their differences during the recess, I do not see any reason why they should not approach the Government to introduce a Bill which will embody their several and joint wishes, and thus save themselves the expense of bringing up the Bill again, and ensure the enactment of the desired legislation. I feel that if a Bill is to be taken up at the stage at which it was left, there is, next session, going to be a good deal of the time on private members’ days used up in re-traversing the discussion, and I think this would be rather straining the indulgence of the House.

There are one or two statements made by the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hay) that will not bear the examination of fact. I do not suggest that he has stated what he believes to be wrong, as I do not think he is capable of that; but I do not think he knows the facts. He used the expression “intolerance.” The hon. member was in no way connected with this House when the Bill was first discussed. The committee sat for about 15 days, and witnesses were heard from every side and representing every class. Three persons came out from Britain to oppose the Bill. The largest and wealthiest society did not oppose the Bill, but opposed South Africa being allowed to use the name chartered accountant, which is really the hall mark of accountancy, and they spent close on £1,000 fighting that point alone. The committee were unanimous in deciding against them, and that the South African youth should have the same title as the best in the world as regards accountancy. That is the whole point. You are going to give your sons in South Africa the hall mark of the best accountancy in the world, and the hon. member wants to commence all over again.

The hon. member must not discuss the Bill.

I want to obey your ruling, sir, but it is most difficult to avoid discussing the Bill. The opposition to the measure was of the strongest possible character. How can any person say that a thing was steamrollered through the House when, in 1923, the committee sat on it and got to Clause 19, when the Bill was again before the House in 1924, and was again opposed, and now, in 1925, we have had two full days on it, discussing only one clause? There can be very little steam in the roller when you cannot get one clause through in all that time. An hon. member says it is very easy to bring in a new Bill, but he forgets the question of the expense involved. Close on £4,000 has been spent on the promotion of this Bill, and a few years ago the promoters spent almost a like amount on the previous Bill. The opposition which came from England against the Bill spent close on £1,800, and another opposition has spent between £800 and £1,000 An hon. member says this Bill tries to exclude everybody. I challenge that statement. It does not seek to exclude a single person, but it refuses to admit everybody.

That is a Scots way of putting it.

No, it is Irish. The Bill goes very far, and meets every reasonable demand, and the fact that the measure has been opposed so strongly, energetically and successfully, shows that the Bill must have met with the commonsense of this House to a very great extent. Most of the hon. members who oppose it now are new members of Parliament, and I am sure that if they had been members of the previous Parliament, and had been more fully acquainted with the history of the measure they would not have taken up their present attitude. Hon. members who oppose the Bill cry out for trade unions, but this is a legitimate trade union and still they oppose it.

I am sorry I find myself in the same position as the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hay) in this matter, and I hope the hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. Swart) will acquit me of any vexatious opposition. Even after the select committee had made certain amendments to the Bill all members of Parliament received a memorandum from the promoters in which they threw out an ultimatum to the effect that—I am not using the exact words—that if the House dared to go any further the Bill would be withdrawn. They stated precisely the same thing through their mouth-piece in the House, when we were asked to do a similar thing after the Speaker’s ruling. They said, give us an opportunity of coming together and discussing this matter and we will see if we can meet you. They did not move one bit, and did not make one alteration on the points expressed. Having had experience to guide us, we should be foolish on that point alone if we allow them to resume at the stage we left off this session. He expressed himself astonished at the attitude of those who have lauded trade unions in this House. He said that it was trade unionism they wanted to build up. Trade unionism in the mouths of those, who do not understand it bears a remarkable interpretation. They think any body of men banding together means trade unionism, and they want us to swallow it as trade unionism. A trade union is always desirous of getting those into its ranks who are eligible to belong to it. We throw our ranks open, these people close them up. That is one reason why we are opposing this Bill. There is a strong reason why we should not agree to this. The committee has already passed what is a pernicious principle in that it does not make it possible for all persons having the capacity to become chartered accountants to become such. They laid down an insurmountable barrier by saying that it is necessary to have had an apprenticeship with a firm of chartered accountants, and we have now excluded those lads who have all the capacity and knowledge to pass examinations because they are unable to comply with one of the regulations, namely, that they have not served a period of time with some firm of chartered accountants.

What about the lawyers?

