When business was suspended I was indicating the high and excessive prices which the consumers of wine were being charged, especially in the Transvaal—I cannot say much about brandy— and I indicated that 6s. was being charged for an ordinary bottle of Witzenberg. Sometimes it is 5s. and sometimes 6s. per bottle. I personally have paid 6s.; and one pays 3s. 6d. for a half bottle. For an ordinary glass of brown sherry they charge 9d. and in one case I even paid 1s. per glass. That works out to more than 10s. per bottle. Can you realise what the effect of it is? It practically makes it a matter of impossibility to consume any local wines, and, moreover, it is the intention to discourage it and the reason for that is self-evident. It is because the hotels are nearly all in the hands of the beer-brewing companies. They have the say, and they are naturally not anxious that wine should be consumed. They discourage it as much as possible, so that beer can be consumed instead of wine. That is why I want to ask the Minister to see to it that this matter is brought to the notice of the Price Controller. The Minister stated in connection with matches that the price would not rise as the result of this tax. The Price Controller should intervene in this matter too and see to it that no excessive profits are made, because I allege that excessive profits are being made. May I say in passing that it surprised me to find that wine which is produced in this country and on which so many farmers are dependent is specially taxed while beer is excluded. I should have thought that the Minister would rather impose this tax on beer. It should be the policy rather to encourage the people to drink less beer and more wine. My contention if this. If more money has to be found, rather levy this tax on beer. What is beer? Ninety-five per cent. or more is nothing but water, and the rest consists of barley, and the farmer does not even get a decent price for the barley which he provides to the beer companies. These companies with their large capital show enormous profits, but in addition to that they are gaining more and more control, and they have practically got the entire control of all hotels in the country in their hands. The Minister is the very person who can intervene in this matter, and unless he sees to it that proper prices are charged for wine in the hotels, this tax will result in the consumption of even less wine than has been consumed in the past. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will see to it that this matter is brought to the notice of the Price Controller, so that the price of fortified wines will not be increased as a result of this tax. I want to repeat that the price which is being charged today for fortified wine results in excessive profits. When one goes to the bar in the Parliamentary building, one finds that 2s. 6d. is charged for a bottle of Witzenberg. In the hotels the price is 6s. The price of a glass of brown sherry in the Railway buffets and also in the Parliamentary building is 3d., while it is 9d. in the hotels. The prices are abnormally high, and that is why it is necessary to see to it that these prices are not further increased as a result of this tax.

The hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. Naudé) raised the question of the price at which wine is sold. As he correctly realises, that is something in connection with which the Price Controller is able to exercise control, and I shall bring the hon. member’s remarks to the notice of the Price Controller. I rise, however, especially with the object of asking members to regard this question in the resolution in the light of the Government’s general policy. It is the Government’s general policy to tax the consumption of non-essential commodities. As far as the people are concerned, the position is that there has been an increase in their purchasing power, and that increased purchasing power must necessarily have an inflationary effect. It is therefore very clear that the tax on the consumption of non-essential commodities is an indispensable part of our policy in combating inflation. What have we done? During the past year we have considerably increased the consumers’ taxes, the excise duties. We have increased the excise duty on cigarettes, beer and brandy. We have placed new excise duties on tyres, on locally manufactured motor fuel, on pipe tobacco and on yeast. I find it difficult to see why we should still exempt wine from that policy, and that applies more particularly to fortified wine.

The wine farmer and the brandy farmer is one and the same person.

Yes, but it represents two items of consumption. Wine is definitely as much an item of luxury as any one of the commodities I have mentioned, and there are certain types of fortified wine which are definitely no less harmful from the social point of view than any one of those articles which I mentioned, with the possible exception of yeast. We have increased the tax on spirits, but the spirit which is used in the fortification of wine is not taxed; it is exempted from the tax. In view of those circumstances it is no more than right that we should levy a tax either on the spirit which is used in the manufacture of fortified wines or on the fortified wine itself. It was therefore merely a question of deciding which procedure would be more convenient, and I think we made the right decision when we decided not to tax the spirit which is used in the fortified wine but to tax the fortified wine itself. It will not help to say that it is a tax on the consumer and not on the producer, but whether it helps or not that is actually the position; it is a tax on the consumer, and for that reason the figures which were mentioned here to show that the wine farmer receives so much for his product and the State so much, do not really signify much because the money which the State gets comes from the consumer and not from the producer. Nor will it help to say that the tax is one which no one need pay unless he wishes to do so. But whether or not it helps it is nevertheless the truth. It is a voluntary tax. On the contrary, the fact is that the higher the tax on wine and brandy, the greater is the interest of the Minister of Finance, as Minister of Finance, in the wine industry.

That is a real Hoggenheimer argument.

That is like the man who fattens fowls in order to kill them.

But once he has killed the fowl he has no further interest in it, because the fowl can no longer lay eggs. If I may use that example—it is of importance that the wine industry should continue to exist so that it may continue to lay eggs for us.

But the poor fowl does not get anything.

We are often told that the wine industry is being bled to death. I cannot imagine that any Minister of Finance, as Minister of Finance, would allow that industry to bleed to death. His interest in that industry is too great. In view of all the circumstances I do not think, therefore, that any sufficient reason has been advanced why we should abandon this resolution.

Listening to the Minister, one would think that here one is dealing with an industry where everything that is produced is consumed. The Minister forgets that for many years there were enormous surpluses which the wine farmers had to bear, and last year 47½ per cent. of their production was surplus production. He forgets that they cannot sell that surplus in this country but that they have to sell it overseas, and that at the moment we have no overseas market, and that this is the very time to save the industry from going under in the future. In order to do that we must therefore allow the industry to build up a reserve. As conditions are today, the farmers are not in a position to build up such a reserve. We find, for example, that last year the Minister took £3,308,415 from the brandy industry by way of taxation. That is what the wine farmers had to pay as far as brandy was concerned. If we had been dealing here with a very flourishing industry, it would have been a different matter. The reason why the wine farmers have not been a burden to the State up to the present is because the majority of wine farmers go in for mixed farming, and because the wine crop is not subject to fluctuations to the same extent as one finds in other parts of the country. Here we have a climate where one can always reckon on a production which is more or less the same every year. But when one listens to the Minister of Finance and to hon. members on the other side, one gains the impression that the wine farmers are very rich people. That is not the case. Seventy-three per cent. of the wine farmers of this country produce less than 100 leaguers of wine. Only 3 per cent. of our wine farmers produce more than 500 leaguers of wine, and here we are dealing with a community of small farmers, and 100 leaguers of wine is worth a little more than £500 today; moreover, the farmer’s costs of production are high. Seventy-three per cent. of the wine farmers in this country are making less than £500 gross per annum. I can speak as a wine farmer here. That does not represent profit. That is his gross income. It is one of the most expensive types of farming in this country. It is specialised farming. It took many generations to learn to know and to develop the wine industry. One cannot just take any stranger and expect him to become a wine farmer. Some of us on this side of the House have been connected with this industry for five or six generations, and even today 73 per cent. of our people are only making £500 a year, and from that amount one still has to deduct the farmer’s expenses. Labour costs are very high. Today one has to pay 3s. 6d. to 4s. per day for a non-European farm labourer, and one has to have quite a number of them. It is intensive farming. One must have a cellar; one must buy machinery, and the price of machinery has risen by 200 per cent. in comparison with the pre-war price. No wine farmer who presses 100 leaguers a year makes a nett profit of more than £200, and now the Minister wants to impose further taxes on them, He says that this is a tax on the consumers. But this is the time when we must make provision for the future. Why does the Minister not tell us, as he has told others, that this is purely a war measure? Will he rise and give the House the assurance that it is purely a war measure, and that this tax will be abolished as soon as the war is over? Hon. members on the other side do not realise that, by imposing this tax, the Minister is giving a further opportunity to the bar keepers, to the bottle store owners, of making a profit. Today one finds in the canteens in the Western Province, where the tax on a bottle of wine is 4d., that they are charging 6d. more with the result that they immediately pocket between £100,000 and £150,000. Is the Minister going to give his attention to this matter? When one buys a bottle of wine in a bottle store, one has to pay 4d. more today, but when one has a drink in a bar together with a few friends, it costs 6d. more. This is a matter to which the Minister ought to give his attention.

I shall do so.

We in the Western Province felt that this thing was coming. The influence of that side of the House has shifted to the Rand, they have no sympathy for the primary producer. Mr. Blackwell was the first person to raise this matter, and he was immediately followed by other members on the other side. Take the hon. member for Albany (Mr. Bowker), for example. If the Minister were to say that he is going to tax chicory because it is not a wholesome commodity, and it is not necessary to use it—one puts it in coffee in order to make the coffee worse and to make the people ill—if the Minister proposed such a tax, what would the hon. member say? He would not say that it is the consumer who is being taxed; no, he would say that the producer is being taxed, and he would protest on behalf of his electors. We think this is an unfair tax.

There are also people who say that it is not necessary to eat meat.

The wine industry has been providing us with good liquor during the past. In the past we have not concentrated on sparkling wine, and latterly capital has been invested in order to give sparkling wine to the people. But we are not allowed to advertise our sparkling wine as champagne. In order to be able to sell crayfish, we entered into an agreement with France, and we are not allowed to describe our sparkling wine as champagne. In this connection I want to read to the Minister an article which appeared in “Wine and Spirit”, and I hope that the hon. members for Worcester, Malmesbury and Paarl will support us. This article appears under the heading: “The Tax on Sparkling Wines: Will history repeat itself?” And it reads as follows—

That is what the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Sutter) is doing. He does not sympathise with us because he drinks whisky and imported champagne.

If you want to drink poison there is no reason why I should do so.

The article goes on to say—

That is in connection with the industry which existed in France, and where they thought they could do the very thing which the Minister of Finance is now doing here. We on this side protest against it. There is a co-operative society such as the society at Tulbagh, which is developing a good champagne, namely, Winterhoek. That sparkling wine is gaining popularity in our country, and now the Minister comes along with this tax in order to kill this industry completely. We have been told that we must improve our product, and now that we are doing so the Minister is taxing the industry to death. We do hope that we will get the support of the three members on the other side to whom I referred; we also hope that they will not follow the example of the hon. member for Rustenburg (Mr. J. M. Conradie) in connection with the tobacco tax. Yesterday when he had to vote with the Government he was not in the House. He did not have the courage to vote on our side. I want to ask them not to do what he did, but to vote with us. We ask them to do so because the wine farmer has few friends in this country, and it is necessary therefore that they should join us in protesting against this unfair tax which is being imposed by the Government.

May I assure both sides of the House that I am not a middleman in the wine industry, that I have no vested rights in a bar, and that my only interest is that of a consumer?

Why make all these excuses?

I should like to deal with the arguments that have come from that side of the House on the question of who pays this tax. I must agree that the farmer does pay this tax, but the tobacco farmer also pays this tax—but he only does it when he either smokes a cigarette or drinks a glass of wine in the bar.

Oh, nonsense, he pays the tax.

Oh, yes, as a consumer he pays the tax. And therefore I must agree with hon. members who have held forth at such length to impress upon us that the farmer pays the tax, and I go further still in regard to the arguments which the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. Warren) and the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) have raised. There is a further repercussion on the wine farmer. Any increase in the price of an article does as a general economic principle decrease the demand. I grant them that. But the question is to what extent does it decrease that demand—and when dealing with that you have to go further into the economic argument, you have to study whether the demand for wine is elastic or unelastic. That is, if the price is increased, as it will be by this additional tax, whether the demand will fall appreciably, whether there will be a great lessening in the demand, or whether there will be very little lessening in the demand for wine. I am quite convinced that a tax on a luxury article like wine, on an article which has an unelastic demand, will not be of great importance. It will not ruin the wine farmers of this country—possibly the demand may lessen by a certain number of gallons, but it cannot possibly bring ruin on the industry, and in support of that contention I ask hon. members to study what has happened in the past—the tax in the past has not reduced the consumption. I therefore say that to tell hon. members on this side that because this tax is going to have a detrimental effect on the wine industry they should vote against the proposal, is putting forward a very bad argument—that argument does not hold good. Now I regard this as a sound tax. If for the purpose of raising money the Minister had taxed a food like milk or bread—some essential article—one could criticise it from that point of view, but as this is a tax on a luxury article, and not on a necessary article there can be no argument, and in the circumstances I say that this is definitely a good tax. The hon. member for Roodepoort (Mr. Allen) has raised an issue which I feel does not come under discussion in respect of this additional taxation. He has raised a social issue. I am quite convinced that the taxation which the Minister of Finance would have to impose on this fortified wine to cure the social evils which the hon. member referred to, would not be 7s. 6d. per gallon but probably 77s. 6d. And only then do I think would the low class income earners be affected in their consumption of wine.

The hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer), the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) and the hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie) seemed more concerned in this debate about what the representatives of Paarl— myself—Worcester (Mr. P. J. de Wet) and Malmesbury (Mr. J. C. Bosnian) will do about this tax, than they are about the effect the tax may have on the wine industry. Now, the hon. member for Swellendam and the hon. member for Humansdorp laid stress on the fact that a protest meeting was held recently. I did attend the protest meeting at Paarl, and when I got there I was very disappointed at the small attendance—the attendance was so small in fact that even the chairman (Mr. Kohler) had to apologise.

He did not apologise, he gave reasons.

He made excuses why the meeting was so poorly attended. After the tremendous amount of advertising we have had in the newspapers …

That is not true either.

After we had had pleas and calls on people to attend the meeting, to see the small attendance made it clear to me that a large number of our wine farmers were not in sympathy with the meeting and its object. There are over 4,000 wine farmers, and about 2,000 of them would be on this side of the mountain; it was in their interest that the meeting was convened, and if only about 200 were present, one was entitled to come to the conclusion that there was something wrong. The chairman led the meeting remarkably well, and he made it perfectly clear that the matter was one of vital importance and that politics should be kept out and not enter into the discussions. And in that sense the meeting took place. The chairman made it perfectly clear what the position was and he told us that we should not lose sight of this fact that as a result of the war, as a result of the wise decision of the Government in September, 1939, the wine industry had received a tremendous impetus. The wine trade found markets where it had never dreamed of finding markets before, and the wine trade is flourishing. And therefore it was felt that it was not unfair to have that tax at this stage, but what he emphasised was that he hoped the tax would only be for the duration of the war. And we all hope that. We all feel that the wine trade is now sufficiently taxed. When we bear in mind that without this estimate of £600,000, which this tax is expected to realise, the tax on wine will produce over £3,000,000, we must appreciate that the wine farmers are making a very valuable contribution and I feel that the trade cannot carry any further taxation. I have put it to the Minister before— that I hope this will only be a war tax. The Minister told us that he could not give us that assurance, but he said at the same time that no Government would be so foolish as to damage an industry which was so valuable to the country. “If we find that this tax harms the industry, it will be extremely foolish to continue it”—that is what the Minister said and that assurance is enough for me. One must be fair. If as a result of certain happenings your business, your trade, is bad, something has to be done to enable you to carry on. I am sorry, of course, that this tax was introduced.

Why are you sorry?

Let me tell the hon. member for Humansdorp who is such a protagonist today of the wine trade that for the last forty years, long before he stood up for the wine farmers, I represented the wine farmers at the annual meeting of the Licensing Court and the wine farmers know it. I did everything I could in procuring for them all sorts of privileges.

Still, you might tell us why you are sorry.

I am sorry that this tax was introduced because I knew it would lead to a little disturbance among my wine farmer friends.

A little disturbance, is that all?

The public of Paarl know the services I have rendered; and the insinuations by the hon. member for Swellendam and the hon. member for Humansdorp about the attitude of the members for Paarl, Malmesbury and Worcester— the allegations that we have done nothing to look after the interests of the wine farmers—don’t cut much ice. But what I want to say is this: The chairman of the protest meeting at Paarl asked people to keep politics out of this whole business. If hon. members are so genuine about their desire to keep politics out of it— why all these insinuations and allegations against us? This is a matter of such importance to wine farmers that we should keep politics out of it. Why refer to Gen. Smuts in the way the hon. members over there have done? Why make the remark that Gen. Smuts was not the father of bur wine trade? We know what the Prime Minister has done for us. Mr. Kohler himself said that Gen. Smuts was the father of the wine trade. It was Gen. Smuts who by his practical sympathy assisted us to get where we are— it was Gen. Smuts who gave us our control. We would never have had that control if it had not been for him. I say to hon. members that if they want to discuss this in a non-political manner they should not bring in the name of the Prime Minister in the way they have done. And I again ask them not to drag politics into this question.

What you really mean is: “Why expose you”?

Even at the great gathering which our friends had at Paarl the Leader of the Opposition in his speech also referred to the representatives of Paarl and Malmesbury as not having said a word in defence of the wine trade. But surely I stood up for the wine trade when I last spoke in the House? No, but the Leader of the Opposition deliberately misrepresented the position. I again want to ask the Minister to endeavour to give effect to the recommendations of the Wine Commission of 1936-’37 where they made it very clear that the present wine legislation imposes too many restrictions on the trade— that the Government should take steps to encourage the production of good light wine and try and bring wine into our cafes, and encourage the consumption of good light wine. Here is an opportunity for our farmers. If they feel that this taxation is going to affect the sale of our wine— I don’t think it is—let them try and find new markets for our wine. There are plenty of opportunities. And I should like the Minister of Finance to give us an assurance that he will use his influence with the Minister of Justice to bring in legislation next session to remove all these restrictions and handicaps under which we are labouring today. And if that can be done it will do the trade more good than all these cavilling attacks on this tax. Under the present conditions, much though I dislike having a tax imposed on wine, it is fair to impose one, and members opposite know it. As I have said before, my opinion is that the sales are not going to suffer, but I want to ask the Minister that if he finds that the sales do suffer he will either withdraw it or give some other alleviation. Now, in conclusion I want to thank the Minister for having granted the request I made on a previous occasion not to have this tax on fortified wines exported overseas.

You never made that request.

I did not interrupt the hon. member when he was speaking, but, of course, he does not like to hear me say this. I did make that request, and so did the hon. member for Malmesbury. I again want to draw attention to the Wine Commission’s report, and I hope if possible the Liquor Act may be amended next session.

