I move the amendment standing in my name as follows:

1. (viii) by the substitution for paragraph (g) of the said proviso of the following paragraph:
   1. “(g) the conveyance by a person (hereinafter called A) of farm labourers or other persons for the benefit of another person (hereinafter called B) or of goods belonging to B, as a consideration for the conveyance (whether in the past or in the futre by B, of farm labourers or other persons for the benefit of A or of goods belonging to A (if the conveyance of the first-mentioned labourers or other persons or goods by B himself would not amount to motor carrier transportation).”

I hope the House will accept this amendment because it makes the Bill quite clear on the point, and it removes all doubt as to what would be the rights, not only of the farmers but also of business men and ordinary citizens. There is no doubt that in the past a lot of difficulty has arisen under the law, particularly among the farming population. They were handicapped through being unable to carry their own farm labourers, they were further handicapped through being unable to assist each other, and it was therefore felt that as the Bill is now being changed something should be inserted to assist the farmers. But as I said it is not only the farmers but also the shopkeepers and the ordinary citizens who are being assisted by this amendment. It does not only make the Bill very clear but it will also facilitate its operation in future and remove difficulties which already exist. One cannot expect a farmer, if he wants to move his own goods and those of his bywoner, first of all to go and get a, special exemption certificate. Generally speaking it may not be so very difficult to get such a certificate, but under certain conditions it is extremely difficult—the farmer has to travel miles and miles to the nearest dorp and even then he may not be able to get it, and it first of all has to be confirmed in the Provincial office in Cape Town. I therefore hope that this amendment will be agreed to,

I second.

I should like to say that as a gesture of goodwill to our farming friends it gives me great pleasure to accept the amendment.

That is a good omen.

Amendment proposed by Mr. Geldenhuys put and agreed to.

Remaining amendments in Clause 1 and the amendment in Clause 3, put and agreed to.

In Clause 4,

I beg to move—

1. (i) by the deletion of paragraph (b).

This amendment should have been moved during the Committee stage. It was part of an undertaking given by me that we would delete this. I deleted the same clause in another part of the Bill. I am making good my undertaking to delete this now.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Amendments in Clause 4 up to line 21, page 8, put and agreed to.

New paragraph (IV) proposed by the Committee of the Whole House, put,

I want to move an amendment, in the Afrikaans version. The Afrikaans has not been correctly translated and I just want to put right a verbal error.

seconded.

When is the Afrikaans not a translation?

When is a Bill ever drawn up in Afrikaans?

I want to ask the Minister in respect of this amendment 2 (c) whether it is intended to require a deposit for all applications and all objections, or only in special cases? The proviso to this clause IV (2) (c) makes provision that the Board may require any applicant or any objector to deposit a sum not exceeding £100. Is it the intention of the Board to require this deposit in the case of every application and every objection, or only in special cases?

That is for the Board to decide, but I understand it is only for special cases.

In regard to sub-section (4), the Minister accepted an amendment by the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Burnside), and we have it before us now. I think the Minister, in accepting this amendment so readily, did not appreciate the full legal implications of the amendment as drafted here. I have had the benefit of a talk with my hon. friend, the member for Umbilo. I understand that the hon. member’s difficulty was that there was a contention that the municipalities had powers which are now given in this amendment up to and including the time when the Minister, acting under the powers of this Act, issued a Proclamation No. 80 or 86 of 1940, whereby every transportation route, every road in the Union, was made a transportation route for the purposes of the Act. Consequently, the hon. member for Umbilo was of the opinion—he had legal opinion to support him—that by so doing the Proclamation of the Minister had taken away certain powers which were then vested in the municipality. The whole idea behind this amendment is to restore these powers. It is essential to ask ourselves first of all what were the powers which the municipalities had, and what are the powers which they will have? Take the case of the Transvaal, which is governed by the Local Government Ordinance No. 11 of 1926. The two relevant sections of that Ordinance are sections 62 and 65. Section 62 says—

That has been repealed.

Then, under section 65 the Council may permanently close or divert any street subject to notice. If you close a street you do not leave it partially open to other forms of traffic. In regard to the position in the Transvaal, the only test of such a by-law is one of reasonableness, so one could always under the old position, prior to this amendment, test a by-law in regard to reasonableness, but the law as it stands in the Transvaal does not empower a municipality to close thoroughfares to some kind of traffic and not to other kinds of traffic. Such differentiation would be ultra vires the Ordinance. The amendment of the hon. member for Umbilo puts the matter in an entirely different light. It gives absolute powers to the municipalities, more powers than they had before.

The powers always come from an Ordinance.

If hon. members read this amendment, they will see that a certificate which has been granted by the board may become useless in the event of the Council refusing to allow traffic—that is, buses—to run along a route, or in line 32 hon. members will see that they have the power as the result of any action taken by the Council concerned under any regulations, etc., to use that route in operating any vehicle, and so on. Now, the effect of this amendment is that it is retrospective and prospective. It means that in regard to a service where a man has a bus service and has built it up over a number of years he may have all his capital invested in it. The municipality now, without anyone being able to appeal, can render useless those certificates and can cause the loss of a man’s total capital by merely de-proclaiming the route. The Council de-proclaims the route, and the man cannot run along there, and that is the end of it. There is no test of reasonableness, and no one can appeal to anyone. Clearly, this amendment does not restore the old position; it goes much further. It gives the municipality powers of confiscation. The normal rule of our legislation is that unless very good reasons exist you do not make your legislation retrospective. You do not take away vested rights which people have had over a number of years. If you do take away those rights, rights which have been acquired under this Act, legal rights, if one goes so far as to say that one must take away from private enterprise the right of transport, and give it to the municipality, surely there should be some measure of compensation. There should be compensation for rights which one takes away, but here the municipality can take away all these rights merely by a stroke of the pen. The municipalities are in a peculiar position in regard to transport in that they compete. Here you are appointing as a sole judge in a dispute in which both parties have material rights—you are appointing one of the parties as the sole judge of the rights and wrongs of the dispute. On that ground I say that it is most unfair to go further. I say that this clause is entirely unnecessary, because of section 20 of the Act. Clause 20 has taken away no powers from any municipality or from any local government. Clause 20 says—

Any by-laws have to be read in conjunction with the Act. I suggest to the hon. member who gave the opinion that he should read section 20, and I say that the whole of this proviso is unnecessary. I would suggest to the Minister that he, too, should take legal advice from those who advise him legally, to find out whether this contention of mine is correct or not. I therefore formally move the deletion of this proviso. That is, the first proviso. I have no objection to the second proviso. I would suggest to the Minister that he should consider these objections which are raised here to see whether there is any ground for them. I have the assurance of the hon. member for Umbilo that he never intended that this clause should have retrospective effects. Anyone who examines it closely will see that it has retrospective effects. I suggest that the Minister, if he is not prepared to agree to the deletion of this clause at this stage, should agree to some form of appeal — that is, where there is a dispute between the Central Transportation Board and a relevant municipality, where the rights of a third party are vitally affected—I suggest that there should be a right of appeal there, and I suggest that the proper person would be the Administrator of the Province concerned. I do not suggest that there should be a Minister of the Crown. I do not think it would be fair that the right of appeal should be to the Minister of Railways because he, too, is in many cases vitally interested in the problem of transportation, and in many cases the Railways themselves are in competition with the municipalities, and precisely what the municipalities can do to a private operator they can also do to the State, that is to the Railways.

Are you trying to frighten the Minister?

No, I leave that to the hon. member for Umbilo—he is in a better position to frighten him than I am. I cannot blackmail the Minister.

Order, order!

Well, nicely speaking of course. The Minister allows his own department to be in the same position as a private operator. I think everyone would be satisfied if the Administrator were appealed to. I do not think it is a matter which should be referred to a judge unless it be a judge in Chambers, but I think the Administrator can deal with the situation. It may be argued that private operators always have an opportunity of objecting to a by-law because notice of the intention of the municipality to pass a by-law is given by way of advertisement. It is not the by-law that one tests, but he powers that they exercise under the by-law. You may have a by-law which is reasonable, but they take a particular street and put the operator off under this proviso, and thereafter they can run themselves if they wish to do so.

No, they cannot.

By simply proclaiming the route again after the private operator has been run off. The powers are vested in the bus manager of any big council and he will decide without any right of appeal from him. The Minister has been very fair in regard to this Bill and he should seriously consider my suggestion. I formally move the deletion of this proviso and I leave the rest to him. I move—

I second. I am loath to intervene at this late stage, but it happens that the acceptance by the Minister of the amendment of the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Burnside) has raised the concern of many people who were quite content with the original terms of the Bill. Among those people are a number of private bus owners whose interests are not directly represented in this House, and it is on their account that I feel it necessary to make an effort to do something to place their claims before the Minister, even at this late stage. These bus owners are people who are not represented in this House, but that is no reason why their interests should not be protected in this House any more than the interests of anyone else. They are mainly Indians. Now, as a matter of fact, there is a particular responsibility on this House to protect the interests of non-Europeans in cases of this kind, where power lies with the local authorities since they have no representation on those bodies. These people are in a peculiar position. In so far as this Bill gives the power to municipalities to control both routes and operators on the routes within municipal areas, the Indian bus owners are in a difficult position in towns like Johannesburg and Durban, where they have no representation on the municipal councils. The fears of these people may possibly be unjustified. They do not think so. Their fears are on two grounds. Their first fear is the one which the hon. member has just put, that is, that it is within the power of a municipality to deproclaim a route on which they have functioned and then to reproclaim a route when their certificates are no longer of any value. It will possibly be contended that if the municipality proclaims a route at all as open to certain types of transport that it must give certificates to any and all people who wish to operate that particular type of transport. But that is not clear, that is a matter of interpretation, and one on which, I think, we are entitled to a definite statement from the Minister. Their other fear in this matter is that the municipalities may proclaim routes but may state in their proclaiming of these routes that these will not be regarded as transportation routes for certain types of transportation, and may hold up the development of the route until such time as the municipality is itself in a position to put transport on that route. We know that in a number of big municipalities routes have been pioneered by small private owners, and it is only just in the interests of these private owners, and in the interest of the whole community, that the municipality should not be placed in a position of being able to hold up the pioneering of a route until such time as it may suit them, or any of the interests they may represent. This seems a very clear case where the strength is all on the side of big interests which can exercise control through the municipalities even if the big interest is the municipality itself. And there is a just claim on the part of the private owner that this Bill shall supply him with some sort of protection of his rights. Like the hon. member who have moved the deletion of this clause I shall be satisfied if the Minister gives an undertaking that on the question of proclaiming and deproclaiming routes and types of transport to be allowed, there should be some independent authority to whom an appeal can be made. The hon. member has suggested the Administrator. I believe it may be said that the Administrator himself is not a disinterested party, because I gather that in the matter of proclaiming and deproclaiming routes, the Administrator is himself a party to that action. But I think the private owners would be satisfied if a special responsibility for protecting their interests and hearing their side of the case were placed on the Administrator. So I trust that if the Minister cannot accept the deletion of the whole of this proviso which the hon. member for Umbilo was responsible for, that he will either now or in another place make further provision which will provide for an independent arbiter of this kind so as to give some sense of security to the private owners.

It is becoming more astonishing every day in this House to see the strength of vested interests in South Africa, and when we actually find the hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger), to whom we have listened with considerable delight on past occasions, when we find her allying herself with the hon. member for Germiston North (Mr. Quinlan) in an eloquent plea for private interests against the municipalities, I can only describe it as astounding, and it is all the more astounding when we hear the hon. member referring to huge vested interests in the shape of municipalities—it is all the more astounding when we hear that from a Socialistic member like the hon. member for Cape Eastern, an hon. member who occasionally to our delight traces the economic system for us step by step from the industrial revolution—it is the more astounding to find that that hon. member now has the audacity to tell us that municipalities, whose assets represent the assets of the people, of the towns concerned, are huge private interests, and that private capital has vested rights if it is black-skinned private capital. The hon. member now places herself in the position that she pleads for the Indian bus owners …

No, I plead for everyone.

Yes, she pleads for the Indian bus owners who are the worst examples of transport exploitation in South Africa. She pleads for the rich Indian bus owners—not the poor …

No, I plead for all of them.

The rich Indian bus owners who exploit not only the natives but the workers whom they employ to run buses in competition with municipalities who pay fair rates of wages. I did expect it from the hon. member for Germiston. And I want to say right away that I am not at all impressed with his legal logic, but that his determination, his plea for private enterprise is based on the case which he apparently represents—that was very clear. So there is no need for him to build up an atmosphere and make us believe that the whole question is one of legal interpretation. It is not. The whole question is a question of private owners having the wind up. The fact is that the private bus owning companies realised, and agreed with my legal information that the power which had been taken away by proclamation No. 86 of 1940 was a very good one … they were quite pleased that that power had been taken away, and was going to be left in the hands of a Board which so far had always shown itself not particularly favourable to municipal enterprise, but favourable to private enterprise, and having thought that they had put one across us, that in fact these powers had been taken away from the municipalities—they are now squealing because these powers have been restored. I want to suggest that there is nothing in this proviso which gives municipalities any more powers than they had before the issue of the proclamation of 1940. I am not so much astonished at the hon. member for Germiston (North) (Mr. Quinlan), but I say again I am astonished at the hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger), who has betrayed in her speech a lamentable lack of knowledge of the working of municipalities. I challenge the hon. member to show me one single instance where a municipality has been guilty of behaviour which even bears the slightest resemblance to the things she has suggested a municipality might embark upon. Municipalities do not de-proclaim roads to injure private enterprise, ruin people, and then after a tear or two start the route themselves. I do not know what kind of municipalities the hon. member is talking of, but can she tell us any instance where actions similar to that have been undertaken by municipalities? The ordinances, by-laws and regulations are, in the first instance, granted by the Administrator, and her suggestion would amount to referring back to the Administrator something which he has already granted. All this story about the iniquities of municipalities trespassing upon private enterprise leads me to ask how about the things that private enterprise perpetrates upon municipalities? I am going to quote a specific instance in Durban, wherein one of these poor unfortunate Indian bus owners applied for a transportation licence in Durban, and partly the route he used went through one of the best residential streets in Durban—Penzance Road—where we have the Girls’ High School and another very large school. Despite the objection of the Municipal Council and the residents in that area, and despite the objection of Durban generally, the local Transportation Board granted the Indian bus owner his route. The Council took the case on appeal to the Central Transportation Board, which upheld the local Board, and the Indian bus owner to-day is driving these huge, noisy Juggernauts through one of our best residential streets, a street through which the municipality itself does not run buses, but is reserving as a residential area. So that so far from municipalities getting any favour, it is quite clear that so far as Durban is concerned, it is the Indian bus owner who is getting the favour. Fortunately for us, as a result of this proviso the Durban City Council will now be able to eliminate that particular route, and the particular individual concerned has no squeal coming, because he was told both by the Council and the Transportation Board that he operated on his certificate on his own responsibility, and that if subsequently by some means the certificate was upset he would have no claim whatever for damages. This transportation business, unfortunately, is only viewed in the light of how much profit can be made, and the last thing that seems to appeal to the hon. member for Germiston, and, judging from her speech this afternoon, also to the hon. member for Cape Eastern, is the suitability of particular transportation routes to the general public. I am more concerned with the public than with the people who own the buses, and when I know that transport is owned by a municipality, I know that that particular transport is owned by the people who use the buses, and that the management is only concerned with giving the best service. It may happen that, due to the growth of traffic in a particular area, the municipal council desires to make a certain street a one-way street. I gather the hon. member for Germiston will object to that; he would say: “No, if a certificate has been granted for a particular bus route to run both ways, then the municipal council has no right to come along and declare that particular street a one-way street.” I want to suggest to the hon. member that not only are the powers contained in this proviso very necessary in so far as controlling new routes in municipal areas is concerned, but they are very necessary for the control of traffic itself within the environment of the municipality, because it does give the local authority power to close certain streets, to make one-way streets, and give them also the power to divert traffic. Surely the hon. member for Germiston North has sufficient intelligence to realise that if a municipality makes a street a one-way street, thereby debarring a bus route from travelling both ways, the municipality must obviously agree to give the bus owner another route. Surely the hon. member knows that municipalities don’t behave in that way, and I presume the Germiston City Council would not act in that way, although I don’t know about them. I know most city councils do not behave in such an entirely ridiculous manner.

You don’t know his council.

If I am to judge his council by the kind of speech that he made, I may not be surprised if they did go in for this. But, Mr. Speaker, this is a storm in a teacup, this is a result of the intensive method of lobbying which is now being employed on almost every Bill that comes before the House. I ought to say that, because the general public may not be in possession of the information as to why certain things are opposed. I want to tell the House that at least one lawyer has been sent down from the Rand to lobby members of Parliament and conduct a campaign against this particular clause. I tell the hon. member for Cape Eastern that two very prominent Johannesburg capitalists, who are Europeans, have also been in Cape Town lobbying against this clause in the interests of a motor bus route they have been running to the Alexandria township. That has been going on for days, and whether they have left here or not I do not know. If the hon. member for Cape Eastern is here in the interests of big finance, which is exploiting the non-European, not only as a traveller on buses, but also in his capacity as conductor or driver of a bus, then I suggest to her that she is not doing her job by looking after the interests she is supposed to be here to represent. I trust that the House, in its good sense, is not going to agree with the hon. member for Germiston and delete the clause. May I repeat what I have perhaps said before, and that is to ask this House not to adopt this view towards municipalities. There seems to be growing up amongst a section of members, particularly those who represent big vested interests, the idea that a municipal council is everything that is abhorrent, that municipal councils have no brains, and that the officials of municipalities are people who should never be in their jobs. Let me tell them that the truth is quite the reverse. If the affairs of this country were run as well as some of our municipalities are run, the country would have less to grumble about. The more powers we can give municipalities, the better for this country. If they are given power and responsibility, they will carry out those powers with a very strict sense of justice and a keen sense of the responsibility placed upon them.

I really fail to understand why the hon. member for Germiston North (Mr. Quinlan) is moving this. This question was fully discussed when the amendment was proposed. A change has been made, and it appears to me that the hon. member, as well as the hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger), fail to understand what the position is. We on this side of the House are in favour of protecting vested interests where it is equitable to do so. As against that we are also in favour of capitalistic large companies which want to secure those vested interests and which want to obtain rights under legislation which they otherwise would be unable to get, being prevented from getting such rights, but where I agree with the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Burnside) is that I prefer to place my interests in the hands of a body which I have elected myself rather than to place those interests in the hands of a body appointed by the Government. I want to ask those two hon. members what right they have to demand that the municipalities, which are obliged to look after the roads and to look after all the amenities, should not have the powers which they are given under this Bill, and why those powers should be placed in the hands of a Transportation Board? All this Bill says is this—

What right has any person to ask that the Road Transportation Board shall be authorised to allow motor transport to pass through a dorp in the way the Transportation Board wants it and not as the elected body, the municipality, wants it? I fail to understand how people who are always talking about democracy can come along and raise objections to that provision, because a municipal council is elected under the democratic system and has control over its streets. Those hon. members now want to take away those rights, and they want to place them in the hands of a body appointed by the Government, a body having no responsibility to the dorp or the town. I fail to understand it, but I do understand what they are afraid of. It is quite natural that a municipality may perhaps reserve a route for itself, and wants to prevent transport by a private company as a result of which an injustice may perhaps be done. Provision is made here, however, that before a town council can do anything under a regulation or Ordinance or by-law, the sanction of the Administrator has to be obtained. I assume the Administrator acts on behalf of the whole community and that he will do what is necessary for the community. In other words, before a regulation comes into force and effect, it must first of all be submitted to the Administrator; it has to remain pending for several weeks to allow of objections being lodged. Anyone may object to such a regulation, and if the town council rejects the objection it is placed before the Administrator, and he either approves or disapproves of the regulation. All the objections are placed before him, and he has the regulation and the by-law in front of him, and, assisted by the executive council, he acts as a sort of court of arbitration. The existing provision lays it down that a regulation has to be suspended for a month or six weeks, and objections are specially invited. If the municipality rejects the objections, the Administrator still has the right to decide whether the regulation is reasonable or not. Consequently, not because I wish to take away any vested rights, nor because I want to remove any competition, nor because I wish to place any obstacles in the way of the people, but because I feel that the control of a municipal area should rest with the municipal council and not with a board appointed by the Government which is not responsible to the land owners, and the voters, I fail to understand the attitude adopted by those hon. members. I can appreciate the fact that there may sometimes be objections to a municipality when one sees what they do at times, but every town gets the town council it deserves. The inhabitants themselves elect the council, and if they elect a poor council it is their own fault. In view of the fact, however, that in addition to that there is control by the Administrator, I fail to understand the objections.