Two wrongs do not make a right, two blacks do not make a white. Lawyers have been able to pass legislation which entrenches a circle of them, but that is no reason why we should perpetuate it. It is the business of these people who are vitally interested in the question from a practising point of view to bring it home to the Government and let the Government bring in a Bill, and then we can have the thing viewed from a public point of view rather than from the view of a few interested parties. I appeal to the hon. member not to press this motion, but to go back to those gentlemen he represents, and represents very well indeed, and say to them, “Eliminate these points of opposition, draft your new Bill, bring it to the House, and you will have no opposition at all.” You are asking us to sign a blank cheque, and we have had enough of that sort of thing in the past.

The cheque is before you, you can sign it if you want to.

Some people might sign it under a misapprehension, but I want hon. members to co-operate with me in refusing to sign the cheque. The best guarantee he and his friends could have would be to put on paper in the form of a Bill precisely their agreement to our objection and I, on my part, will guarantee no opposition. That is one you would eliminate from the opposition, and I think other members will agree with me, and it need not cost them very much more. The act of introducing a private Bill costs money, but we must not be swerved from our purpose because it costs the people who introduce it a little money. I urge on the House, in its own interest, to safeguard itself by saying to those gentlemen that we are not going to allow you to re-introduce a Bill containing these pernicious principles, but you can re-introduce it in a form in which it will be acceptable to the House and you will have no stormy passage, the Bill will be passed and the public will be safeguarded.

The accountants’ society want to see*if it is possible to amend the present Bill sufficiently to meet the point of the opposition. If it is found the present Bill cannot be amended it is probable there will be a new Bill.

Motion put, and the House divided:

Ayes—63.

Anderson, H. E. K.

Badenhorst, A. L.

Ballantine, R.

Barlow, A. G.

Bergh, P. A.

Blackwell, L.

Brink, G. F.

Brits, G. P.

Brown, D. M.

Buirski, E.

Byron, J. J.

Christie, J.

Conradie, J. H.

Creswell, F. H. P.

Deane, W. A.

De Villiers, P. C.

De Wet, S. D.

Duncan, P.

Fick, M. L.

Geldenhuys, L.

Gilson, L. D.

Giovanetti, C. W.

Hertzog, J. B. M.

Jagger, J. W.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Keyter, J. G.

Krige, C. J.

Le Roux, S. P.

Louw. J. P.

Macintosh, W.

Malan, C. W.

Malan, D. F.

Malan, M. L.

Marwick, J. S.

Moffat, L.

Naudé, A. S.

Nel, O. R.

Nicholls, G. H.

Payn, A. O. B.

Pretorius. N. J.

Raubenheimer, I. van W.

Reitz, D.

Richards, G. R.

Rider, W. W.

Robinson, C. P.

Rood, W. H.

Roux, J. W. J. W.

Smartt, T. W.

Steytler, L. J.

Struben, R. H.

Stuttaford, R.

Swart, C. R.

Van der Merwe, N. J.

Van Heerden, G. C.

Van Heerden, I. P.

Van Rensburg, J. J.

Van Zyl, G. B.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Watt, T.

Werth, A. J.

Wessels, J. B.

Tellers: Vermooten, O. S.; Wessels, J. H. B.

Noes—15.

Allen, J.

De Villiers, W. B.

Hattingh, B. R.

Hay, G. A.

Kentridge, M.

Louw, G. A.

McMenamin, J. J.

Moll, H. H.

Mostert, J. P.

Oost, H.

Pretorius, J. S. F.

Reyburn, G.

Sephton, C. A. A.

Tellers: Heyns, J. D.; Madeley, Walter B.

Motion accordingly agreed to.

When the House adjourned last night I was replying to the various questions and remarks which had been made by hon. members. I was dealing with the matter raised by the hon. member for Kroonstad (Mr. Werth). He expressed the fear that upon the taking over of the functions belonging to the provincial councils there would be too much centralization in the management of such affairs. Everything would be handed over to the Union Government, and justice would not be done to the requirements of local control. He applied this more particularly to the taking over of technical and industrial education. My reply was that there was no danger of that, because we are trying from the start to place the control as much as possible with the local managements. We cannot possibly establish, of course, for a small number of institutions a local board for the whole province. In the Free State there are eight of such institutions, and it is impossible to establish local control for the whole Free State. For every institution we, however, appoint a committee of control and the Union Government will remain in touch with them. On such committees we appoint a representative or representatives of the administration of the school boards and other local bodies that have more particularly an interest in such institutions. We hope in this way to retain the necessary local interest in this class of education.