I said during the Budget debate that under present circumstances we on this side of the House were prepared to accept this tax. I did not say we were pleased to have this tax, or that we welcomed it. Nor do I say today that there is a single wine farmer who welcomes this tax, and I go further than that. I say that the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer), and the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren), were fairly correct in the way they put the position of the wine farmer in the Western Province over a long period of years, but unfortunately they did not go far enough, and they did not put the whole position before the House. They tried—and it is a great pity they did so—to make political capital out of this subject. They reminded me of the old story of “Wolf, wolf”. They opposed every taxation proposal made by the Government and they told us that it is absolutely impossible for the country to bear it, and here they are doing so again, but even their own supporters among the wine farmers look upon those speeches as nothing but the “wolf, wolf” cry. The situation, of course, in regard to the wine farmer is that the increased tax may cause a reduction in the consumpion of wine. Bu the hon. member for Swellendam and the hon. member for Humansdorp both referred to the meeting of protest held at Paarl and both told the House that the wine farmers unanimously felt that this tax could not be borne by the wine industry. I have discussed the matter with a great many wine farmers, and the general view is that this tax under present conditions is not going to have a very detrimental effect on the farmers, but—and I want to emphasise this—every wine fanner feels, and I also feel—that if this tax were imposed on the wine farmers in normal conditions it would have a very detrimental effect.

What did the Minister say about that?

I am speaking on my own behalf and not on behalf of the Minister of Finance. We know that the wine farmers probably have the best organised agricultural industry in South Africa, and in consequence of their organisation namely the K.W.V., the wine farmers have during the last twenty years been able to keep their heads above water. We also know that it was found in the past is that once a tax was placed on the product of the vine it was extremely difficult to get it taken off again. But we also know something else, that the wine industry in South Africa has twice already been in a most difficult and critical position.

It has been in that difficult position very much more often.

Yes, that’s perfectly true, but on two occasions it was saved by the present Prime Minister. I know that the hon. member for Swellendam tried to secure a little bit of credit for his party in that regard.

I thought you said politics should be kept out of this question.

You are the man who dragged politics in, and all we can do is answer you. We also know that it was the United Party Government which gave us control over good wine, and there is something else we know—the figures quoted by the hon. member for Swellendam show that very clearly—and that is that from 1928 to 1932 the Government was in the hands of the Nationalist Party, and during the whole of that time the National Party did not stir a finger to assist the wine farmers in the Western Province.

There was no need for it.

We also know that the only thing the Nationalist Party did in those nine years on behalf of the wine farmers was to apply the restrictions of the Roos Act to them. Those restrictions are still in force and it would be a good thing if they could be removed, and if the wine farmers in the Western Province were asked: “Are you prepared to pay this tax if those restrictions are removed?”, every wine farmer in the Western Province would vote for it. The hon. member for Humansdorp spoke about the protest meeting at Paarl. He was there, and all he did was to make a kind of propaganda speech. We listened to him and we did not blame him. Many of the facts he mentiond were perfectly correct, and we know why he said all these things—he is an aspirant for a directorship of the K.W.V. So far as I personally am concerned I am going to support him if I can. I think he would be a first class director if he would only leave politics out of the matter and would assist to get the wine industry placed on a sound basis. We feel that although we do not welcome this tax it is none the less due to the policy followed by this party, it is none the less due to this war in which we are engaged now, that the wine industry has expanded and that the consumption of wine has been almost doubled. Seeing that hon. members opposite are fighting so hard for the interests of the wine farmer I want to ask them what the position would have been had we decided in 1939 to remain neutral? What would the position of the wine industry have been? I am not one of those who tries to argue that a tax like this on the wine industry is not going to affect the consumption of wine. My personal view is that it will definitely affect it. I would have been very glad if the tax had not been imposed, but none the less I feel that under prevailing conditions I am prepared, with members on this side of the House, for the sake of the country and for the sake of the people of this country, to make this sacrifice. I am sure that the wine farmers—not all of them, because I know that many of them have listened to the speeches of the hon. member for Humansdorp and the hon. member for Swellendam, and that they feel as those members feel—but I know that a large proportion of the wine farmers feel and realise that the wine industry today is in a better position as a result of the war than it would have been had we remained neutral. And we also feel that the tax in the circumstances prevailing today can be justified, but I want to draw the attention of the Minister of Finance to this. It is a fact of the past. I think it was in 1919, just after the last world war, when the price of wine was £10 per leaguer. As a result of a poor crop and speculation the price of wine in one year went up from £10 per leaguer to £27 10s. per leaguer. And as a result of the big increase in the price of wine the whole market collapsed and a year after wine was sold at £3 per leaguer. I want to draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that this tax which he is now imposing means an increase of round about £11 10s. He has given us the assurance that he, as Minister of Finance, will watch the position, and we want to appeal to him to watch it very closely. The tax may perhaps have a more detrimental effect than he and others think. The position today is that very good wine costs £7; with spirits added the farmer probably gets £10 for his good wine. The increase which the Minister proposes is £11 10s. That means that so far as the merchant is concerned the wine is immediately raised from £10 to £22 10s. Under present conditions the trade may possibly be able to stand that as money is very plentiful today, and as there are many people here from overseas, but I personally am convinced that under normal conditions it will be impossible for the wine industry to bear that tax. I also want to draw the Minister’s attention to this, that of all the agricultural industries the wine industry is probably one of the few which has never yet approached the Government for financial assistance. We have always stood on our own feet and looked after ourselves, and we as wine farmers of the Western Province are very proud of that fact and hope we shall never have cause to approach the Government or the State for assistance. I therefore want to ask the Minister to watch the position very carefully and to make it possible for the wine industry to carry on.

I am very glad that I do not find myself in the unenviable position of those two hon. members who have just sat down. The hon. member for Malmesbury (Mr. J. C. Bosman) in the whole of his speech especially gave us to understand that he was in absolute agreement with the attitude adopted by the hon. member for Swellendam, the hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie) and myself. He frankly admitted that he entirely agreed with the feeling expressed at the two meetings of wine farmers which had been held.

No.

He said that the wine farmers did not want this tax; he said that the tax was definitely going to harm the wine industry.

After the war.

He said that he also felt that the increased tax would have the effect of reducing the consumption. He agreed with us on every possible point, but unfortunately he finds himself in the wrong place in this House.

We are prepared to make sacrifices.

He finds himself in a seat where he has to vote against the interests of his own constituency. He belongs to a party which is not prepared to look after the interests of his constituents.

What has the Nationalist Party ever done for agriculture?

That is the position in which he finds himself. Now let me come to the hon. member for Paarl (Mr. Faure) who has done such a lot for the wine industry in the past. He was briefed— he used to get his fees. Those were his great sacrifices. Those two hon. members come here and discuss this matter from a political point of view.

On a point of explanation, the hon. member said that I had taken fees for what I had done. I appeared before the Licensing Board on behalf of the K.W.V. and at the request of the Licensed Victuallers Association, and I never got a penny for doing so.

Shocking! The hon. member says that he did not get a fee. I hope that was not because he was worth so little. I don’t want to drag politics into this question, but the speeches made by these two hon. members were from beginning to end nothing but political speeches. They tried to justify what their Government had done, and now they say that we must not blame the Government for taxing the wine industry because the Party over there has done such a lot for the wine industry in the past. That in itself is an admission that the Party is now doing the wrong thing. But what has become of the promise which they were supposed to get from the Minister, that the tax was only to be a temporary measure? Last time they said that they were going to insist, practically, that the Minister would see to it that it was only a temporary measure. I know that those two hon. members feel exactly as I do about this matter and I want to help them out of their difficulty by moving an amendment. I am sure they will vote for it because they have already given us to understand that what is contained in this amendment is exactly what they think. I want to move—

The Clause will then read—

I realise the difficulty of these hon. members; they are caught by the promises which they made to their constituents. Unfortunately they are new members and they perhaps do not know the procedure as well as I do, so I want to open the road to enable them to carry out their promise, so that they may be sure that the tax will only be a temporary one for the duration of the war. Then I want to move a further amendment—

Let me tell the Committee what my object is in moving this. A lot of good fortified wine is produced which is usually bought by the fairly well-to-do people at higher prices. Then you get fortified wine—the ordinary port wines and sherries—canteen sherry as it is often called, although that’s not the right name—and these are wines which are principally bought by the poorer classes.

Whom do you want to exempt from the tax?

I want to exempt the wine which the poor people buy and I want to make those people who can pay more, as the Minister himself will admit, pay a little more for the better-class wine. I therefore want the tax only to fall on that wine which in the liquor trade is sold for at least 15s. That is not high, it is only 2s. 6d. per bottle. I suggest they will pay a higher tax, but the tax should not be imposed on the poor man’s wine. Let me tell the Minister what the effect of this tax already 1s. I believe the hon. member for Gordonia has already said that where a tax of 4d. has now been put on fortified wine, in the retail trade, that is in the bar or in the hotel, you already have to pay 6d. more per glass than before. The barman takes an additional 2d. and the consumer already has to pay 6d. more. But there is another effect. The poor people drink wine which is not the type of wine which we buy here and drink, not the type of wine which we drink with our meals; they drink a cheaper type of wine, a younger wine, but it is a healthy wine—though it is not of the high quality which we are accustomed to drink. In many places the result already is that the poor man, whose fortified cheap wine is now taxed by 2d., is disposed to drink unfortified wine. Now, the man who runs a bar says that if fortified wine is more expensive people will drink unfortified wine, and he—the man who runs the bar—will be the loser, so he also puts up the price of unfortified wine. I want to prevent that. I want to make the position such that the poorer man who drinks his cheap and healthy wine will not pay the tax, but that we shall lay the tax on people who buy the more expensive type of wine and who can afford to pay the tax. I therefore move my two amendments, to make sure that this is only going to be a war measure, and by doing so I hope I am helping those hon. members out of their difficulty. Of course, we do not want this tax at all, but if it has to be imposed then we, like hon. members over there, want it to be only a temporary war measure, which is the lesser of the two evils; and the second amendment I propose is that the tax will fall on the man who buys the more expensive type of wine while the man who buys the cheap wine will be exempted.

I had not intended taking part in this debate. I know nothing about the wine industry, and about the tax on wine, so I don’t want to talk about that. But unfortunately the hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie) in his usual way, in his I could almost say low down way, has again dragged personalities into the debate.

On a point of order, is the hon. member entitled to accuse another member of doing something and saying “in his usual low down way?”

No, the hon. member must not say that, he must withdraw that.

What I said was that the hon. member in his usual low down, personal way …

The hon. member cannot say that.

Very well, I withdraw that, but of course I am entitled to have my own opinion.

The hon. member must not say that. He must unconditionally withdraw.

At your request I unconditionally withdraw.

Order, order!

I withdraw unconditionally. Well, I shall say then that the hon. member in his usual way dragged personalities into the debate. He cannot help doing so. I am sorry having to take so much notice of him this morning. He accused me of having run away yesterday and he did it in a most reprehensible way. He said that I ran away while the tobacco tax was being discussed.

I did not say that.

You said so just now. I think the hon. member should try and find out why a member is absent before making such allegations. Let me explain the position. I represent not only tobacco farmers but other farmers as well. I had an appointment yesterday with the head of the Department of Agriculture, together with five other members, and they can confirmi what I am saying. We had a discussion about the interests of the Citrus farmers and their interests are at stake today more than those other interests.

What would you have done had you been here?

I would have voted for the tax. I am not afraid to do so. I did so last year and I shall do so again.

Would you have been pleased to do it?

I would have done so just as freely as I voted for the war for which this tax is required.

And stay at home?

There we have another instance of what I said just now, the usual type of personalities in which the hon. member indulges. I am sorry having had to take up the time of the House but I had to, show up the hon. member. A few years ago he said that the member for Rustenburg (Mr. J. M. Conradie) was the greatest khaki in the country and that he was sorry to bear his name. He also said he would not recognise or look at me any more. Then why does he devote so much time to me? I just got up to show him up and put his allegation against me in the right light. That is all I want to say.

There is practically nothing left to say about the wine question.

All that is left is your conscience.

If a wine farmer works he gets hot, and if you drink you get hot, and if you discuss the wine farmers’ interests you get hotter still. We are dealing here with a very difficult question, and when we discuss a matter concerning this industry we must be tactful and moderate; if I had had the opportunity yesterday I would have thanked the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) and the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) for the spirit of moderation in which they discussed this question, but I don’t know whether I can still do so this morning. This is a subject which we have to handle very carefully because the wine industry gets very little sympathy from the rest of the community. We cannot just play with this matter, and when speakers get up and make propaganda and cast reproaches at each other for ulterior motives, and speak in a way they should not speak, they forget they are doing the industry more harm than good. I discussed this matter of the tax with the Minister personally. I was afraid and I hoped that as little as possible would be said about it because there is quite enough bad feeling on the subject without making the position worse—other sections of the community feel that they have good reason to be opposed to the wine industry. I therefore want to make an appeal to all sides of the House not to act as we do in connection with the wine industry and to take up an attitude what one’s party proposes. I can only say this to hon. members, that the liquor question has never been made a political question in this House. There are members here, like the hon. member for Roodepoort (Mr. Allen) who are abstainers. I do not want to say anything about them—they certainly have a right to their opinion, but their opinion is not shared by 98 per cent. of the population. I am therefore not even going to take the trouble to reply to what the hon. member said. I am sure he has never drunk a glass of wine and he does not know how much good a glass of brandy will do him. He does not realise the situation. People like that are so unreasonable that you cannot talk to them. You do get unbalanced people in the world, and unfortunately it seems to me as if that particular member belongs to the unbalanced section of the community. So far as the other members are concerned, I have listened to them and some of the things they have said are quite correct.

Are you able to judge as to who is balanced and who is not?

Oh, I know that you are a man who can take his drink. I could hardly imagine that an hon. member bearing the name which that hon. member bears could ever be unbalanced. The position is simply this, that so far as those other members are concerned they are anxious to comply with party discipline, and that is why they will vote for this tax. That is why they are trying to justify the Minister’s proposals. The only argument they can adduce now is that this is a war tax and that it will be taken off after the war. Even the wine farmers belonging to the United Party do not welcome this tax. They are very much concerned about it because they know it’s going to have an effect on future elections, and that is why they are always talking about what this Government has done for the wine farmers. My experience of the Minister of Finance is that if I ask for any assistance or for any concessions I have to pay twice as much for it as it is worth.

You are a little unfair now.

Allow me to continue. That being so, I feel that the only thing I can do is to explain the whole position so that everyone may realise what all this means. Nobody realising what the situation is can say that the facts which I have put before the House are incorrect. In 1936 we got just as much for our wine as we do today, and the production costs were not as high then as they are today. How can it be argued then that the wine farmers are flourishing today. I do not say they are starving, but I do say that the wine industry is the only branch of farming where the prices have not gone up to the same extent as they have done in other branches of farming. That being the case I want to know why the wine farmer must be selected for special taxation? I feel that we have put the position of the wine farmer very clearly. Let us agree that the financial position being what it is it is necessary to impose this tax for the sake of the war. I do not agree with the war, but let us say that this tax is necessary to enable us to carry on the war; if that is so then we want the Minister of Finance to regard this tax as a war tax which will be then taken off again immediately the war is over. Hon. members opposite have made an appeal to the wine farmers to say that they are prepared to accept this tax to see the war through. We now understand their position. We do not agree with it but we accept that as their attitude. Well, let us propose then that this shall be a war tax and that it will be taken off immediately the war is over, in the same way as the increased customs duties will be taken off. That is what we propose and we consider that that proposal should be accepted. The wine farmer has had experience in the past of what happens in regard to taxes of this kind. A tax on liquor is simply not taken off. It has only happened once, and then it was only done after a violent protest. We know what happened in the days of the late Mr. Merriman when 15,000 or 20,000 wine farmers wanted to surround the House of Parliament. The tax on wine was reduced after that. The position is simply this, that the wine farmer has never yet got anything from any Government without having had to fight for it. That is the position—the wine farmer has been taught to fight for what he wants. At first we argued very nicely with the Minister: all of us talked very nicely and very sweetly, but the Minister simply said “no,” and that is the position we are faced with. Well, if we cannot get things remedied by talking nicely then we have to take more drastic action. So far as this tax is concerned I again want to appeal to the Minister of Finance. He has told us the same thing; he has told us that we must not fight and that we should discuss things nicely. We have discussed things nicely. I have made every concession that I am possibly able to make. I have done everything I possibly can, and I now ask this Committee to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Humansdorp viz: that this tax be a war tax only. If that is agreed to we shall all know that when the war is over the tax will go. It may be that the Minister of Finance in power at that time will require the tax again, but he will have to assume responsibility under the conditions which will then prevail. Surely that request is by no means unfair or unreasonable? The Minister of Finance appealed to the wine farmers to accept this tax because the money was needed for war purposes. Well, if that is so, very well, but then it should only be levied for the duration of the war, and even if the present Minister of Finance still occupies the post he now occupies after the war he will, if he wants this tax to remain, have to propose it again on his own responsibility. I cannot put the matter more plainly than I have done, and if the Minister of Finance really contends that this is a war tax then he should accept this proposal. He will then put his own people in the position of being able to say that they are in favour of the war, and that they are therefore prepared to make this contribution. It is no use members saying that they hope this, that or the other thing will happen. Apparently all suffering is to be alleviated by hope. It’s no use hoping. So far as that hope is concerned the position is simply this, that the Minister has told us frankly that he is not going to make this a war tax. Other members, and we on this side of the House, have talked and argued very quietly. This is the last opportunity I shall have of speaking on the tax in Committee—this is my final appeal to the Minister. I am not raising any political issues. Let me tell the Committee what the K.W.V. has done. When the tax on brandy was doubled the K.W.V. discussed the matter and we felt that as the Chairman of the K.W.V. was a strong Government supporter, and also a strong supporter of the Minister’s, we should ask him to write a letter of protest because if the farmers were asked to lodge a protest it would perhaps be said that they were dragging politics into the matter. So far as the K.W.V. is concerned we have never yet allowed politics to play any part in our affairs.

What are you talking about now?