I think it may be in the interests of the progress of public business if I intervene at this stage. The hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Burnside) has characterised this debate as a storm in a teacup. I entirely agree with him, and I would add that the teacup is a very small one indeed. I do not propose to enter into a legal disputation with my legal friend the hon. member for Germiston (North) (Mr. Quinlan). He started off, however, by quoting an ordinance which has already been repealed, and therefore I think his law is a little bit out of date. I was prepared to consider any reasonable case put forward for providing some kind of appeal, but I must confess I have not been very much impressed with the arguments put forward. I am inclined to think that hon. members have really not read the amendment which was agreed to. There is no power given now that was not there before. The hon. member for Germiston said that by proclaiming all routes as transportation routes, we were taking powers away from the municipalities. The hon. member knows that is not correct. The hon. member knows that if the power is taken away from municipalities, it was taken away in 1930 when the Transport Act was passed, because it was under that Act that that proclamation was made. Therefore no powers are taken away from municipalities. The Act specifically safeguards municipal powers. What does this amendment say? It says that no certificate shall be issued if it is unlawful under any ordinance, regulation or by-law in forces in the area in question, or as the result of any action taken by the council concerned, under any such ordinance, regulation or by-law, to use a route. If it is already unlawful no certificate shall be issued. The hon. member does not suggest, surely, that the Road Transportation Board should issue a certificate in spite of the law, that we should give them authority to override provincial statutes, municipal ordinance and by-laws. I am sure the hon. member does not mean that. It is only in the case of an unlawful act that they prohibited, that the municipality has the right to prohibit the route or part of a route. It seems to me the situation is quite clear, we are taking no powers away from them, we are giving them no powers they do not at present possess. I have been told from a great variety of sources that the municipalities are not going to act fairly in regard to this particular matter, and that they will use the machinery which it is alleged we are giving them, to squeeze out competitive transportation. Well, it is an extremely difficult thing for a municipality to act male fides, because to begin with it must act male fides in conjunction with the Provincial Council, because the Provincial Council gives the municipalities the powers under which they can do these things. They have also got to act male fides in face of the electors and ratepayers, who would certainly not approve of such conduct. Local road problems must be administered by the local authority. How can the central Government administer local road problems? You cannot do it better than by giving municipalities control. It has been said that we should have an appeal to the Administrator, but I do not see how that is going to do any good, because the Administrator has already a big say in giving the power, because the Provincial Council actually grants the power under an ordinance, and it would be placing the Administrator in a very invidious position if he were called upon to exercise his discretion in another way. Under the ordinance as it exists at present, hon. members know that a municipality can close its streets temporarily or permanently, it can turn a street into a oneway street, it can control its traffic, and say what classes of traffic shall use different streets. They already have that power under the Act. I think, in these circumstances, the House will be quite satisfied to accept the amendment as it stands.

I would venture to suggest that the hon. member for Germiston (North) (Mr. Quinlan) and his seconder omitted to notice these words, “if it is unlawful,” and they overlooked the implication of those words. However, the Minister dealt with that. There is one aspect of the case put forward by the hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) with reference to a private owner building up an asset which can be taken away. If that asset has been built up unlawfully, the owner of such asset would not have very much of a squeal coming if he were deprived of it, because he must have known that he was exercising the powers under the certificate granted, unlawfully, and therefore was not entitled to any consideration whatever.

I don’t wish to let the remarks of the hon. member for Cane Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) go unchallenged. We always understood the hon. member to be a person with socialistic ideas, and yet she comes before this House and tells us the private bus owners are in a very weak position compared with municipalities. If a municipality is not a socialistic organisation, I don’t know what is. She said that private bus owners were in a very weak position, but I say the boot is on the other leg, and municipalities are in a weak position in competition with private enterprise. They pay living wages to their employees. Do the private bus owners do that? I say no. The municipalities spend huge sums year by year in the maintenance of roads. Do private bus owners spend anything on roads? The ratepayers pay for the roads, and the private bus owners come along with their cheap, second-hand, noisy buses and compete with the municipal services. If that is what the hon. member means by private bus owners being in a weak position, I am surprised at her logic. The hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Burnside) referred to the Penzance Road encroachment. That road passes through a very high class European residential area; the Girls High School is there and a very large boys’ school, and is it to be supposed that the people of Durban are going to submit to these noisy Indian buses with defective brakes, and so on, using this road? We are not going to put up with it. I hope the hon. Minister will not give way to the plea that has been put forward by the hon. member for Germiston (North) and the hon. member for Cape Eastern.

I had not intended intervening in this discussion, and I would not have done so, had it not been for the fact that certain supporters of the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Burnside) not content with the fact that the Minister himself said that he would not yield to the hon. member for Germiston (North) (Mr. Quinlan), had indulged in certain arguments—

[inaudible]).

I am coming to the hon. member later, so he need not be impatient. The hon. member for Stamford Hill (Mr. Acutt), to begin with, referred to a number of entirely irrelevant considerations in support of the Minister’s attitude, some of which are in any event in the hands of the municipalities already. He said there were a lot of noisy Indian buses on the roads, which I gather he wants to get off the roads, whether because they were noisy or because they belonged to Indians he did not quite make clear. However, as a matter of fact, if these buses are not in a condition to be allowed on the road, that is surely a matter which is already in the hands of the municipal authority, and that authority has already power to deal with them. That being so, I must assume that the real objection of the hon. member is that they belong to Indians, and not that they are noisy. His reference to the wages paid by private bus owners is equally irrelevant, because the remedy there lies in the hands of those who object to the wages paid, who should approach the Wage Board to fix adequate rates op pay. And judging by the attitude of the Durban municipality when the Wage Board enquired into rates there, that body is not very much concerned about the wages of unskilled workers. Both the hon. member who has just spoken, and the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Burnside), who spoke at an earlier stage, represented that those of us who support the hon. member for Germiston take the view that the issue is one between public enterprise and private enterprise, and that we are siding with the vested interests of private enterprise. This Bill raises no such issue at all.

This proviso does.

Nor does the proviso. If we were discussing a measure to expropriate private transport owners and to co-ordinate traffic under public authorities properly constituted, such as one finds in London—in those circumstances I should probably support a measure of that kind. But in those circumstances a special authority would have been constituted, it would be an expert and impartial authority, and there would have been provision for the compensation of the private interests to be expropriated. I take it the hon. member for Umbilo who is an evolutionary, and not a revolutionary, Socialist, is in favour of compensation of private interests when they are expropriated. That is not the issue raised in this Bill. The principle of private or public ownership is not raised. There is nothing in this Bill to exclude private ownership. What the effect of the proviso would be is this: that the municipality would have final say as to what private enterprise there should be. It may be that the municipalities would themselves run services but they would in addition have a power, which would be particularly dangerous, to adjudicate between various private interests and it is particularly dangerous to leave that power with a body like a local authority, because on many local authorities—I am not speaking of any particular one—representatives or local private interests sit, or are represented. We as representatives of native interests have experience of that sort of thing. In the Free State Natives and other non-Europeans are in various areas prevented from trading even among their own people because of the representatives of private interests on municipalities. Now the hon. member for Umbilo made one stricture on the hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) which was particularly unfair. He implied that private interests were not all right in her view if Europeans were concerned, but they were all right if they were nonEuropean. Now, that is most unjust. As a matter of fact it is the Indian and native bus services which stand to lose most by the hon. member’s amendment, because not only are private interests, private vested interests, to a large extent represented on local authorities, but the members of the community to which I have just referred are not so represented. In other words, where you have competing private interests the one European and the other non-European, you are agreeing to put the power of deciding between them into the hands of a partial public authority — into the hands of an elected local authority on which only Europeans sit. As I said I had not intended to intervene in this debate were it not for the purpose of explaining what the issues really are.

Amendment proposed by Mr. Quinlan, put and negatived.

Amendment proposed by the Minister of Railways and Harbours in the Afrikaans version of the new paragraph (iv) put and agreed to.

On page 376 there is an amendment of which notice has been given by the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Egeland). The purpose of this is to deal with the right of the Board to administer the oath to certain witnesses.

I take it the hon. member has been authorised by the hon. member for Zululand to move this amendment?

Yes, I have been asked by the hon. member in his unavoidable absence from the House to put this forward. As I understand the Minister is prepared to accept this, I do not think it is necessary for me to take it any further. I move—

1. (v) by the insertion of the following new sub-sections after sub-section (1):
   1. (1) bis. Whenever any person intends to testify or is testifying before the Board in connection with any matter with which the Board is dealing, the chairman of the Board or in his absence any other member of the Board may administer an oath to that person, and if he refuses to be sworn, the Board may refuse to hear him.
   2. (1) ter. If a person to whom the chairman or any other member of the Board has administered an oath as aforesaid, makes, while he is under oath, a false statement before the Board, which he knows to be false, he shall be deemed to be guilty of perjury.

I second.

Agreed to.

In Clause 5,

Amendments in Clause 5 up to line 22, page 10, put and agreed to.

Again on behalf of the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Egeland) I move—

1. (2) The following sub-section is hereby inserted in section six of the principal Act after sub-section (1):
   1. (1) bis. The provisions of sub-sections (1) bis and (1) ter of section five shall mutatis mutandis apply in connection with a person who intends to testify or who is testifying or who has testified before a local board.

I second.

Agreed to.

Remaining amendment in Clause 5, amendments in clauses 6 and 11 put and agreed to, and the Bill, as amended, adopted.

Third reading on 6th March.

I move—

I think the House will concede to me that it is rather appropriate that I should move this Bill this afternoon, and more especially will they concede it when I inform them that this is the first of a series of social measures which the Government proposed to introduce—not all this year of course. There is to be one other. The other one is the Workmen’s Compensation Bill, but other Bills will be brought forward in subsequent years. While I deplore the circumstances that have brought me into association with my colleagues, yet I must express my pleasure at that association, both personally and from a legislative point of view. And I think in all the circumstances I have every right, in fact I have a duty, to express my special appreciation to the Prime Minister whose very powerful urge makes it possible for me to be dealing with this Bill this afternoon. And that appreciation must be extended to others of my colleagues, because hon. members no doubt have already noticed that for the first time in our South African history industrial legislation is to be applied to the Crown—in other words, State workshops are to fall under the aegis of this legislation when it is passed. That is another inducement for me to publicly express my appreciation to those Ministers controlling departments who will be affected—I want to thank them for the attitude they have adopted towards me and towards this legislation. And while I am pouring out praise I want to give a special meed of praise and thanks to my colleague the Minister of Finance, and the Minister of the Interior—the present Minister, for the very big part they have played in the anticipation of this legislation—because I do not want to take to myself all the kudos for introducing this legislation at all.

You think it is kudos?

Yes, I think so. I want to give credit where it is due, and it may be that these colleagues of mine had anticipated my advent to the Cabinet because before I came they had legislation similar to this on the tapis. And I want to thank them for it. And I am more particularly pleased to express myself like this because those of my colleagues in Parliament who were with me in Parliament in the old days—there are some here to-day who are perhaps not quite so old in membership or in age as myself—they will remember that I have always been doing my best to promote the wellbeing of the workers, the masses of the people of the country, and I have always been unfortunate in having to do so from an entirely wrong quarter.

Oh, you admit that now.

I have been engaged in all these efforts from the Opposition benches, and you, from your long experience, Mr. Speaker, and those colleagues of mine from their long experience, have realised already, as indeed I have, much to my sorrow, that very little can be accomplished except in the way of colouring legislation, but not in the way of initiating legislation from the Opposition benches.

By a big party like yours?

Yes, and there my friend pays me a tribute, because we have been successful in bringing some colour into the legislation of this House in South Africa. I would not be fulfilling my duty if I did not now pursue an unusual course, an unusual method in the mouth of Ministers, and that is to pay a tribute to certain officials of my department. I want to extol the praises and the virtues of the Secretary for Labour.

You are going to pat him on the back?

Yes, I am always conscious of assistance, and always give credit where credit is due.

What about the Opposition?

Especially when that assistance is of the whole-hearted character which I have received from Mr. Walker and Mr. Hannah.

Do not we come into it at all?

No, my hon. friend has yet to win his spurs, but I am giving him the opportunity of doing so— hon. members can show by their deeds and by their words whether they are going to be entitled to any appreciation so far as I am concerned—by their deeds and their words shall we know them, and based on that I shall express pleasure or displeasure when the time comes.

You will have another story to tell afterwards.

I hope not. I hope my hon. friend will follow the prohpets and will do his utmost to help this legislation to be passed. Now, having done that, I want to say something in the nature of what was expressed by the hon. member for Umbilo during the last debate. He drew attention to the fact that there is tremendous lobbying going on. He made it a special point, of course, in regard to vested interests, in the matter of certain bus concerns, but in the whole of my parliamentary career, which is somewhat long and certainly varied, I have never yet known such tremendous efforts as those which are being put forward by vested interests on the subject of our industrial legislation as are being evidenced during this present session of Parliament. Never in my life. And to me it is not only astounding, but it is a thing which calls for reprobation, because I claim this, that when we bring legislation of a forward character into this House hon. members should be in the position of examining that legislation on its merits, and as a result of their own examination of the terms and conditions laid down in that legislation they should be able to come to a conclusion.

We know all that.

Yes, my hon. friend does not like that. I am going to appeal to my friends who have been responsible for that painful lobbying, and I am going to ask them to deal with this legislation on its merits and only to give play to their own humanitarian instincts in coming to a decision. There has been a flood of criticism in advance of this legislation, and I do not know whether I should take it as a tribute to my own popularity, or whether it arises from funk and suspicion of my attitude towards these matters. But be that as it may, the fact remains, a good deal—in fact, I go so far as to say the major portion —of this adverse criticism is entirely unfounded, based on a misconception, and in some cases a complete lack of knowledge of the provisions of the legislation which I am introducing. That it is unfounded I shall demonstrate; or if it is not unfounded, it is dealt with from a different conception, different from my own, as I hope to show later on. I do not propose—and, of course, in so doing or in refusing so to do I am following the rules of this House—I do not propose to deal with this Bill clause by clause. That remains to be discussed when we are in the Committee stage, and when we can concentrate on each clause, and when criticism can be directed to each clause, and when I shall be able to give my reply. I propose to confine myself to three or four salient features. Now this Bill first of all provides for the institution of a 46-hour week in industry.

Is that your conception?

Let me at the outset say that I am not satisfied with that, but in bringing legislation of this sort before Parliament and before the country one has to take into consideration all the varying factors and objections, and, strange as it may be, coming from my mouth, one has to take into consideration all the various interests, and having lumped all these together and having found the greatest common denominator, I arrived at a 46-hour week, and I am proposing that this legislation shall institute a 46-hour week in practice.

Did you advocate that in the past?

Do you say that that satisfies you?

It does for the time being.

Don’t you want 36 hours? That was what you wanted.

We would have supported you.

Well, if my hon. friend will press that I am not unwilling to support it.

For the platteland, too?

If I could be sure that my hon. friends would support it, well, I might move it. Let us test each other on that. Now let me anticipate some of the objections to the 46-hour proposal.

Tell us about the crisis.

In your party?

We do not know anything about your crisis; where are your members?

No; what about your crisis?

I hope my hon. friend will not be foolish.

He cannot help it.

This is serious legislation, and I hope he will not uproot all the fascinating and vacillating circumstances that surround the life of that party on the other side.

That should be sitting there —there are very few of them there just now.

I am speaking theoretically. As I was saying, let me try and anticipate some of the objections.

The objections of your own side.

The first is, and it has already been stated very widely, “Now is not the appropriate time to shorten the working week, considering we are in a state of war.”

That is what your people say.

Oh, no; that comes from many quarters, but wherever it comes from I want to characterise it as dishonest.

Why dishonest?

Well, the split is in the Government party.

I want to say this, that as a member of this House— as a matter of fact, ever since I was a boy— I have been engaged in endeavouring to uplift the workers, and at any time, and at all times, it has been an inappropriate time for bringing about improvements. That has always been the cry. I have never yet known it to be the appropriate time on the part of some people—a very large number of people —for the workers to have improvements in their conditions. “Inappropriate” is the present time? I say it is the reverse. This is the most appropriate time for improving the working conditions of the workers in industry in South Africa. I say deliberately the most appropriate time.

Next point, please.

My hon. friend cannot consider any point.

There are no points to consider.

Well, there is no point which my hon. friend can consider, perhaps; I am only going to deal with the intelligent members of the House.

There is no point in your point at all.

The Minister said the intelligent members.

No point which will get into the hon. member’s head. That I am quite sure of. One of the adverse criticisms that is being, and will be levelled against this measure is that, owing to it being war time, by shortening hours you decrease production. Again, I must draw upon my own experience. Up to a point, or at a point, or after a point, that may be a very true item of criticism to be levelled.

When it gets below 36 hours.

I have bad the practical experience of a successful reduction of working hours in my own personal capacity as a worker, and on every occasion when that argument has been advanced it has been proved false. It has been said that by reducing the working week you are going to reduce the volume of production, and never has it turned out to be so; but my last practical experience is the most effective. True, I was a young fellow then. Yes, that is a good many years ago, but the reduction of the working week on that occasion was from the old standard, which was accepted as something below which you could never fall—of 54 hours per week; and we dropped suddenly from 54 to 48 hours, and so far from there being any reduction in the volume of production, it actually increased.

What about the working hours of a Minister?

They are no criterion, and my hon. friend would never understand either the working hours or the work. I want my hon. friends to regard this as a serious measure and to treat it seriously. We are now considering the welfare of the workers—I may be wrongly directed, I may not do all that possibly can be done; let hon. members criticise me from that point of view, but we are now engaged in dealing with a measure which makes for the social uplift of the workers, and I hope hon. members in all quarters will view this matter from that angle.

They are not concerned.

Generally speaking, I know that my hon. friend over there is concerned in the welfare of the people. I think his remarks are just due to an ebullition of spirits. Now let me say again that the fact of reducing the working hours did not reduce the production. In fact, I think it increased the production.

Of course, machinery improved.

Quite apart from that. Without considering improvements in machinery, the production went up. In spite of the hours being reduced from 54 to 48, there was no decreased production; there was an increase in production, and the reason is not far to seek.

Why have a controller of labour then?

My hon. friend can deal with that in his own speech when he addresses the House, if he will allow me to continue now. The reason is not far to seek. The human being can only stand a certain amount and it is a most remarkable thing. I do not know how many members of this House have done any manual production or mental production for that matter, but I am confining myself to manual production. It is necessary for members to have had experience of manual production to be able to appreciate the point I am going to make, and the point is this: that there is one time in the day when a man can produce practically nothing, and I make bold to assert that in the ordinary working day of a working man’s life, the most productive part is in the morning.

Not after a late night.

What we have to find out before we can get exactitude, is just where a man begins to fail in the matter of production because of his physical tiredness, and that is a subject which is engaging the attention of social thinkers all over the world. I have not, from my limited experience, been able to find just where that point is. I did make a shot at 36 hours a week for various reasons, but I want to say that a tired man is an inefficient man, and quantity of production is not the only thing you have to consider, and more especially should you not consider that as the only feature in war time and in the manufacture of munitions, where you have to have complete accuracy. A tired man or woman is not at his or her best in the matter of accuracy, and what we have to do is to so arrange their hours of work so as to preserve their freshness and their complete efficiency. Quality suffers when you have a tired labour force, and consequently production falls. It is far better to test out further reduction of hours with a view to getting better production both in quantity and quality, rather than to insist upon people constantly working extra time. A man can keep it up for a short time, but not for a long time. This criticism is levelled at this legislation at the present time, that we are now in war time, and that the workers ought to do more. I want to say this, that in South Africa, as in every other part of the British Commonwealth, the workers are giving of their best, they don’t want to be harried and rushed, and you have to recognise their limitations. We have experience that in various walks of life you cannot overwork permanently. It is an impossibility. Then comes this other point. You may at once accuse me, and I think my hon. friend over there will certainly say “with all this blood and thunder that you have been pouring out here lately about the necessity of conserving the energies of the workers by shortening their hours, you are only giving them two hours in the week; in other words, they have been crying for bread and you now give them a stone.”