†I now come to the remarks that have been made in connection with this vote by the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) and the hon. member for Liesbeek (Mr. Pearce). They have pointed out that the money which is voted year by year for higher education amounts to a very considerable sum; and they are under the impression, and I am afraid the country generally is under the impression, that the expenditure in connection with higher education is out of all proportion to the general expenditure of the country in other directions. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) says “hear, hear”; so that he evidently is under that same impression, too. I think it will be useful in this connection, to put before the House certain figures which will, I think, throw a light on this particular aspect of the question. In 1911-12 the expenditure in connection with higher education was £107,000, and it rose in 1924-25 to £353,000, representing an increase of 227 per cent. That seems to be very formidable, but I have to point out that during that same period there has been a more remarkable increase in the number of students. The number of students during that period rose from 1,125 to 4.645—an increase of 312 per cent.; so that while the expenditure had increased by 227 per cent., the number of students increased by 312 per cent. At the same time, I wish to point out that the expenditure in connection with lower education during the same period rose by no less than 325 per cent. Undoubtedly there was, during this period, a very remarkable increase in two years, namely, 1918-19 and 1921-22. The increase in the expenditure of the previous year was in 1918-19, no less than 75 per cent., and in 1921-22 it was no less than 43 per cent.; so that the increase during these years accounts for the great increase of expenditure generally during the period to which I have referred. I wish to point out that since 1922 the annual increase on the estimates for higher education has been to bring it back to what I may call the normal. In the first year, 1922, the increase was only 10 per cent. on the previous year; the year after that it was only 6 per cent., and the last financial year the increase was only 7 per cent., so that we have come back to the normal. At the same time I want to point out that the increase in higher education, while it does not come up to the increase during that same period in lower education, has only kept pace with the increase in the general expenditure of the country. In the general expenditure of the country there was in 1918-19 an increase of 31 per cent., and in 1921-22 an increase of 41 per cent. The reason for the remarkable increase in those years to which I have referred in expenditure for higher education, is due to the fact that in those particular years the salaries of the staff, the professors and other teachers, had to be levelled up. There was, during that year, a general levelling up of salaries and wages, and I think the levelling up in connection with higher education was the last to follow. It was an impossible position to pay to the policeman in a town or a village, more than was paid to the principal of a school, so the salary of the principal of the school had to be levelled up, and for quite a considerable time after that the actual position was that more was paid to the principal of an ordinary school than to the professor in a university, and therefore the levelling up during these years had naturally to follow. That accounts for a very large part of the increase in the expenditure. Let me just point out that, in recent years, the cost to the State per student has been very remarkably reduced. In 1920, for higher education, the cost of the State per student was £71; in 1921 it was reduced to £69; in 1922 to £59, and in 1923 to £56; so that between the period 1920 and 1923 it was reduced from £71 to £56 per student. There has been, during these years, a very remarkable increase in the number of students, and I think that must be accounted for. In the first place, we find that the number of students in the higher education institutions was undoubtedly, for quite a number of years, below the normal; because, during the Anglo-Boer war, the mortality among infants was very high in the Transvaal and Free State, and the effect of that would very naturally show in 15 or 16 years’ time, and it did show, first in the lower education, and afterwards in the higher education. That period is now past, and we are simply coming back to the normal conditions created after the Anglo-Boer war. That is one factor which accounts for the increase in the number of students. Another is the faculties we have opened in connection with several of the universities and university colleges. We instituted, in connection with both the Cape Town and Witwatersrand universities, medical faculties, and we instituted, both in connection with the Stellenbosch university and the Transvaal university college, agriculture faculties, and in some universities and colleges we have instituted faculties of commerce. Naturally, these new faculties would attract a large number of students who would not otherwise have come to universities and university colleges. That also accounts for the increase in the number of students, and then, generally, I can say that there is an increase in the demand for well-trained teachers in lower education in the ordinary schools, and those higher grade teachers, as everybody knows, are trained in the universities. Those hon. gentlemen who have pointed out that the expenditure is very large in connection with higher education have also drawn attention to the fact that there is, or that there may be too large an output from our universities and university colleges of professionally trained men. As stated last night, in reply to another hon. gentleman, I am going into this matter and trying to get statistics from the Statistical Department to show what the output, annually, of the different institutions is, and how many of these have been absorbed in the different professions, and to give to me, and to the country, annually, as well as that can be done, an idea of the prospects that young people have in the different professions, and in the industrial line. When I get these statistics, annually, from the department, I think they will be of very great assistance, both to the Union Education Department and to the young people of the country generally. I quite realize that the great need to-day in the country is not so much more professional training of our young people as industrial and technical training, because our industries are growing and the great need is to supply the well-trained employees in connection with our industries. It is no use trying to create openings for our European youths and generally for civilized men in the country, by artificial means. Employment must be put on a sound economical basis, and the only way to do that is to give the civilized employee such technical, industrial, vocational, training that he will render value for the higher wage paid to him.