Nobody can say that we have. When I stood for election as a Director I asked the people straightforwardly not to vote for me on political lines. Well, we asked Mr. Kohler to write a letter of protest. I uttered a word of warning at the time. I considered that it would be better to hold protest meetings so that the farmers might realise what the position was. It was á terrible thing; first of all to raise the excise on brandy from 10s. to 12s. 6d. and then to raise it to 25s. It meant that on a bottle of brandy, for which the farmer gets 10d., the State gets 4s. 2d. in tax, and on a product for which the farmer gets £1,500,000 the State takes £4,100,000. And yet hon. members opposite talk about the well-to-do farmers. They know nothing about the position; they do not realise what the position 1s. A letter of protest was sent to the Government, but what was the effect. I agreed not to make this a political issue but I uttered a word of warning and I said that unless a protest was lodged the Government and the Minister would once more tax the wine farmer in some other way, and that is actually what happened. We uttered warnings against this danger to the industry, and today we can see what is happening. The hon. member opposite said that there had been two crises in the wine industry. Oh, no, there have been a great many more. It started in 1820. The position at that time was so serious that the Governor of the time had to take the Chair at a meeting of wine farmers when the British Government wanted to abolish the preferential tariff on good wine. The wine farmers forwarded a petition to the British Parliament asking for responsible government. That is the reason why the wine farmers are so well organised, because they know that if they are not thoroughly organised these other people— commerce and the Government— will destroy our industry. We have gone through all this, and we have survived, but very difficult times are facing us again. I shall not have another opportunity of speaking on the subject, but with these few words I want to ask the Minister to accept the amendment. He will not lose anything by it. If after the war he is still Minister of Finance he can again propose this tax, but we shall know that in the meantime the tax is levied as a war tax and that it will be taken off when the war is over. If it is proposed again the wine farmers will know what is the best thing for them to do, but meanwhile they will be making this sacrifice for the sake of the war. Other conditions will arise then, and we, or those who will be taking our places here, will be able to fight the wine farmers’ cause. They may perhaps have a Minister then with a bigger and better heart for the wine industry than the present Minister of Finance.

There is an old saying, “Judge not lest you be judged,” but from the attitude of the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) one would get the impression that he himself has been close to a “doppie” this morning.

Order; the hon. member must not indulge in personalities.

Very well, I withdraw that, but may I ask for a ruling on this amendment. Is it possible to bring in an amendment such as we have before the Committee whereby we ask that such taxation should only remain in force for the duration of the war? If that can be done then it would be possible for any of the taxation proposals to be made subject to such an amendment. What would be the position if it is carried?

No. 5 is only for the duration; why not have it here also?

The amendment of the hon. member for Humansdorp is perfectly in order.

I just want to say a few words more on this subject.

Business suspended at 12.45 p.m. and resumed at 2.20 p.m.

It seems that the Minister of Finance is not disposed to accept the proposal for the removal of this tax, and the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) has now proposed that it be only a temporary measure for the duration of the war. If one has to judge from the attitude adopted by the Minister of Finance one can only say that he agrees with this amendment and that the tax is only intended to be for the duration of the war. In view of the fact that the hon. member for Worcester (Mr. P. J. de Wet), believes in friendly words and not in meetings of protest, I hope he will get up and ask the Minister to impose the tax only for the war period and to give an undertaking that it will be taken off immediately the war is over. The hon. member for Paarl (Mr. Faure) and the hon. member for Malmesbury (Mr. J. C. Bosman) have already agreed and said they will join us in making representations in that spirit. I hope that when the amendments are put those hon. members will be in their seats and will vote with us in favour of this tax being only a war tax.

First amendment put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—29 :

Booysen, W. A.

Brink, W. D.

Conradie, J. H.

Dohne, J. L. B.

Dönges, T. E.

Erasmus, H. S.

Fouché, J. J.

Grobler, D. C. S.

Haywood, J. J.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Le Roux, J. N.

Louw, E. H.

Ludick, A. I.

Luttig, P. J. H.

Mentz, F. E.

Olivier, P. J.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Steyn, A.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Strydom, J. G.

Swanepoel, S. J.

Vosloo, L. J.

Warren, S. E.

Werth, A. J.

Wessels, C. J. O.

Wilkens, J.

Tellers: P. O. Sauer and J. J. Serfontein.

Noes—73:

Abbott, C. B. M.

Abrahamson, H.

Acutt, F. H.

Allen, F. B.

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Bawden, W.

Bell, R. E.

Bodenstein, H. A. S.

Bosnian, J. C.

Bosman, L. P.

Bowker, T. B.

Burnside, D. C.

Butters, W. R.

Christie, J.

Christopher, R. M.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

De Kock, P. H.

Derbyshire, J. G.

De Wet, P. J.

Du Toit, A. C.

Du Toit, R. J.

Eksteen, H. O.

Faure, J. C.

Fawcett, R. M.

Fourie, J. P.

Gray, T. P.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Henny, G. E. J.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hopf, F.

Howarth, F. T.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Latimer, A.

McLean, J.

Maré, F. J.

Miles-Cadman, C. F.

Mushet., J. W.

Neate, C.

Payn, A. O. B.

Payne, A. C.

Pieterse, E. P.

Pocock, P. V.

Robertson, R. B.

Russell, J. H.

Shearer, O. L.

Shearer, V. L.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Sonnenberg, M.

Steenkamp, L. S.

Steyn, C. F.

Stratford, J. R. F.

Strauss, J. G. N.

Sullivan, J. R.

Tighy, S. J.

Tothill, H. A.

Ueckermann, K.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Van der Merwe, H.

Van Niekerk, H. J. L.

Van Onselen, W. S.

Waring, F. W.

Warren, C. M.

Waterson, S. F.

Williams, H. J.

Wolmarans, J. B.

Tellers: G. A. Friend and J. W. Higgerty.

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Remaining amendment put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—32:

Booysen, W. A.

Bremer, K.

Brink, W. D.

Conradie, J. H.

Döhne, J. L. B.

Dönges, T. E.

Erasmus, H. S.

Fouché, J. J.

Grobler, D. C. S.

Haywood, J. J.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Le Roux, J. N.

Louw, E. H.

Ludick, A. I.

Luttig, P. J. H.

Malan, D. F.

Mentz, F. E.

Olivier, P. J.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Potgieter, J. E.

Steyn, A.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Strydom, J. G.

Swanepoel, S. J.

Vosloo, L. J.

Warren, S. E.

Werth, A. J.

Wessels, C. J. O.

Wilkens, J.

Tellers: P. O. Sauer and J. J. Serfontein.

Noes—81:

Abbott, C. B. M.

Abrahamson, H.

Acutt, F. H.

Allen, F. B.

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Bawden, W.

Bekker, H. J.

Bell, R. E.

Bodenstein, H. A. S.

Bosman, J. C.

Bosman, L. P.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowker, T. B.

Burnside, D. C.

Butters, W. R.

Christie, J.

Christopher, R. M.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

De Kock, P. H.

Derbyshire, J. G.

De Wet, P. J.

Du Toit, A. C.

Du Toit, R. J.

Eksteen, H. O.

Faure, J. C.

Fawcett, R. M.

Fourie, J. P.

Goldberg, A.

Gray, T. P.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Hemming, G. K.

Henny, G. E. J.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hopf, F.

Howarth, F. T.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Latimer, A.

McLean, J.

Madeley, W. B.

Maré, F. J.

Miles-Cadman, C. F.

Molteno, D. B.

Mushet,, J. W.

Neate, C.

Payn, A. O. B.

Payne, A. C.

Pieterse, E. P.

Pocock, P. V.

Prinsloo, W. B. J.

Raubenheimer, L. J.

Robertson, R. B.

Russell, J. H.

Shearer, O. L.

Shearer, V. L.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Sonnenberg, M.

Steenkamp, L. S.

Stratford, J. R. F.

Strauss, J. G. N.

Sullivan, J. R.

Tighy, S. J.

Tothill, H. A.

Ueckermann, K.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Van der Merwe, H.

Van Niekerk. H. J. L.

Van Onselen, W. S.

Wanless, A. T.

Waring, F. W.

Warren, C. M.

Waterson, S. F.

Williams, H. J.

Wolmarans, J. B.

Tellers: G. A. Friend and J. W. Higgerty.

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Original motion put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—74:

Abbott, C. B. M.

Abrahamson, H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Bawden, W.

Bekker, H. J.

Bell, R. E.

Bodenstein, H. A. S.

Bosman, J. C.

Bosman, L. P.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowker, T. B.

Butters, W. R.

Christie, J.

Christopher, R. M.

Cilliers, H. J.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

De Kock, P. H.

Derbyshire, J. G.

De Wet, P. J.

Du Toit, A. C.

Du Toit, R. J.

Eksteen, H. O.

Faure, J. C.

Fawcett, R. M.

Fourie, J. P.

Goldberg, A.

Gray, T. P.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Hemming, G. K.

Henny, G. E. J.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hopf, F.

Howarth, F. T.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Latimer, A.

Madeley, W. B.

Maré, F. J.

Miles-Cadman, C. F.

Mushet, J. W.

Neate, C.

Payn, A. O. B.

Payne, A. C.

Pieterse, E. P.

Pocock, P. V.

Prinsloo, W. B. J.

Raubenheimer, L. J.

Robertson, R. B.

Russell, J. H.

Shearer, O. L.

Shearer, V. L.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Sonnenberg, M.

Steenkamp, L. S.

Strauss, J. G. N.

Sullivan, J. R.

Tighy, S. J.

Tothill, H. A.

Ueckermann, K.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Van der Merwe, H.

Van Niekerk, H. J. L.

Van Onselen, W. S.

Waring, F. W.

Warren, C. M.

Williams, H. J.

Wolmarans, J. B.

Tellers: G. A. Friend and J. W. Higgerty.

Noes—34:

Booysen, W. A.

Bremer, K.

Brink, W. D.

Conradie, J. H.

Dohne, J. L. B.

Dönges, T. E.

Erasmus, F. C.

Erasmus, H. S.

Fouché, J. J.

Grobler, D. C. S.

Haywood, J. J.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Le Roux, J. N.

Louw, E. H.

Ludick, A. I.

Luttig, P. J. H.

Malan, D. F.

Mentz, F. E.

Olivier, P. J.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Potgieter, J. E.

Serfontein, J. J.

Steyn, A.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Strydom, J. G.

Swanepoel, S. J.

Vosloo, L. J.

Warren, S. E.

Werth, A. J.

Wessels, C. J. O.

Wilkens, J.

Tellers: J. F. T. Naudé and P. O. Sauer.

Motion accordingly agreed to.

I move—

1. (3) That the customs duties on the articles as set forth hereunder be increased to the extent shown:

We know there is one thing in South Africa which is causing people a lot of worry and trouble, and that is the high costs of production of a number of our agricultural implements. What we must try to do is reduce the costs of production, but we now find that in sub-paragraph (3) customs duties are increased, among other things, on the importation of tractors. The duty used to be 9s. 6d. per 100 lbs. and it is now changed to 10 per cent. on the purchase price. What I should like to know from the Minister is why at a time like the present, when there is a general increase in prices, customs duties should be increased on tractors from a duty on 100 lbs. weight to a percentage duty on the price of tractors? I have been unable to find out what the exact difference is going to be, but we are told here that these are increased tariffs. It must be clear that in these days of rising prices the percentage tax will be a continually increasing tax. The farmers in South Africa have to struggle and contend with high prices of agricultural implements, yet the Minister comes here and increases the customs duties. It not only hits the producer but it also partly hits the consumer. It seems to me that there is something mean in this.

Why should the taxation system on agricultural implements be changed at this particular stage? We know that in these days of scarcity of food our cattle herds are being drained and the farmers have to use tractors to an ever increasing extent. The prices of tractors are going sky high. Why must this time be selected for increasing our taxation? I am curious to know what the Minister has to say—it is a serious matter.

I don’t want to detain the House on this question of the amendment of customs duties on tractors. I don’t consider this proposal a very urgent or important one, and if hon. members do not want to proceed with it I am quite prepared to drop it. Eventually it will be desirable, but the hon. member is apparently afraid that under present conditions it may cause prices to go up unduly, and in view of the hon. member’s remarks I am prepared to accept an amendment to delete the item.

Could we move that now or on the Bill?

I think it will be better to move it on the Bill. I assure the hon. member that there will be an opportunity then to make the amendment.

There is one other matter I want to raise. I notice that the Minister intends imposing a customs duty on certain types of leather. We know that this is in the interest of tanners in this country. They have succeeded in inducing the boot and shoe industry to support them in their request for the imposition of this tax; the boot and shoe people have agreed because the tanners have assured them that they are aiming to supply those types of leather, and it is on those conditions that they have agreed. Now the information reaches me that there are certain types of leather which the tanneries cannot supply in sufficient quantities to meet the needs of the country. I am thinking of, for instance, welting. Formerly that article was imported at an economic price but the price of the imported article is now prohibitive, and the local tanneries cannot supply sufficient except to the factories making military boots and shoes. Assuming it is found in the course of the year that the tanneries cannot carry out their agreement ….

Let me assure the hon. member at once that if it is found that the supplies are not available I shall under the other Bill, which is still before the House, have the right either to suspend or to reduce the customs duty. I have that power.

I also want to say a few words about the point raised by the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth). Under 254 (a) and (b) we are dealing here with increased rates; where goods used to come in free they are now subject to a customs duty of 20 per cent. You get item after item here which used to come in free but is now made subject to a 20 per cent. customs duty. Does not the Minister think that an unsound policy—to increase tariffs at a time like the present? It is perfectly clear that the boot and shoe industry does not mind how high the customs duties are made because those duties do not affect the industry. Only a very small quantity of leather is available from abroad, the rest is obtained here in South Africa. I understand that the tanneries have come to an agreement with the boot and shoe industry. The price of the leather will not as a result be increased, but it is not merely a question of raising prices at the moment. The position is that after the war prices will have to come down again, and the tanneries will then avail themselves of the increased rates which are not necessary at the moment. I assume the Minister will agree with me that in the interest of a sound economic structure it is necessary to keep the protective rates as low as possible. It is necessary to keep the industries as near as possible to the economic level, and to give as little protection as possible, and if at a time like the present we raise customs duties when it is not necesary to do so we are following the wrong course. It seems peculiar to me. The other day I referred to a report by the Board of Trade and Industries. I don’t want to cast any reflections but this increase from nothing to 20 per cent. is unheard of. I would appreciate it if the Minister would look at the matter in that light. At the moment it may perhaps make no difference, but it is a question of a sound policy for the future which is at issue, and it is in the interest of a sound structure that we should see to it that no unnecessary customs duties are imposed. It seems to me that this is a wrong principle.

I quite agree with the principle expounded by the hon. member. I am definitely opposed to driving up the protective rates to an unnecessary height, but we are dealing with a case where the two industries concerned have come to an argreement. The contention underlying that agreement is that the tanneries hold that they are now able to manufacture certain types of leather which in the past had to be imported. That certainly is something which we should welcome.

But they do not need protection.

The real object is to make it possible to use our own South African leather to a greater extent in our boot and shoe factories The hon. member says that it will make no difference to the price today. He is quite correct. He said that it may perhaps make a difference in future. I can assure him that we shall watch the position. As he knows the Board of Trade and Industries is now engaged on making a general investigation into the whole question of protection and in the light of that investigation possible developments will again be taken into consideration.

Motion put and agreed to.

I move—

Agreed to.

HOUSE RESUMED :

The CHAIRMAN reported the resolutions on income tax, diamond mines special contribution, death duties, stamp duties, wartime surcharge on transfer duty payments and excise and customs duties and the amendment of the Law Resolution.

The Report considered and the resolutions adopted.

I move—

I second.

Agreed to.

Mr. SPEAKER appointed the Minister of Finance and the Chairman of Committees a Committee to bring up the necessary Bill or Bills to give effect to the remaining resolutions.

The MINISTER OF FINANCE brought up the Report of the Committee, submitting five Bills.

The introduction of this Bill, especially in the circumstances known to most hon. members, is rightly a cause for considerable amazement. It amazes one for various reasons. The first reason is that practically the same Bill was brought before, the House by the Minister in 1940. When he introduced the Bill on that occasion he announced that it was a measure of the utmost importance and that it was the first of a series of Bills of a similar nature which he would introduce, one after the other, but after the matter had been discussed here he dropped his Bill, probably not only because he experienced opposition in this House, and strong opposition at that, but also because there was opposition to it outside the House. Now he has come here again with this Bill and the opposition to the Bill, so far as criticism which has been levelled here is concerned, has increased rather than decreased. This Bill is unpopular—there can be no doubt of that. There can be no doubt that this Bill, if it is passed, will be forced on the House. This opposition to the Bill did not come from one side of the House only, but from both sides, and even one of the prominent Press organs of the other side of the House, a newspaper which generally supports the Minister, even when the course he follows is most unacceptable—I am speaking of the “Cape Argus”—contained an article after this Bill had been discussed, urging the Minister to withdraw it. But in spite of all this the Minister persists with his Bill. Now the question has been rightly asked: “How does the Minister manage to force this Bill on the House, seeing that criticism, and very strong criticism, has been levelled against it from both sides? There can be only one reply, and that is that it is the price which the other side is prepared to pay for the maintenance of a United Front. No other good reasons for it can be found. The Minister of Labour apparently went to the Caucus and was met with even stronger opposition there, so he simply used the big stick.

You are quite wrong.

Yes, we shall see during the further discussions of this Bill whether the opposition which came from the other side of the House is going to be continued, and we shall see when it comes to a division how those members who have criticised the Bill as strongly as we have done, and even more so, are going to vote.

Which Caucus?

The one which asked for your resignation.