Hear, hear.

That is legitimate criticism, if genuine, and I hope it is genuine, it is a criticism which I am bound to say I appreciate. In view of all the circumstances, and in consultation with organisations of workers concerned, namely, the Trades and Labour Council, the Cape Federation of Trades, and other organised bodies who do not happen to be affiliated with them at the moment, it has been agreed that in all the circumstances we will accept a 46-hour week. That I am now offering in this Bill to the kind attention of hon. members, and I hope they will pass it in that form. Now comes another aspect of the matter. Unfortunately we find that we have to work our workers more than 46 hours a week. We find, in the course of our experience, that we have to do that in our present disorganised state of organisation, if I may be permitted the paradox. Overtime must be worked, and in view of the constant strain of that work we say to the employer: “You must pay these employees extra pay for the extra effort they are putting forward.” We don’t condone overtime, we don’t want it, I want to make overtime so expensive that employers will find it better to organise their industry in another way, so that overtime will not be necessary.

Break-downs will occur.

Organised labour recognises that break-downs will occur, and other incidents demanding an extra effort and extra time. But those instances are met at once. What we are dealing with at the moment is regular overtime, which is undoubtedly being worked at the present time. As an additional urge to hon. members to accept my dictum that shorter hours are better, even in war time, from all points of view, I will put before you the experience of England at the present time, where they have that anathema to my hon. friend, a controller of labour. In England they have a controller of labour in Mr. Bevin, a man completely sound in his outlook from the industrial point of view, and because of that soundness he was put in charge of the manpower of England. In order to get the background correctly, you have to remember that Great Britain is right in the war centre, right up against it, more so than we are in every respect. Not only is the war contiguous to them, but they have had to catch up with their manufacture of munitions and armaments, and consequently they have got to go all out. In the beginning they did what we are doing here in South Africa, they worked everybody all the hours it is possible for them to stand, and what have they discovered? They discovered that production both in quantity and quality has gone down.

You are trying the same system here.

No, I am making a concession, my hon. friend must understand, unfortunately, to the prejudices of others. I am confident that our experience in the next twelve or eighteen months will be of a similar character to that in England, and we shall adopt similar measures. Mr. Bevin has had to arrange that workers all over England must have their week-end rest, a complete week-end rest of two days, and he has organised relief gangs so that the workers get not half a day, nor a day and a half, but two whole days rest.

What are their hours now?

I do not know, the point is that their ordinary normal hours having been exceeded in the form of overtime for some considerable time, the result was that work was inefficient and ineffectual on this very important war production. Mr. Bevin has organised these gangs in relief so that everybody has a week-end off. I want to be able to do that here presently, and that will engage the attention not only of my hon. friend over there, but the attention of the controller of labour, whom he spoke of so sneeringly just now, not of course in his person, but in his office.

Under the direction of your Prime Minister and his record.

I think hon. members should permit the hon. Minister to proceed without interruption.

I don’t want the House to be under any misapprehension. Although there is an explanatory memorandum, which gives you most of the important details, yet so that there shall be no misunderstanding, we are raising the overtime rates from time and a quarter under the present Act, to time and a third in the present Bill. I have heard people say, not workers, but those who are employers, that the workers should be patriotic and not demand extra pay over and above the ordinary overtime pay for the extra time they they are putting in on war work. “Be patriotic” they say. I say to those employers, thank heaven there are not many of them, and I say to anybody who may be prepared to support that point of view, that “Until you, Mr. Employer, abandon your profits, until you are prepared yourself to undertake manufacture and want nothing extra, you have no right to reproach workers for demanding an extra fee for the extra work they are putting in.” It is not without our knowledge that profits have increased inordinately as the result of the opportunities presented by the war to these people who are industrially controlling the war industries of this country. We recognise that there are certain people who will take advantage of the opportunities presented to them, and one of the ways for combating that is what I am proposing now. I don’t want to weary the House, but also I don’t want to earn the reproach that I have not dealt sufficiently with the Bill itself. Another objection which has been advanced to the 46 hours is the alleged difficulty of divisibility, but there is no difficulty there at all. At one time in my experience of industry, we had a 60-hour week which was easily divisible into 10 hours a day. Then we had a 54-hour week, which was equally easily divisible. Then we had 48 hours, which presented no difficulties. As a matter of fact you can divide the hours of work quite easily if you desire to do it. It is all a question of organisation, and I will say this to employers who advance that as an argument, that if that is their only objection, they must be mighty bad organisers if they cannot fix it in order to suit circumstances. Another matter that I am going to deal with is that of continuous industries, power stations and things of that description, where operation is going on all the time. Here the Minister takes power under one clause so that the workers shall have their eight-hour shift in continuous industry. That is a concession agreed upon by organised labour. I now come to a point which I am sure will appeal to the lady members of the House, because I know it is a subject dear to their hearts, and that is the question of maternity benefit, the women’s confinement allowance. The position is that we are prohibiting the working by women for a certain period before confinement and a certain period afterwards, and in consequence of that we must compensate them for loss of wages. We don’t entirely compensate them, unfortunately, but we do pretty nearly. We are increasing the period before and after. At the present time it is four weeks before and eight weeks after. That is in the present Act, and we are increasing the period before to eight weeks.

At their option.

Oh yes, shall we put it this way, it carries a guarantee. We are also raising the amount of pay from £1 to £1 5s. a week, and their wages are not counted against them. Another thing that is new in this Bill, we are including building work and other dangerous occupations which are not in the present Act. I want to assure hon. members that we do not propose to dislocate industry by introducing this all over the country at once, but as rapidly as we possibly can we shall do it, and then as indicated at the beginning, we are applying the terms of this Bill when it becomes an Act, to workshops under the State, with the exception of the Railway Department. At first when we drafted the Bill, we put in all State departments, including the Railways, but when we came to see how it could be applied, we found that there was so much complexity in the working of this huge unit, the Railways, that off-hand we could not see how it could be applied, and to what extent it could be applied. But the principle is accepted, and a committee is being set up, a joint committee of the Railways and my department, which will examine how we can apply this principle in the best way. It is only a question of time when the whole of the Act will be applied to the Railways.

Is that a definite promise?

It is not only a promise, but a determination. We also bring educational and charitable institutions in for the first time. That may raise some opposition from hon. members, but we are bringing these things in because more and more such institutions are entering into competition with industries. We have already laundries and other activities of various kinds which I cannot think of at the moment, actually engaged in competition with similar concerns outside, and we feel that in these circumstances provisions that are applicable to outside concerns should also be applied to such institutions. I will go further and say that even if they are not working for gain, there should be no necessity for them to remain outside the range of these provisions from the health, ventilation and sanitary points of view. Now I come to this new provision which anticipatory critics say exercises control which never existed before. I understand the municipalities are up in arms, and great play has been made of the fact that now this great State institution, the Department of Labour, is concerned with the electric iron of the housewife. Well, we always have been, and it is a most remarkable tribute to the tactful way in which the Labour Department deals with municipalities and enterprises, that the municipalities themselves did not know they were under this Act. So far as irons are concerned, electric irons, we have always had the power to enquire into any serious accident resulting from defective irons, stoves or anything else, but it has been in collaboration and consultation with the municipalities themselves, and no difficulty has been experienced, nor do we anticipate any now. It is very necessary to control these electrical installations. Whilst we do not and shall not interfere with the power supply institutions of the country, we shall not and do not interfere with the municipal electrical enterprise, whether manufacturing or distributing, yet we recognise that electricity is coming more and more into use in the small country dorps, and I submit from our experience, that it is not only advisable but necessary that we should control the manner in which electric current is produced and distributed by the small municipal enterprises in the country. When I tell the House, sir, that I myself have seen advertisements for qualified electrical engineers at £25 a month, I need say no more as to the necessity for controlling electrical productive enterprises in small municipalities. We propose to do that. One more thing I want to refer to as new in this Bill, and that is the provision of two weeks annual leave with full pay for every worker. That is not a new thing in industrial life. It has been voluntarily conceded in some cases, and I take my hat off to those industries that have so voluntarily conceded it. We now propose to make that obligatory upon industry, every man and every woman engaged there in productive or other work has a right to his or her annual leave, when they can get released from the mental and physical strain of their ordinary avocation, and live their own lives for one brief period of a fortnight.

Does this apply to the agricultural industry?

No, it will apply to the manufacture of agricultural products, but it will not apply to the agricultural industry. My hon. friend must realise, and I have to admit it, that in our development we have not reached that stage when we can apply these things rigidly to the countryside, or to rural industries. Well, we prohibit our work. I hope that meets with the approval of hon. members over there.

Why should it?

We have at present under the present Act a system of control, and this applies particularly to the textile industry, to workers in that industry, garment workers and so on. We have a system of control by which goods are labelled as having been made or constructed or manufactured under hygienic conditions. It has proved to be completely ineffectual— it has broken down, and one does not know whether these goods have been manufactured or produced under hygienic conditions or not. And consequently we have decided now to prohibit out work—not in its entirety, but to give certificates of a very effective character. A great deal of play has been made of the powers of the Minister.

Quite right, too.

I say that it is unavoidable, and it is essential that the Minister should have wide powers in administering the position under the Act. I have met organised labour in connection with this, in fact with the whole Bill.

But you have not done what they wanted.

And one of them said to me: “Now look, under your powers of discrimination you can say that a person who wears glasses will not be allowed to work here or there, surely that is all wrong.” And by saying that he gave the very reason why I should have these discriminatory powers. Because it is very essential that in certain circumstances a person wearing glasses should not be allowed to work in a particular industry. And if hon. members were to sit down and were to think seriously of all the ramifications and complications of legislation such as this, they would realise how necessary it is for the Minister to have wide powers of discrimination.

Why did you withdraw the segregation clause?

I shall deal with that just now. No, I shall deal with it at once. I want to point out that I said earlier on that I did not propose to deal with every clause in detail, clause by clause, just now. I was going to do that in Committee.

But this is a very important principle.

When we come to each clause in turn I shall go as far as my poor capacity permits me into the fullest possible explanation of every individual clause. Now I propose to give the hon. member an explanation. There was no segregation clause in the Bill.

Then why withdraw it?

Let my hon. friend be fair—he can never accuse me of hiding anything. There was a clause which was averred by a large section of the community as giving the Minister the power to discriminate in the matter of race, colour, creed or anything else. And as that was not my intention, on account of the representations made to me, in consultation with many people, we evolved a substitute.

That is one way out of it.

The objection to it was largely psychological, and I admit, and I admit it at once, that when we had these consultations I agreed that neither I, nor anyone else, has the right to upset the susceptibilities of anyone, and so far as I was able to do I departed from the phraseology which gave the impression that such differentiations were to be made. I therefore withdrew that clause and my hon. friend, if he studies the Bill, will see that I provide for it under the regulations.

Oh, yes.

Do you want any more than that?

Yes, a lot more.

Then my hon. friend will have the opportunity of saying so.

It is a vital principle.

Well, that is the hon. member’s attitude of mind. The hon. member has every right to it, and he can express his views.

Was that one of the errors in the translation?

No, it was not.

Has that Labour policy of theirs come out of the printer’s hands yet?

Don’t you worry about our labour policy—we at any rate have one and do not run away from it.

I know that my friends over there hold very strong views in certain directions.

Yes, that is more than you have.

They would relegate the coloured and the native population of South Africa to the job of being the hewers of wood and the drawers of water.

You have forgotten all about the Labour Party’s cardinal principles.

The Labour Party’s cardinal principle has never been that. The Labour Party has always set its face against the employment of people because of their being cheaper—because of their colour.

No, you stood for segregation.

Oh, that is a very different pair of shoes; the Labour Party still has that policy. “Separation” not “segregation.” We say that it is in the interest of the native people, leaving out the coloured people, and of the Europeans alike, that we should be divorced territorially, socially and in every other way, and, rightly or wrongly, that is our policy.

Why don’t you put that in the Bill?

You cannot do that because they are living among us at present.

We want their labour.

And those Opposition members want to have cheap labour.

Yes, that is so. They want cheap labour; they will not support my separation policy—not segregation—because they want their labour and they want it cheap, and they want to be able to do what they like with it.

They will not apply it to their own homes.

The point is this—the natives and coloured people are among us.

Whose fault is that?

I am not responsible for that. They are part of our body politic, they are engaged in our industries, but there are too things which we want to lay down as definite, in connection with that matter, and that is that no person shall be employed or disemployed on account of his colour, no person shall be employed or disemployed because he is cheap. You must have a standard rate of pay for work done and the employer must have the responsibility for whomsoever he may employ.

No objection to that.

Thank you very much.

Well, now we may be able to get on.

Now I feel encouraged. I was kicking against the pricks up to now. I was worrying about the future but now we can get on. My hon. friend says that there is nothing very much wrong with it.

I said there was no objection.

I thank him very much. I am afraid I have kept the House an unconscionable time. Despite the interruptions I have dealt with the salient features of the Bill. Each clause will be dealt with seriatim, and I shall take that opportunity of dealing with each point as it crops up. I commit this now to the attention and the goodwill of the House in the hope that every member will be made to realise that the underlying principles of this Bill aim to do something towards the uplift of the workers, for the welfare of the workers, and that this Bill will receive the unanimous support of all sides.

The most remarkable thing about the Minister’s speech was that he revealed the commencement of a wonderful romance. The Minister has fallen in love with himself.

You could not have a better subject.

It would be better than to fall in love with you.

May Heaven forbid that. The Minister utilised at least ten or fifteen minutes of his hour’s speech in telling the House what a wonderfully good chap he was, and what wonderfully good chaps his colleagues were, and what a wonderfully good thing he had done in introducing this measure into the House. I want to start where the Minister left off.

You have to live a long time before you can do that.

That is, in regard to the withdrawal of this very important section of the Bill, section 24 (4), and the alteration of section 24 (3). I asked the Minister across the floor of the House why he withdrew this section. He replied first of all that he did not consider it a matter of principle, that certain representations had been made to him, that it was not his aim to discriminate between races, and that consequently he decided to withdraw it. But on Monday afternoon, when the Minister asked for leave to withdraw the original Bill, I asked him the question whether he intended withdrawing from or adding any new principle to the Bill. He replied: “No.” On Monday afternoon he said that the only reason for withdrawing the Bill was the very bad Afrikaans translation.

Quite true.

He stated that the reason for the withdrawal of the Bill was the bad Afrikaans translation, and he gave the House the assurance that he had no intention of altering any provision in the Bill.

I have not done so.

I also asked the Minister personally some questions about it, at about four o’clock yesterday afternoon. It was outside the House. I said that I had heard that considerable pressure had been brought to bear upon him to withdraw this segregation provision. I said to him: “Are you doing it, are you withdrawing this section about segregation?” He said: “No, I am not withdrawing that section, I am standing by it.”

I suppose you are imagining that.

I have half a dozen witnesses. He said that section was a compromise.

That is so.

I don’t know with whom he compromised about it, but the point is that he said he had no intention of withdrawing it. The Bill must have been printed by that time.

You have no right to repeat lobby conversations.

If my hon. friend will keep quiet, I shall tell him. This morning when the Bill was submitted and I looked at it, I immediately noticed that this most important provision, a provision which should have been included in our factory legislation years ago, and in fact should be included in all our industrial legislation, had been withdrawn by the Minister.

Is that your new Labour policy?

What has become of your Labour policy?

I want the House to understand very clearly what this action of the Minister’s means. After giving a definite assurance on the floor of the House that he was not withdrawing any important provision in this Bill, after giving a personal assurance that he was not withdrawing this particular provision, without saying a word he presents the Bill on the morning of the day when it is to be read a second time with this important provision actually withdrawn. [Laughter.] There is nothing to laugh at.

It is not true.

It is a lie.

I know that I shall never have any private conversation with you again. You distort what I said.

I can come to only one conclusion, and that is that the Minister has been deliberately untruthful.

Is the hon. member entitled to say that the Minister has been deliberately untruthful?

Did the hon. member say that?

I said that the Minister was deliberately untruthful.

Then the hon. member must withdraw it, and apologise to the Minister. It is not Parliamentary.

Very well, I withdraw it and I apologise. But the fact remains that the Minister gave an assurance to this House knowing that he had no intention of carrying it out. The Minister said that he would not withdraw a single provision, but, in spite of that assurance, he did withdraw this clause.

I never said anything of the sort.

I think that every member of the House will draw his own conclusions from the Minister’s attitude in regard to this matter.

You are repeating a private conversation.

I don’t mind that, but I object to it being distorted.

The hon. the Minister says that this is not an important principle. I am going to deal with that. The original Bill, section 24 (4), reads thus—

In other words, he had the power where there is undesirable contact between the races in any factory of preventing that undesirable contact. It has been brought to the notice of the Minister and to the notice of this House for very many years past that there exists in a very large number of establishments this most undesirable contact. But, says the Minister, it is not an important principle. He says the objections raised were mostly psychological objections; he did not consider it sufficiently important and and therefore he withdrew it. We waited for the Minister to give us his reasons for originally inserting this provision if he did not consider it important. We waited, however, in vain. I am going to move at a later stage that this Bill be referred to a Select Committee. Apart from withdrawing one of its most important provisions, the Minister, in placing this Bill in its present form before the House, is insulting the intelligence of hon. members. He is submitting a Bill which has been hastily drawn up, badly constructed, containing provisions which should not be there at all, while other important provisions have been omitted, and on the whole a Bill which will make this a measure which will confer very little, if any benefit at all, on the people it is intended to benefit. It appears that the Minister had a dozen and one ideas and suggestions—he took the whole lot together with the original Bill, put the whole lot into a pot—put the pot on the fire and allowed it to boil. Now he has taken that concoction and put it in the form of a Bill before the House. The House has come to associate that type of Bill with the Minister of Labour. In his speech he admitted that there is very little in this Bill that is new. He spoke for about fifteen minutes on this wonderful concession of 46 hours per week. He made it appear as if it was something new, but a 46-hour week is laid down in the Shops and Offices Act which was passed in 1939. In a number of wage determinations a 44-hour week is provided for. The Minister comes here and pleads with his own party not to oppose it. I say that this Bill is badly drawn—as usual. There are serious omissions, there are very few improvements, there is very little original and very few labour party principles have been included in the Bill, such as one would expect from a Minister who is supposed to be a representative of labour! I am going to divide my criticisms under four heads. First of all I am going to deal with what I consider the serious omissions; secondly I am going to deal with essential improvements; thirdly with less important improvements, and fourthly with more or less minor omissions. Now let me deal with the serious omissions. These are mostly matters which the Labour Party has stood for for years.

Are you taking the Labour Party principles over now?

Where is the provision for a minimum wage in this Bill? The Minister will say that this Bill does not deal with wages. I admit that. The Minister will say that there are Industrial Council agreements and Wage Determinations to deal with that, and that this Bill only deals with hours of labour and payment of overtime. But knowing that the present Government will never introduce a general measure providing for a minimum wage, I say that it is necessary that a start be made in this Bill.

Then why not start with agriculture?

We are now dealing with this Bill—a Bill which will apply to over 10,000 establishments, and to over 350,000 employees.

Of how much?

New Zealand, which has a Labour Party Government and which, when those hon. members were on the Opposition benches was continually held up in this House as the finest Government in the world …

Well, they have not got any Nats.

There they have a definite provision for a minimum wage in their Factories Act. I think it is therefore competent for this House to introduce a similar provision in this Bill. This is the first piece of industrial legislation with any hope of reaching the Statute Book that has as yet been introduced by the present Government, consequently a minimum wage for unskilled labour should be provided for.

Do you want it for all industries? Agriculture, too?

Yes, but make a start with it in this Bill.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I draw your attention to all these interruptions.

That is not a point of order.

I might say that in regard to this matter …

Do you want it for agriculture, too?

If hon. members continue with these interruptions I shall have to deal with them.