Hear, hear.

That is the only sound basis on which to go, and because that is so I personally take a great interest in technical and industrial training, and I trust everybody in the House will do the same. As the hon. member for Liesbeek (Mr. Pearce) is not in the House, I will not deal with the points raised by him now. Certain remarks were made by the hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron) in connection with an incident in Johannesburg—the Shelley incident. I can only say to the hon. gentleman that I have not seen these poems to which he has referred, so that it is impossible for me to judge, but I think it is quite possible for the hon. member to be prejudiced in favour of Shelley, and I might add, judging from certain other remarks that the hon. gentleman has made, that he may be prejudiced in favour of great reputations, but does not look on the merits of the case in the first place.

Have you looked on the merits?

No; I have not seen those poems. But let me further tell the hon. gentleman that there are several members of this House who, as far as I know, aspire to poetical reputation.

Who are they?

And it is just possible that if the hon. gentleman himself should get before him the poems of these hon. gentlemen of the House, and at the same time a poem, say, of Shakespeare, he would not know—if he does not know the authors of these poems and had to judge on the merits—and quite possibly Shakespeare might be out of it altogether.

I am not a professor of literature. That is the point.

Let us assume that incidents of this kind very often occur. I am reminded in this connection of an incident connected with the person of that world-famed man, Charlie Chaplin. He went to the country once for a rest, travelling incognito, and when he came to a certain town he stumbled on a place where a prize was offered to the man who could best imitate Charlie Chaplin. He entered for the competition and succeeded in getting second prize. The hon. members for Port Elizabeth and East London have asked me whether we are going to do anything in the way of establishing technical institutes in those towns. I take a very great interest in industrial training in those centres, which I have visited, and I was very-much impressed by the interest taken by the public in technical education and the practical assistance given, and proposed to be given, by the leaders of industries in those places. I have taken a preliminary step for the establishment of technical institutes in those centres. The councils of both these proposed institutes have been constituted, but whether we are going to vote any money this session for the capital expenditure involved is a question on which I shall not enter now. I think these hon. gentlemen should live in hope and possess their souls in patience until the loan estimates are placed on the Table. The hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) and the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. D. M. Brown) have pointed out that there are certain grievances in connection with the matriculation examination. Partly they have given the only possible reply I could give, namely, that I have not the right to interfere. The matriculation examination is controlled by the Joint Matriculation Board, a statutory body. The only thing I can do is just to formulate these grievances and pass them on to the board. If these hon. gentlemen will put on paper just what the grievances are I shall be glad to do it in this case. The hon. member for Klip River (Mr. Anderson) has pointed out that there is a decrease in the vote for the native college at Fort Hare and the Natal Technical College, The decrease in the vote for the native college at Fort Hare does not really affect the college itself. There was a special vote last year for equipment, but that vote was not recurrent and it is not necessary to vote the money again this year. That item will account for the decrease. As far as the Natal Technical College is concerned, it is more or less on the same footing. Wherever there is a very large increase in the number of students in a particular institution, or when there is an extension, it is competent for the Minister to give an additional grant to the institution. But the grant has to be decreased by one-fifth every year. Such an additional grant had been given to the Natal Technical College, and the decrease on the vote this year simply represents the reduction by one-fifth of the additional grant.

Would the Minister be good enough to reply to the point I raised regarding the medical inspection of schools leading to a higher education.