Another fact in connection with this Bill being forced on the House is that the Bill has been introduced against the deliberate recommendation of the Planning Council. What have we got a Planning Council for? The Planning Council is there to give advice to the Government in regard to economic matters generally, and in regard to the economic policy to be followed in that particular respect. Now the Planning Council actually comes along and gives the Government sound advice that legislation of this nature must be held over until such time as the position in general with reference to the post-war policy has been cleared up to a greater extent. That advice is perfectly clear and perfectly sensible because this question of the employment of apprentices is connected very closely with our industrial development, and that industrial development is closely related to the question of our post-war policy and with the whole question of social security. Owing to the Government not having declared its policy on this question, we are still very much in the dark; we see the Government going hat in hand to all the parties, relying on the advice of the Select Committee to provide it with a policy. There is a state of uncertainty and the Planning Council is very wise in saying that legislation of this character should stand over until the position has been made clearer than it is today. Yet in spite of all this the Minister comes here, although he introduced the same Bill a few years ago and dropped it then, and tries to force this Bill on to the House at this stage. So far as the criticism of the Bill is concerned I think that one of the main criticisms is that the Bill does not contain any policy. I am not even saying it contains a weak policy, I say that the Bill contains practically no policy at all. The criticism which is levelled is that— it is one of the principal points—that the Bill only says that certain machinery is created and that the Minister takes certain powers unto himself. That machinery is created in the Bill and it differs very little from the machinery which has been in existence before, but powers and important powers are placed in the hands of the Minister. He can use those powers—he may use them well or he may misuse them. It is that which the House objects to, and objects to strongly. And it objects particularly because a Minister like the present Minister of Labour will, when this Bill has been passed, administer it not only directly in conflict with the convictions of this side of the House but also of that side of the House. Members of the House take up the attitude that they simply cannot entrust such powers to the Minister of Labour. I therefore say that this is à Bill which entrusts certain powers to the Minister but it does not determine what the policy is which he has to adhere to. Another point is this: The Minister simply refuses to send this Bill to a committee or commission of enquiry. Why does he not do so? Simply because nine years ago an investigation was conducted in connection with this matter—

Will you tell us which recommendations you are referring to?

I am coming to that. One of the main things which that commission pointed out was the fact that apprenticeship was the gate to our industrial life so far as the employees were concerned; and this is a matter of the utmost importance—the question in whose hands the key to that gate is placed, because that individual or that body can use that key to the gate not only in the interest of industry, not only in the interest of the employing class alone, but he can use it in the service of the country. And that is as it should be. But he can also use that key in such a manner that the gate to the country’s industrial life is kept shut, or he can keep the door partly closed in such a manner that people who should be allowed to go in will be locked out. It may become too exclusive. In other words, instead of those powers in respect of apprenticeship being used in the interest of the country they may be used to the benefit of only a particular section; and that is the danger with this Minister. That has been the case so far; it has not only been a threat, but it has become an actual danger, that the control of this gate has been used for the purpose of excluding people who should not have been excluded. In other words, just as we may have capitalists exploiting the rest of the population, exploiting the working classes, so we may have a section of the working classes, who by abusing legislation of this kind may exploit another class of the population, not only the capitalistic class, but another section of the working class, for their own purposes. That is where the danger of legislation of this kind lies unless proper care is taken and a proper and clear policy laid down in such a law of Parliament. Hon. members will now say that there are apprenticeship committees and that the Minister can use his power in the last resort, but that the apprenticeship committees are able in any case to investigate matters and advise the Minister. Now, how are those committees constituted, and in how far can they be a danger in the sense which I have explained here? Half of the members of an apprenticeship committee are representatives of the trade unions—of the organised workers, and where they are not organised the Minister can appoint a member to represent the workers. The natural interest of these workers is, if they are artisans, to make the circle as narrow as possible, to close the door as tightly as possible in order to bring about a scarcity of artisans, and once such a scarcity of artisans has been created they will be in a position to force up the wages. It will be to their natural interest to do so. They may work in that direction. But on the other hand we have representatives of the employers’ organisations. Hon. members may say that they are represented to the same extent, but are the representatives of the employers’ organisations strong enough to withstand the urge from the other side? They need not be strong; they can simply say they don’t want to cause any trouble in their industries but want to retain the goodwill of the workers and then they can simply give in because they have a means of protecting themselves. The means they have of protecting themselves is simply to raise the price of their products proportionately to the higher wages they have to pay, and then it is not they but the public who have to pay for them. That is why it is perfectly easy for the representatives of the employers’ organisations to take up an undecisive attitude on this point, and that is why we have this danger which has become a reality, of the door to apprenticeship being kept more tightly shut than is necessary in the interest of industry, or of the great masses of the working class in this country who are excluded from apprenticeship in this way. On that point this commission made very strong representations to the country and it also made very strong recommendations in 1935 And a further point is that this Bill is still sheltering behind what can be called an antiquated system of division between skilled and unskilled labour. The commission which I have mentioned makes a great point of this by saying that the old division as between skilled and unskilled labour was too clear and too sharp because under the changed conditions of today this clear and sharp division actually no longer exists. In days gone by we never had a sub-division of labour such as we have today. In days gone by the artisan was a man who had to do quite a number of things, and he had to be skilled on broad lines. But today the skilled artisan is often a man who does nothing from morning till night but handle a brush. It is a simple thing, but nobody else is allowed to handle the brush, although it is a simple job, for which one does not require any lengthy period of training. Nobody else is allowed to handle a brush because it would be in conflict with the law. The division between skilled and unskilled labour is too clear and too sharp. The commission pointed out that industry today is highly mechanised and this mechanisation of industry and of work has simply meant that the worker who takes part in it as a skilled artisan in many instances has to confine himsef to one particular type of work, one movement—one movement with the hand, and nothing else. It is a perfectly simple thing; it is routine work which can be carried out very easily, which the man in the street can learn in two or three days. And that is why the commission points out that we should not stop drawing this sharp dividing line between skilled and unskilled labour. Where the one is paid high wages the other is paid such poor wages that he has no bread to eat and he cannot keep body and soul together. It is an antiquated system. Today we have to have skilled labour, semi-skilled labour and unskilled labour. It is essential to establish a semi-skilled class of labour. In other words there must be a bridge between what is usually called unskilled labour and skilled labour. The commission felt so strongly on this point that they said that these semiskilled men who were not admitted to the skilled class were simply classified as unskilled labour at wages which were totally unsatisfactory. These people are dissatisfied; they have reason to be dissatisfied, and the commission expresed the fear that at some time or other an explosion might occur among that class of worker and asked the Government to give the matter its serious attention. But the Minister of Labour in this Bill ignores all these things. The commission also pointed out that there was an influx from the rural areas to the towns. Thousands of people who find that they can no longer make a living on the platteland come to the towns, people who have to be absorbed in industry in the towns to make a decent living, and I ask whether we as a Parliament, whether the Government, and whether we as a nation, have no responsibility to those people. But these people, when they come to the towns, necessarily join the classes of unskilled labour? Must they go and compete on the labour markets in the towns with natives and coloured people who live on a lower level than they do? And are they to deteriorate and find their way into the slums? We say that we owe a responsibility to those people. Are the men who come here from the platteland unfit for employment in our industries? Some years ago, when I was Minister of Education, I put my mind to it to provide for the training of properly skilled men.

But you abolished free technical education.

I established a technical college at Port Elizabeth where they had nothing. I established one at East London where they had nothing; I established one in Pretoria where they had nothing, and one in Bloemfontein where they had practically nothing. I was responsible for the great expansion of the technical colleges of Cape Town, Durban and Johannesburg; no adequate provision had been made there before. The situation in those days was that thousands of artisans were brought in from overseas. I went to Port Elizabeth to acquaint myself more fully with conditions prevailing in industries there, and what struck me was that there were numbers upon numbers—hundreds of young fellows from the platteland—employed in those industries. They had been driven from the rural districts by drought and poverty, and they had gone to find work in the factories. The factory owner told me that they were just as good factory workers as one could find in any other part of the world. They were good material. But if we pass an Apprenticeship Bill of this kind which makes it impossible for these people to get into our industries, and which will lead to people being imported from outside all the time, we shall be doing an injustice, a crying injustice, to those people who are good material—people whom we need, and who themselves also need that work, and who, if they do not get work, will starve in the towns. One of the things which our amendment contemplates is this: Help those people who come from the platteland to become skilled workers, who come to the towns to become apprenticed, and establish hostels where they can be under proper supervision and accommodated as cheaply as possible. Many of those young fellows and young girls come from the platteland to the towns because they have to make a living somewhere. When they arrive in the towns they are young—they are 15 or 16 years of age, and they often deteriorate in the big towns because they are not under proper supervision and because their wages are so small that they have to find accommodation in the slums, and so they get lost. The remedy for this evil is the establishment of hostels. When I was Minister of Education I made a start in this direction. I am afraid that since those days my start has not been persevered with, and the matter today is exactly where it was then. You have a duty—I think the report also mentions that—you have a duty to your own people. No self-respecting nation in the world gets its workers from overseas unless it is unavoidable, and in our country we have ample, more than ample. There is an army of poor whites. The last figures we have are for the year 1940 and for the three previous years. No fewer than 80,000 people have applied to the Labour Bureaux for employment. How many of those have been placed? Forty-one thousand. Just half. The other half have not been able to find employment, and they have had to accept work at starvation wages, but against that we have during the same period imported from overseas no fewer than 5,655 artisans. Is it fair to South Africa? Is it fair to the people of South Africa? Is it fair to the poor in this country. I hold that it is a crying injustice which is being committed. We hope that the Minister of Labour will take this into account and will bear in mind that this legislation is such that it will shut the door to those who want to enter. They will stand outside and be crushed to death. Just one final point. I am afraid the Minister’s Bill ignores a very important phenomenon, and that is that there is an influx from the rural districts to the towns. Not only an influx of whites, but an even greater influx of non-Europeans, and what is the Government doing about it? Within one week thousands arrive in Cape Town from native areas. They loaf about—not all of them find work. Crime is on the increase and has become a problem. How is the Government solving that problem? They have one main solution—build sub-economic houses—build more and more sub-economic houses. By doing that these people are being attracted to the towns in ever-increasing numbers—that is what the Government is doing instead of ascertaining whether there is work for these people, and using its powers to keep out of the towns those for whom there is no work. No, go on building houses and let the influx be as great as it likes. And thus the towns are becoming blacker and blacker. There is another phenomenon and it is this: The whole attitude of the Labour Party, of which the Minister is the Leader, has changed radically, in regard to this problem. In the past they stood for the protection of white civilised labour, bearing in mind the rights of the non-Europeans. They stood for the proper protection of white civilised labour, but today they have abandoned that principle completely, and under the influence of the communists in this country they have now adopted the principle of equality in all respects. Political equality, economic equality and social equality. That is the Labour Party’s policy today, and now I want to ask this: What will become of the white man if the Minister is given that power proposed in this Bill? What will become of the white man’s prospects, as against the non-Europeans in those trades where the white man wants to work and where he has to make a living? Those Apprenticeship Committees today consist not only of Europeans but also of non-Europeans—and under this Bill they can be composed of both sections; under certain circumstances they have to be composed of both sections, and those are the bodies which are to judge whether European boys and girls are to be admitted to apprenticeships for various trades. They have to judge, and with a Minister like the present Minister who has an outlook on the coloured problems of the country, I ask what chance the white man has and what chance the white man’s son has to get into any of our trades? All we can do is insist on proper measures so far as apprenticeships are concerned, so that every section will come into its rights, and the white man will get what is due to him, and the coloured man and the native, in their own separate spheres, will get what they are entitled to. If you do not do so, and things are left open as they are now, you will have friction, and that friction between Europeans and non-Europeans will become very serious, and if we continue along that road South Africa will be faced with disaster.

We shall have another 1922 strike.

That was the point in 1922, the friction in regard to employment on the mines, between European and non-European. That is what caused the disaster then. Pursue that road and—especially with the communistic influences being rife as they are today—South Africa will be faced with fresh and even greater disasters.

I rise to speak in support of this Bill. In the first place, may I be permitted to draw the attention of the House to the criticism which has been levelled against this Bill, or let me rather say the so-called criticism which has been voiced by hon. members of the Opposition; and I would like to put the following propositions in connection with that criticism. In the first place I want to put the proposition that their criticism is not genuine criticism ; it is imaginary. In the second place, they sought grounds for criticism of this Bill outside the limits of the Bill itself, and not within the provisions of the Bill. In the third place—and I hope they will not hold it against me when I say this—this criticism, like most of the criticism which has been voiced here during the past few days, especially during the committee stage, was not meant to be taken seriously by this House, but was intended more specifically for the impending by election at Wakkerstroom. And in the fourth place, this criticism which has been voiced by the majority of hon. members of the Opposition reveals a surprising ignorance of labour conditions i.n South Africa. It reminds one almost involuntarily of the old English saying, “Where ignorance is bliss ’tis folly to be wise.” At any rate, as far as the criticism of the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) is concerned, I think it was a case of the blind leading the blind. This criticism, as I have said, is entirely imaginary. It is a hallucination. One need not go far in order to support that first proposition. Indeed, every effort has been made by hon. members on that side to create imaginary dangers. I say that they went out of their way to create imaginary dangers, and not dangers which are contained in the Bill itself. Will all due respect I want to say that even the Leader of the Opposition, as well as other hon. members on that side who spoke, did not refer to a single clause in this Bill. Not one of them quoted a single clause in this Bill. Not one of them opened the Bill and said that this, that or the other provision was wrong, or that this, that or the other provision should be amended. Where do they seek ground for criticism?

One usually does that in the committee stage.

By this time I know that.

You have made great progress.

If the Wakkerstroom election is still pending when we reach the committee stage, hon. members on that side will no doubt do that. The first objection which was raised against this Bill was that it will create poor whiteism in South Africa. I think it is high time that we cease insuling our Afrikaners by describing them as poor whites. That is an insult. The second objection is that this legislation builds a protective wall round the artisans. They sought a third reason, but could not find one. I am surprised that they did not refer to Hoggenheimer this afternoon. The hon. Leader of the Opposition did come close to mentioning Hoggenheimer. They sought a third reason, but they could not find it. I am surprised that they did not hold out that old “gogga.”

The bush tick.

No, those insects one finds in the Karoo. With regard to the question of poor whiteism, the hon. member for Swellendam advanced two propositions in support of his statement. In the first instance he stated that more than 5,000 artisans were imported from overseas while our own artisans could not obtain employment. That was from 1934 to 1938. Who were those artisans? Did hon. members object to the importation of these artisans at the time? I have gone through the debates, and I cannot find that either the hon. member for Swellendam or anyone else objected to the importation of those artisans. In fact, they encouraged it. The then member for Vrededorp did protest by way of an interjection, but no other member. I would like to put this question to hon. members on that side. Was the present Minister of Labour the Minister of Labour at that time? Was the present Prime Minister the Prime Minister of South Africa at that time? Those are the questions one must ask oneself. Today the present Government is blamed for everything that goes wrong.

What were you at that time?

What I was at that time you will never become in all your life.

No, I hope that I shall never become anything that you were.

The second point which was raised was in connection with the 30,000 people who sought employment in Cape Town at that time. If one goes through the Year Book for that year, one sees how many people registered for employment. But there is a difference between mere registration for employment and unskilled labourers. It does not mean that everyone who registers for employment is an unskilled labourer. Many skilled labourers go to the labour bureaux to be registered. Many women also go to the labour offices to be registered, but that does not mean that they were forced out of employment. That argument on the part of the hon. member for Swellendam, the future Minister of Labour, reveals great ignorance of labour conditions. Then there is another important point. He also referred to the figure of 30,000. Let us see what the position was. I think one is justified in taking it for granted that on an average those people were approximately 30 years old in 1938. When were they born, therefore? I am now speaking of the average age. They were bom, therefore, between the years 1900 and 1908. What were their ages in 1924? Approximately between 16, 20 and 24 years. What was done at that time to make those people artisans? Why was no effort made at that time to train them? Was the present Minister the Minister of Labour at that time? No, those hon. members can bluff many people at times, but they cannot bluff all the people all the time. The hon. member for Swellendam forgets one important thing in connection with this question of unskilled labourers in South Africa, and that is that the number of unskilled labourers is increasing as a result of wars and as a result of economic setbacks. If ever there was anything in South Africa which has contributed to the protection of the worker in South Africa, in putting a stop to poverty, in eliminating unskilled labour from the labour markets, it was this industrial legislation in South Africa. That contributed more to the elimination of poverty and to putting unskilled labourers on their feet than any other factor. I speak as one who stands at the head of unskilled labourers’ organisations in this country. I am not speaking as one who does not know anything about labour conditions. The unskilled labourers who remain today represent the aftermath of unpleasant periods which South Africa experienced, such as wars and economic setbacks. They fully realised the obstacles which they had to overcome in their struggle as unskilled labourers, and what are they doing today? They want to ensure that their children are given an opportunity of qualifying themselves, and today there is every opportunity for a young man or a young woman to qualify himself or herself, whether it be as an artisan or as a professional person. This legislation builds a wall round the artisans! It is alleged that an aristocracy of artisans is being created, that a protective wall is being built round the artisans. That is the complaint of hon. members on that side. It is quite possible that they want that wall broken down so that they can gain control of the trade unions. They want the Minister to break down the wall so that they can obtain control. You are afraid to take the chestnuts out of the fire yourselves.

The hon. member must address the Chair.

If one thinks of the organisation which was recently announced by the Leader of the Opposition through the medium of “Die Transvaler,” an organisation modelled on Nazi lines and which was intended to serve for the workers in South Africa, one can only say that if there is such a wall, then strengthen the wall, because God help the workers if they fall into the hands of that organisation. As I have said, this criticism is purely imaginary. Hon. members are only putting up smokescreens to bluff the public. A further objection which they have against this Bill is that the Minister is the willing tool of the unions. Perhaps they have a better instrument in the present Minister of Labour than in the future Minister of Labour, namely, the hon. member for Swellendam. The trade unions in South Africa are seeking no political alliance; we have trade unions representing unskilled labourers; we have trade unions representing women; we have trade unions representing skilled labourers. They seek no political allance. As a matter of fact, as soon as the trade unions are allowed to become the football of political parties, it will mean the downfall of the labourers in South Africa. What the labourer in South Africa got up to the present he got through collective bargaining, by standing together. Do not let us break down that work; do not let us begrudge them the success which they have attained. They have worked hard enough for it. A great deal has been said in regard to this dreadful wall which is built round the artisans, this wonderful protection which the people enjoy! The poor man who has to stand on scaffolding and plaster the whole day long, or lay bricks, the man who has to stand and paint the whole day long, has a strenuous task. Is that not hard work? Is it not more strenuous to do that work than to sit in one’s office as an attorney, for example, or to stand on the pulpit as a minister of religion, or to stand before a class and teach? Is that not hard work? Have these people not got the right to protect themselves. We talk about the artisans who protect themselves. What about the professions? What about the attorneys and advocates? What about the teachers? What about the doctors, the accountants? What about the farmers even? Have we not got a South African Law Society in South Africa? Have we not got various teachers’ associations in South Africa? Have we not got the South African Medical Council? Have we not got the various agricultural unions in South Africa?