I want to say that in regard to this minimum wage, it is reasonable to ask the Minister for Labour to make some provision in this Bill. The Minister for Labour has pleaded year in and year out when he was in opposition for a large number of improvements in the workers conditions which he has now evidently forgotten all about, and which he has now no intention of introducing. I find that even in the so-called programme of principles of the Labour Party on which they fought the 1938 election they definitely asked for a statutory minimum wage to provide an adequate standard of living for the workers. What are the conditions to-day in a large number of factories? Does the Minister consider that a wage of 25/- or 30/- per week for European workers is an adequate wage? Does he consider with the present constitution of the Wage Board that that minimum scale will ever be increased? We are only asking the Minister to carry out his own policy which he has stood for for so many years. Will the Minister stand up and say that he considers the present wages of factory workers adequate? Is there no possibility of an increase under the present Government? Does the Minister consider that these wages provide an adequate standard of living for workers? I consider it essential that a start should be made and that provision should be made in this Bill, which is the most important legislation which we have had before us this session—for a minimum wage.

For all workers?

I am dealing with factory workers at present, but I have no objection to a minimum wage for all workers. Let that be very definite. I am not laying down any particular figure. I am placing the onus on the Minister of Labour to say what he considers an adequate wage to ensure an adequate standard of living.

Are you speaking for your party, or only for yourself?

I am speaking for the party, and for myself. There is another serious omission in this Bill, and that is that no provision has been made for sick leave. The Minister will probably reply that sick leave is provided for under industrial agreements and wage determinations. That is so. In a large number of industrial agreements provision is made for sick leave, but it is usually a very inadequate provision. In order to obtain uniformity and improvement, it should have been provided for in this Bill. You find provision for sick leave in certain wage determinations—for instance, you have the wage determination for the private hotels and boarding-houses which provide for paid sick leave for seven days in the year, and for payment at the rate of one-seventh of the wage. You have provision in the broommaking industry. Six days’ sick leave on the basis of one-sixth of the full wage. In the candle industry, six days. But take the diamond cutting industry; there we have a wage determination, too. We find a maximum of 12 weeks’ sick leave per year provided for, with a maximum of 10s. per day, or £3 per week. In the Industrial Council agreements for a large number of industries provision for paid sick leave is made. There is, however, no uniformity in regard to this matter. Every wage determination and every Industrial Council agreement makes different provision in regard to sick leave and sick pay. It is essential that some provision should have been inserted in this Bill providing for paid sick leave. The number of days allowed and the payment therefor should have been laid down. In section 21 of the Bill some mention is made of illness and sick leave. It says that if any employee is absent from work owing to illness, or by reason of the prohibition contained in section 21, that will be considered to be a continuous period of employment. But they limit that to thirty days per year. In this Bill it is admitted that an employee might become ill. He is allowed thirty days’ leave without pay per year, but no provision is made for these employees being paid while on sick leave. The Minister will agree that paid sick leave is more important than annual leave. What is the position to-day? You will find that many workers are compelled to work continually; even if they are ill they cannot afford to remain at home, they cannot even afford the medical expenses. That is one of the most important provisions which the Bill should have contained. Paid sick leave should be provided for every worker in any industry. In New Zealand they have no provision for sick leave in their Factories Act, but they have a Social Security Act providing for health insurance, and in that there is adequate provision for sick leave. It provides for a maximum of £4 per week for married men with children.

They pay 5 per cent. for that.

Yes, it is contributory, but this could be contributory too.

You cannot deal with it in this Bill.

Why not? We shall never have a general Bill providing for health insurance from the present Government, consequently the only thing to do is to persuade the Minister to insert it in an industrial Bill such as this. Now I come to what I consider to be essential improvements which should be made in the provisions of this Bill. First, with regard to hours of work, the Minister, for about fifteen minutes, endeavoured to persuade his side of the House of the advisability of reducing the work week from 48 to 46 hours. He admitted that he personally was in favour of the 36-hour week, and that he would favourably consider a reduction in committee. In 1938 the Labour Party promised that legislation would be introduced for shorter hours based on a 35-hour week. After all, I don’t suppose the Minister considers that one hour will make much difference. In this Bill he has made provision for a 46-hour week. That has already been done, as I said, by a former Government, in the Shops and Offices Act. In that Act provision is made for a 46-hour week. In this Bill the Minister assumes the power to increase the number of hours, whereas in the Shops and Offices Act no such power exists. In the present Bill the Minister has the power where any activity is continuous to increase the hours to 48. I cannot see why the hours should be increased, even if activity is continuous, because adequate provision can be made without increasing the hours. But, apart from that, surely it would not have been too much to expect from the hon. Minister the introduction of a 44-hour week. That, I think, would have given general satisfaction. He has said that he personally stands for a 36-hour week, and surely he could have compromised with his own conscience to the extent of introducing a Bill providing for a 44-hour week. I consider that an essential provision. Again, I want to refer him to New Zealand legislation. Why I am continually doing that is because when the hon. Minister was on these benches, he was continually quoting New Zealand as an example. That is why I am now also quoting New Zealand, and expecting the Minister to live up to his laudation of that country in the past. In New Zealand they have a 40-hour week, and they have had it for many years. I want to urge on the Minister that he should seriously consider the introduction of at least a 44-hour week. The Minister also referred to a certain objection to the very wide and numerous powers that he has under this Bill. I certainly agree with those objections. The powers that the Minister has under this Bill are powers of such a nature that he can nullify any of its important provisions. Under Section 52, he can suspend practically every important provision of the Bill, and I want to say that personally I don’t trust the Minister with these powers, not after his exhibition to-day. We cannot possibly allow the Minister powers such as these. I feel sure that the Minister will probably abuse these powers if he has them, and if he does not abuse them he will probably give way to pressure brought to bear on him by his own side of the House. I want to suggest that instead of the Minister assuming all these powers, instead of giving him such very wide powers, he might take into consideration the possibility of creating some central authority. In the Factories Act of New Zealand a Board of Arbitrators is provided for. I want this Bill to go further and say that this central authority that I propose shall also have the powers which are now entrusted to inspectors. Under this Bill the inspector has the power of refusing to register a factory, and to demand certain alterations to be done before a factory is registered. A number of other very important powers are relegated to the inspectors. Those powers should be in the hands of a central authority. On that central authority I should like to see a representative of the workers, a representative of the employers, and in independent chairman nominated by the Minister. My time is so limited that I cannot go into this question fully. I will, however, do so in the Committee stage. Under section 14 of the Bill, it is provided that if in the opinion of the inspector the owner or manager of a factory has failed to comply with the provisions of any regulations referred to in Sections 54 and 55, the inspector has power to take certain steps. This is a very wide power which should not be vested in the inspector. I know that provision is made for an eventual appeal to the Minister, but I want to ask, how can the hon. Minister deal with appeals coming forward from about 6,000 establishments? That is an impossibility, and apart from that, the Minister himself or the person he may delegate to exercise his powers, may have very little knowledge of the conditions obtaining in the factory under consideration. Then under Section 15, if premises become unsuitable for use, an inspector has the power to cancel the registration, and the inspector determines the unsuitability of the premises. In other words, he can say which factory is suitable, and which is not suitable, and the owner of the factory concerned has only one appeal, and that is to the Minister direct. It should not be within the scope of any officer of the Government to decide important questions such as these, there should be some central authority between the inspector on the one side, and the Minister on the other, a central impartial body that should consider any recommendations of the inspector, and then if necessary, leave the eventual appeal with the Minister if the appellant is dissatisfied with the decision of the central authority. Then there is another section 24, sub-section (2), which contains a very important provision. That sub-section empowers the inspector if he considers any employee, through illness, unsuitable for any employment of unsuited for employment in any particular factory, to prohibit that employee from being so employed. Again, there is an appeal to the Minister provided for. The employee is allowed to obtain a certificate from a private doctor, and the Minister considers the certificate, and in consultation with the Public Health Department gives his decision. Here again you have arbitrary powers given to the inspector to deprive any employee of his livelihood, and the only appeal is to the Minister himself. I don’t think that is a satisfactory state of affairs. There should be some more important authority to judge and deal with such a matter. Recommendation should come, in the first instance, from the inspector to the central authority, and thereafter to the Minister. Under Section 33 also, arbitrary powers are given to the inspector in regard to any enquiry into a contravention of the regulations. If the inspector does not consider evidence necessary or desirable, and the accused person wants to call any witnesses, he must first submit his request to call those witnesses to the inspector, and only when the inspector considers that evidence to be necessary can he give his permission for the witnesses to be called and their fees paid. In any other case where the inspector does not consider it necessary, he can request the person who wants to issue a summons to deposit a certain amount to cover the necessary expenses. Why should the inspector have these arbitrary powers? Surely it would be more satisfactory to set up some central impartial authority to consider the matter. I have only mentioned a few of the very important powers of the inspector, and the very wide powers of the Minister. I consider it absolutely essential that some central authority should be created, some impartial body to deal with the registration of factories, and the cancellation of registration, and all matters relating to employer and employee. That would be much more satisfactory than the present provisions. The Minister has mentioned overtime, and he said, strangely enough, that it is impossible under our present system to eliminate overtime altogether. Immediately after that, however, he went on to say that he was going to ta ckle it, and eventually eliminate overtime by increasing the rate of payment for overtime work. He feels that by increasing the rate it will be unprofitable for the employer to allow his employees to work overtime. Well, sir, the Minister has increased the rate, and that is one of the few original things the Minister has done. He has increased the rate from one and a quarter to one and a third of the ordinary rate, but, sir, I think the Minister will agree with me—he certainly would have agreed with me two years ago but I am not sure of him now—that the result of overtime is that less persons are employed. That is merely another form of exploitation. The Minister knows quite well that if no overtime is worked more people are employed, and he also knows that it certainly is not in the interests of any employee to work overtime. He realises that to such an extent that he intends to limit the number of hours that can be worked overtime. Section 19 of the Bill deals with that, and I may say in passing, that it confers very arbitrary powers on the inspector, who is the only one to decide whether an employee should work on Sunday or work extended hours. The Minister limits the number of hours for working overtime to ten hours in any one week, and he admits by implication that overtime is undesirable and should be reduced. Now what does payment of time and a third mean to the woman worker who receives 25s. or 30s. per week? It means that if a woman works one hour overtime at the present rate she receives precisely 10d. for that hour. Does the hon. Minister consider that to be adequate? In New Zealand they make provision for a minimum payment of 1s. 6d. per hour, and I ask why does not the Minister do the same, why not make provision for a minimum payment? Make it 1s. an hour.

You will kill our industries.

You are killing the workers.

Any industry that is there solely for the purpose of providingprofits, and which is not able to pay a living wage, has no justification for existence. As far as overtime is concerned, the Minister should at least provide for the payment of time and a half of the ordinary rate. He provides double pay for Sundays, and surely overtime is just as important as working on Sunday. One and a half times the ordinary rate should be the rate of payment for overtime, in addition to a minimum amount of say 1s. per hour. The Minister should also limit the number of hours. Instead of allowing ten hours’ overtime in any one week he should reduce that to six hours. That will provide more employment. He admits overtime is undesirable, and that it is his aim to reduce overtime, so why does he not make a real start in this Bill to eventually eliminate it altogether? In Section 20 he provides for payment for holidays and Sundays. If an employee is compelled to work on Sunday, he shall receive double pay, or one day’s holiday must be given within seven days. I want to suggest where it is absolutely essential that the Sunday should be worked—I may say in the Shops and Offices Act, Sunday work is completely eliminated—but where it is absolutely essential that Sunday should be worked, it should at least be provided for that the worker should have the option of stating whether he wants pay or a day added to his annual leave. In that way you will really benefit the worker by granting additional annual leave, which is much more beneficial than merely taking one day off in a week. The Bill provides for the payment of four days’ holiday—Good Friday, Dingaan’s Day, Christmas and New Year’s Days. The Shops and Offices Act provides for the payment of all public holidays. In New Zealand the Factories Act provides for the payment of six holidays. Surely the Minister might insert a provision making it compulsory to pay for all public holidays. We will move an amendment to this effect at a later stage, and I think included in these public holidays should be the 1st May and 10th October. I come to another very important provision, namely, in regard to the confinement allowance, Section 23. The Minister has taken considerable credit for increasing the period of payment to eight weeks prior to confinement and increasing the maximum rate to £1 5s. In an interjection I said the additional four weeks was merely optional, and the Minister could not follow it at the time. The provision made in this Bill is as in the Shops and Offices Act, namely, four weeks prior and eight weeks after confinement, but it gives the Minister power to allow an additional four weeks. There is another very important provision which is not contained in the Shops and Offices Act, and that is that if a child is still-born, or dies within eight weeks after birth, the provisions of this sub-section shall cease to apply. I move as an amendment—

[Time limit.]

I wish to second the amendment. We listened this afternoon to the introductory speech by the Minister of Labour, and he started off by saying that the Bill which he was now introducing was the first of a series of Bills which he was going to introduce in connection with the social uplift of the workers of the country. If the whole series of Bills which he is going to introduce is like this first one which constitutes the first step he is taking for the uplift of the workers of the country, I am afraid that we can expect nothing or very little for the future. We know the Minister of Labour, and this Bill means very little indeed. The Minister is having a chat now with the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge). I can quite imagine that the hon. member for Troyeville is telling the Minister that he must try to get the farmers as well under the provisions of the Bill. I want to say, however, that the Minister promised us two Bills last year, but he failed to carry out his promise. What value can we attach to his promises? If he wants to improve the conditions of the workers, then surely the least we can expect is that when introducing his Bill he would tell us what the condition of the workers is. It is true that he has given this House a memorandum, and one would have expected that memorandum to explain the necessity for the introduction of this Bill, but even in that explanatory memorandum one gets practically nothing. What one gets in the memorandum one can also read in the Bill, if one takes the trouble to read it. After this afternoon’s display, when the Minister was uncertain in respect of quite a number of things, I doubt very much whether he himself has even read the Bill. But what is the reason which is given in his explanatory memorandum for the introduction of this Bill? The only reason given there is that the Minister expects expansion to take place, but we do not find a word in his explanatory memorandum telling us that he regards their condition as unsound and unbearable. The only reason he gives for the introduction of this Bill is that he says that powers are given to the Governor-General to extend the definition of “factory” by adding workers who are at the present moment not included under the provision of the old Factory Act. Those powers are required, so it is said, in view of the expected industrial expansion. The Minister expects an expansion in respect of industrial matters, and in view of that expectation he wants to bring certain people who did not fall under the old Factory Act of 1918 as amended in 1931 under the provisions of the Bill. But what we had expected from the Minister was that before bringing this measure before Parliament he should have made himself conversant with the conditions prevailing in the country in regard to our factory workers. I want to put a question to him, and I want to know from him whether he has taken the trouble to make an investigation into those conditions. What is the actual position of the people falling under the old Factory Act? The Minister comes here before us an introduces a Bill, and he takes unto himself the right to declare that the object of this Bill is to improve the conditions of the workers, and then he says that he is the first Minister who has come before this House with a wonderful Bill of this kind. He spent a great deal of his time declaring his loyalty towards the Prime Minister, and he also explained the relationship prevailing in the Cabinet. I do not know whether anything has happened in the Cabinet. Has anything occurred making it necessary for him to make a statement like that? What particularly struck us was the fact that he had to take up such a lot of time in order to give expression to his own personal loyalty to the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance. Surely these things make us wonder what has happened, and what is the reason for his making a statement like that. Has there been a difference of opinion, and what has the dispute been about? I shall come back to this point later on, because the Minister has withdrawn one of the most important provisions in the original Bill. If the Minister really takes an interest, as he told us this afternoon, in the condition of the workers, and if he has informed himself of what those conditions are, and he comes along with legislation to improve those conditions as he contends, then I want to ask him whether he is in a position to tell us what those mal-conditions are. I do not know whether he has made any investigation, whether he knows what the condition of those people really is, but may I be allowed to refer him to a brochure which I have here which was written by a member of the Board of Trade and Industries, a man who has to deal with these matters and who enquires into unsound economic conditions in the country—and there are thousands and thousands of workers to-day who are in an unsound economic condition. What does Dr. A. J. Norval, a member of the Board of Trade and Industries, say about the condition in our industries? Is that condition sound, or is it necessary for an improvement to be made, and if an improvement has to be brought about what is the part which the State has to take in that connection, and in what way has the Minister of Labour to bring about improvements in that condition? Let us look back at the history of these matters—for the past twenty years or more we can find page upon page in Hansard showing that the present Minister of Labour used to get up in this House and paint the conditions of the workers in their full nakedness. He pleads here with all the force of reason for improvements being brought about. For the information of the Minister I just want to read these few extracts from Dr. Norval’s brochure. First of all he says this—

That is the general malcondition which he refers to.

I am aware of the fact that there are such malconditions.

Yes, but what steps have you taken, or what provision have you made in this proposed legislation to prevent these things? The Minister has not mentioned a single thing in his speech on the second reading to show what he has put into this Bill in order to improve these malconditions. The author of the brochure goes on to say this—

The Minister did not say anything about this. He has not made any proposal for the improvement of the conditions prevailing among the people in the factories, and he has not said a word about the treatment which they have to submit to. He tells us that the only reason for the introduction of this Bill is that he is expecting an expansion of our industries. I go on to quote from the brochure—

And here he speaks of our industries when he says—

The writer then comes to this conclusion—

These are the words of a man of authority, and he has described the conditions prevailing in our factory life. Has the Minister put forward any suggestion in order to improve that malcondition. I ask the Minister whether he is prepared to agree with what has been emphasised here by the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. B. J. Schoeman) that he, as Minister of Labour, must see to it that in such factories a proper wage shall be paid to the workers and that those malconditions shall be done away with, conditions under which the money gods live in luxury while, as the writer puts it, another section has to live under conditions not fit for human beings.

What do you know of industries?

I notice that on the other side of the House we have some of these industrial Hoggenheimers who are not prepared to pay the workers a decent wage for the work they have to do. That is the reason why we get these interjections.

But what do you know about industries?

I can see from the hon. member’s colour that these things effect him very deeply. We have the statement here from a man of authority, from a responsible individual, about the conditions under which a section of our factory workers have to live, and he says—

I again put the question to the Minister of Labour: Are you prepared to take steps, and will you insert provisions in this Bill to see to it that those people are paid an honest and decent wage for an honest day’s work? In order to supplement what the hon. member for Fordsburg has said here I just want to say that this Bill gives tremendous, one might say excessive, powers to the Minister. The question now is whether this House can entrust the Minister with such excessive powers. Will he, in carrying out those powers, stand by the convictions which he has held for years, and will he stand by the conception that he must look after the welfare of the people, or will he again be subject to Cabinet pressure and to the pressure which the capitalists among his supporters opposite are bringing to bear on him, and will he again give way to that pressure? Which is going to be the deciding factor? Last year the Minister came forward with promises, and we know what has become of those promises. He had to give way to the pressure from the other side of the House. This year he has again come along with promises and again pressure has been brought to bear on him, which he has given way to. He has given way and he is not giving effect to those promises of his. For those reasons we seriously object to such excessive powers being given to the Minister of Labour. I should like to refresh the Minister’s memory a bit. The measures which are being consolidated by this Bill were passed in 1918 and in 1931. The original Act was passed in 1918 and it was amended by the law of 1931. Now let me remind the Minister of what he said in those days. He has been in this House for a long time and what was his plea in 1918 when the original law was introduced?

Yes, and what did your party do when you were in power?

I only want to express the hope that the Minister will be true to his past ideals. Perhaps I should add that the Minister was not in the Cabinet in those days. When the principal Act was introduced in 1918 the present Minister of Labour said this—

He objected to too much being left to the Minister’s power to make regulations and to make provision for certain things by means of regulations. That was his objection in 1918. Those provisions which were made by means of regulations under the 1918 Act are still in existence; have any of them been curtailed in this Bill? No; on the contrary we find that further provisions are being proposed in this Bill which will give the Minister the power to issue more provisions by means of regulations than he was allowed to do under the law of 1918. In those days the Minister raised objections, but to-day he is prepared to take all those powers unto himself.

Yes, but yesterday is not to-day.

In those days, of course, he was not the Minister; in those days he was a fighter for the cause of the people and of the worker. I now wish to refer to the powers which are being given to the Minister here. I want to mention a few of them. In Clause 54 of the Bill the Minister is given the power to grant certain exemptions under this Bill. Let me read that clause to the House. This is a lengthy Bill, occupying 49 pages, and comprising 49 clauses. But at the end of the Bill, and I am not surprised that the hon. member for Fordsburg said that it was an uncooked Bill—the Minister himself realised how uncooked it is, and it must have been for that reason that he wanted to take the power to carry out as much of the Bill as he could. He wanted to cast aside that part which had been burnt. Let me read Clause 54—

The provisions of which clauses?