I did not reply to the point because it falls altogether under the provincial administration. I have asked the Hospital Commission to go into that matter and they are reporting on that particular point in their report, which will be in the hands of the members of the committee within a fortnight.

The Minister has misapprehended my point as to the expenditure on higher education. I was not objecting to that, but I was drawing a comparison between the expenditure on universities and the amount contributed by the students themselves, or their parents, and I presumed that the latter amount was out of proportion altogether to the amount contributed by the State. I was merely indicating it as a reason why the State should take over higher education and make it perfectly free so that all might benefit. To-day we are depriving a very large number of young South Africans of opportunities of going to the universities, because their parents cannot afford to pay the fees, and therefore we are depriving ourselves of the opportunity of using their brains in the interests of the State. The only person who should receive Higher education is the person capable of profiting by it, and that should be established by a competitive entrance examination. But don’t let us have it as it is to-day, the State contributing for the cost of higher education, and the poor, who have been taxed for that purpose, not being able to enjoy the benefits if higher education except in the few instances of those youths who secure bursaries.

The hon. Minister has said that he has taken over the one teacher trade schools which were established according to the ordinance of the provincial councils, but that he thinks that these schools are not actually a success. I am sorry to hear this from the hon. Minister and I thiak that his information in the matter is not quite trustworthy. I can assure him that the schools, at least those in the Cape Province, are very popular, if the proper teacher is appointed. I should very much like the hon. Minister, if he has an opportunity, to go to Lady Grey, where such a school exists, to see one that—as I discovered from the provincial administration—pays for itself and even makes a profit. The children who go there are children who, without that school, would quite probably have increased the number of our poor whites; they there learn to make a wagon from begining to end, and anything that a farmer brings there. There are other schools like it. I know that the school at Willowmore was not a success, but I will menton why. The school was established as a motor school to train children as mechanics, but unfortunately the wrong man was appointed there and the school was a failure. This one instance, however, must not frighten the Minister. When I was a member of the provincial council we had applications from various places, and we felt that such a school at the various places could do good work, but we did not have the money. There is always also a great demand to enter the schools, but they are always full. I do not think there is a surplus of artizans. A man who learns a trade, even if it is only that of a shoemaker, will always be able to earn his bread, and even if he does not establish himself as a tradesman in the village, he will be of much use to himself and those around him on the farms.

I am encouraged by the Minister’s reply to carry out a promise I made to certain men and women who are anxious to increase the scope of the Workers’ Educational Association. This movement is handicapped by want of funds, the Government in its generosity only giving a grant of £200. At present the activities of this association are largely confined to Durban, although there is a branch at Bloemfontein. Men and women interested in the W.E.A. contend that it would be in the interest of the State if further development along the lines of the movement were carried out. They are prevented from doing so by the very small financial assistance given them by the Government, and I would like the Minister to take into consideration the increasing of the grant.

I was glad to hear the Minister say in the course of his clear and detailed statement of the work of his department that more attention was being given by the Union Education Department to matters of technical education. I entirely agree with the opinion that the development we must look to in regard to education in this country is in the direction of improved technical and vocational education. It is quite clear the resources of the provincial administrations are not equal to carrying out the work as it now requires to, be carried out, but I would like to know from the Minister where exactly the line is drawn between the activities of the Union Government in regard to technical and vocational education and the provincial administrations. I notice on these estimates there is an amount of £160,000 provided for vocational and industrial institutions and classes. That, according to the vote, is in respect of work that has been transferred from provincial administrations. Are we to understand now that any teaching of a vocational or technical nature, if it is carried in connection with a school administered by the provincial education authority, is now taken over by the Union Government? Are we to understand the vocational sections of provincial secondary schools are taken over by the Union Government. If so, it seems to me we are in danger of multiplying authorities to a serious extent. The Minister told us that he was not going to withdraw that work from the co-operation of local boards of management, but it does seem to me we may be in danger of multiplying these educational bodies to an unnecessary extent. It is one of the difficulties that inevitably arises from the extraordinary constitutional arrangement in this country, whereby we divide educational work into two water-tight compartments. It is a hopeless arrangement and must sooner or later come to an end. I see no future for it until the people of the country see that education is a thing that cannot be divided. The Minister cannot, be blamed, he must make the best of a bad job, as I had to do before him. I would like to know whether he is now taking over from the provinces every branch of vocational or technical instruction without regard to whether it is carried on by provincial schools or institutions, or whether he has only provided for this education where it is carried on in distinct schools and institutions. The annual departmental reports were laid on the Table by the Minister and they included a report of the Union department of education which is in respect of the calendar year 1923, and we are now in the calendar year 1925. I ask him if he cannot get the report of the department a little more up to date.

