I move—

This motion is moved after discussions which took place between the Whips of the various parties. It is clear now that the session will last a good deal longer than was originally anticipated, and it is felt that it is desirable to lengthen the session hours somewhat. There is, of course, a possibility that we will again go back to evening sittings, but in view of the transport difficulties it will in any case not be possible to sit after 10.30 p.m. and it is therefore felt that it would not be worth while reverting to evening sittings. It is therefore proposed rather to extend the sittings in the mornings by an hour. It is proposed that we sit three-quarters of an hour earlier and a quarter-of-an-hour later in the mornings. We therefore gain one hour every morning. Then it is also proposed that we sit on Saturdays as well. The proposal is that these new arrangements will come into operation as from the beginning of next week. I hope hon. members will be prepared to extend their session hours somewhat, and accept this motion in the light of that.

I second.

In principle, of course, we have no objection to the motion which has been introduced, but I must say— and I think hon. members on both sides of the House will agree with me— that the measures which are proposed here are severe. They are undoubtedly severe. If the business which is still before the House had not been of particular importance it would have been a different matter. Members need not have made a special study of them. But when the business is of the nature which is still ahead of us, it requires a good deal of preparation and study on the part of hon. members. I just want to make this suggestion, and that is whether instead of sitting at a quarter past ten in the morning, the Minister will not agree to our commencing at half past ten. I think that would be much more reasonable and would give members a little more time to prepare themselves for the business of the day; and if we are going to be kept busy here until the middle of May, I think the Minister should abandon the first Saturday, namely the 29th, in his motion. That is only a small concession, but I suggest it in view of the fact that these measures will undoubtedly operate harshly. In this connection I just want to say that I think the time has arrived, since the Minister is introducing this motion, to stipulate a fixed day on which the House will conclude its business. Hon. members are in many cases here with their families at boarding houses in Cape Town. They must know for what day they must give notice, and the owners of the boarding houses want to know that too, of course. Cape Town is crowded; it is overcrowded; and if they give up their boarding a few days too early, perhaps they would not be able to get it back simply because their places would have been taken by others. I think in view of that it is necessary to fix a date at this stage on which Parliament will adjourn. The other difficulty is, of course, in connection with the reservation of seats on the train. The position today is that one has to reserve one’s seat a whole month or more in advance; one therefore realises the inconvenience which members suffer if a fixed day for the adjournment of the House is not laid down. Another matter which I want to mention is that I think the time has arrived when we should definitely know which business the Government proposes to put through the House. We can no longer remain in this state of uncertainty with regard to this matter. I think it ought to be easy to do that; and what I want to say in this connection is this. I think the Minister must prevent our having to discuss important matters right at the end of the session; matters of lesser importance frequently arise, take up the time of the House, and important measures are then held over for the last day or the last few days of the session, when some of the members, for some reason or other, have already left. I think the Minister could do that easily. Let him put the measures which he wants to put through in a definite order, and let him keep to that order, an order of importance and necessity; and if any of them have to fall away, let those towards the end fall away. But do not make the list unnecessarily long, so that items, which will not come up for discussion in any case, appear on the Order Paper. These are things which we have every right to ask the Minister.