It means that the Minister can take away the whole of the law.

It should appeal to your Nazi soul.

The Bill mentions a whole series of clauses which the Minister simply on the ground of his personal judgment can put aside. A dictator naturally would not be satisfied with that. A dictator does not only want to have the power to set aside 75 per cent. of the clauses of the Bill— a dictator wants to have the power to set aside the whole of the law, but what do we find in sub-section (3) of this clause? Of Clause 54? In addition to the power not to enforce the clauses which I have read out, the following power is also given to this dictator—

Well, that means the whole law.

The Minister is not satisfied with being able to put aside there quarters of the law, he wants the power of a dictator to be able to suspend the whole of the law. I say that I am not surprised at the Minister appropriating those powers unto himself. The fact of the matter is this: the Minister has got scared of his own law. He knows how confused the Bill is, and he knows the position he is in, and he wants the power arbitrarily to amend the law, or otherwise he wants the power to be able to amend the law according to the pressure being exercised on him in the Cabinet, and by his supporters on the other side of the House. As an example I wish to quote some of those clauses which the Minister is now arbitrarily able to amend, or in respect of which he can grant exemptions. He is able to grant exemptions under 19 of these clauses. He can grant exemption to a factory owner in regard to the obligation of keeping a proper record of his activities. That is in clause 9. He can grant exemption of the obligation to keep a proper register. That is clause 10. He can grant exemption of the obligation to use registered premises. The idea is to create healthy conditions under which the workers can do their work. The Minister here takes the power to grant exemption to a factory owner in regard to registration and the use of premises. Under clause 13 he can grant exemption, which means that in respect of registered premises he can grant exemption which will allow the use of such premises after they have already been declared to be unfit. In regard to clause 19 the Minister retains the power arbitrarily to fix working hours for certain factories or industries. He can amend the Act in such fashion as to be able to say whether the working hours are satisfactory or not. He can grant exemptions and lay down conditions in regard to the pay of workers so far as overtime is concerned. He can grant exemption of the provision so far as out work is concerned. The Minister made a special point of this this afternoon when he said that he did not want to have out work in connection with factories, but he retains the power of granting certain concessions to allow out work to take place. If this Bill had been properly drafted, and if it contained proper provisions in regard to our factories, there would have been no need to grant all those powers to the Minister. Why does the Minister want to have all these powers?

It would have been best to make this Bill of general application.

We do not want to say anything about this particular Minister. We know the degree of pressure which has been brought to bear on him, and we know what use he will make of his powers, but we may perhaps get a Minister in power who will take a real interest in the workers, and he will then be able to use that little interest of the present Minister—in introducing this Bill—to use those powers for the good of the workers. I want to object to those powers being given to the Minister, and I also want to object to the powers which are being given to the inspectors. There is one particular provision in the Bill which has struck me, and that is the provision in regard to the appointment of inspectors. Subject to the Public Service regulations the Minister can appoint anyone and such a person will occupy his position during the Minister’s pleasure. Can we find any greater dictatorial powers than those? And that is what appears in the Bill.

It must have come as a shock to you.

The Minister can appoint the inspectors. We have been told that already there are 6,000 factories in this country. Under the expansion which is taking place here it is possible that 10,000 and more factories will fall under the provisions of this Bill, and possibly hundreds of inspectors will be appointed. The Minister can appoint them, and they will occupy their positions so long as it pleases him. Can we find a greater opportunity for the creation of jobs for pals? The Minister can appoint his favourites and they can occupy those positions just as long as they continue to be his favourites. It is because of that reason that the Minister has not told us anything about his wish to have those powers. Those people will be able to keep their jobs just as long as it pleases the Minister of Labour! Now let us see what further extraordinary powers are being given to the inspectors. There is a provision in the Bill stating that the inspectors can institute a prosecution on behalf of a local authority. There are local authorities in the form of municipalities, and there are also the provincial authorities, and when and where an individual in certain circumstances has apparently been found guilty of an offence, but the local authority does not think there is sufficient reason to prosecute him for a contravention of a municipal ordinance, or of an ordinance of the provincial council, the inspector appointed by the Minister of Labour can, according to «the provisions of this Bill, institute a prosecution, and the local body is then bound by the decision of the court although it has not instituted the prosecution and although the prosecution has been instituted by the inspector.

His decision is binding and final.

The inspector under clause 13 also has the right when a certificate of registration has not been issued in accordance with the law, to allow such a factory none the less to carry on with its activities by issuing a factory permit. It is simply left to the inspector to decide on all the conditions in regard to the period, in regard to the details, and the conditions of the exemption of the obligation to obtain a certificate. I say that this is a very far-reaching power. By this provision we practically place the carrying out of the law in the hands of the inspector. He at his own discretion can say that he is going to issue a registration permit, and he can lay down the conditions in connection with such issue; if a certificate is not issued under the law he gives a factory permit for a specified time and he is the man who will decide the conditions. He lays down all details, and I therefore say that this provision is practically left in his hands. I want to add what has already been said by the hon. member for Fordsburg, that an inspector like that can say to an individual who is not one of the Ministers, or one of his own favourites, that he shall not work in a particular factory, and the factory owner will then be compelled to discharge that man. And what is more, he can prevent that individual from being employed by any other factory. It is a very dangerous principle to allow the livelihood of workers to be placed in the hands of an inspector, and to allow the inspector to deal arbitrarily with the livelihood of these people. I do not want to repeat what the hon. member for Fordsburg has already said in regard to the 44 hours per week. The Minister may perhaps remember his past — I do not know to what extent he has forsaken his past—and perhaps he may still try to improve the position in regard to working hours. The question was put to him whether he would be prepared to accept a 44-hour week if we proposed it. Now there is another question to which I want to refer, and this relates to the medical treatment of people working in factories. I have very carefully studied this Bill, and I have failed to find any provision anywhere referring to the medical treatment of factory workers. Many of those factory workers are poor people. Among them are a great many who work for £1 10s. per week. The Minister is aware of the fact that they are of the very poorest in the country. They are the people who work in our factories, and yet when we read this Bill we find that there are no provisions in it relating to the medical care of those people. I ask the Minister why he is not making provision in that regard. If he wants to show that the State wants to contribute something, and that he, as Minister of Labour, wants to make a contribution towards the improvement of the conditions of that section of our population, then it is his duty to consider the question of free medical attention for those people. We find everywhere in the country that the native only has to ask, and he gets free medical treatment. Will the Minister be prepared to put in a provision that the factory worker who is getting such a very small wage and who belongs to the poorer classes will be entitled to free medical attention? There is another point I wish to refer to; there are a few provisions in this Bill which give me the impression that the Minister wants to prevent the employees being victimised by the employers. There are such provisions, but I want to put this question to the Minister. Even in regard to the factory workers throughout the country, there is nowadays a tremendous amount of victimisation going on in consequence of the Government’s war policy. Now, I want to put this question to the Minister—he gave an assurance to the House the other day that so far as employment was concerned no man would be refused employment, or no man would be kept out of employment on account of the fact that he was able to go to the front—I want to ask the Minister whether he will give the House the assurance that in those cases where the Government is the employer, there will be no victimisation either of the workers as a result of the war policy, or as a result of any other motive. Is the Minister prepared to insert a provision to that effect in this Bill? And now I come to a very important principle in respect of which the hon. member for Fordsburg has already explained the attitude of this side of the House. I want to say a few words about the difference in principle between this Bill and the one which the Minister originally introduced—I am referring to the question of the segregation of workers. It struck me that the Minister this afternoon was jumping about in an attempt to find some balm for his own soul because of what had happened in regard to this matter. He said this, that it had always been the Labour Party’s policy to stand for—he called it separation, and not segregation. He said that the Labour Party had always been in favour of segregation, and he said that they still stood for a policy of separation. I really do not know what is the difference between the two, but let me put it to the Minister in this way: When he was jumping about in the way he was doing, he did actually say that the policy of segregation “is our policy.” It is not their policy to allow whites and non-whites to work together in the factories. The hon. member is sitting there to-day as Minister of Labour, but he has capitulated, and he is powerless, and he is unable to give effect to his own policy which he has advocated all these years. He stated clearly that it was his policy, as a member of the Labour Party, not to allow this mixing of whites and nonwhites in work. There he sits in the Cabinet as Minister of Labour. He has the opportunity now of giving effect to that policy, but what do we find? Although he originally put in a segregation provision in the Bill to make it possible for him, as Minister of Labour, to bring about that separation, he now goes to the extent of withdrawing that provision in this Bill. That provision which enabled him to bring about separation between white and non-white has been withdrawn by him, and he is satisfied to leave it at that and not to carry out his policy. He is serving his seat in the Cabinet, but he is not serving the cause of the workers of the country. And what was the reason which the Minister gave us here this afternoon when in an interjection his attention was drawn to the fact that he had withdrawn this provision? He said: “We have the coloured people and the natives with us, they are living among us, and I am not responsible for those conditions.’”

Your party is responsible for them.

In other words, the Minister says that those conditions are wrong, but he is not responsible for them, and for that reason he withdraws this provision; because he is not responsible for them those conditions are allowed to go on, and he withdraws the clause. I want to say this to the Minister, that even though he may perhaps not be responsible for the fact that those conditions prevail, if he fails to reinsert this clause in the Bill he is going to be held responsible for the continuation of those malconditions. He will have to tell this House and the public outside whether he still stands for that “policy of separation,” and what he is going to do in regard to it. We are putting that question to him. The Minister knows it is a very important question, a question which is being asked everywhere, what is he going to do in regard to that important matter? In the past the Minister personally took up the attitude in this House that it was an important point, but to-day he keeps it in the background. If he had not been asked why this important change was made in the Bill, he would have allowed it to slide through without saying a single word about it on the second reading. I feel in my own mind that the statement which he made here this afternoon does not go far enough, and does not give the right idea. The Minister also gave us a memorandum, but there is nothing in that memorandum about this clause which is being withdrawn. When that memorandum was drafted, it seems that pressure was brought to bear on him. That pressure was being exercised all the time, and the Minister gave way to that pressure, but in spite of that he says nothing about it in his memorandum. The Minister is there now, and I say that he has capitulated to the Liberals. He is there in a duplicit (dubbelslagtige) position. On the one hand he takes up the attitude of a dictator in this Bill, a man who can arbitrarily carry out the law; but so far as this important principle is concerned he, like Marshal Petain, has capitulated, and he has to listen to and obey the instructions of the Liberals on his side of the House. The Minister told us of the special thanks he owed the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance, and the Minister of the Interior, for the share they had taken in the drafting of this Bill. I think he owes it to the House to tell us how much pressure they brought to bear on him for the withdrawal of this clause. We have the Minister of the Interior over there; we know him so far as this aspect of the matter is concerned. The Minister of Finance is there; we know what his views are, too. Are they the people who have brought pressure to bear on him, and is it their forces which the Minister of Labour has given way to so that this clause has had to be withdrawn? Why is the Minister not prepared to carry on with this provision so that he will have the power to improve those malconditions? I just want to say this to the Minister: so far as we on this side are concerned this is a very important principle, and we shall not be satisfied until we get that principle adopted in South Africa, and until we achieve proper separation in every respect, so that we shall be able to say this is white and that is non-white. We are told every day from all sides what the conditions are in our factories, and in the rest rooms of the factories; what the conditions are in the working places where white and non-white work together. We hear of whites who are under the control of coloured and native workers. The Minister is aware of it; or at any rate he should be aware of those malconditions, and if that is so why does he refuse to put an end to those malconditions? Why does he refuse to lay down in this Bill that a proper dividing line shall be drawn between white and non-white in our factories? For the reasons which I have mentioned, and particularly on account of this final matter I have referred to, which I feel very strongly about, and which we are not going to allow to rest, I support the amendment of the hon. member for Fordsburg. I think the Minister should realise what the position is, and I think he should take his courage in both hands to put matters right, irrespective of what his position in the Cabinet may be. He should take his courage into his hands, even if it means that he will have to take his hat in his hands, in order to improve those conditions.

Business suspended at 6 p.m. and resumed at 8.5 p.m.

When business was suspended I was pointing out to the Minister of Labour the responsibility resting on him. However much we may differ on the question of segregation the question now is not just one of difference between ourselves and the Minister, but the Minister differs to-day from the person of the Minister of the past—he differs from himself. He has undergone a tremendous change since he has joined this Cabinet. I want to conclude now. The Minister said that he was aware of the conditions which prevailed. If that is so, if he is aware of them, let him take heed of the advice of the expert whose views I have read out. Let me continue to quote from the brochure published by Dr. Norval. After having referred to the malconditions and the exploitation which was going on among the people he says that steps should be taken as soon as possible to improve those malconditions, and he comes to this conclusion—

And then he goes on—

We are entitled to ask the Minister to refer this Bill to a Select Committee before the second reading, and to give us the opportunity of drafting a proper Bill which will provide for the real needs which exist to-day. I want to remind the Minister of his words when the original Bill was being prepared and when at the end of his speech he said that he hoped the Bill would in Committee be made considerably more drastic. I hope he will see to it that the Bill which is now before us will be made considerably more drastic, and that especially in regard to the working together of European and nonEuropean workers provision will be made, because it is a scandal. In this regard the Minister repudiates the attitude he took up in the past.

In spite of the sneers of the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. B. J. Schoeman), I want to start the few words I am about to say by congratulating the Minister and the Government on the Bill which they have introduced. I do so especially because I feel that the Minister, throughout the whole of his political career has stood for the improvement of the lot of the workers, and now that he has an opportunity he is giving the workers an instalment of those improvements which he has always desired to see established. He has said, any many of us agree with him, that this is by no means a perfect measure, we do not say that it is the be-all and end-all of industrial legislation to improve the lot of the worker, but we do believe it is an instalment towards that end, and I think the Government and the Minister are to be congratulated that during a period of stress a Bill of this kind is being introduced, more particularly when we remember that despite any differences of opinion that have existed from time to time, the foundations of most of our industrial legislation were laid by the Prime Minister while he was in office. This very Factories legislation which we to-day are seeking to improve and amend, was in the first instance introduced by the government of which he was a member. It ill-becomes our friends opposite, and particularly the hon. member for Fordsburg, to sneer and jeer at this measure when we recollect that the first Factories Bill was introduced in 1918, and when we recollect also that the Nationalist Party was in power from 1924 until 1933, and had ample opportunity and ample power, with the assistance of some Labour people, to do something in this matter, and yet during the whole of that period, they made no effort whatever to introduce an amendment to the Factories Bill to improve the working conditions of the worker. We also recollect that after 1933 the majority of hon. members opposite, the hon. member for Fordsburg and a large number of those who are now sitting on that side with him, were sitting in the United Party, and they did not lift a finger to endeavour to have legislation improving the working conditions of the workers introduced into this House. I say it ill-becomes them, and it is an impertinence on their part now when a measure is introduced which at least seeks to improve the lot of the workers to come along and say they don’t want it, or that it does not go far enough. They didn’t take one single step, and now that many forward steps are being taken in this Bill, they come along and say “You have not gone far enough in connection with the matter.” What is the attitude which they take up? You would have expected the hon. member for Fordsburg would have come along and preached to us national socialism, a doctrine which has been condemned by the Beader of the Opposition Party, but a doctrine to which he adheres, since he is the principal lieutenant of the hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow). One would have thought that he would come along and tell us what national socialism will do for the workers, but he did not tell us anything about that because he knows that national socialism would reduce the workers to the position of absolute slaves and destroy their freedom.

[inaudible].

The reverend gentleman knows nothing about it, I don’t think he knows anything about the gospel of national socialism. The hon. member for Fordsburg knows quite well what will be the lot of the workers under a policy of national socialism. So what does he do? He takes refuge in the New Zealand Government, which has always been anathema to his present associates because it is a socialist government. He comes along now and says the New Zealand Government has done this and that and a lot of other things, and “why don’t you do it?” I ask him, why didn’t his friends do it during all the years they had the power? The answer to that is that they don’t agree with and do not believe in it. They believe in a dictator government which does nothing for the workers except mislead and depress them. They don’t like parliamentary government because they know that under parliamentary government you cannot ride roughshod over the wishes of the people. You have to educate the people of the country and create a state of affairs in which you will get a majority for the measures you want to introduce, and until you have that majority it is nonsense for our friends to come along and say what they will do if they are in power to-morrow. If they were in power tomorrow they would not lift a little finger towards the realisation of things which they support to-day. The hon. member for Fordsburg admits that there are improvements in this Bill in comparison with the one already on the statute book, but he says: “Unless I can get the whole hog I am not going to be a party to this legislation, and I want the Bill referred to a Select Committee before the second reading.” That means, of course, the Bill would be defeated and the improvements we want for the workers delayed. That being the case, I submit that the workers in South Africa will not be misled or deceived by the hon. member. I would like to know whether the hon. member for Piquetberg (Dr. Malan) and those who are members of the shadow cabinet of that party, approve of the principles that the hon. member has enunciated to-day. I am sure that they do not, and I ask, therefore, what right have they on that side to come along and say: “You must give us a 40-hour week, a minimum wage for overtime, and more paid holidays.” They clamour for this, that and the other, but they say: “You must not touch the workers on the farms.” I have here a number of figures relating to factories in South Africa. The last official figures that I have relate to 1937-’38. There were in employment in Union factories in that year 117,237 Europeans and 188,247 non-Europeans, a very much better ratio of Europeans to natives than exists on the farms in South Africa. But they don’t want the agricultural workers touched. And I agree with them under present conditions. Until we can get public opinion sufficiently alive to the situation, it is not possible for us to include agriculture as we would like to have it included in a measure of this type. I say it is political hypocrisy on the part of our friends opposite to talk about further improving the lot of the workers when they want to exclude the conditions of employment of the agricultural workers. One of the reasons why I welcome this Bill is because it is introduced during this war period. Hon. members opposite had the piping times of peace and of great prosperity in which to do something for the workers, and they did nothing. To-day, in time of war, when our energies are devoted to a life and death issue, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Labour are prepared to come to the House and say, while we are fighting the enemy, we are also fighting to improve the lot of the workers. Now, sir, one of the reasons why I commend this Bill to the House is because of the fact that this country is being industrialised day by day; more and more people are flocking from the country districts and from the farms into the towns. Therefore, in improving the conditions of the factory workers, we are also improving the conditions of those whom the Opposition claim to represent. There are, at the present moment, apart from artisans, something like 300,000 Europeans engaged in semi-skilled and unskilled labour, and something like 188,000 non-Europeans, all engaged in industry at the present moment, and that being the case it behoves every one of us to do what we can to see that their conditions of employment are improved to the fullest possible extent, and as rapidly as possible.