With regard to this £160,000 you are asking for vocational education. This has been taken over from the provincial authorities under the arrangement come to at Durban. As far as I can understand, there has been no decrease in the grant to provincial authorities. You are still paying them the same amount of money. I would like to ask where this £41,000 to be spent in the Cape and £66,000 in the Transvaal is actually to be spent. I understand that there is no institution at Port Elizabeth, nor is there one at East London. There is a very fine one at Cape Town, but I would not think that it takes £41,000. There is another point in connection with this institute in Cape Town. I understand there is a tendency on the part of the technical institute here to go into other branches of teaching other than technical. For instance, they are teaching law, I believe, or they did at one time. That certainly, in my opinion, should be kept to the university. What business have they to go in for teaching law at the technical institute here, instead of leaving it to be taught at the university, where they have professors, lecturers, etc., for that purpose? Then my hon. friend states that the average cost to the Government of each student was £59 8s., or last year was £56 8s. It varies a great deal in the different colleges and universities. I see that at Cape Town University each student costs the Government £55 9s., at Stellenbosch £66 3s., at Rhodes University £51 5s., and at Huguenot College £80. So it goes on. Perhaps one of the lowest is the Potchefstroom University College, £37 9s. The highest is the Grey University College, £82 18s. As far as I can judge, these high costs to the State are due to the low fees which are charged. In one case, Stellenbosch, the students’ fees are very low, 23.8 per cent. only of the total cost.

I should be glad, when the Minister replies, if he will reply to the other part of the question I put to him about technical education. He was good enough to reply about the technical college at Port Elizabeth—“wait and see.” I also raised the other point in regard to a technical school for the coloured boys.

I would like the Government to consider, in the appointment of representatives on the council of the Witwatersrand Technical Institute, the question of putting on that council a representative of the Transvaal Pharmacy Board. I would point out that that board is set up by an ordinance of the Transvaal to conduct examinations of chemists and druggists. In the matter of the training of chemists and druggists the difficulty on the Witwatersrand is a very great one indeed. It is recognized that unless we can get proper representation, this neglect will continue. It seems an unfortunate fact that when these examinations take place each year, we have increased numbers of students coming up, and the percentage of passes is very low, but the position would be much better if we had representation on the council. I know there is on that council, Sir Spencer Lister, who may be claimed to represent chemists and druggists to some extent. To-day, however, he is out of touch with their training and entirely out of touch so far as the examinations are concerned. I want to point out to the Minister that this is a very serious matter, and I hope he will not give way to official opinion. I ask him to go fully into this matter for the benefit of young chemists and druggists.

There is a great need in Durban for the co-ordination of work of the technical college and the apprenticeship board, and I hope the Minister will consider the desirability of having some direct connection between these two bodies. I should like to suggest that it would be best effected by procuring the appointment of the principal of the technical college as chairman of the Apprenticeship Board. In that capacity he would maintain an unprejudiced view as between the representatives of the employers and the representatives of the employees on the Apprenticeship Board in engineering and allied professions. This need has been made evident in several important respects in the experience of Durban. I should like the Minister to let us know whether he can give any information with regard to the development of the question of the establishment of a university college in Durban. I understand a very generous offer has been made by one of the Durban residents, with a view to establishment of this college, and I should be glad if the Minister would let us know how the matter is progressing, I observe, in these estimates, that provision is made for the maintenance of a school of Bantu languages in Cape Town. There is a similar school in Johannesburg, which seems to be meeting with a larger measure of success than has distinguished the Cape Town University up to now. I should be glad if we could have some information as to the present professors of the Cape Town school, as I understood, some time ago, that the professor who was appointed—I think Professor Norton—expressed his intention of resigning from his post, There is another matter to which I should like to draw the Minister’s attention, and that is the particularly bad doctrine which seems to have been enunciated by one of the tutors in the Witwatersrand University in his evidence before the commission on the Resumption of Gold Payments. I refer to Maurice George Epstein. I understand that gentleman was brought to this country as an organizer to the Labour party; but by a process of preferment, which is dear to the heart of the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) and which has come to be known as “jobs for pals,” he is now enjoying the position of assistant tutor to the Witwatersrand University, with which he combines the post of acting secretary to the Cost of Living Commission, under the Ministry of Labour. I wish to draw attention to the particularly fallacious doctrines preached by this gentleman. He is evidently not a believer in the Labour principle of one man for one job; but he has given some evidence which seems to be of an entirely misleading character, and expressed doctrines which should not be allowed to be taught to the rising generation in the Witwatersrand University. Among other things, he was asked by Professor Kammerer—