They are all good trade unions.

They are all good trade unions; you’re telling me!

Order, order!

Have we not the Chartered Institute of Secretaries? Even if I passed the matriculation examination with bookkeeping as the main subject, even if I took my degree in Economics with accountancy as a major subject, I could not become an accountant tomorrow. If I took my B.A., LL.B., I could not practise as an advocate or attorney tomorrow.

You must observe the rules.

And if I do not observe those rules I will not be admitted. Is that not a protective wall? If you build the same wall round yourselves why do you complain when the worker builds a wall round himself in order to protect his own interests? My hon. friends of the Opposition always weep when something is done for the workers. They shed crocodile tears. I have spoken of the professions. Hon. members of the Oppositioin laid great emphasis on the question of the so-called wall which has been built round the artisans. Do we not find the same walls in the professions? I have here a booklet entitled “Careers,” a booklet which is issued in South Africa in order to show the children what careers are open to them and the various courses which they can take. Here it is stated that the professional people represent the elite in society. It goes on to say—

Why do these hon. members not plead for free education so as to enable the boys and girls of the platteland to enter this higher society? Here it is explained what courses one has to take; how many years it takes and which professions are open to one. I just want to say that you must do unto others what you would have them do unto you. If you are an advocate or an attorney you should try to assist your fellow human beings to become advocates or attorneys if they wish to do so, but do not send them in another direction. Hon. members of the Opposition made a strong point in connection with the so-called narrow doors, the portals which can be closed; and in the same breath, gesticulating dramatically, he pointed to the native representatives and referred to the native workers in South Africa. His whole argument defeats itself. If the doors are opened wider, what would happen? There would be an influx from all sides. No, one must be logical.

Your voice will still break.

Yes, on you. As far as unskilled labour is concerned, the hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie) according to the newspaper and also according to his own statement the other day, is very concerned about unskilled labourers. This Bill is elastic enough, and the various clauses in it relating to this matter make it possible for those who want to change their minds and take up a trade, to have an opportunity of doing so. There is nothing to prevent the unskilled labourer from taking up a trade if he wishes to do so. There is nothing in the Bill to prevent a young unskilled labourer from taking up a trade. There are also provisions in this Bill under which the Minister can, in special circumstances, give an opportunity to these people to be trained as artisans and to have their period of employment reduced according to circumstances.

What clause is that?

I have not got it here at the moment, but it is one of the last clauses. And that is also being done today. It happens frequently. If you go through the blue books of the Department of Labour you will see that there has been a surprising increase in the number of artisans in the engineering industry. No, they are putting up their own skittles only to knock them down themselves. A great deal has been said about unskilled labourers. I can only state the truth, nothing less. I can only speak of experience. I have had an opportunity to speak to a Minister of Labour of the Opposition in regard to unskilled labourers. What did he say? He said that there was work at Boegoeberg and VaalHartz and other schemes. I then asked what the pay was. He said 3s. 6d. for single persons and 6s. for married persons. We asked what about the man’s family? No, he could not take his family with him. But the present Minister of Labour adopts a different attitude. The then Minister liked to spend every evening with his family, but it did not matter to him what became of the poor man and his wife and children. We also approached the present Minister of Labour. What did he say? He said: “I believe in two things, a living wage and an opportunity for the man to be with his family.” Under the present Government, under the leadership of the Prime Minister, effect is being given to that. And then hon. members of the Opposition want to talk about unskilled labourers, I think it is an insult to the intelligence of the people to have their names mentioned in this House by members of the Opposition. I wonder whether members of the Opposition who are so terribly concerned about the future of the unskilled labourers, will reply to two or three questions which I want to put to them. In the first place, I want to ask what they are paying their unskilled labourers on the farms. In the second place, I want to ask whether they have ever done anything to get the unskilled labourers organised, to enable them to come into their own. In the third place, I want to ask whether any one of them has ever offered financial assistance to these people to enable them to make headway? No, but when there is an election they can tell the poor people anything they like in order to get their votes. They take advantage of empty stomachs in order to gain a political ideal. I want to ask hon. members with all respect, therefore what right they have to talk about these people. What right have they to drag into the debate these people for whom they have never done anything? They speak of unskilled labourers. Are they going to differentiate between skilled and unskilled labourers? They have never shown that. How are they going to open the door, the special door of the Leader of the Opposition, through which the unskilled European labourer can enter, but not the non-European? The real truth is that they know as little about unskilled labour conditions as the man in the moon. That is their difficulty. They speak of evils. The Planning Council made investigations. Where did they find evils? Nowhere. What did they seek? It is very clear to me that the majority of speakers on the other side never read this Bill, and if they did read it, they did not understand it. If they do not understand it, it is necessary for them to take an apprenticeship course in parliamentary work before they come here. An amendment has been moved here, and one of the provisions in that amendment is that provision must be made for proper co-ordination between the apprenticeship system and industrial education. I am surprised. The secret of the whole matter is that the Opposition could only gain one insignificant seat in Johannesburg in the recent election; and that hon. member had to move an amendment when the hon. member for Swellendam could not move an intelligent amendment on an intelligent Bill, and unfortunately he knows nothing about it. That co-ordination does exist. I would like to ask the hon. member where the trades school in Johannesburg is, who the principal is, and why so many youths from his constituency, the children of Nationalists, approached me to be placed in that school? May I ask the mover of the amendment what course one has to take to become a printer or linotype operator, a metal plate engraver, a carpenter, a welder and for other trades? He is moving this amendment. That is surely a reasonable request. He moves that there should be co-operation between apprenticeship and industrial education. I want to put this question to him. If the hon. member had devoted a little less attention during the election to the Westdene Irregulars to break up meetings, he might have been in a position to answer these questions. He is very concerned about the medical certificate of other members. The hon. member must do a little more research work in the library. He can, for example, read this little green book, from which he can learn a great deal in one evening. It is not necessary for me to tell the hon. member about co-ordination. He can find that out for himself. If he wants to talk about such matters, let him investigate the position properly. But let me say that this co-ordination does exist. It is not right to come here and, merely for the purpose of discussion, blindly to move an amendment of which they do not understand anything. Reference has been made to a central national apprenticeship committee. Why “national”? Why do they not make it a “Volkskomitee” (national committee)? We have a national leader (volksleier) and we always speak of our “volk.” But I wonder whether the hon. member for Swellendam and the hon. member for Westdene, or even the Leader of the Opposition, could serve on such a committee. Who is going to serve on it? No, a tragic spectacle is being enacted here. While an artisan would talk about wages and employment and hours of duty, they would talk about language, the republic and the chosen people (herrenvolk). It is a comical spectacle. What must such a so-called national committee do? The importance of the apprenticeship committee lies in the fact that it can be convened at a moment’s notice. We do not want a clumsy affair. If we had a national committee, what would happen? There would have to be one member from the Cape, one from Pretoria, one from Natal and one from Johannesburg on that committee. Anything concerning an apprentice, the placing of a youth, may have to be dealt with immediately. Must we now wait until the national committee can be convened? Do they realise what harm they are doing to the future of these youths? It would be a clumsy organisation which could never function properly. Today we have committees consisting of employers and employees. The Leader of the Opposition objected very seriously to those committees. But who is best qualified to talk about industrial matters; who better than the industrialist himself? Who is best qualified to talk of labour conditions? The worker, the man in the office or on the bench or on the pulpit? The essence of local committees is that these committees are acquainted with local conditions of employment. Now they want to have a national committee. This is again one of the bogys with which they are trying to frighten us. There are two other aspects of the matter which are important, and they did not touch on them at all. A Bill in itself is not going to remove the evil. One finds Bills which prohibit certain acts; one finds Bills which create certain things, but in addition to the Bills which are created it is also necessary to take a further step, namely, to give effect to the law, to carry into effect the objects of the law. What is the use of training thousands of boys as apprentices if there are no industries in which they can be absorbed? What is the use of saying that you want thousands of boys trained as artisans if you have not got the colleges the trades schools, in which they can receive their training? That is the snag. Personally, I regard this Bill as extremely elastic, and all exceptional cases can be dealt with under it. But what one needs in addition to such a Bill are the means to carry out the terms of the schools and trades schools, and for the absorption of more apprentices in the technical schools and trade schools, and for the absorption of more artisans in industry. On a previous occasion I pleaded for the extension of trades schools. That is what is needed. That is the first step which is necesary to give effect to the Bill, and the second is the expansion of industries, so that the youths who want to become apprentices will be able to obtain employment. Today there is co-ordination between the two. The boys and girls are shown in these institutions where they can find openings. I have frequently had interviews with the principal of the trades school in Johannesburg. He said to me: “Look here, Mr. Tighy, this boy wants to take up this particular work, but what is the use of it if there is no opening for him?” What is the use of turning out qualified boys and girls if you cannot get them placed? They would ultimately find themselves on the streets. They would be exploited by the employers, by the capitalists, some of whom are on the other side of the House, not on this side. The effort which is being made here to torpedo this Bill is a direct attempt not against the Minister of Labour but against the working classes of South Africa. Criticism has also been voiced by certain members on this side, but that was sound and constructive criticism. But we get nothing from the Opposition but destructive criticism, nothing but an attempt to shipwreck this legislation which is in the interests of the worker.

The hon. member who has just sat down with a lot of show cast a reproach at this side of the House and particularly at my leader, that he and others who had spoken about this Bill had no idea of what it contained. He said that they had not discussed a single clause. I want to ask the House—I want to ask those of us who have listened so patiently and so tolerantly to the hon. member—which clause in the Bill he actually dealt with? He came here with a lot of vague talk and the Minister did not even use his interpreter to find out what the hon. member was saying. If a wrong inpression should have been created by the hon. member’s remarks, and if by any chance the Minister or certain members should be under a misapprehension about the attitude we on this side of the House adopt, I want to tell the Minister at once that we on this side of the House are not opposed to a Bill of this kind because we want legislation of this type—we only criticise because this Bill contains certain things which we don’t want. That is what we are talking about. That is the criticism which we are levelling, and we can level that criticism as members of our party because we have a definite policy. The Re-united Nationalist Party has laid down a definite policy in regard to industrial development. I say therefore that we do not oppose the Bill as such, we oppose it because it is antiquated and because it does not provide for certain matters which to our mind must be dealt with in legislation of this kind. We condemn this Bill because the Minister has condemned it out of his own mouth. He said that in principle it was identical to the old Act with only a few amendments here and there. We criticise his Bill because it has shortcomings. It has shortcomings which even existed in the 1922 Act and which are perpetuated here. That is why we criticise it. We consider that in view of the changed conditions created in this country, caused by the war, and in view of the conditions which will still arise in regard to industries after the war, this is a half measure which is not effective and which should not be passed. We want a Bill which will meet the needs of the times, There has been a tremendous expansion in the sphere of industries, and the Minister himself said that we could look forward to great expansion after the war. The Prime Minister spoke in the same spirit; he also made a statement. It is in view of that that we say we want to take into account the possibilities existing at the moment, and which will arise to a greater extent after the war; consequently we say that the Minister must pass a Bill through this House which will provide for that development—a Bill which will remove the old defects from the existing Act as we see them. Let me mention a few of the shortcomings. We have been told that we are simply criticising and that we are not suggesting anything. We have moved an amendment in which we state very clearly what we want. Those things must be put into the Bill, and if the Minister reads the amendment, and if he is in the true sense of the word a representative of the working classes, he will admit that our amendment contains improvements which he can and must accept in the interests of the working classes. Let me mention the vocational and trades schools for instance. No recognition is provided for in the Act in regard to the training of boys and girls who have attended the trades and vocational schools. That training is not recognised. They cannot be admitted as artisans. What is the use of having trades schools if the pupils, after having passed through a course, cannot be accepted or taken on as apprentices? Why is no recognition given to the time these pupils have served? That is the question we ask the Minister. If he does not recognise them, if he does not want to recognise them, let him get up and tell us that he wants to destroy the vocational and trades schools because if he does not recognise them they are of no value whatsoever. The Minister in his second reading speech gave us a few instances where the Bill was an improvement on the old Act. For instance he quoted an advertisement from a newspaper which appeared in Krugersdorp. If the Minister wants to destroy parasite mushroom institutions of that kind we quite agree. These things are most tempting to the parents and the children; they spend their money and they have great expectations which can never be realised. Destroy them. But there is no necessity to put restrictions in the Bill which will make it impossible for pupils of vocational and trade schools to be recognised. Then there is the fixing of the length of service for the training of apprentices—three years and five years. We consider that too long.

Where does it say five years in this Bill?

It is not in the Bill, but the Minister issues regulations from time to time for the various trades under the Act, and then he deprives people of the opportunity of being trained as artisans. The period of service is too long in certain respects, and the age limit is put too low. There are thousands and tens of thousands of unskilled workers in the factories who can do skilled work when they reach a certain age, but when they get to that age they can no longer be admitted as artisans— male or female.

Do you want to make the age limit 60 or 70 years?

No; we don’t want Methusalems like the Minister, who is too old and out of touch with the public. But if a man is round about 25 years of age he is still quite young enough and should be given his opportunity. He gets experience as an unskilled labourer and he should have the chance of qualifying to become a tradesman. We are pleading on behalf of these people, and those shortcomings still exist in this Bill. I am speaking here as a man from the country districts, not as an industrial expert, but I speak as a member of the party with a definite policy. I speak as an Afrikaans-speaking Afrikaner who has the interests of his fellow Afrikaners at heart— of those people who are driven from the platteland to the towns. I speak on behalf of the unskilled Afrikaners who drift from the platteland to the towns where they have to wage an unequal battle for their existence. Those people are unskilled so far as trades are concerned but they should have a chance. In their thousands they are exploited in the towns, and many of them are still young enough and quite competent to become artisans. Give them the opportunity. Make provision in the Bill. Surely it is not unreasonable to ask that. Then I come to the committee which has to issue contracts to apprentices. Previous speakers have already mentioned this. We are dissatisfied with the composition of these committees. This is a question which affects the employment of men and women, and it should not be put in the hands of a few people of the kind one sometimes gets on these committees. It is a national matter and the future of our workers in the industrial sphere is at stake. The State should protect them and encourage them. These apprenticeship committees which have to do such important work and who are allowed to say who are to be permitted to become tradesmen and who not, should to our mind be substituted by a national committee—I don’t say a committee of the Nationalist Party …

No, but that’s what you mean of course.

That, of course, is what the Minister thinks. That is the trouble—he looks at all these matters through a pair of political spectacles and is continually dancing about to catch votes. All I can say is that at the moment he is certainly very busy renouncing the votes which the workers have given him. I say that the composition of the Apprenticeship Committees is bad, and that is why we are advocating the appointment of a national committee. And why do we do so? Industrial development is a national question. It is called into being by the Government, it is supported and encouraged, and that is why it should be strictly national. If this measure is inteded to be in the interest of the people we must have a national committee to see that this work is done, that the admission to industries takes place in the interest of the workers and the people.

How many representatives of the workers are there among you?

If the hon. member would listen he would learn something. The Minister of Labour is an amusing Minister—I think he would even laugh if he were sentenced to death. Well, he is very near the time when his death sentence will be pronounced by the working classes. When we in this House plead the cause of the working classes the Minister laughs. We pleaded their cause when the Minister introduced his Factories Act. The Minister got up here on that occasion, as the so-called champion of the workers in this country, and after we had criticised the Bill he said: “I agree with hon. members opposite, I agree with members of the Opposition. The things they have been pleading for in connection with this Bill are sound—they are wanted by the people and by the country, but I am in this Government now, I can only get a little bit from the Government and I want to give that little bit to the workers of the country.” Those were his words: “I give them the crumbs which I get from the rich man’s table.” As the Minister is apparently in a frivolous mood I want to say this to him. While he spoke about the crumbs from the rich man’s table which he could give the workers, the position is that while these crumbs are all he wants to give to the working classes— he is a member of this capitalistic cabinet where he gets £2,500 per year, and he tells the working classes …

The hon. member must please come back to the Bill.