We hear a lot about poor whites in South Africa, and I believe that the poor white problem is one of the most serious in this country. National socialism will never solve the poor white problem in South Africa, because the policy of national socialism is to keep them down. There is only one solution for the poor white problem—that is to increase the industrialisation of this country, because the majority of these people will be obliged to drift into industry if they are to be saved at all. There will be a minority who will remain on the land, and, provided they are not left to the whims and wishes of our friends opposite, will one day be taken care of by the State, possibly by means of State or collective agriculture, in which alone they will have a chance of a livelihood. With regard to these workers on the land, I want to know whether our friends opposite are prepared to apply the New Zealand legislation that they are so enthusiastic about to the conditions of the agricultural workers in South Africa? The Minister has been perfectly frank about it. He has told the House that he would like to include the agricultural workers, but there is not to-day sufficient public backing. Our friends opposite talk about these things, knowing perfectly well that they don’t want to get it, and are only talking about it in order to deceive the people. According to the report of the Labour Department in 1939, there was something like 79,000 people in the organised trade unions. The only way in which we can really help the workers of this country is by encouraging them to the fullest possible extent to belong to the trades union movement, which has done a great deal for the workers of the Union, and, secondly and in a complementary sense, by legislation of a kind introduced by the Government. We have been told by the hon. member for Fordsburg with that little knowledge which is a very dangerous thing, “What is the use of talking about a 46-hour week when some workers are actually having a 44-hour week?” That is perfectly true, but it is not due to the hon. member for Fordsburg and his friends. It is largely due to the trades union organisations, and to the fortunate fact that a large number of employers have been sufficiently enlightened to see that proper conditions of labour are given their employees. It has been possible, under the Wage Act and the Industrial Conciliation Act, to get the trades unions and employers to come together and form themselves into industrial councils and secure determinations and come to agreements which, from time to time, have improved the lot of the workers. But this only applies to a portion of the workers and, in any case, unless you have legislative sanction to such improvements, these determinations and industrial agreements may terminate, and worse conditions may supervene. It is, therefore, important to have a Bill of this kind on the Statute Book to ensure a minimum working week of 46 hours. Then we shall find arrangements that will be made from time to time which will provide for a 44-hour week, and that may gradually come down to 42 hours. When that comes about the Minister of Labour can introduce legislation to give effect to that factual position. Then take the question of overtime; there again I entirely agree with the Minister that one of the methods of keeping down overtime, which is undoubtedly a bad thing, is to increase the cost of overtime to the employer, and in this Bill provision is now made in the first place to limit overtime to ten hours a week, and in the second place to increase the rate for overtime pay from one and a quarter to one and a third of the ordinary wage. That in itself will have some effect on reducing the amount of overtime. The hon. member for Fordsburg says that one and a third is preposterous. He says: “I believe in the New Zealand system; I have become a complete Socialist, almost a Communist, and therefore I am not prepared to accept one and a third, you must give me one and a half.” I want to know what the hon. gentleman and his friends have done in this matter. Their object is to defeat the Bill, to make propaganda, and to deceive the workers. I agree with the Minister, and I hope the time will come when we will be able still further to increase the pay for overtime, and so eliminate it. But under present conditions that is impossible, and I am not prepared to jeopardise the Bill, which will improve the lot of the workers, until the time when the hon. member for Fordsburg may have converted his party to Socialism. An important part of the Bill is that which deals with the question of holidays. Here again, sir, provision has been made for fourteen days’ holidays on full pay. There was no such legislation before the Shop Hours Act in our legislation. This is simply giving effect to what has been in many cases carried out through some Industrial Council agreements and wage determinations, but up to now it has only applied to certain sections of workers, whereas under the Bill as it stands it is definitely enacted and will be carried out to the full extent. Again, I say that perhaps this does not go as far as we would like it, but it is what we are able to adopt at the present time. Then with regard to the question of maternity allowance. The trades union movements have been fighting for years to try and improve the position. The matter was dealt with in the Shop Hours Act, and the position has been that women in a state of pregnancy were given the maximum allowance of 20s. a week, subject to all sorts of deductions, and subject to a means test, for about twelve weeks. Now the position is, in the first place, that an allowance will be given for sixteen weeks, and instead of, as the hon. member opposite says, the extra four weeks being in the discretion of the Minister, an additional four weeks are specifically laid down in the Bill. If a woman in a state of pregnancy has to absent herself for eight weeks before confinement instead of four weeks, the Bill provides that she will be paid for eight weeks before and eight weeks after confinement, and that she will get 25s. per week without reference to what her means are. Her own wages are not taken into consideration. I would say that I hope that when the Bill is in Committee some small improvements may be made. I would like to see the word “maximum” taken out, so that the woman will definitely get a sum of 25s. per week.

What about the new proviso? With regard to a still-born child? Have you read that?

How does that affect the position? That is a petty little detail. I would urge on the Minister, although he does not need urging—he sympathises with me— that the word “maximum” be taken out, and I would like no opening left for even a partial means test—and in that we would be following the example of Great Britain, where they have done away with the means test. Now I come to the last point made by the hon. member for Fordsburg and the hon. member for Boshof (Mr. Serfontein), a point on which they obtained a cheer from their side and which they spoke with enthusiasm and vigour—the colour question. The point made by the hon. member for Fordsburg is a justification for what the Minister did. The Minister said that he did not want to introduce anything in the nature of a colour bar in this Bill. The hon. member for Fordsburg comes along and interprets the original clause as a colour bar. And that is the very best justification for the Minister having withdrawn that clause and having put it in such a manner that there can be no doubt about it.

That is not what he said.

I ask my hon. friend over there to tell us how it is that since 1924—no, even since 1910—there is not a single provision in any of our Acts, in any of our legislation―not even in the legislation for which the Nationalist Party was responsible, providing for a colour bar.

I was not a member of Parliament at that time, so I do not know.

And, now the hon. member comes and says: “You must introduce a colour bar.”

Do you remember the 1922 strike, that was for a colour bar.

I remember the 1922 strike. I was in gaol then. Anyhow I stood by the workers and went to gaol for them. In all this industrial legislation we have never had a colour, and it is too late to come along with it now. A defnite statement was made by General Hertzog of whom the hon. member for Fordsburg was such a staunch follower, that he was opposed to any segregation in our industrial legislation. When you have all these hundreds of thousands of non-Europeans working in industry, surely they are also entitled—when you have improved conditions for one section of the population—they are also entitled to these improvements: let me say this, that if you go on exploiting the natives and imposing worse standards on them, oppressing them so far as their standard of living is concerned, you will not help the Europeans. You will drag the Europeans down to the lowest possible standard of living. I want to deal with one more clause. Clause 54. And in that connection I want to say at once that I am sure from my knowledge of the Minister of Labour that he is the very last person who wants to be a dictator. He does not want these powers if he can do without them. But I do want to suggest, knowing his own outlook—I want to suggest for his consideration that he should delete the clause or at least limit it by stating the conditions and the occasions when the provision of this clause may be put into force, and I would make a further suggestion, and that is that if these powers are needed for war emergencies the Minister should exercise them through the War Measures Act and not through a clause of this kind, so that if any of the provisions of this Bill are to be suspended, they will only be suspended during the war and for war needs, so that the workers may know that when the war is over they will immediately be put into force. This Bill is a great improvement on anything we have at the moment. It does not go as far as I would like it to go, but I hope that before long the Minister will be able to introduce further amendments in connection with industrial legislation generally. I believe in peaceful progress as opposed to revolutionary violence. We want that progress expedited to the greatest possible extent.

Then you want another Government.

This Bill is introduced in the midst of war.

Your war.

And it is an indication that the Prime Minister and the Minister of Labour are prepared honestly and sincerely to improve the lot of the worker. This Bill and other legislation of a similar nature by itself is not going to be a solution of the position—these measures by themselves are not going to lead to the solution we want to see, but they constitute instalments in the right direction.

The attitude of the Afrikaner Party on this Bill is not dependent on anything the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. B. J. Schoeman) might have said this afternoon, nor on anything the Minister of Labour might have said. My party is an independent party.

Very independent.

And in coming to a conclusion it is not concerned at all with any considerations that may have come from or have been argued on behalf of the Herenigde Party. Unless my party feels that those considerations are well founded, we feel, as an Opposition Party, that it is our duty to oppose, but in opposing we must oppose honestly, and where you have a Bill like this which is designed to help certain people, one must judge it absolutely on its merits, and without consideration to any political gain that one might take out of it for the moment. That is the attitude which my party will adopt in regard to this Bill. There was much in what the hon. member for Fordsburg said this afternoon which was true. The Minister of Labour in introducing the Bill really delivered an apology for the Bill. If one is to judge by the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) one must feel that he has seen in this Bill things which the Minister who introduced it could not see. But we had a remarkable display of enthusiasm from him for this Bill which was absent in the Minister who introduced it. The practical approach of my party to this Bill is that you must take the attitude of the Minister of Labour and of the Government into consideration. You must realise that he is not a free agent. One must realise that what he wants to do he cannot do, and what he thinks should be done cannot be done. He said so this afternoon. He introduced this Bill, this provision, for a 46 hour week, and he said: “My own opinion would be that we should have a 36 hour week.” A more irresponsible and reckless statement one could hardly conceive of. One might have expected that from the Minister when he was a less careful member of the Opposition than from a responsible Minister. Even the members of this Opposition would agree that a 36-hour week is entirely out of the question, it is out of the realm of practical politics. We must deal with this Bill, having due regard to the fact that employers and employees are interested and having due regard to the fact that all these things which are produced in factories have to be consumed by the consumer. And one has to take into consideration the question whether the consumer will be able to pay any additional costs if the additional costs are passed on, and are incurred as a result of the reduction in the hours of working. Coming to the question of hours which seems to be the main claim for this big wonderful Bill, I ask the Minister of Labour whether this provision of his is going to make any difference at all to the great majority of the workers in the factories. Is it not a fact that the great majority of factories are covered by industrial agreements and that those industrial agreements provide for a 46-hour week or less even? Is not the Minister of Labour bringing into the net of the 46-hour week the exception to the rule—those small factories which have no agreements. Consequently he is making it universal, but for the great majority of our workers it means nothing. It means no respite. It does not mean less work, nor does it mean more wages. The Minister delivered an apologetic speech. There is nothing revolutionary, nothing radical about 46 hours.

Would your party agree to 40 hours?

My party would agree to 40, but I suggest that in the existing circumstances a reasonable suggestion that would satisfy employees for the time being and would not be an unnecessary burden on the employers, and would be something practical, which the workers themselves would ask for, and not what the politicians would ask for, would be a 44-hour week. It would be a reduction and would not involve extra expenditure on the part of the employers.

Will your party vote for 44 hours?

Yes, irrespective of whether the hon. member for Umbilo’s (Mr. Burnside) party votes for it.

Would that include farm labourers, too?

On the question of farm labourers, do not let us run away from the facts. It is no use one side of the House taunting the other side.

Are you sincere?

I am sincere, but the test of sincerity is whether the questioner is prepared to accept that position. That side of the House is not prepared to apply it to farm labourers, and this side is not. It is no use one side of the House taunting the other side because neither of them will agree to it.

Why not?

Because it is not a matter of practical politics. For my own side I would say this. With the little knowledge I have of farming I say it is impossible to run a farm on the basis on which you can run a factory. Let us have an end to this matter of running agriculture on that basis. Coming to the question of overtime there is definitely here an improvement on the old position. Where I disagree with the Minister of Labour and agree with the hon. member for Fordsburg is that in regard to overtime you must make it a deterrant so that the employer is not encouraged to overwork a labourer, and there you can only do it by imposing a minimum wage which at the best is not too much. I think the hon. member for Fordsburg suggested 1/6 per hour.

As a minimum.

It is reasonable enough. It is not novel, it has been tried out elsewhere and it has been found to be practicable. On the question of overtime the tendency of all legislation should be to eliminate overtime. If we take the case of overtime on the Railways—if we could get the figures I think we would discover that there is almost as much money paid on the Railways for overtime as there is for ordinary time. Perhaps I should not take the case of the Railways because the Railways have always been the notoriously worse employers. If you ask the worker whether he wants overtime he would say: “I do not want overtime as long as I can be guaranteed (a) a living wage, and (b) more than that, security and safety of continuous employment.” That is the big point on which I am going to attack the Minister later on. Let us take a practical case. Take the war. When the Railways were manufacturing munitions —I do not know whether they still do it but until recently they were manufacturing munitions, and as a result of that tremendous overtime was worked. What is the result of that on the worker? Instead of getting £5 per week he got £10 and he lived up to it. There was no security about it. It has been taken away and he has had to go back to £5, and it has made no difference to him except that perhaps his health has been ruined through working excessive hours. That has been the experience in England and that has been more or less the experience on the Railways. On the Railways the men get free medical attention and things like that, but take these people who have not got the benefit of a free doctor and of free medicine. Whatever they put into the factory in extra overtime takes it out their health. The average man is unable to pay the expenses of a doctor or to get medicine. Consequently their health deteriorates. No guarantee for themselves at all. The other serious omission in this Bill is the absence of sick leave. You take the majority of the workers in this country; if they are off for a day they do not get paid—if they are off for an hour they do not get paid. Consequently you have men and women working when they are sick, when they are nearly falling down from exhaustion they keep on working because if they go off they lose portion of their salary, and it may cost them their employment. The result is that these sick workers go on. There is no sick leave. Take the case of thousands of girls who work in the factories. What is their position in regard to sick leave? Those of us who are familiar with position of girls working in factories know that these girls keep on working until they fall down, because they cannot afford to take sick leave. Why the discrimination? Take a clerk in a shop or an office. Any of those soft classes of work where they are paid by the month; he goes sick and gets full wages subject to limits.

Not as a matter of law.

Take any determination in regard to shop workers, and see if they are not safeguarded in that regard. The point is why there should be no provision for that in this Bill? The Minister of Labour himself must give an answer. It is a serious omission, and he cannot escape by that answer which he had in regard to the Bill generally, that it was a matter of agreement between the conglomeration which forms the Government of to-day. Because if his answer is that his party would not agree to it then I say it is not human, it is barbaric. It is one of the primary, one of the essential rights. I hope the Minister will remedy this matter at a later stage of the proceedings. The real benefit granted is this provision for paid holiday leave. There are thousands of workers in this country. Any of us who represent industrial urban constituencies as I do know that they do not get a single day’s holiday to-day, year after year. You have one factory on this side of the road where there is an industrial determination. The worker gets 14 days’ leave per year. On the other side there is another factory where they do not get leave. It is a good thing in the Bill, and it is one of the reasons why the Bill should go on the Statute Book, but is it sufficient? What does the two weeks’ holiday help a girl who works in a factory in Germiston? She has not got the money to go anywhere. Surely the idea of a holiday is to take her out of that environment and take her to some other pleasant environment, to take her to the coast. I suggest that the Government might here have assisted to this extent, that in regard to these poorly-paid workers they should have made it compulsory for the employers to club together to provide hostels or whatever it is at a holiday seaside resort when the girls could go. The railways should have been able to give excursions.

What about the poor lawyers’ clerks?

That shows the sympathy of some members on the Government side. When I made that suggestion that the employers should club together to provide a resort, that the railways should provide facilities for these girls who cannot get away, some hon. member over there said I was talking rot. It is that blindness of these so-called democrats.

Germany is doing it.

That blindness not to realise what is being done. The ordinary back-bench member would say we are talking rot, but the Prime Minister does not think so; he knows better than that. He said a very true thing when he said that if we wanted to beat the Nazis at their own game in regard to the workers we had to go one better. What do the nazis do? They have their Strength Through Joy Movement. It is hon. members there who are talking rot. We shall get this Strength Through Joy Movement in spite of the dunderheads over there.

What do you lawyers pay your articled clerks or how much do they pay you?

The hon. member for Rosettenville (Mr. Howarth) is getting a bit excited. Perhaps I am getting too close to Rosettenville because he has a factory himself. If the hon. member will look at the Act of 1934 he will see that the rights of articled clerks have been safeguarded as a result of an Act of this Parliament.

How much do you pay them per month?

I have not got any, I cannot tell you.

How much did you pay them?

I have never had any. I hope the hon. member is satisfied now. Then there is this question of segregation, and the fact that the Minister has made a complete somersault in regard to the provision which he has in the Bill.

Which one is that?

Apart from the question of colour we simply state that our attitude is this: and I think it is a fair attitude because everyone of us in this House would protest—if I had a daughter I would not want her to work for eight hours per day every day next to a native in a factory. I hear the “hear, hears” from this side of the House, and ask hon. members to apply that test to themselves.

Are the natives workers?

I am asked if natives are workers. Of course they are. I don’t want them to go out of the factories and not work. One of the biggest industrial undertakings in this country, Lever Brothers, in Durban, is a model factory, where you have natives in one section and Europeans in the other. I don’t think hon. members want to deprive the natives of their right to earn a living, but we say we don’t want them to earn a living cheek by jowl next to our European women. I think most hon. members on that side will agree with that. I want to give a concrete example to the House, and ask whether this sort of thing is right. Only recently one of the inspectors in a small factory in Johannesburg came across natives and European girls working eight hours a day on the manufacture of contraceptives. Is that not a shame, is that not something that should be eliminated? It is a shame for the Government that allows it. The hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) asked me, “Shame for whom?” I say it is wrong in any case, and there should at least be separation of the sexes.

Does it not happen in our kitchens?

Am I to understand that the hon. member for Pretoria East (Mr. Clark), because natives work in our kitchens, justifies this state of affairs, that our daughters—they may be poor people, but they are as good as you or I or anybody else, that is how I feel about them, they are as good as our daughters—and I say does he justify these people working hour after hour and day after day under these conditions? It is a shame, and let the Minister of Labour remove it. The first clause he put in was a good clause, but, unfortunately, he had to compromise. I ask the Minister, with whom did he compromise this time? Who saw him? I put it to the Minister that the most notorious Communist in Cape Town interviewed him in connection with this.

Perfectly true.

And you agreed.

I did not.

You gave in later on. In regard to this Bill, there are some serious omissions. In connection with overtime, there is no provision that there shall be a hot meal for the worker. We feel that at any rate the wage paid for the overtime should be sufficient to cover the cost of a hot meal. As to Sunday work, I do not think there is sufficient deterrent to keep employers from working their people on Sunday. A good deterrent would be to insist that for the Sunday work pay should be calculated on the basis of twice the normal wages they receive during the week. In regard to the four public holidays, if employers work their people on those public holidays, they should pay them twice the normal pay per day. The most serious omission in this Bill is that there is no security provided for the worker, no security of tenure in regard to their employment. You will find there are times that the worker will be employed in overtime for a period of three or four weeks, and then he gets laid off for a month, until the employer may require him again. The point is this, that when a big order comes in and the employer is in a position to make inordinate profits, he pushes on with the job, and then the labourer is put into the street, he has no security at all. Finally, in regard to this question of hours, I feel that the Minister must agree that 44 hours is a practical measure to-day. With 44 hours it would be possible to work only five days a week, working 8¾ hours on four days and an extra quarter of an hour for the fifth day. On Saturdays and Sundays it would not be necessary to work them at all. Take the Pretoria railway workshops. You will find to-day that these men work 48 hours, 8¾ hours a day during the week and 4½ hours on Saturday. I think the Minister will agree with me that those hours on Saturday don’t pay the Railways. They have all that expensive machinery running, mistakes are made, the men are not in a mood for work, and they produce very little. I want to keep the hon. Minister of Labour to his promise in regard to the Railways, and I want to insure that at least the position of the Railway workers will be no worse than the ordinary worker in South Africa. Finally, I want to say that my party wish to help these people whom this Bill is going to help. We have had the benefit of seeing representatives of the factory organisations. They are not satisfied with the Bill, but they recognise it is a step forward, and we would like to see this Bill on the Statute Book this year. With that request my party agrees. The amendment of the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. B. J. Schoeman) to send this Bill to a Select Committee will, I am satisfied, prevent this Bill from becoming law this year. I will commit my party to the support of this Bill with all its defects, and in the hope that next year there will be a better Bill, on condition I can get an assurance from the Government—I know it will be necessary for the Minister of Labour to consult the Prime Minister on this point—on condition, I say, that that dictator, the controller of labour who has now been appointed by the Government, will not interfere to make this Bill a dead letter for the duration of the war once it gets on the Statute Book. Subject to being satisfied that these small benefits will be conferred on the workers, my party is prepared to vote for the second reading.