and his reply is most illuminating. He says—

Professor Kammerer—

Mr. Epstein—

He was asked—

Mr. Epstein’s reply was—

But the evidence goes on to show how even that fallacy was exploded by a further examination of this gentleman. It is interesting to observe that the acting secretary of the Cost of Living Commission expresses the opinion here that we do not want to reduce the cost of living in this country. It seems to me a heresy, coming out of the mouth of the secretary of this commission, whose whole object is to reduce the cost of living. He was asked—

and Mr. Epstein answers—

Most beautiful sentiments, coming out of the mouth of the organizing secretary of the Labour party. This gentleman proposed to increase our purchasing power by the issue of a tremendous amount of paper money, and he considers the chief aim of paper money is to make capital, presumably for the benefit of our industries. He is evidently a humble follower of the hon. member for Kroonstad (Mr. Werth), who propounded the doctrine that we should issue millions of pound notes—the more the better. Mr. Epstein also is evidently a great supporter of the establishment of a State bank. If we are not going to produce a plentiful crop of financial experts who will print us sacks full of paper half-crowns, the Minister should give some attention to the kind of teaching that is being imparted to the young on the Rand by Mr. Epstein, who, since the Labour party has been absorbed by the Pact, has become an assistant teacher at the Witwatersrand University.

With reference to the point raised by the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick), if we are going, to criticize me doctrines preached by professors and lecturers in so far as we differ from them, I don’t know where we are going to end. It is the essence of educational and scientific institutions that you have there as much freedom of thought as possible; if science does not live in an atmosphere of freedom it is not science at all. Let us criticize the doctrines of professors and lecturers, but let us leave it at that. The Minister of Education has got no say at all in the appointment of professors and lecturers. It is not my business to approve or to criticize. Higher educational institutions are autonomous, and I have no power at all as far as the appointment of lecturers or professors is concerned, and have no voice in dispensing with their services. The only way in which I can interfere is that these professors or lecturers have the right of appeal to the Minister, but the Minister cannot take the initiative in any way. The question has been raised of the teaching of the Bantu languages. The first school was started at Cape Town and we found this position in the country, that the old competition as far as examinations and results go has disappeared between the universities, fortunately, but another competition has sprung up, and that is the competition for numbers of university students, and now whenever one university starts something of this kind, a school for Bantu languages, you find universities and colleges don’t want to take a back seat and they want to commence also. We have had representations from Grahamstown, Johannesburg and Pretoria, each with its own claim to have such a faculty. I am not going to encourage that, because it means unnecessary duplication, and therefore in regard to this question of the Bantu languages I have appointed a committee which will go into the matter and will report to me. I am going to restrict the subjects to certain subjects in certain institutions. The hon. member has spoken about the position in Durban. I understand a certain well-disposed gentleman has made a monetary offer or an offer of land for a university college at Durban. We have got quite sufficient university colleges in the country. I have visited Durban and have looked into educational matters and have told the people at Durban that I am going to encourage them as far as technical education is concerned. They have a first-class technical institution in Durban, and I have told them the municipality of Durban will give its utmost assistance to that institution, but I further told them I was not going to encourage them to have a university college and eventually a university in Durban. Pietermaritzburg has university education, and Durban, a very important industrial centre—let Durban have industrial education. An hon. member has raised the point of co-operation as far as technical education is concerned between the Union education department and the apprenticeship board. The apprenticeship boards are there to look after the interests of young people who in some cases have had industrial and technical training but who have to continue in their own interests if they are in employment, and therefore the apprenticeship boards have a great interest in educational institutions generally. I feel that the co-operation which exists under present circumstances ought to be developed, and I have already made an appointment with my colleague, the Minister of Labour, to go into this matter, and as far as lies in my power I will try to get the co-operation improved. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Sir William Macintosh) raised the question of industrial education for coloured people. I realize something ought to be done in that direction. I have been approached by people interested in this question in Cape Town, Port Elizabeth and Kimberley. As far as technical education in Cape Town is concerned we have already made a beginning. We shall develop it. I am considering the possibility of having an industrial school for coloured people in the Cape Peninsula. If we are going to do anything in Port Elizabeth and at Kimberley we must begin in a small way, and I am willing to consider it, but I am not going to commit the country to any wild cat schemes, that is to say, to begin institutions when I am not quite sure at the beginning that they will be a success, but I shall first thoroughly go into the matter before I take any further step in this direction. I am sympathetic to the idea and will see what I can do. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) has raised a number of points. He has asked about the allocation of money to the various provinces under the Durban agreement. All I can say is that it is my intention during the current year simply to run these institutions on the same lines as the provinces have done, and the sums appearing on the vote are based on information supplied to me by the provinces themselves. I must have time, of course, during the current year to go into the whole question and lay down my policy for the future. As to the question of the teaching of law at the technical institute in Cape Town, that is a point which has not been brought to my notice before, so that I shall have to get information in regard to it. I will go into that question and see that there is no reduplication. The hon. member (Mr. Jagger) has pointed out that there is a great difference in the cost per student in different centres. Of course, that is due to a variety of causes, and the first is the overhead charges in connection with such institutions, and, generally, the cost of living. As far as the subsidy on the part of the Union Government is concerned, that depends altogether on the fee income of such institutions. If the fees of such institutions are low, the subsidy on the part of the Government is low. If the fee income rises, then the subsidy on the part of the Government rises, too. The hon. member for Yeo-ville (Mr. Duncan) has asked me a very important question which I think has given rise to a good deal of misunderstanding in the country, or rather the country is not quite clear in regard to this point, that is, where the line is to be drawn between the activities of the provincial councils and of the Union Government with respect to this class of education that I am taking over from the provinces. In general, I can only say this, that the institutions I am taking over are only self-contained institutions. They must be vocational institutions, and nothing more. We are all agreed, I should say, that the ordinary schools under the provinces must have a certain bias. In towns, generally, they ought to have an industrial or a commercial bias. Rural schools ought to have an agricultural bias. That is to say, the provincial administrations are coming to see more and more that the rural school ought to be a school of a different type from the urban school. We can only applaud development in that direction, but as long as industrial education and agricultural education is combined with ordinary education in an ordinary school under the province, then the whole of the instruction in that school will remain under the province. I am not going to interfere in such a school, because it would mean chaos. I am only taking over schools of the self-contained type. That is to say, instead of the old line of demarcation between higher and lower education that we have always had, we have now another line of demarcation; Union education, on the one hand, and provincial education on the other. Or let me rather say, the ordinary general education for every boy and girl to prepare him for life, and the education which they must receive when they leave the ordinary school in order to be specially prepared for their lifework. That is a line of demarcation which is fairly clear, and which is much more natural than the other.

I am sorry to prolong the debate, but I regret very much this matter of the £1,000, which has been raised by the hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel). As a member of the Durban Technical College Council I can say that so far as the council is concerned they quite appreciate the circumstances under which that £1.000 has been taken away; but I rose, really, to try and explain to the Minister what appears to be a misapprehension on his part in regard to the attitude in connection with the establishment of the university. What has really happened is that the University of Durban has been granted a very splendid site; some 50 acres of land for the establishment of this university. We have already received a very liberal donation of £50,000 from one of the citizens of Durban towards the erection of certain of the schools at that university. It is not proposed to establish a separate university at Durban at all. What we have done has been done in conjunction with the council of the university college at Pietermaritzburg, who have allowed us to establish a branch of their university college at Durban. They have conceded to us the right of running certain branches of the university, certain subjects such as art and engineering, and one or two other matters more suitable to be taught at Durban than at Pietermaritzburg. I am glad to say that we are doing this in conjunction with, and with the entire approval of, the council of the university college at Pietermaritzburg.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote 27, “Child Welfare,” £188,905,

On the motion of the Minister of Education it was agreed to report progress, and ask leave to sit again.

House Resumed:

Progress reported; House to resume in Committee to-morrow.