I just want to say that he gives the workers the crumbs but everything that is nice on the table he keeps for himself, and then he smiles as though it were all a joke. I want to ask the Minister whether he is conscious of the fact that he is a member of the cabinet and that he has a share in the government of the country—put there by the people to act in the interest of the country and the workers—to act in the interest of all the workers? I want to ask him whether he realises it, and if he does realise it I want to ask him whether he does not think that his first duty is to attend to the boys and girls of this country while he is having such a good time. If he is a champion of the working classes he should look after these people, and that is why this side of the House is pleading for protection for the working classes. If he wants to protect the workers of the country he should take protective measures to protect the working classes against the importation into South Africa of workers from overseas Why does he not restrict it to a minimum? It is a pertinent question which the Minister should answer. The Minister knows that it has happened in the past. Hon. members on this side of the House have quoted figures to show the number of workers imported into this country during the various periods. Is that protection of the working classes? Is that the protection of the skilled workers and of the unskilled workers we have in this country? I want to ask the Minister this question—and I also want to put this question to the Government as a whole, and to the United Party opposite, and especially to the industrialists opposite and the front benchers—whether they are aware of the fact that our High Commissioner in London, Col. Reitz at this moment, while we are pleading the cause of the workers, is encouraging the importation of tradesmen from overseas? That he is already encouraging and inviting tradesmen and women from other countries to come to this country? Is the Minister aware of that? Let me read to him what our High Commissioner said at Belfast in North Ireland in February of this year—

Here our High Commissioner is busy inviting tradesmen and women to come to South Africa? Is the Minister aware of that? If so, I want to tell him that if he wants to be the champion of the workers in this country he should get up here and introduce a Bill to restrict the importation of tradesmen to a minimum. He should protect our workers, and in other words he should repudiate our High Commissioner in London so that our country will not be flooded by that class of worker who Col. Reitz is now inviting to come here, because the High Commissioner is doing these things; he is inviting people to come here from overseas. If the High Commissioner is already doing these things we may expect, with the present Minister of Labour in office, to get people invited to come here from Russia, and I say it is time for us to protect our own workers against Communistic men and women because we may expect them also to be invited to come here after the war. If the High Commissioner in London is now inviting Irishmen to come here he may also invite people from other countries to come here, and if the Minister allows this to happen he will also allow Russians to be invited and we shall then have these artisans here with their Communistic ideas to oppress our sons and daughters. We must restrict the importation of tradesmen to a minimum. We hear a lot of talk about the good qualities of the South Africans. We are reminded of the high praise accorded to our soldiers in the battlefield, of the fighting qualities of our soldiers. If we think of these virtues and the qualities of the South African boys and girls, which we are all proud of, and which are recognised by the whole world, we say we have so many uncut diamonds in those boys and girls here in South Africa. Today they are still unskilled in trade but we have the material for our industrial development, and we must polish and cut those diamonds. But if the Minister is not prepared to protect our people, if the importation of artisans is allowed, it simply means that our sons and daughters will get no opportunity. I say that if we train our sons and daughters they will be second to none—no man from overseas will be able to do better than they. The Minister knows it, but he has such a strange outlook that he will always remain a stranger in all he does, so far as our people are concerned. The Minister has introduced this Bill and he is treating it in the spirit of a “closed shop” principle. We also want to say this in regard to this Bill, that no provision is made here for the removal of the malconditions prevailing today in industry as between European and non-European. When our Factories Act was under discussion we pleaded for the establishment of separate working places for Europeans and non-Europeans. The Minister said he agreed with us but that he was tied down and could only give us crumbs. Lately, however, he has said things which show that he no longer feels as he did in the past. No, he has now become an ally of the Communists. Such an ally in fact that they have made him colour blind, and that is why we find nothing in this Bill aiming at the removal of these malconditions to which my Hon. Leader has referred. We want the Bill to make provision for the State to take responsibility for the employment of our artisans and our women. I am still talking about the matters which we have dealt with in our amendment. The State must take the responsibility for these things. The Minister is laughing again. I hope his interpreter is interpreting correctly what I am saying, because I am mentioning facts of which the Minister should take note. If he takes notice of what we on this side say and puts a Bill through in that spirit it will be an asset to the working classes. I say that the State must make provision for the employment of artisans—men and women—when they are trained. This Bill makes no such provision and the Bill should also make provision for the elimination of the malconditions in that respect. Now, there is another matter. There should be big hostels in the factory towns where pupils from the platteland can be housed while they are receiving their training. They need this, because it is extremely difficult for the boys from the platteland to find accommodation when they come here for their training, and therefore if we want to do justice to the youth from the country districts the State should provide such hostels. In conclusion I want to say to the Minister that if he is in earnest with this legislation which he wants to get this House to pass, if he wants to make proper provision for the labour forces which our industries will require, then he must listen to the good advice which this side of the House is giving him. He must also listen to good advice from his side of the House. The advice which this side of the House has given him is well intended. On a previous occasion already we gave him good advice about his Bills, and we are doing so again. He should also listen to his own front benchers. The hon. member for Vereeniging (Lt.-Col. Rood) also spoke on this Bill and he, too, condemned the Bill. Then there are other members over there, like the hon. member for Sunnyside (Mr. Pocock) and the hon. member for Vasco (Mr. Mushet) who will probably not talk on this Bill. Why not? Those hon. members who have spoken have condemned the Bill. Is that a sign to him that it is a good Bill? As the Hon. the Leader of the Opposition has shown him, his own “Cape Argus” and other newspapers have told him that hurried legislation is also faulty legislation. That very definitely is so here. We on this side of the House want to assist the Minister but then he must bring in a sound measure which will be a real asset to the working classes. Then we will support him in the interest of our sons and daughters who in the past have had to fight a very unequal battle. We ask the Minister to have this Bill gone into again and then to come along with a measure which will put an end to the existing malconditions. We shall help him if he will do so. The amendment introduced by the hon. member for Westdene (Mr. Mentz) is a sound amendment and it has my full support.

The criticisms which have been levelled against this Bill are based on an entire misconception as to what the object or the scope of the Bill 1s. The object of this Bill is to improve the legislation which has already existed since 1923 and to increase the scope, to regulate the training of skilled artisans so as to meet the need of the country for industrial development, and it does not propose, nor would it be wise in a measure of this kind to deal with the question of employment as such. It does not propose to open the floodgates of skilled labour so that we may arrive at the stage of having more skilled artisans than we can employ. But as we proceed and develop our secondary industries—and the Government is pledged to that policy— the provisions of this Bill are wide enough to provide for additional training all the time for increasing the number of skilled artisans and for improving the training and education they get. You cannot go along and place more apprentices in industry than that industry can usefully train. On the one hand we have criticism that the skilled artisan does not get the opportunity of being well trained, and on the other hand you get criticism that you do not open the floodgates so that you will get more apprentices than can be trained. We are developing in such a way that more and more workers are becoming machine minded, are being semiskilled and skilled. There is a gap between the wage paid to the skilled artisan and to the semi-skilled and unskilled worker. The way to deal with that is not to overload the skilled artisans until you bring down their wages, but the way to do it is to raise the standard of life, to raise the wages of the unskilled and semi-skilled workers, and so bring about a bridge of the gap to the advantage of all sections. That is the position which this Bill proposes to pursue, and the Leader of the Opposition in his criticism this afternoon took certain points which obviously disclosed the fact that his brief had been prepared for him. He quoted from the Industrial Legislation Commission to indicate that that Commission had dealt with the whole question of giving opportunities to semi-skilled and unskilled workers to become skilled. Of course it did, but that Commission in its report dealt generally with our industrial legislation and made recommendations to improve that legislation to bring it up to date, and it was in pursuance of the recommendations of that Commission that we had a series of measures in this House, some of them piloted by the Minister of. Labour, by which we have provision made to enable us to face the industrial development to which we are looking forward. We have an Industrial Conciliation Act and other industrial legislation, and I hope that before long some definite provision will be made in that legislation to enable those not represented on Industrial Councils to be represented.

That is in the offing.

We have had improvements in various of our Acts, and this Bill has been before the country since 1940, and we are now told by hon. members opposite to examine it further. This Bill, which has been before the country since 1940, seeks to bring the Apprenticeship Law which has been in existence since 1922 up to date, and make it workable, not merely to regulate apprenticeships but to see that those who go in as apprentices shall be effectively trained and shall have the opportunity of becoming skilled artisans. That is the provision of the Bill. And the Leader of the Opposition comes along with a blood-curdling story about the Minister of Labour having come virtually with a pistol in his hand and having said to the Government: “You have to take this Bill or there will be trouble.” The hon. member for Piketberg (Dr. Malan) has obviously forgotten the history of this Bill. He has obviously forgotten the 1922 strike.

Were not you a policeman then?

I am glad to say that I helped the workers much more in those days than members opposite did—even to the extent of going to gaol. But as a result of the 1922 strike the present Prime Minister learnt a very effective lesson, a lesson which he has been applying ever since—he learnt that it was no good pursuing a policy of allowing the worker and the employer to fight each other unnecessarily.

That was the time when he allowed things to develop.

He brought Mr. Brace, one of the leading trade unionists of England, to South Africa, and appointed a commission of which Mr. Brace was a member, and he acted on the recommendations of that commission and he realised that the best thing to do is to bring about a position where you have employers and employees working together, where you have employers and the employees’ organisations meeting together and coming to an agreement. Only a few days ago we had an agitation—I daresay we shall hear more about it—about what is known as the “Walker Award” and what is behind that? The fact that a section of the employers refuse to play and to recognise the Industrial Conciliation Act. But the whole object of our industrial legislation since 1923, introduced at that time by the Prime Minister and pursued since then with improvements, has been to have the employers’ organisations and the trade unions working together, and thereby obviating many of the difficulties and struggles which would otherwise have taken place. And this has been to the great advantage of South Africa, to the advantage of the working class and also of the employers. Now, this Bill seeks to do the same thing, and the Leader of the Opposition forgets all about it, and he forgets the origin of this legislation. He forgets that it was in 1923 that we laid the foundation of this legislation, and that we now have to bring it up to date, and then he come along and quotes the “Argus.” Good heavens! The Leader of the Opposition quoting the “Argus” with approval and using that as an argument against the Minister and the Government! But he forgets this— that whether it be the “Cape Argus” or the “Cape Times” or any other English daily in South Africa—and I am not criticising them at the moment—he forgets that these papers are not Government papers, not in the sense that “Die Burger” is an Opposition paper—they are not Government papers in the sense that “Die Transvaler” or “Die Volksblad” are Opposition papers.

They are capitalist papers which control the Government.

They are controlled by sources which often criticise the Government—very often wrongly in my opinion, but the Government has no control over them and has no means of influencing their opinions, and in those circumstances to suggest that because the “Cape Argus” forsooth comes and criticises the Apprenticeship Bill, the Government therefore should accept what they say, is ridiculous. And then the hon. member made an emotional appeal about the young boys and girls from the platteland who want to come and be trained as skilled artisans? Who is stopping them?

You are.

I am a keen believer in breaking down the lopsidedness of our population in South Africa if I may put it that way. We must break down this position which has existed in South Africa and still exists, of some section being herded into one vocation, and another into another vocation, and we must give them the opportunity of learning, of fitting themselves for a vocation for which they have talents, and in which there are openings for them. But what does the hon. member for Piketberg do? Or rather, what did he do? He was Minister of Education. We pleaded, many of us pleaded, that the technical colleges where skilled artisans are to be trained, should be regarded as the universities of the poor man. The poor man cannot go to the university because of the expenditure involved. We pleaded that the technical colleges are the universities of the poor man and that therefore they should be given the fullest opportunity to attend there, and become skilled, and what did the hon. member for Piketberg do when he was Minister of Education? Technical college education in the Transvaal was free in those days. The hon. member refused to listen to our plea and he altered the position, so that the technical colleges were no longer free. And he placed difficulties in the way of the boys from the platteland to go there and get free education there.

Against my protest.

Yes; the Minister was then a member of that Capitalistic Government of which we hear so much—capitalistic Government as it was in those days—there are certainly much more liberal views in the present Cabinet. And what was his explanation when we criticised him? He said: “Because there was no free education in the Cape and Natal in the technical colleges, therefore he wanted to equalise the position, and instead of his bringing about free technical education in the Cape and Natal, he imposed fees in the technical colleges of the Transvaal.

And he refused the technical college degrees to be recognised.

I did not know that. But if anyone was responsible for placing obstacles in the way of boys from the platteland learning trades it was the hon. member for Piketberg, the Leader of the Opposition. I say without hesitation that every possible facility should be given. I hope that in the process of talking about social security, in which the reform of education must play a big part, provision will be made for free education in all technical colleges in the Union of South Africa. I believe another difficulty which exists at present, as far as the platteland boy coming into the town is concerned, is that it is expensive for him to live in town, apart from the fees, and I believe it will be desirable, and I believe one of the methods of dealing with the position would be, to establish hostels in the towns to provide facilities for these boys coming from the platteland, and to make provision for bursaries to enable these poorer boys to have the opportunities which we are anxious to give them to become skilled artisans. We find also that this Bill gives power to the Minister to make regulations. I am one of those who have repeatedly stated that we are travelling along a direction which is unsatisfactory by minimising the power of Parliament in connection with these matters, but you cannot clutter up a Bill of this kind with every little detail. They must be the subject of regulations and under the control of the Minister, who after all is controlled by this House and responsible for anything that he does to Parliament. The hon. member for Vereeniging (Lt.-Col. Rood) raised this question the other day of the Minister’s power to make regulations. Well, Sir, we know that that issue has been raised in England, and we know also that Lord Hewart in his book “The New Despotism” deals with that subject. Many of us are anxious to see that the system of bureaucracy shall break down, and that the ultimate power shall rest in the Parliament of this country. But if you want to curtail bureaucracy you cannot do it in a Bill of this kind, you cannot utilise this cry against bureaucracy as an excuse for throwing out the Bill and for saying at this stage of the Session that there must be further investigation. That is virtually a way of saying that we want to kill the Bill. The hon. member for Piketberg (Dr. Malan) spoke about the “Cape Argus,” and he has apparently forgotten the “Cape Times,” an even more important paper. The “Cape Times” in its editorial this morning on the subject of the Bill, said that the Bill seemed to be uninformed. I suppose that applies to the Minister and all those who are supporting him. The fact is they ask what about training, and they are evidently as uninformed as to the provisions of this Bill as anyone else. It will be worth while for every member of this House, instead of talking glibly about the various details and the machinery of the Bill, to study Clause 15, which makes the amplest provision to give apprenticeship committees power to lay down the period of training. They talk about wanting to make the period shorter, it gives power to the Minister and the committee to reduce the period of five years to a lesser period; it gives the committees and the Minister power to ensure that there is proper education; there must be a standard of proficiency before the boy can become an apprentice; and it also gives power to see that in the shops and the factories where boys are apprenticed, that they get the fullest possible training. There is power to send an inspector to see that proper training is given, and if that training is not given action can be taken in connection with the matter. The hon. member for Berea (Mr. Sullivan), like the hon. member for Piketberg put forward another powerful argument for delay, they said the Social and Economic Planning Council had reported against the passing of this Bill and had asked for further enquiry. Well, I want to say to this House, with all due respect to that Council—there are some very able men on it and some who are less able—that it is a mistake in this House or in the country to build up the fiction that the Social and Economic Planning Council is the depository of all the ability in the country. It is as great a mistake as to assume that the Ministers are the depository of all the wisdom in this House. We have a certain amount of intelligence in connection with these matters, and although we set up that Economic and Planning Council and asked it to advise us, we are not necessarily bound to accept everything that the Council suggests or to follow it without any question. Now what is the council’s objection? That objection is to be found in the report qf the Social Security Commission on page 85, Section 121. That is where they suggest that further enquiries should take place before this Bill is passed; and what is their object? Their object is that they want to find out whether it is desirable to apply certain principles, (a) by insisting upon a higher educational standard. The Bill, in Clause 15, makes specific provision for that, it gives the Minister and the apprenticeship committees the opportunity to deal with these matters. They go on in paragraph (b) to suggest that there should be pre-apprenticeship training. That is the matter the hon. member for Berea felt so strongly about. Section 15 of the Bill makes specific provision for that very request of the Social and Economic Planning Council. They go on to say that they want to limit apprenticeship to workshops with adequate facilities, and that really means limiting the number of apprentices that can be put into the shops and is entirely contrary to the views there expressed. In Section 15 of this Bill provision is made to see that when a boy is apprenticed in a workshop he shall get the fullest possible education. There may be an occasion where a factory says it is prepared to employ more apprentices than they can effectively train, and as against that the Bill makes provision, as industry develops in this country, for more and more facilities for training apprentices and training them effectively. That is what the Bill lays down. Hon. members have referred to the question of inspection, and that also is dealt with in Clause 15; inspectors will be in a, position to see whether boys are getting adequate training or not; these inspectors can go everywhere and see to that. Notwithstanding that all this provision is made, hon. members say: “Let us investigate.” Sir, now that the Bill accepts these principles to a much greater extent than even the council advocated, what reason is there for holding up this Bill unnecessarily, a Bill which provides for reducing the period of apprenticeship when necessary, which provides for adequate training, and which gives facilities for effective training—what possible reason can there be to try and prevent this Bill from getting on the statute book, unless behind the agitation is the desire to break down apprenticeship altogether? And why should we break it down altogether? We must have skill if we are to hold our own with other countries, and we must have highly skilled artisans in industry. We have this provided for in various occupations, for instance in the legal profession. In that profession the apprentice, or the articled clerk rather, however brilliant, if he wants to become an attorney he must become an articled clerk and pay a premium, and he has to serve his articles for five years. That clerk has to depend very largely for his training upon himself.

And the number is limited.

Yes, the number is limited; he has to pay a heavy premium, but in this Bill it is laid down distinctly that no premium shall be allowed. That in itself, Sir, is going to create facilities for the poorer sections of the population to become apprentices and learn a skilled trade. If one looks at these clauses, leaving out the administrative powers, one sees that all the suggestions that have been made are definitely covered by the provisions of this Bill, which will place us in a position to give greater opportunities for boys to become skilled artisans and greater opportunities for developing our industrial position in South Africa.

The hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) has brought this discussion back to the realities of the position. The hon. member has dealt with so many points that I myself proposed to deal with that it provides me with an opportunity of illustrating to this House some of the things that members are asking for and showing that today these very things are being practised as part of the work of apprenticeship committees. When the hon. member for Berea (Mr. Sullivan) made his statement that this Bill was reactionary and retrogressive, and when that statement found an echo from the “hear, hears” from hon. members that sit on my right, who are amongst the most reactionary members in the House, that was the best manifestation of the confusion which has been shown during the course of this debate. The hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger), with whom on so many occasions I find myself in agreement, has to my mind landed herself in an awkward position in supporting the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren), and one can show how their ideas run contrary to the principles which have always been expressed and emphasised by those who represent the natives in this House. The hon. member for Piketberg (Dr. Malan) says it is the desire of his party to maintain a white standard of civilisation, and we know what they mean by a white standard of civilisation, it is somewhere round about the six bob a day mark, and whether they say it or not I have no doubt in my own mind that quite certainly their opposition to this Bill is dictated by a desire and an intention to undermine the wage and economic conditions which have been built up by working organisations in this country, organisations from whom they get no support whatever. And that is the dangerous position which the hon. member for Cape Eastern places herself in when she gives support to the claim that intermediary and operative classes should be protected and preserved. There are plenty of avenues of employment for operatives in the semiskilled class and those whom the member for Cape Eastern represents, and who are steadidly increasing in number. But their progress must be brought about in such a way that the highest standard is maintained, and not by promoting a policy which will have the effect of bringing down the craftsman to the lower levels. The hon. member for Cape Eastern lends herself to that policy in taking up the position she has done by supporting the hon. member for Swellendam in the remarks which he made. It was done with a sense of hesitancy, because I think in the back of her mind there is an acknowledgment of the fact that the things proposed by the hon. member for Swellendam would objectively have the effect of reducing the standard of the crafts, which Ï know from past experience is not really the desire of the hon. member for Cape Eastern. The hon. member for Berea, with whom I have in the past also found myself in agreement on so many occasions, was able to support the hon. member for Swellendam, although there was a division of opinion between the two members sitting on the cross benches there. What was the reason for the division of opinion between the two hon. members? The hon. member for Cape Eastern has correctly said that the objections put forward by the hon. member for Berea were not balanced by reason of the fact that this Bill provides all the avenues and opportunities to translate into practice the very things which the hon. member for Berea wants. It is not the design of this Apprenticeship Bill to seek to set up a Union education. It is not the job of this Bill to set up a Union Education Board, nor is it the job of this Bill to provide avenues of employment. The Planning and Economic Council upon whom the hon. member for Berea bases his objection to the Bill, objects first that the period of training should be shortened if general education is to be raised. Let me deal with that in terms of actual practice. I served on apprenticeship committees, and the hon. member will confirm me when I say that within the last month he has signed the necessary papers approving of a recommendation of the Durban Apprenticeship Committee reducing the period of apprenticeship from five years to four years. This Bill is a Bill which still further provides power to do this, and if it can be done under the old Bill, as I have shown, it can equally well be done under this Bill. The difference between this Bill and the old one depends largely on a point I now want to deal with. It seeks to prohibit the racketeering which is going on in South Africa in the schools and in so-called progress colleges, which purport to train students and to turn them out as qualified. In the hairdressing business, a matter of seven years ago we were able by applying the principle which is now extended to this Bill, to stop the old practice of charging girls a premium for training them in the hairdressing profession, which is popular because it is regarded as a clean and desirable occupation. By strong organisation we were able to get the closed shop principle introduced, and the possibility of getting premiums from these people was reduced almost to nil. The business has been brought under the complete control of an industrial council, and today premiums have been completely done away with. The necessity for this is quite clear, because in this business there was racketeering of the worst kind, to my mind. The practice of some hairdresser employers was to get girls from the smaller towns, take premiums from them and turn them out at the end of six months absolutely unqualified and inefficient. In the engineering trade you find the same things growing up through these progress colleges, and it is in the effort to stop this that this Bill definitely differs from the previous one. For that reason this Bill should be put through at the earliest possible moment. One point which the Economic and Planning Council advanced as a reason why the Bill should be delayed is the necessity for providing inspection of apprentices in order to ensure sound training. In our apprenticeship committees in Durban we have inspectors under the old Bill to examine and see that the apprentices are being properly trained, and if an apprentice feels she is not being sufficiently trained she can make a report to the committee, and it is the job of the committee to see that proper facilities for training are available. And not only that, this free school training which they ask for is something which is practised and carried out in the hairdressing trade in the Johannesburg Technical School. A girl can go there in the hairdressing department, and she can serve a period of one year at the Technical High School in Johannesburg, and that one year counts as a remission from the four-year apprenticeship period. That is provided for in the old Bill. The very things that the Economic and Planning Council are asking for are things which are not only possible but are already put into practice and have been for some years past. I have been specifically referring to hairdressing, but other industries can make use of the Apprenticeship Act in the same way. The time allowed for technical classes is the third point on which they base their reason for delay, and as has been pointed out by the hon. member for Troyeville, that also is provided in this Bill. So that all the objections made by the Council are objections which are not valid and not reasonable, and I think we are entitled to say to this council: “You get on with the job you have to do.” They have a big enough job to plan for and organise industry, so as to provide jobs for people who are trained and who are to be trained within the framework of the Apprenticeship Act. Let them get on to that job rather than concern themselves with suggestions that the Apprenticeship Bill should be delayed. That is not part of their function. Another matter which the Economic and Planning Council has said, is that the committee that has been set up by the Minister is an unsatisfactory committee, and they suggest that the personnel should comprise the Secretary for Education, the four provincial Directors of Education, the Director of Technical Training, one representative of industry, and one of labour. If this is the best suggestion that the council can put forward, then I must frankly say I am not at all enamoured of it. The best people to be on such a committee are those with a practical knowledge of industry. I do not believe the Secretary for Education and the four Provincial Directors of Education are of such importance to such an enquiry that they should be represented to the extent of five to one, as against people directly concerned with industry.

[Inaudible.]

That is the point I want to come to; it is precisely the point which the hon. member for Berea went on to destroy his case with. The hon. member proceeded to give a number of reasons to show that the facilities available to apprentices who attended technical classes were such that not 10 per cent. of them, after a period of three years at technical classes, passed the first year course. If that is so it reflects on the people who are providing the technical instruction. The people best able to deal with these questions are those practically engaged in the work, they are the people best able to understand the practical requirements of the situation. The hon. member for Berea (Mr. Sullivan) quoted these very interesting figures to show that in South Africa only 3½ per cent. of the boys leaving school have become apprenticed, as against 16 per cent. in America. To my mind that is not a fair basis of comparison. In America the standard of industrialisation is such that they would require a greater percentage of their boys to enter into apprenticeships in order to meet the requirements of a highly industrialised state as compared with South Africa where we are less highly industrialised. The point on which I want to close is this.

Deal with the question of opportunity.

The point on which I want to close is the sense of reality which was introduced into the discussion by the hon. member for Troyeville. The craft organisations have over a period of years and after very many bitter struggles built up wage and economic conditions for themselves which they seek to preserve, and because of the bitter economic struggle which they had in the past, this House of Assembly in its wisdom produced the Apprenticeship Committee and the Industrial Conciliation Act for the purpose of preserving peace in industry, and it is true that the Industrial Conciliation Act and the Apprenticeship Committee has in a large measure contributed to the peace which we have had in industry since 1924.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member is now trying to suggest that there is not any relation between industrial councils and apprenticeship committees, and if the hon. member does not know it, let me say this. In every industry where there is an apprenticeship committee operating—I am referring to the apprenticeship committees which are established on the basis of equal representation of employers and employees—those organisations are suitably organised and developed to be parties to an industrial council, and I question in my own mind, without the available figures, whether there would be a margin of difference between the number of committees who are operating as parties to the Industrial Council, as against the number of councils which are operating as parties to the Apprenticeship Committee. On your Industrial Council you have the same representatives as on the Apprenticeship Committee, and the Apprenticeship Committees regulate the wages subject to the approval of the Minister. [Interruptions.]

It is the strength of the collective bond.

Order, order! Will hon. members please allow the hon. member to make his own speech.

I look upon these interjections as being very friendly interjections. They may serve the object of making the whole issue a little more clear to the members of the House who have no experience of Apprenticeship Committees and who are not informed on the point. The attitude of mind, of the craft unions as such—those who are operating in the Apprenticeship Committee—is that they believe that there is a duty on them to serve and encourage the growth and development of those who are in less privileged positions, to lift them up nearer the position of those who are skilled workers; and likewise you get a reciprocal attitude of mind on the part of those trade unions who cater for employees who have not got that degree of skill which they would require to be parties to an apprenticeship committee. Let me be quite specific about it. Take the textile industry or the garment industry and the hairdressing trade. What is looked upon as skilled work in the textile industry, does not require the same degree of skill as is required in hairdressing or engineering, for example. They are occupations which are looked upon and are considered to be semi-skilled operations, and these organisations realise the division in the particular industry that required different degrees of skill, and wages are provided according to the skill of the man. Those trade unions recognise the skill that is required for the work performed by their members as against the higher skill which is required in the higher craft organisations, where they do take part in apprenticeship committees. I hope the House clearly realises that the Apprenticeship Act as it operated in the past, was clearly beneficial to the country and that the present Bill provides all the benefits that the existing Act had, plus the additional benefits in regard to premiums to be paid by prospective employees in any particular industry.

That is out already.

It is not out already. It is something which is still coming into being. There are people who claim premiums from prospective employees on the ground that they can turn them out as qualified craftsmen. The premiums are claimed from persons outside the industrial occupation by schools who claim that they can turn out people as skilled craftsmen. They claim a premium from them and it is considered as such. The Bill as it stood has served a useful purpose. It provides all the facilities for so organising and regulating the conditions between employers and employees as to protect the interests of the employees. It makes provision in regard to the premium, and for these reasons I hope that the House will readily consent to the passage of the Bill.

I just want to say a few words in connection with what has been said by the last few speakers. The hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) stated that we would not be able to absorb all the artisans who are being trained. The hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) pointed out that 5,000 artisans were imported some time ago. I also want to remind the hon. member for Troyeville of a statement which was recently made by the Deputy Prime Minister of England in connection with the question of artisans. Mr. Attlee made a speech before a gathering of 1,300 delegates and, inter alia, he said this. Every one of those delegates, of course, represent a certain community. He is reported as follows—

That was said with the object of encouraging people to come to South Africa. The High Commissioner for South Africa said the same thing in England, and we have heard from the hon. member for Harrismith (Mr. E. R. Strauss) that the High Commissioner said that there was an opening for hundreds of thousands of artisans to come to South Africa. That is my reply to what was said by the hon. member for Troyeville. The hon. member for Troyeville said certain things which surprised me. He stated that it was necessary to build large hostels. There he wholeheartedly agreed with the hon. Leader of the Opposition. In this Bill, however, no provision is made for the construction of hostels. I can speak of experience when I say that the children on the platteland have to go to the cities at the age of fifteen in order to find employment there. Will any parent allow his children to go to the cities at that age if they cannot be under proper protection? We on this side ask that provision should be made in this Bill for the construction of these hostels. We want to go further. Apart from hostels, generous bursaries should be made available for the platteland children. I think that has already been advocated by a previous speaker. I just want to emphasise once again the necessity of granting bursaries. The parents on the platteland cannot afford to send their sons to the cities, but nevertheless their children have to live in town. This is a national matter. Why cannot we place those children in industry? Thousands of artisans are imported from other countries every year. It struck me that the hon. member for Troyeville who, together with the hon. member for Cape Town (Castle) (Mr. Alexander) is the mouthpiece of the immigrants of Eastern Europe, recommended this particular legislation which does not make provision for the children of the platteland. The hon. member did say that there was ample scope for them, but the facilities are lacking. The road is closed to them in many respects. Then I just want to draw attention to one other matter. The hon. member for Troyeville and the Minister were fairly friendly towards each other. That gave me the impression that there might be a sort of agreement between the hon. member for Troyeville, who represents the industrialists, and the hon. Minister. I thought that there was some sort of understanding between the industrialists and Labour. Now I want to deal specifically with a few points in connection with this legislation. I have gone into this Bill thoroughly; I have read through it very carefully. I now want to show in what respect this Bill fails to make provision for matters of importance. In the first place I want to touch on the colour question. That is mentioned in Clause 4 (2) (b). I do not want to read that clause again; I just want to say that there is a provision here which gives the right to this committee not to recognise the colour bar. There may be an Indian on that committee; there may be a coloured person on that committee; there may even be a native on the committee; there may be a Jew on the committee, an English-speaking or an Afrikaans-speaking person. What sort of work can one expect from a committee of that kind? There is no community of interests. I now come to the most important point in connection with the composition of that committee. The duties of the committee are very far-reaching. I want to refer, first of all, to the question of admission which comes under that committee. The committee has the right to say what persons will be allowed to become apprentices. Once the apprenticeship has been agreed to, they have jurisdiction over the apprentice in connection with certain things. They have to decide, for example, whether or not there has been misconduct. When there is a charge of misconduct against a European lad, his conduct must be judged by that mixed committee. If he is found guilty he can be reprimanded; his services can be suspended. Those things have to be done by a coloured committee sitting in judgment over a European child. Is that right? Can we allow it? The hon. Minister knows what our opinion is in connection with the colour question. He told the messengers at a meeting in Johannesburg, for example, that he did not want to discriminate between white and black. In terms of this legislation any other Minister can act in his place when he is not present. We know this Cabinet, and we know what their policy 1s. We know that their policy is based on the negation of the colour bar. I want to admit that the administrative provisions of this Bill are good, but certain important matters have been omitted from this Bill. I now come to another provision which is not contained in this Bill, and I am almost sorry that I have to discuss it at this stage, since it is one of the points on which we contested the recent election. I refer to the question of the language medium. There is no reference to the language question anywhere in this Bill. It is not stated anywhere that bilingualism is necessary. It is not stated anywhere that there must be a dual medium. We know that there are few facilities in this country for technical training through the medium of Afrikaans. I challenge hon. members in this House to show me more than three industrial schools where both English and Afrikaans are used as the media of instruction. There are only a few technical and industrial schools which recognise Afrikaans. Is that fair towards the platteland child? In many cases the platteland child only goes as far as Standard VI and his knowledge of English is very poor. Now he is pushed into an industry where he comes into an English atmosphere and he cannot speak English. I want to ask the Minister whether provision cannot be made in this Bill for both languages to enjoy equal rights. It is not stated anywhere in this Bill that these committees must consist of bilingual members. As hon. members know, there are, first of all, the sub-committees; then the committee itself; then the registrar and then comes the Minister. We know that the Minister is unilingual. The question is whether he is going to appoint a unilingual registrar. Probably he will do so. Will the members of the committees be bilingual? With a Minister such as the present Minister of Labour we cannot expect that. Now we come to the question of Union citizenship. It is not stated anywhere in this Bill that only Union citizens can be apprenticed in industry. We heard recently from the Minister of the Interior that orphans would be admitteed from overseas. That means that it may be any child from a baby to a child of seventeen, eighteen or nineteen years. They are not the children of Union citizens, and they can be taken on as apprentices. It ought to be laid down that Union citizenship will be the deciding factor, and that we will not admit anyone who is not a Union citizen. Our own children must first be protected. As the Bill reads at the moment no one is excluded. Even Indians can be admitted. There is nothing to prevent it. That deficiency exists, and it is a serious deficiency. I have already spoken in regard to the question of hostels. I just want to repeat that that is an important matter. The parents are worried about their sons. There are thousands of children who will apply to be apprenticed if only proper provision were made to ensure their safety in the big cities. As we heard from the hon. Leader of the Opposition there are approximately 40,000 children annually who cannot find employment anywhere. According to Mr. Attlee and also according to the Minister of Railways, great expansion is expected at the end of this war. New railways will be constructed. Everywhere there will be openings for artisans. We have heard that great air bases will be constructed. There will therefore be a big demand for artisans. We propose to expand our industries. There, too, there are openings for our youth. We can extend our apprenticeship on a large scale. In conclusion, I want to say that this legislation is absolutely a half-baked legislation. It is not the legislation itself which is bad, but it is a bad Bill because of the important matters which are not provided for in this Bill, matters such as Union citizenship, the question of the language medium, the question of the colour bar and the question of immigration. There are great dangers in those spheres. Then I want to support most strongly the view that this matter of apprenticeship is a serious matter, that we cannot dispose of it lightly. This Bill which is now being put through the House replaces four existing Acts. It deals with important matters. Why not have these things investigated by a national committee or a Select Committee, in terms of the recommendation of the Planning Council? This side recommended that a national committee should go into it. Why is that not done? I want to recommend that strongly. I hope that the Minister will still agree to have it done during this Session. It is necessary to expedite this matter; it takes years for an apprentice to be trained. The war will be over in the near future, and then we will not have sufficient artisans. We will have to import artisans. Our High Commissioner in England is making propaganda. The Deputy Prime Minister of England is making propaganda. The hon. member for Troyeville is making propaganda for immigrants from Eastern Europe; there will be a big demand for artisans in the near future. This is really a matter which requires thorough investigation and I hope the Minister will still agree to refer this Bill to a national committee or to a Select Committee.

I want to ask the hon. Minister seriously to consider the advisability of referring this Bill of his to a Select Committee. The reason for my asking that is that the Bill does not go far enough at all. As it reads at the moment the Bill is not at all suitable for this country, which stands on the eve of great industrial development. In the second place, the Bill gives far too much power to the Minister. I say that it is not necessary to put this Bill through the House with a steam roller. Let us amend it so that it will be able to promote the interest of South Africa, and let us bear in mind that our sons, our unskilled labourers in the platteland and in the cities, must be properly protected. In the past we reaped bitter fruits as a result of this type of legislation. We reaped bitter fruits as a result of the Factories Act, for example, and we must be careful in passing legislation of this kind.