I agree with the last speaker as to the value of independent judgment with reference to social legislation of this kind, but there is considerable difficulty in exercising any judgment on this measure, because the House does not know in respect of the principal provisions of this Bill, what will result. I say that because practically everything in the Bill is dependent upon the opinion of an inspector or the exercise of powers by the Minister. An enormous part of the scope of the Bill is to be administered by regulation. There are sweeping powers vested in the Minister, and we cannot say, with certainty, that this or that provision will, in fact operate with reference to any class or kind of employee, because we do not know what this inspector or that inspector, or even the Minister, is going to allow to operate. Subject to that reservation, I may say that I personally am in favour of any measure which tends to benefit the workers of this country, provided the measure protects the whole or the vast mass of such workers and not merely certain groups, and particularly protects those who need it most, the lowest paid unskilled workers. There are certain provisions in this Bill. I must confess at once, that I feel gravely apprehensive about, and that apprehension has not yet been fully dispelled. I say that because I feel this Bill, as a whole, might conceivably act to the detriment of the vast mass of the workers. For that reason I was very glad indeed to hear’ the Minister this afternoon repudiate any suggestion that there were segregation measures in this Bill. The majority of workers in the factories and industries in this country are non-Europeans, and segregation such as we have heard proposed by hon. members over there, will work detrimentally to the vast mass of the workers, and impose disabilities on them. As I say, I was relieved to hear the Minister repudiate any suggestion to introduce segregation of colour discrimination in this Bill. I was particularly relieved because there are provisions in the Bill, as it stands, which in my opinion do, in fact, vest legal powers in the Minister to introduce a colour bar or segregation policy. Since the Minister has said that he has no intention of introducing such a policy, I have no doubt that that will remove any objection there might be to making it clear in the Bill at a later stage to the non-European workers that there is no intention of applying a segregation policy to them. The chief criticism levelled by the Opposition to this measure, is based on their allegation that there is no segregation provision in this Bill. As I have said, in my opinion, there are provisions in the Bill which are capable of being used to that end, and I am glad to hear there is no such intention. The working class of this country is composed of a minority of Europeans and a majority of non-Europeans. The European minority is in possession of political rights and they are organised in trade unions which are recognised and assisted by the law. But the non-European majority, most of whom, of course, are natives, have no political rights and their organisation, such as it is, is very limited and very rudimentary, and for the most part has no recognition from the law of the country. Moreover, it is the nonEuropean section which is the lowest paid, and comprises practically the whole of the unskilled and a large part of the semi-skilled labour force of the country. It is the unorganised, unskilled, low paid workers that more particularly require the protection of legislative provisions such as these. Unfortunately it has been our experience that wherever powers have been vested, either by statute or otherwise, in authorities, giving them the right to discriminate between classes of workers, those powers have usually been exercised to the detriment of the nonEuropean. I need only refer, as an example, to the civilised labour policy as applied by the Government service, to show how discrimination has worked in the past. And such examples justify, I contend, the anxiety of those of us who represent the non-Europeans to see that every safeguard is erected against the use of discrimination against the nonEuropean people. In the regulations clause, in Section 51, the Governor-General is authorised to make regulations in order to prevent undersirable contact between employees. Sub-section (3) of the same section runs as follows—

Well, that is a provision which I have been advised by competent authorities is capable of empowering the Governor-General to introduce a general colour bar regulation. Hon. members on this side of the House made a considerable noise this afternoon about the dropping of the clause which empowered the introduction of segregation. They apparently have given no attention at all to the possibilities of introducing segregation in these regulations, although the hon. Minister specifically directed their attention to them. However, we have the word of the Minister that he has no intention of using these powers for the purposes of segregation. There is another provision also in the same section which might me used in a discriminatory manner. I am not suggesting that the hon. Minister after his declaration this afternoon, will use it in that way, but we are legislating for the future. Also in this regulations clause the Governor-General is empowered to make regulations—

In other words, regulations may be made under which one class of employee must have one type of accommodation, and another type of employee another type of accommodation, not only as regards rest rooms, lavatories, wash rooms and so on, but also as regards their actual conditions of work. To that provision also the subsection which I quoted applies, the Governor-General may use any method of discrimination he likes in framing these regulations. I am merely pointing out that under the Bill as framed I can see no reason why regulations should not be introduced having the effect of segregation. I am not suggesting that the present Minister would do anything of the kind, having regard to the speech he made this afternoon, but as I said, we are legislating for the future, and it is necessary to provide safeguards in case there should be a Minister with different views coming into office, one who might use these powers in order to put into force the actual policy which the hon. Minister of Labour so strongly repudiated. I want now to refer to the exemptions clause. I am sure the Minister will, on consideration, acknowledge that this goes too far, particularly in view of the fact that the Shop Hours Act which we passed about two years ago, had precisely the same provisions allowing the Minister to exempt from the protected clauses of the Act. On that provision in the Shops and Offices Act the hon. Minister made these remarks in which I think there was a good deal of sense—

Here also there is power in the Minister to delegate to an official. I am not suggesting that this particular Minister will use his powers in that way, but again I say we are legislating for the future, and I do submit that these great powers of exemption are wrong. I cannot see any reason, with these wide powers of exemption which the Minister has, why this Act should not be applied to the Railways now, and if necessary the Railways, or particular Railway undertakings, could then be exempted until such time as a method has been worked out for applying the Act effectively to them. In my experience of the Railway Administration— and I do not think the Minister’s experience differs from mine—I say that the Railways are one of the worst employers in the country, at all events so far as unskilled labourers are concerned. I have protested time and again against the long hours which the workers on the Railways are forced to work, and I do feel that the Bill should be applied here and now to the Railways, or to those Railway undertakings to which it is practicable to be applied. An exemption could be given to wherever it was impossible to apply it to Railway undertakings. I hope the Minister will reconsider this particular matter. There are many provisions in the Bill which I think every member of this House will acknowledge mark a considerable advance. I listened with interest to the speeches made by the hon. member for Fordsburg this afternoon and by the hon. member for Germiston North (Mr. Quinlan), and I must say that apart from those portions of their speeches dealing with the colour issue, I had a great deal of sympathy with the criticisms they made in reference to the Bill. Some days ago some of us received telegrams—I am sure other members received similar telegrams—from one of the largest trade unions in the country—a trade union which has as its members a very large number of European females. And that telegram asked for a 44-hour week with a ten minutes’ break in the mornings and in the afternoons, and public holidays to include May Day, and a maternity benefit equal to the wages received by the woman. The telegram also contained a protest against the dictatorial powers vested in the Minister.

What trade union is that?

The Garment Workers’ Union.

Solly Sacks’ Union!

No, the secretary who sent it was Anna Scheepers.

What is in a name?

I understand it is a very large union, and apparently this telegram was sent as the result of a mass meeting attended by 2,000 workers. I am not going into all the objections, because they have been raised by several speakers. I see there is a request that May Day be a paid public holiday for workers. The Minister is a member of the Labour Party, he is a Socialist, and I am sure he will agree with me that May Day should be a holiday—a paid holiday—for the workers. I dare say that May Day means more to a great number of workers than even Dingaan’s Day, it has more significance for them; and I hope the Minister in Committee will accept this reasonable request and include May Day as one of the paid holidays. So far as the 44-hour week is concerned, that would also appear to be a reasonable request. It is two hours less than what is provided for. It would mean five full eight-hour days and one half-day. That is what the ordinary office worker has, and there seems to be nothing unreasonable about it. As to the maternity benefit, it seems obvious that once the principle of paying maternity grants has been accepted, a worker should not be made to suffer for bearing a child. Why should she not have full wages during the time when she is unavoidably unable to attend to her work? Let me conclude by again referring to the question of segregation. I think the Minister’s repudiation was in line with what he has stood for in the past. I have before me a passage from a speech which he made on the Mines and Works Amendment Act, the notorious colour bar Act, many years ago, as to the policy of the Labour Party, and this is what he said—

There is no question here of there not being a paid minimum rate. That is provided for under other legislation, and there is no question of recruiting, and therefore his statement this afternoon was in accordance with the policy of his party as he has always stated it. There are provisions in this Bill which in the hands of a less sympathetic and less principled Minister are capable of being used as colour bar provisions, and I hope, therefore, in view of the Minister’s statement, and in view of the traditional policy of his party, that when it comes to the Committee stage he will consent to put any doubtful provisions beyond doubt, so that in the future no Minister, so long as this Bill stands on the Statute Book, will be able to use it as a colour bar measure.

I think it is essential that before I say anything about this Bill I should remove a few misconceptions. The first misconception I want to remove relates to the speech of the hon. member for Germiston North (Mr. Quinlan). He was under the impression that if this Bill was referred to a Select Committee it would be wrecked. That is by no means the case, nor has the mover of the amendment the slightest intention that this should be so. Parliament will be in session for another two months, and possibly the session will last even longer, and if the motion of the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. B. J. Schoeman) is agreed to, there will be ample time for this Bill to be dealt with by a Select Committee, and to have it passed through this House in all its stages so as to get it on the Statute Book. We on this side of the House have no intention whatever of obstructing its passage. On the contrary, we want to support the Bill, because we say that half an egg is better than an empty shell. I also want to explain something else. It appears to me that hon. members opposite, especially the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge), want to say that we on this side of thé House can talk easily because we do not intend giving effect to what we are saying. May I give you the assurance, Mr. Speaker, that every point raised by us during this discussion, and which we raise with a view to getting the Bill improved—that on each of these points mentioned by us on the second reading, we are not only going to move amendments in Committee, but we as a party regard ourselves as being pledged to do so. We have gone through this Bill, and we want to bring about improvements, and we speak here on behalf of our party, and not for the sake of making political propaganda. The Minister also tried to create that impression, and I want to remove that impression. The Minister gave the impression that the different trade unions were in favour of this Bill. Yes, they are in favour of the Bill, but they are not in favour of it because they do not approve the Bill as such. They take up the attitude, however, that whatever the position, the Bill is giving them something which they have not got at the moment, and for that reason they are not opposed to it. They are not pleased with the Bill, and they say it can be considerably improved. They do not look upon it as a Bill which is very favourable so far as they are concerned, but they realise that in any case they get something from it and they are prepared to accept it. I want to repeat again that everything that was said by the hon. member for Boshof (Mr. Serfontein) and by the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. B. J. Schoeman) was said by them on behalf of this party, and if we come into power we shall give practical effect to what has been said here on our behalf. Those of us who know the Minister know that as a rule he speaks easily and eloquently. But I really feel that the Minister has never before spoken with such difficulty. Never before has he found it so difficult to speak as he did this afternoon. The reason is that the Minister felt in his heart that he was not doing something here which he was keen on doing, but that, unfortunately, he was among people who would not allow him to do what he wanted to do for the workers. We warned him some time ago that that was what was going to happen to him. We told him that if he took a seat in the Cabinet he would find that he would be unable to do on behalf of the workers of South Africa what he would like to do for them, that he would find that those Imperialists and those capitalists would prevent him from doing so, and the impression which we gained from the Minister’s speech this afternoon was that he was tied down. It was an unhappy display; more unfortunate still was the choice of the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) to defend the Minister. I should like to answer the hon. member for Troyeville, but we in this House are in the position that we are only bilingual, and we were unable to follow what he said. I believe, however, that it is a fact that the hon. member for Troyeville tried to defend the Minister. It is peculiar, because the hon. member for Troyeville is the very man who some time ago left the sinking ship of the Labour Party, and it looks very much to-day as though he were delivering a funeral oration at the graveside of the Labour Party. It is peculiar that he should be the man chosen to defend the Minister of Labour, and as a matter of fact there was a great difference between the speeches of the hon. the Minister and the hon. member for Troyeville. The hon. member for Troyeville gave the impression—but I really did not follow him quite clearly in what he said—from the beginning to the end of his speech that he had not the slightest interest in the Bill, and that he did not want to speak about it, because he confined himself to a discourse on national socialism and things of that kind. From beginning to end he was busy discussing those questions, and when we are dealing with a long Bill such as this one and a front bencher on the other side gets up and speaks in the way the hon. member for Troyeville did, we must assume that there is something wrong with the Bill. But, peculiarly enough, something else also occurred. If one studies the papers—I mean the Imperialistic papers of members opposite, and the paper which every week has a law case against it—one finds that the public are told that there is a split in the Re-united Party. Is it not peculiar— there is trouble in the Cabinet, and in order to detract attention from that trouble in the Cabinet they suddenly start talking about a so-called crisis in the Re-united Party! Those are the tactics followed by a man with a black face who turns round and tells others that their faces are black, merely in order to detract attention from his own face. They see a splinter in the eye of others, when there is no splinter at all, merely to detract attention from the crisis in their own Cabinet. Why should all those papers start suddenly to write about trouble in our ranks? I want to support this Bill for one reason: if there is one section of the population which is deserving of the sympathy of this House and of the country, it is the workers of South Africa. I do not think there is another section of the community which is more deserving of the good feelings and the sympathy of the people than the workers of South Africa, and we say this without looking at the matter from a political point of view. There is no country in the world where the lot of the worker is harder than here in South Africa, and if we see what they have to be satisfied with our hearts go out to all of them and we try to accept anything which will be of assistance. It is in that spirit that we accept this Bill. We say it is a poor attempt to improve a precarious position. In that sense we support it. If I could have my way, and I am speaking personally now and not on behalf of my party, I should like to reduce the working week to 40 hours. I personally am heart and soul in favour of doing so but I know that under present circumstances it is impossible to achieve that, and I want to ask the Minister in the meantime to agree during the Committee stage to amend the Bill in that respect. Let him on that particular point get away from his Imperialistic friends opposite and let him agree to a 44-hour working week in this Bill. A week of 44 hours is quite long enough for the worker, and if in days to come the Minister should want to make the working week even shorter I personally would be glad to support him in such an effort. There is another reason why I call this Bill a bad Bill and that is because it contains a provision allowing ten hours of overtime. The Minister in dealing with that point did not speak in the same spirit as he usually does. He found it very difficult this afternoon to address the House when he said that the Bill was providing for ten hours of overtime. He told us that the improvement of one and one-third was being inserted. I think the Minister found the position very difficul t, because for years he has been pleading for the abolition of overtime, and now that he has the opportunity of doing something in that direction, in the direction of completely abolishing overtime, or of taking it away to a large extent, he finds that he has not got the sympathy of his Imperialistic friends opposite. All they are thinking of is the war and their war effort, and the Minister has to give in in regard to overtime. Everything has to be done in a hurry. The worker has to bear the brunt and he has to work up to ten hours of overtime. There are many people in the country looking for work. I call at the Minister’s office every day to ask him to help people who are looking for work, and if this ten hours overtime could be done away with, there would be a chance of helping a great many of those people. I personally would like all overtime to be abolished, but I realise that under present conditions it is not possible to do so, and that being so we ask the Minister to consider the question of providing for six hours of overtime instead of ten hours. We might then perhaps be able to make provision for the pay to be not one and one-third time but time and a half for overtime. I think that would be fair and just. Now I come to the question of expectant mothers. Here, too, the Minister was not able to speak in the way he used to do. He could not say the things he used to say in the past and he said this to us: “Look what a good Bill this is; in the past we used to give expectant mothers 20/- per week but now we are providing for 25/- per week.” I do not know whether we can allow a thing like that in a civilised country, and I do not know what the people in other countries will think of us if they hear that an expectant mother, at the time when she has to bring a child into the world, is expected to come out on 25/- per week. That is the time when she requires a lot of medicine and other things, and I think the Minister will admit that this provision is not one to boast about—it is not a thing to be very proud of. As a matter of fact it is something we should be ashamed of. I do not want to attack the Minister; if he could have his own way I am convinced he would give an expectant mother more than 25/- per week, but the company he is keeping and the people he is associating with to-day prevent him from doing so. They have only one thing in their minds and that is to see the war through. They are prepared to give millions for the war. The expectant mother has to be satisfied with 25/- per week. I want to say this to the Minister: if he leaves those friends of his over there, if he abandons this Imperialistic spirit, we shall still be able to look upon him as a man who puts the interests of the worker above everything else. The price he is paying for his own peace of mind for sitting opposite among the capitalists and Imperialists is not the price which he is paying as a Minister, but it is a price which is being paid by the workers in South Africa. He is not paying it out of his own pocket; it is being paid for out of the pockets of the poor, and if there is one man who is being trampled upon to-day and who is suffering great hardships it is the poor man in South Africa. I want to make an appeal to the Minister of Labour for the sake of people who in the past used to look up to him—they do not do it any more to-day—I want to ask him to abandon that Imperialistic spirit of his allies, and to come back to the worker who in the past used to look to him and expect things from him; if he does so the worker will perhaps look up to him again. There is something else I want to ask the Minister while we are dealing with this question of expectant mothers only getting 25/- per week. Is it not possible for those women to be given free medical treatment? If they were to get free medical attention it might be possible for them to come out on 25/- per week, or in any case it would make things easier for them. Could not the Minister make the employers contribute something towards the cost of medical attention for those expectant mothers? I think the employers should contribute something towards such a fund for free medical attention. I think it is something which would be welcomed by the worker and the wife of the worker, and it would give the children growing up a chance to enjoy better health than is the case now, so that they may become a greater asset in days to come to the South African nation. I also wish to bring another matter to the Minister’s notice and in this respect, too. I feel he should amend the provisions of the Bill. One comes across cases of children being stillborn, or dying shortly after birth, and in such cases the inspector has the right to tell the mother to return to work within eight weeks. I want to say this to the Minister, that in many instances where the child dies within that time it is due to the fact that the mother is not strong enough, or is not able to give the child the right food. Circumstances of that kind are responsible for these things happening. I have not looked up the percentage of cases like that, but in a large proportion of deaths of that kind those deaths occur because the mother is not strong enough, or something goes wrong at birth, or because the feeding has been wrong and complications have set in, and to give an inspector of factories the right now to tell such a mother she must return to work appears to me to be inhuman. I should like the Minister to look into that clause again. There is a further reason why we feel that this is a bad Bill, and why we want it to be sent to the Select Committee. Nothing is stated in this Bill about a minimum wage. There is nothing said about the minimum to be paid to unskilled labour. In this connection I want to ask that our friends opposite should stop talking about agriculture and about farming. This is a Bill to deal with factories, and it has nothing to do with farm labour; it has to deal with factories and factory workers, and members opposite should not try to create a smokescreen in order to get an opportunity of not doing for the workers why they should do for them. In the circumstances prevailing to-day a minimum wage should be laid down under this Bill. I think we are entitled to say that the unskilled labourer should get a minimum wage of 10s. per day. I am speaking of white workers, of course. I am sorry to see hon. members opposite laughing. If they do not agree with me on this question, and if they want to improve upon it—if those members are prepared to allow their sons to work alongside coloured people in the factories at wages similar to those paid to the coloured people, let them propose something of the kind. We on this side of the House are pleading on behalf of people of our own blood for a minimum wage of 10s., and we are doing so because we feel that it is our own flesh and blood which is doing this unskilled work. It is not the friends and the people of hon. members opposite who are doing so but it is our people who have been driven off the platteland into the towns.

Do you only want the 10s. for the white labourers?

Yes.

Does your own party support that?

Yes, my party supports it. I do not know whether my hon. friend was here when I said that my party supported this minimum wage.

Only in factories.

I am dealing with this Bill.

Let us be clear. Your party is in favour of a minimum wage of 10s. for white labourers in factories?

Yes.

But not on the platteland?

I am dealing here with a Factory Bill, and that hon. member should stop dragging farm labour into it. If the hon. member wants to propose anything like that let him take the responsibility for it. Now I also want to ask something, and I think my hon. friend will surely support me on that. In this Bill there is no mention of sick leave, and my hon. friend as a medical man must know better than I do that when a person depends on a daily wage and he has a family dependent on him, and he lives from hand to mouth, no matter how ill he is, he does not stay at home. I have no doubt that a great many people have come to him and told him that they cannot stop away from work as their families are dependent on his wages. In spite of that there is no mention in this Bill of sick leave. I want to ask the Minister to see whether it is not possible for him to provide for sick lleave in this Bill. And now I want to come to a matter in respect of which I feel the Minister has put up a smokescreen. The Minister did his utmost to get out of it. As a rule he has a very glib tongue, but on this occasion he could not wriggle out of the difficulty. I am thinking of the word “segregation”. The Minister said that he was not in favour of segregation but in favour of separation. I thereupon sent for a dictionary, the dictionary of Kritzinger and Steyn, one of the best English-Afrikaans dictionaries we have, and I found that the Afrikaans word for segregation is “afsondering”; and if one looks up the word separation one finds that that is also translated as “afsondering”. So it is a case of half a dozen of the one and six of the other. Segregation is “afsondering” and “afsondering” is separation.

I am not responsible for the translation.

Does the Minister pretend that he knows better than the dictionary. There must have been reasons which induced the Minister to withdraw the clause which appeared in the original Bill. I can think of two reasons. The one is that certain delegates came to see him, people like Sacks. Cohen, Snitcher and people like that, extreme communists, with whom, as the Minister knows, very few hon. members agree. But there was a second reason as well. The Minister will not deny that his position in the Cabinet is being made very difficult for him. I notice the Minister without Portfolio blushes. He knows it is so. One of those two reasons, or both of them, induced the Minister to take this step. I think the Minister had a lot of trouble in the Cabinet and was hard put to it, and then he had trouble outside as well, so he just dropped it—he found the mistakes in the Afrikaans translation and so as if by accident he dropped the segregation clause as well. I want to remind the Minister of a promise he made before the clause disappeared. I put the following questions to the Minister on the 18th February, 1941—

The Minister replied “Yes. All relevant matters will be considered”. Consequently he would consider the segregation policy and he did consider it and provided for it in the Bill. He thereupon suddenly discovered that the Afrikaans was poor and he then dropped the segregation clause. I do not want the Minister, however, to do what the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) has done. The hon. member for Troyeville got up here and so far as I was able to follow him spoke about only one thing. His whole speech was a plea that there should not be a dividing line between white and non-white in factories. If we were to take a walk a short distance away from Parliament and were to go to a factory I know there—I would rather not mention the name—we would find there that white women and coloured girls have to use the same waiting room, the same latrine, and they have to sit next to each other at a table and work together. The coloured person hands the goods to a white girl, and the white girl hands it to her neighbour, another coloured person. Every one does certain specific work to these goods. They sit next to each other the whole day long and I ask the Minister whether that is a desirable state of affairs? I do not want to mention the particular class of goods, but I am prepared to tell the Minister where the place is. The factory is near the Houses of Parliament. I do not think there is anyone in this House who likes to see such close contact between Europeans and non-Europeans. When we come to social questions hon. members opposite agree with us that socially there should be no contact between Europeans and nonEuropeans, but how is one going to avoid it if Europeans and non-Europeans sit next to each other at the same table and work together. How can one keep them apart socially if they have to work together day in and day out in the same place and under conditions such as I have mentioned. I want to appeal to the Minister not to look at this matter from a political point of view. I am pleading for segregation because I believe in it, because I believe it is necessary for the welfare of the white and coloured population in South Africa. I plead for segregation because we have children who must look for a future in South Africa and who will have to live here in future, and we cannot keep our nation white if white and non-white have to work together at the same table. I am appealing to the Minister and I hope nobody will say again that we are speaking about the white women in a derogatory fashion.

One has to talk straight if one wants to remedy an evil and if one sees what is going on in the factories and one hears of the way in which the non-Europeans address the Europeans one feels that something must be done. I want to ask the Minister not to think of his seat in the Cabinet, but to help us to bring about improvements. There may be members who differ from me and who may say that I am wrong in my conclusions, but I have just as much right to say that I am right as they are wrong, and what I say is this, that if this evil takes a firm hold it will be too late to do anything. Even now we hear hon. members opposite asking: “Where must the line be drawn, who is white and who is not?” And if things go on as they are going to-day the position will be even worse. Let us tackle it while we still have a chance to do so. I am making an appeal to the Minister in regard to this matter, even if he has to be kicked out of the Cabinet, let him do what he knows to be the right thing. Hon. members of this House may be in a happy position, in that it is unnecssary for their children to go and work in factories: conditions may be more favourable for us and our children do not have to go and work in factories, but I want to ask hon. members opposite, whatever their political view may be, “should your daughter have to go and work in a factory to-morrow, and have to sit next to a coloured person, from Monday morning until Saturday, day in and day out, under such conditions, and in such surroundings, how would you feel as parents?”

What about the kitchen?

That is a kitchen observation, and I am not going to answer it. I do not know whether the hon. member has any children, but for the sake of our children’s future, for the sake of our own blood, and for the sake of our people’s wellbeing I am pleading with the Minister. Those poor people have the same love for their children as we have. They also want their children to get on in life, and they do not want them to go down in the scale. Segregation has to come in South Africa, not for the sake of a political party but for the sake of the existence of a white nation. I want the Minister to take my remarks in the spirit in which I am making them, in the interest of a white South Africa. I do not want to say any more on this point. I want to ask the Minister to restore his own clause containing segregation in this Bill. Then we will not go any further, but if he is not prepared to do so we shall have to propose a very much more drastic clause; when the Minister orginally put that clause in his Bill he surely must have thought it a good thing.

If he accepts it he will be kicked out of the Cabinet.

Well, then let him leave the Cabinet. The people will then remember him as Minister of Labour when the Cabinet as composed to-day will long since have been forgotten. The Minister also spoke about fourteen days’ holiday on full pay. We accept that with open arms and we are pleased about it, but again there is a snag in it, because if one reads a little further one finds that the Minister only gives those people four public holidays on full pay whereas a man working in a shop gets all the public holidays. The factory workers are the poorest of all workers, and if anyone needs a holiday, bearing in mind the poor wage they get and the work they have to do, it is the male and female factory workers. I ask the Minister to see to it, even if it means sacrificing his seat in the Cabinet, that they get all their holidays, and if the Minister wants to rise even higher in our esteem let him also add the 10th October. I go further and I now speak on my own behalf when I say that I believe the Minister has a great deal of feeling for the worker, but I believe that his feelings and his sympathies are being smothered to such an extent by his Imperialistic spirit that his heart now dominates his brain. I believe that the regulations which he wants to have the right to apply will be fairly safe in his hands; but assuming he leaves the Cabinet because of his efforts to obtain for the poor man what we want, and assuming the Minister of the Interior were to become Minister of Labour. How can we then believe that all the points mentioned by the hon. member for Boshof (Mr. Serfontein) will receive attention. All those things may be done away with, or the Minister may use his authority not to give effect to these things. We ask the Minister to do the right thing. I should have liked to have seen something in this Bill which would put an end to the victimisation of workers by employers. There is no doubt about it, the factory worker is being victimised. I do not want to drag the war into this because if I do the Minister’s Imperialistic sentiments will again take control of him, but at the moment the victimisation of workers is something terrible. Still I do not want to go into that because I do not want to drag in the war, but I want to ask the Minister to put everything aside, the war and his seat in the Cabinet, and I want to ask him to do the right thing for the worker. At election times, but more particularly in these times of war, a tremendous amount of victimisation is indulged in. In days gone by when the Minister sat on this side of the House he used to protest most emphatically. The workers are not masters of their own souls. They are oppressed and persecuted. In the past the Minister used to defend those poor people. Now he sits over there and he has the opportunity of doing something for the workers, for the poor, and to see to it that henceforth victimisation shall not be indulged in. I ask him to protect those people against exploitation by the employers. I am not pleading here on political grounds. I am pleading because conditions are intolerable. I hope the Minister will go out of his way to help us in order to relieve the precarious position of male as well as female workers. All his life he has fought for the poor. Even if he has to give up his seat in the Cabinet, we ask him for the sake of the poor in South Africa to do what he knows to be right.

I would like to criticise the dictatorial powers which are given to inspectors in this Bill, the provisions of which will simply create an army of petty, autocratic bureaucrats. When listening to the Minister I think I was entitled to surmise that he holds the view that the only friends of the working man are to be found in the Department of Labour, or in the Labour Party. That appears to me to be a hopelessly unsound attitude of mind. I think if it is followed up in the administration of the Act it will simply destroy the harmony that exists between the employer and employee, and engender an attitude of hostility in the place of that harmony. I feel that these powers that are given to officials to go past the employer and simply enter a factory to order this and order that will beget hostility. I would like to point to an instance which shows that these powers are not always exercised for the benefit of the working man. I know an instance of a factory engaged in seasonal occupation. During the pressure of work, when the season is in full swing, the employees receive overtime, and when the work falls off it is the desire of the employer that his men shall work short time, five days instead of six days per week. By doing that he would be able to give monthly paid employees a long week-end. The Labour Department, however, said “No, you can work five days a week but you must pay employees for six days.” The factory owner naturally pointed out that this would result in a loss, but that did not move the Department of Labour, and he had to abandon his scheme and retrench and dismiss one-fourth of his weekly-paid employees, much against their will, and much against his wishes.

Who was this employer?

I will give the name to the Minister if he wishes, it is a Durban factory. I do feel that some of these provisions put too much power in the hands of the inspectors; for instance, an official can call up a factory by telephone and order an employee to appear before him to be cross-examined in the employer’s time. That man might be a key man, and his absence might close down the work of a branch of the factory. The official, however, can do this, and I consider that anything of the sort will cause friction and be very detrimental to the industrial development of this country.

I think the Minister must be a very happy man, because if the criticisms directed against this Bill are all contained in the speeches that have been made so far, he has a very easy job in front of him. The hon. member who led the attack condemned the Bill root and branch. He wanted to have it sent to a Select Committee before the second reading, with the sure knowledge that that would kill the Bill for this year.

Not necessarily.

Well, with the long parliamentary experience behind me I would say that, in my opinion, it certainly would kill the Bill for this year at least.

Don’t judge other people by yourself.

I am not judging other people. I am stating, on my parliamentary experience, which goes back for 33 years, that to send the Bill to a Select Committee before the second reading at this stage in the session means the death of the Bill for this session. Anybody who knows anything about parliamentary procedure will agree with that. That would not have been so bad, but the hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. Van Nierop), anxious that the impression should not go abroad that they are against the Bill, gave it half-hearted support by using the Dutch idiom which, in the English version, says that half a loaf is better than no bread. Having said that he was going to support the Bill, he then proceeded to go into a long criticism of particular provisions. I regard this particular measure as a very good instalment of labour legislation. The hon. member who has just spoken (Mr. Hooper), like Rip van Winkle, has been asleep for years, because he objects to any labour legislation at all; he does not want inspectors to go round. That is, if I understood his criticism. If you have this kind of legislation you have to have inspectors, and they must have powers—and that the hon. member does not seem to realise. During the debate I could not help thinking of the Select Committee of 1918 on the first Factories Bill that came before the Union Parliament. I was a member of that committee; how different was that little Bill, that modest little Bill, that was put on the Statute Book in 1918. You would not recognise it to-day compared with our present legislation, because we have advanced enormously since that time. Looking through the proceedings of that Select Committee, and comparing that Act with the position to-day, one sees the enormous progress that has been made, and further progress is evidenced in all the points that have been brought up here to-day. I think the hon. member for Cape Western (Mr. Molteno) pointed out the position in regard to the Railways, and the fact that the Bill does not apply to that Department of the State. One thing, however, we must admit, and that is that this is the first time that a Factories Act has extended its operations to all other Government Departments. Up to now the Government has always managed to get out of any provisions of any kind, labour legislation or any other, and the hon. Minister is to be congratulated on having brought Government Departments under this Bill. It is true that the Railways have been left out of it, but if I may make a suggestion to the Minister, I would suggest that in the Committee stage he should put in an enabling provision, so that if the Joint Committee of which he spoke arrives at an agreement by which the Railways can be brought in, it would not be necessary to have another Act of Parliament. I hope it can be made clear that such an arrangement with the Railways could become operative without a further Act of Parliament. With regard to the definition of “factory,” there has been a very useful extension there, and a lot of loopholes by which people have been able to avoid the Act have been stopped. That, again, is a very great improvement. The question of hours has been referred to, and there again there has been an improvement. We have certainly gone very far since 1918, when the hours provided for there were 50 a week. We have made progress since then, and reduced that figure to 46. With regard to the public holidays, the hon. member for Mossel Bay referred to the 10th October, and the hon. member for Cape Western also made a suggestion to add another day. These hon. gentlemen are apparently unaware that it would be out of order to attempt to put them into this Bill. They really want to amend the Public Holidays Act of the Union. They cannot put in May Day here because it is not a public holiday. You cannot put in the 10th October, because it is not a public holiday. This deals with public holidays by law, and therefore the Minister cannot possibly do what they want him to do. You would want to amend the Public Holidays Act of the Union. At any rate, under this particular Bill provision is made for the first time in our history by which at least these particular public holidays, the more important ones, will be paid for. Someone said, I think the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. B. J. Schoeman), that the Shop Hours Act dealt with these matters. There are some provisions of the Shop Hours Act which deal with certain matters, but this goes much further. Now, take the confinement allowance. I notice in looking at the old Select Committee that on the motion of the chairman it was resolved out of a fund provided by Parliament that a sum not exceeding 20s. per week would be paid. Well, we have now got up to £1 5s. per week.

That was in 1918.

Yes.

We have not made much progress.

That is perfectly true, but the hon. member forgets that during the time when the Government he supported was in power no progress at all was made. At any rate, we are now getting a move on. I believe I am right in saying that even under the present law something like £6,000 per year is paid out in regard to confinements— quite a substantial sum. Of course, now a great deal more will be spent.

That is about enough to keep the war going for four minutes.

The hon. member has the war on his brain; he must be very much disturbed about the good news from the North. It shows that in spite of the war this Government knows how to look after the interests of the working man. Then in regard to the age: one is glad to see that the minimum age will be raised. That is an improvement. Then, to prevent sweating of non-factory workers in out work, further provision is being made. We tried to deal with that in the Select Committee of 1918, and only wanted to allow out work under special conditions. That method has been found out of date, and this proposal of making out work illegal in most cases is better. The Minister has been vigorously attacked with regard to some alterations he has made. I have the memo, before me. Hon. members over there say something terrible happened. The Minister wanted segregation, and now he has suddenly changed it. This memorandum of his is a complete answer. The memorandum was drawn up before the new Bill was printed, so you cannot say that this memorandum was an afterthought, to meet the changed attitude of the Minister. If you look at section 24 which has caused so much trouble— is there anything there in the explanation about segregation?

Look at the Bill itself. The memorandum is not the Bill.

The Bill does not deal with segregation.

Of course it does.

They are trying to read segregation into it, but there is no segregation in that clause.

Are you speaking about the new Bill?

The memorandum deals with the old Bill.

The old Bill has been withdrawn.

The memorandum has not been withdrawn. If those hon. members had been lawyers they would know that if you want to find a man’s state of mind you examine contemporaneous evidence written by him. I am interpreting the first Bill by the memorandum issued in explanation of it before this question arose as to whether segregation was entailed, and when I read clause 24 of the memorandum I see the reason there given. It says this—

Read the old Bill.

I know the old Bill as well as any hon. member. I am giving the explanatory memorandum dealing with the old Bill, and I say the Minister is perfectly right in his attitude about clarifying the Bill, because a number of misconceptions had arisen, but there was no segregation in the Bill before and there is none now. The hon. member for Cape Western (Mr. Molteno) referred to clauses 51 and 54, which give the Minister certain powers of differentiation, and he says he is satisfied with the Minister’s explanation, but he thinks something will have to be done with these clauses. In all fairness to the Minister, I want to point out that these same clauses occur in Act 41 of 1939. Why was not that point taken at that time? There was a Select Committee which sat on that Bill, and the hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) was on that Select Committee. I have read through the proceedings of that Select Committee, and I find that no exception was taken to these clauses, nor do I think exception was taken in this House. One knows the vigilance of the hon. member for Cape Eastern on any matter like this, and one would be surprised if a thing like that were allowed to be passed by any member of that group, and if it should suddenly be found to be so dangerous now. The hon. member has not indicated what particular amendment he foreshadows, but I have no doubt that whatever amendment he proposes will be considered on its merits. The hon. member for Mossel Bay said a thing which surprised me. He said the trade unions were not really in favour of this Bill. Well, just before the Bill was published it apparently got about that there were some segregation clauses in the Bill, and I received a telegram on behalf of a number of unions protesting against the colour bar clauses. That telegram I am certain must have been sent under a misapprehension, because when I saw the Bill I did not agree that there were any such clauses, but I want to draw attention to one thing. We had sent to us a memorandum which is dated 28th February and which comes from the Labour Offices of the Cape Federation of Labour Unions, and they say that they represent some 15,000 people, and among the unions they represent there are a large number of coloured members. They say this—

So in answer to what the hon. member for Mossel Bay said, I would point out that as far as labour unions down here are concerned, and they are a very important and responsible body, they not only support the Minister but they sent round a special memorandum to members of Parliament asking them to see that this Bill becomes law as early as possible.

Is it not because half an egg is better than an empty shell?

The Trades and Labour Council are also heartily in favour of the Bill. In reply to the hon. member for Mossel Bay may I say this? My hon. friend began by praising the Bill and saying that it was worth something, and then he condemned it. There is an old English saying, “It is all very well to dissemble your love, but why do you kick me downstairs?” Why do they kick it downstairs if they are in favour of it? They are afraid of their rash opposition to the Bill and they think it may lose them support in industrial areas.

Not a bit of it, my friend.

The hon. member for Germiston North (Mr. Quinlan) also gave us a speech which was difficult to follow, because he began by criticising the Bill up hill and down dale, and he ended by saying that his party was going to vote for it. He does the very opposite to what hon. members of the official Opposition are doing. They like it but they are going to vote against it; well, the Minister does not mind what their methods are so long as they help him to pass the Bill. It seems to me that so far the criticisms have shown that we have a very sound Bill before us. If there are matters which require rectification we shall have a full opportunity during the Committee stage, but I do hope the Bill will not be referred to a Select Committee at this stage because it will mean that the Bill will be dead for this year and we do want to see a bit of social legislation on our Statute Book, particularly in regard to factories which have not received any attention for quarter of a century. I congratulate the Minister on having been able to bring this Bill before us, and I hope it will be possible to bring about such amendments as maybe necessary and that we shall be able to show the world that democracy in the midst of one of the greatest trials is still able to look after its own people.

The hon. Minister of Labour told us that organised labour had decided to approve of this Bill. Will the Minister be honest enough to tell us whether this Bill before the House is the kind of Bill asked for by organised labour? No, he cannot say that, because the Minister knows that organised labour, the trade unions, had no option. Will the Minister tell us that he did not tell those people that if they did not accept the Bill as proposed by him it would not come on the Satute Book this year. That being so the Minister is not entitled to say that the trade unions accept the Bill as it is before the House to-day. They had no option; they had to accept the little bit offered to them and if they had refused they would have got nothing. The Minister also said that we should not forget that this was wartime, and that he expected the workers to give of their best to the country. He also stated that he was aware of the fact that profits had gone up tremendously. He therefore wanted the workers to understand that they must give of their best to the country while the war lasted, while it was a hard fact that they had to give of their best for the sake of those large profits which had increased—as the Minister admitted—the profits made by the people who were waging the war. Consequently it is perfectly clear that a little bit is being given to these people, but in actual fact they are being asked to give back double as much by using their best efforts for the sake of the interests of the manufacturers for whom they are working. The Minister has put a Bill before us which he wants to get on to the Statute Book and which only wants to legalise that which actually exists in practice, namely a working week of 46 hours. I am convinced that the Minister is conversant with conditions in our factories. Tens of thousands of girls and women are employed in our factories. He only has to go to the clothing factories to see that the girls are working 46 hours per week, which is more than eight hours per day. He only has to see the way in which those girls are driven in their work. The foreman gets in between them and drives them on, so as to get them to finish a specific amount of work. The nerves of these girls are all upset because they know that if they do not do their utmost they will be dismissed. Yet they are driven like that for more than eight hours a day, and if that sort of thing goes on day after day it is quite impossible for any woman to maintain her strength. The Minister should also be aware of the fact that those girls collapse regularly as a result of over-strain in the factories. They are carried out to the rest-rooms, and when they have had a rest and have recovered they had to go back into harness to be driven again. I wonder if the Minister thinks that he has rendered a great service to the country, and especially to the girls in the factories, by reducing the working hours by two hours per week, seeing that that reduced working time has already been in existence for long. So far as that is concerned, he has given the people practically nothing. All he is doing is to ensure that that number of working hours shall not only exist in practice, but that it shall also be laid down in the law. Now I come to the question of the provision which is being made for expectant mothers. This increase of 5s. per week is very small. During that period of their lives they need medical attention and nursing, and this 25s. per week will not even cover those expenses, and what has the woman to live on? And then it is not the minimum they have to be paid, it is the maximum. Then the inspector has the right to say that he does not think the full amount is required, and that a lesser amount can be paid. There is no certainty at all that such a woman will get 25s. per week. I hope the Minister will amend the Bill so that it will not be optional, but that it will be compulsory for the whole amount to be paid. I also want to appeal to the Minister and ask him to restore the segregation clause in this Bill which appears in the previous Bill; as other speakers have already explained, it is a disgrace to our people that Afrikaner girls who work in our factories and who spring from all sections of the population, and who have no opportunity to go and take work under better conditions, but who are practically compelled to go and work where they can find work, should for eight hours a day have to stand and work alongside of coloured people and natives.

At 10.55 p.m., the business under consideration was interrupted by Mr. Speaker in accordance with Standing Order No. 26 (1), and the debate was adjourned; to be resumed on 6th March.