I sincerely want to congratulate the hon. member who has just sat down because apparently he has ignored his instructions. It is perfectly clear to us that members opposite are at logger-heads over this Bill. There is a conflict of ideas in the ranks of the Government and in the ranks of the other parties associated with the Government Party. It is surprising to me that the most responsible man in the House today can indulge in the most irresponsible talk by telling us that there is no difference of opinion about the Bill. If he still doubts that there are differences, he has just had an example. I want to say at the outset that legislation which provides for the training of proper craftsmen in South Africa is a very essential type of legislation. This is not the first time we on this side of the House have said so. This side of the House has been pleading for it for years. What is the Minister’s object with this Bill now before the House? He has made this Bill the condition of his staying in the Cabinet. That is why he has introduced this measure. Let me just deal with the history of this measure, and let me point out that four years ago the Minister also introduced a Bill on this same subject. That Bill had a most peculiar history; it went as far as the second reading and then it vanished. And the Minister owes the House an explanation why that Bill vanished. Just let me quote what the Minister himself said on that occasion. I am quoting from Hansard—

He realised in 1940 that legislation was necessary in connection with apprenticeship to improve the position of the worker. And this is what he said here—

These are hard words, and these are the words used by the Minister in 1940, that public conscience had been awakened to such an extent in 1940 that legislation was required to provide for better conditions for the worker, and that the public not only expected but demanded such legislation. Those were the words with which he introduced the Bill in 1940. He went further and said this: That he was going to introduce a series of Bills and that this Bill would be the most important of the whole series. It would be the first Bill of the series. He added that it was a very good thing he was starting with this particular Bill because a sound foundation must be laid for the country’s industries. That was in 1940. Four years have passed and now in 1944 he comes here with legislation which he tells the House does not differ to any extent from that which he introduced here in 1940. When the Minister, who should be a responsible man, does that sort of thing it reminds me of the man who did not like going to church and when he was asked why he did not go to church on Sunday replied: “I felt inclined to go last Sunday, how can you expect me to feel inclined again to go today?” That is the Minister’s attitude on this subject. The Minister on that occasion also said this—

That is what he said in 1940. In those days he gave us the impression that he was inspired by the idea that it was his special duty as Minister of Labour to place South Africa on the industrial map of the world, in the same way as England was on that map. He has been asleep for four years, and four years later he tells us the same thing in proposing the second reading of this Bill: “I am going to put South Africa on the map.” Let me tell the Minister very clearly what his position is as Minister of Labour in that Cabinet. His position in the Cabinet is that which existed between the man and his wife who quarrelled all day long, but when they realised that people outside were noticing their quarrels, they agreed that if the man wore his hat askew and the woman wore a red apron they would only quarrel inside their house, but the result was that they quarrelled inside more than ever because the woman was always cross at the man invariably wearing his hat askew, and the man was annoyed at his wife wearing a red apron. That is the Minister’s position in the Cabinet. In all earnestness I want to ask him this question: He told us in 1940 that the Bill was an urgent and essential one and he also told us in 1940 that the 1940 Bill contained practically all the recommendations of the Industrial Legislation Commission of 1935; we now want to know why he has not carried out those recommendations? And if he did in the 1940 Bill give effect to the Commission’s recommendations why did he drop the measure like a hot potato and why did he run away from it? And if he did not carry out those recommendations, I want to know what was wrong with them, and why does he not put them into effect in the Bill now before us? I want to say clearly that we on this side of the House are of opinion that proper legislation—well thought out legislation—properly co-ordinated and providing for the interests of those concerned with this legislation, is urgently needed in South Africa. This subject which we are now discussing is a most serious one. Tremendous things are going on in this world. We don’t know what tomorrow or the day after tomorrow may bring, and in the stress of times like these practically everyone is asking this question, and everyone is looking for an answer to the great cry: “Give me a chance to live and to earn a livelihood.” Right throughout this Session we have heard these words roll over the lips of everyone who has spoken on important matters in our national existence. We have heard words such as “the right to exist,” words such as “social security,” and great stress has been laid particularly on social security. Those words have been on the lips of everyone, inside and outside this House, and that being so the public outside expect the Minister of Labour, now that he has rested for four years and has had ample time to consider this legislation, to come here with legislation which constitutes an improvement on the Bill which he dropped four years ago. He should in the meantime have studied this important question. He, who is responsible for that section of the population, in the Cabinet should have made a study of the interests of the people who are concerned with this legislation and he should have come before this House with a Bill on which—at least as far as possible—unanimity could have been obtained, at any rate unanimity within his own ranks. He has failed to do so. In all earnestness I want to say this to the Minister, that when he comes forward again with a Bill of this kind he must prevent certain things. Legislation affecting the arrangements between employers and employees is legislation from which it is particularly necessary to eliminate any conflicting elements. In legislation of this kind there must be no conflicts. If there are conflicts in legislation of this kind it means they will be perpetuated, and when such legislation is administered we are going to get conditions of conflict and friction which will result in a state of affairs such as we experienced in 1922. What are those conflicts which I am talking about now? There have been conflicts in the Union on these matters and those conflicts are still occurring. In the first place there are conflicts between capital on the one hand, capital which is out to make its profits, and the workers on the other hand who have to labour to make a living. Those conflicts will occur again. Those conflicts are taking place within the ranks around the Minister and those conflicts are borne from legislation of the kind which the Minister is introducing here—conflicts between capital which wants to protect itself and the workers who want to protect their livelihood. Conflicts often occur between employers and employees, but in this country, as in no other country in the world, we have conflicts—as our history goes to prove—between Europeans and non-Europeans. The one thing which the Minister should have done in this Bill was to eliminate all possible conflicts between the working elements in this country. And what is he doing now? Nolens volens he is dragging these elements into the conflict. He is doing it deliberately. Here he is with this Bill trying to get as many votes as possible around him for the day when he will have to leave the Cabinet. He has only one idea and that is to get votes around him for the day when things become too hot for him in the Cabinet. He knows it is so, and when the day comes for him to leave the Cabinet he wants to see how many of those elements he can gather around him so that he may find another home. It is that attitude of the Minister’s which we object to, and while I am dealing with this aspect of the matter I want to say very clearly that the Minister should remember that we have already discussed this question of Europeans and non-Europeans having to work together on the same premises; we have already discussed this matter of Europeans refusing to work cheek by jowl with non-Europeans. The Minister knows the position, he is aware of the clash which occurred on the Rand recently, to say nothing of previous occasions when similar things occurred. In spite of all this, by this Bill he puts his seal of approbation on a condition under which in the industrial world Afrikaner boys and girls will have to work cheek by jowl with non-Europeans. If the Minister wants to eliminate that kind of thing why insert a clause in the Bill saying that even in regard to the appointment of apprenticeship committees there will be no discrimination so far as race and colour are concerned? Why does he want to have both Europeans and non-Europeans on these responsible committees which have to examine people offering themselves for apprenticeship and which, in actual fact, will have to administer this Bill? Why must Europeans and non-Europeans be together on these committees? Why does he in the very essence of the Bill itself create a thing which he knows is going to cause continuous conflict? Does he for one moment imagine that this Bill can ever be a success if it contains the very germ of such conflicts? If I study the history of the Minister of Labour over the past four years in connection with this Bill Ï am reminded of the history of Saul the Wrestler. If the Minister’s history comes to be written one day he will be called Walter the Wrestler, but the book will be a tragedy because the Wrestler will perish. Warned though he has been in good time, he himself will be responsible for his own downfall. I want to ask the Minister this question now: In 1940 the subject of this Bill was fully discussed. In 1940 the Leader of the Opposition put the following points to the Minister, and said—

And as a guarantee of the requirements mentioned, the following essentials had to be provided for—

Did the hon. the Minister in 1940 raise any objections to that point. If not, why did he not in this new Bill give effect to that request, why did he not insert it? No, he dropped it like a hot potato. In 1940 the Leader of the Opposition further said—

This is a very important point which I propose reverting to afterwards. It was pointed out, and I want to ask the Minister whether he is opposed to it, that there must be close co-ordination between our trades and our industrial schools and the Labour Department with its apprenticeship. The young men and young women can obtain preliminary training in those schools and afterwards on leaving the schools they can enter apprenticeships. These schools will provide them with a good background for their apprenticeship. Does the Minister deny that? If he was in favour of these things in 1940 why did he not accept them? No, he said in 1940 that our industrial schools—and I take it he also meant our trades schools, did not provide a good education to serve as a preliminary training to be recognised when an apprenticeship contract was entered into. He had the opportunity afterwards of enquiring into our trades schools, and now I want to ask him this: When he made that investigation, did he still have that objection, or was he convinced that our young men and our girls were receiving a sound training there which could be recognised when they entered into apprenticeship? The third question mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition in 1940 was this—

I want to say a few words about this point in particular. The Minister came here in 1940 and told us that it was necessary to train artisans in this country and to train them properly. He discovered a word and he said that in South Africa we were looking for good “artisanship.” He said that we in South Africa should have an “artisanship” which could compete with the best in the world. He was looking to South Africa to provide the artisans of the future. If that was so in 1940, I want to ask the Minister if it is not so today. Is that still his attitude, and if he still maintains that attitude will he give expression to it in this Bill and will he uphold this sound rule which we find in the Book of Books, that “we must love our neighbour like ourselves,” and our neighbours are our fellow citizens on the soil of South Africa. We must apply this legislation to Union citizens and we must restrict the influx from outside to the utmost. If the cause is a good one, and if that is what the Minister believed in, he should have made provision for it in this Bill. The Leader of the Opposition went further in the points he enumerated and he said this: “The existing and increasing disproportion between the Europeans and non-Europeans in the sphere of industrial labour, and labour organisations should be eliminated.” I have already mentioned that point. I want the Minister to be clear on this question and I don’t want him to sit on the fence not knowing on which side he is going to jump off. Let him tell us frankly what his attitude is on this matter, and let him tell us whether he is going to discriminate in regard to race or colour, and whether he wants to mix up Europeans and non-Europeans in one kraal in industrial undertakings so that they will have to work together there. Must there be no distinction in their conditions of labour, in the technical training, and in the wages as between white and coloured? Let the Minister have the courage qf his convictions and let him tell us clearly what he is going to do. Is he going to differentiate or is he not going to differentiate? Let him tell us clearly and let him show us what his attitude is so that we may be entirely clear what the position 1s. Now in this connection I want to look more closely at this whole question of better co-ordination, of vocational training, but before coming to that I want to quote what the Minister said in 1940—

That was what he was striving for, that was his object in 1940, and we must now test this Bill to see whether it complies with that ideal, whether this Bill will have the effect of the Minister obtaining that standard of artisanship, whether he will secure a standard of artisanship able to hold its own with the rest of the world, a standard of which South Africa will have no cause to be ashamed. The Minister is pitching his requirements very high. I want to ask him this: Has he ever thought—has he ever enquired—how these requirements can best be achieved? There are two ways of training an artisan; can the Minister tell us which of those two he considers the more effective? The one way is this: It is to train young men and girls through our trades schools and vocational schools before they take up apprenticeships. If the schools are not equipped and are not able to turn out apprentices, why does not the Minister close them down? Why does he not close those trades schools? If they are effective and good, why does not he open up more of them? I want to give the Minister as much credit as I can. He told us that all the schools did not have the same standard of training. I am quite prepared to accept that and I think we are all prepared to agree that it is so. But it is absolutely essential to have closer co-operation between the Department of Labour on the one hand and the Union Department of Education on the other hand to see that those trades schools which we have in the country, that those schools which have to be the source of production of our artisans, are placed on such a basis that there is an equal standard of training. If there are defects they must be remedied. If the schools are good, they must be expanded and added to, and they must be so arranged that they can meet the demands made on them. The Commission of Enquiry as long ago as 1935 gave attention to this aspect of the matter; I shall come to that question later. The Minister knows it is so. I have the report before me and I can quote it to him, but if we want to meet the demand for well-equipped tradesmen according to the ideal which the Minister has set before us, then the Minister himself must have vision and be able to determine for himself where he is going to get his best men for the future. Will it be best to take a man off the streets and put him into apprenticeship immediately in the industries, or will it be better to give the young man a preliminary training in a trades school? Provision has to be made for such opportunities so that the necessary training for apprenticeship can be provided; and the training must be recognised. When the Minister discussed his Bill here in 1940 he said that the teaching in the trade schools was ineffective. He has had an opportunity in the meanwhile to go into the whole question and now he comes here with a Bill which is almost identical on this particular question, to that of 1940. So far as the question of the training of our boys and girls in the trades schools is concerned, I want to ask the Minister very clearly what specific provision is made in this Bill and what recognition he is according this training. When the Minister introduced his previous Bill I extended a courteous invitation to him to visit the trades schools and to see for himself whether the training was effective; and if it was effective, I asked him to see that in the proposed legislation the training the children were given in those schools was recognised. As I read the Bill now it is from beginning to end a question of “The Minister can.” He can grant recognition to the training in the trades schools if he wants to do so, but if he does not want to do so he need not do so. Well, the Minister may continue to be a member of the Cabinet, but on the other hand it is quite possible that he may be out of the Cabinet tomorrow. Why does he come here with vague legislation of this kind on a very definite subject? What objections has he, for instance, to telling us here in the House that all those trade schools are to be equipped on an equal basis and that the subjects taught there are to be on an equal basis, and that when the children leave these State aided institutions their training will be recognised to a certain extent for their apprenticeships. Why does he not say so? We had expected him to make this perfectly clear and we had expected him to say so very definitely on this Bill. I want to say to the Minister that this side of the House wants him to tell us clearly what the position is, and we also want him to state it definitely in this Bill. There are two very clear issues. We have the trades schools, the vocational schools and the technical schools. If these schools are no use and if they cannot assist us in turning our children into artisans, we must simply close them down, but if they are good we must extend them and increase them and we must fairly and justly recognise the training given in those schools. In this connection I want to mention a few instances and I want to say very clearly that I am strongly in favour of trades schools. In South Africa providing preliminary training for our young boys and girls to equip them for their later life, so that they can be absorbed in trade. I feel that our boys and girls should be equipped in those schools in such a way that they can enter into apprenticeship agreements. A strong case can be made out for the continuation and the expansion of the trade schools. May I be allowed to mention a few reasons why there is a strong case to be made out? In the trade school a child is a child. The Minister should remember one thing— there is an axiom which says this: “When I was a child I thought like a child, I felt like a child, I acted like a child, and I made war like a child, but when I grew up to manhood I thought like a man, I felt like a man, I acted like a man, and I made war like a man.” Those children who are being trained need their vocational training, but they also require education. Does the Minister want to deny that need? If he admits it why does he not provide in practice for such training before the child becomes an apprentice? The child must be educated and when the child is in the trades school it is under control in that trades school just as it is in any school—it is under the control of properly trained educationists. Those educationists are people who know how to instruct a child, they know how to educate a child. The object there must be not only to turn the child into the future artisan but in the first instance into the future citizen of the country. Give the child training but also give it education. In the industrial world today—and perhaps it will also be so in future—we often hear the expression, “So many hands.” But in educa tion there is no reference to “so many hands.” In education the expression is “so many human beings.” In education we deal with the human being. Education seeks to turn man or woman into a real human being, to build up that which is human into its full beauty, so that education may bring out that which is best in him or her. I say I am not opposed—where you have no alternative— to letting these boys also receive training as apprentices without first attending the preliminary schools, but it is better to give them the opportunity of attending a preparatory technical school first, where along with the vocational training they can also get the necessary education. I maintain that is better, and if that is so, I ask why the Minister does not make provision for it? In those trade schools our boys and girls can realise themselves. They will show their ability to create there. When they leave the schools they will be able to enjoy their potential psychological powers to the fullest degree and take their places as useful citizens of the country. They can live out their lives as human beings, and bring out whatever is in them. I think I have put it clearly, but if I have to make it still clearer, let me say this: In the training school the right type of educationist tries to put as much into the child as he can. But the unsympathetic employer takes as much as he can out of the child for his own benefit and for his own profit. That is the clear contrast and if that it so why does the Minister make so little provision, and why does he attach so little importance to the training of our youth in the trades school? I say that that training is essential. I just want to add that we are living in an age of machinery. In these days of machinery it is essential for an individual to set about things in such a way that the individual continues to realise himself, continues to realise that he is a human being. The hon. member who is interpreting my remarks to the Minister will agree that we must not turn the individual into a machine. In any country’s industrial life we must not turn a human being into a machine. That is another reason I want to mention for saying that man must realise himself and that life must recognise that he can be himself, so that he does not become part of the machine with which he works. There is a tendency in the industrial world today for man to become a machine—man simply has to turn a wheel and press a button—there is a tendency for the individual to have to do that sort of thing all day long. The Minister must consider the questions very carefully when bringing legislation of this kind before the House. He should study the whole subject and carefully analyse all these various aspects. What is necessary in legislation of this kind, if we want to achieve the Minister’s ideal, and if we want to set up a standard of artisanship which can compete with the best in the world, is to have uniformity of training. And now I want to come to the important clause in the Minister’s Bill. It is that clause which the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) mentioned. It is contained in paragraph 15 and right throughout that clause from A to Z there is just one provision after the other which says “the Minister can”. He ran prescribe an educational standard if he wants to, but if he does not want to he need not do so. The Minister can prescribe the duration of the apprenticeship but if he does not want to do so, or if his successor does not want to do so, he need not do so. The Minister can fix wage scales, but everything is left in his hands or in the hands of his successor. He can do as he likes, and he can completely ignore the interests of our youth and of our people, of the poor, if he wants to do so. The Minister can fix working hours, he can lay down correspondence courses and determine the nature and the number of such courses. He can provide for technical courses, and fix the periods for the attendance of such classes. He can lay down tests if he wants to. He can fix qualifications for admission. In every other sphere of education certain tests for the child are laid down from the very first day, so that the child can climb from rung to rung. Here the climbing or the non-climbing right throughout the legislation is left to the whim of a Minister, a human being. I am not surprised at the hon. member for Losberg (Mr. Wolmarans) emphasising this point so strongly. Everything is left to the Minister. We say that we want uniformity of training. Does not the Minister agree? If he agrees let him tell the Minister of Union Education that now is the time to do so because in future we want to get standardised people from our training schools to be taken up into the country’s industries. Let me mention a few trades. Apprentices are taken on in the building industry, in the engineering industry, in the motor industry, in the baking industry, in the butchering industry. I can mention a great many more. Let us take one, the motor industry. Assuming a young fellow is indentured to the motor industry, it is not necessary to fix a standard, a uniform standard of training, a standard for testing and admission? And when he comes out is not it necessary to have a uniform standard of wages? If the Minister determines these things he will be able to show the world a man who has passed certain tests, who has been trained on a definite standard. The Minister knows that the former member for Fordsburg (Mr. B. J. Schoeman) four years ago drew his attention to a number of anomalies. He pointed out that in a certain industry apprentices were paid wages varying from 10s. to 25s. per week. The difference was very considerable. Has the Minister done anything to lay down uniform wage scales? He has to improve the position. Uniformity is essential in the quality of training, in the period of apprenticeship in the character of the instruction, in the tests prescribed, and in the recognition of apprenticeship and in the pay. [Time limit.]

We have heard time and again that there is going to be an industrial revolution in this country. The question we ask ourselves when we are told these things is whether there is a surplus of artisans or whether there is a shortage? We know there is a shortage. This side of the House has quote’d the figures of the number of artisans who have had to be imported from outside the Union. We know that under the contemplated Social Security Scheme, after the war there is going to be an industrial revolution. We know that gun and ammunition factories are going to be converted into other factories; we know there is a big programme for Railway construction, a big housing programme, and in many other spheres artisans will be needed for industrial development. We ask what the position today is in that respect. Let me just mention one small instance. At Frankfort a hospital is under construction and the authorities there have had a lot of trouble to get skilled masons. They could not get skilled labourers to do the masonry work. Consequently, they only succeeded in getting two decrepit old men to do the masonry work. So far as those people were concerned masonry had always been casual work for them. They were given the job, but the difference was that they were not skilled workers and they could not get full pay, I am speaking subject to correction, but I believe that a skilled mason would have got about 30s. per day while these unskilled men only got 9s. 2d. per day. I want the Minister to remember that the English-speaking people born in this country, and the Afrikaans-speaking people, are individualists with a spirit of enterprise, with an ability to create—they are people who take interest in their work. In many instances they do their own masonry work, their own carpentry and things of that kind. Although they are not skilled labourers, none the less they can do the skilled man’s work. But a man now has to be a skilled worker, and if he is not skilled he only gets a very poor wage. What seemed strange to me was that the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) should have expressed himself in favour of the number of people to be trained being restricted.

At 6.40 p.m. the business under consideration was interrupted by Mr. Speaker in accordance with the Sessional Order adopted on the 25th January, 1944, and Standing Order No. 26 (1), and the debate was adjourned; to be resumed on 21st April.