My. hon. friend said that this measure which is being proposed is severe. Yes, that may be so, but.it is not as severe as it was in the past. My hon. friend will remember that up to two years ago it was customary, towards the latter end of the session, to sit in the morning, in the afternoon and in the evening; to sit from 10.30 in the morning until 11 o’clock in the evening, and on Saturdays also; and then a cruel Government sometimes suspended the 11 o’clock rule. I do not think, therefore, that this motion will be as severe as was sometimes the position in the past. I am afraid it will be necessary to get the full extra hour in the morning. I hope, therefore, that my hon. friend will be satisfied to leave the session hours at 10.15 a.m. to 1 p.m. With regard to the first Saturday, I think we must make provision in this motion to sit on that Saturday, but I hope that circumstances will be such that, at all events, we will not have to sit in the afternoon of the first Saturday. I hope so, but that will, of course, depend on the manner in which our business progresses. My non friend also asked that we should fix a definite date when this session will come to an end. We would very much like to do that. I fully realise the difficulty to which my hon. friend referred in connection with the departure of hon. members from Cape Town, but I hope he will realise that it is impossible to fix a definite date. We cannot adjourn until the Appropriation Bill has been passed. That means that the estimates must go through and the Appropriation Bill must be put through. There is also other important legislation, and it is impossible to determine how long the discussion on each subject will take. It might be possible for the Whips to come to an agreement, but I am afraid that in practice it will not be possible to determine it in such a way that one could say with certainty how long each Bill will take; and for that reason it is impossible to fix a definite date. With regard to the business which is still ahead of us, I can inform the House that the Government will not continue this session with two of the Bills on the Order Paper. The first is the Standards Bill. That is Item XVI. There are certain technical questions in connection with the Bill which may delay its discussion, in regard to which further study is necessary; and the second is the Dental Mechanicians Bill, namely Item XVII. On the other hand, there are, of course, Bills which still have to be introduced. There is the ordinary Finance Bill and the Appropriation Bill, and the ordinary Pensions Supplementary Bill. There is also a Bill such as the Nurses Bill, of which notice has already been given, and then there are still a few smaller Bills which, in my opinion, will be short and not particularly contentious.

Motion put and agreed to.

Yesterday when the House adjourned I was discussing the Bill which is under discussion at the moment, but since that time something has happened. The Minister made a statement to his party associates, and if ever it has been necessary to accept an amendment, it is necessary in this case to accept an amendment after the statement which the hon. Minister made yesterday evening. If ever we must take serious notice of the warning of the hon. Leader of the Opposition in connection with the dangers which he pointed out, because of the fact that this Bill is in the hands of that particular Minister, then this is surely the time to take notice of those matters. I just want to point out a few things to which the Minister referred in his speech. At that meeting he told his party associates—

A cry in the wilderness.

Thanks for the publication of it

I just want to ask this. What surprises me more than anything else is that the Minister is foolish enough to sit alongside other foolish people. That surprises me.

And lies in the same bed.

What surprises me further is that the Minister who has been a member of this Parliament for 34 years now says that if the Government were placed in his hands, hé would make South Africa a happy country. How happy is he going to make this country? I want to put this question to him. In South Africa the Prime Minister is expected to be a bilingual man. Has that Minister during the 34 years which he sat in this House ever shown any respect towards the Afrikaans-speaking section of the people by at least mastering their language to such an extent that he does not need an interpreter next to him? Is that the man who says that he can make South Africa a happy country? No, I say we cannot leave South Africa’s destiny in the hands of that Minister. We dare not do so. The whole population of South Africa would be committing suicide if we were to do that. But I go further. I am now going to read what he said at that meeting. He said—

On which side does the Minister sit? Who used those words? Does he not sit in a Cabinet in which the capitalists have a great deal of say? I want to ask him that, and if the Minister is honest he ought to leave that side at once; he ought not to be there, if he wants to be logical. I go further. There was a friend of his at that meeting. I will mention his name here—Dr. Coplans. He criticised the Government because of the Government’s treatment of the soldiers, and what does he say—

How can we understand him? He does not want to be numbered amongst that category of people, but we are beginning to suspect that the Cabinet had to pay this high price and had to give the Minister of Labour the right to introduce this Bill, or otherwise he would leave the Cabinet. I do not think our suspicion is wrong. But we are glad that hon. members on his side have protested against this Bill. We heard the voice of the hon. member for Losberg (Mr. Wolmarans). But what struck me particularly was that when the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) spoke, the Minister of Labour listened to him very attentively; and what did he say? He practically said that the Minister must limit the number of students. Why must the number be limited? We are, as we are assured, faced with a great industrial revolution— let us call it that. Artisans will be required in every branch of activity in our country, in the greatest undertakings, such as the agricultural industry, the construction of railways and other spheres. Here we have evidence that 5,000 men have had to be imported up to the present. May I now ask the Minister of Labour why the door must be closed, and to whom must it be closed? In the Free State we find that 87 per cent. of the young people leave school after passing Standard VI. Where can those young people find employment? There is employment for them in the industrial world; but now the door is to be closed. That is the advice of the hon. member for Troyeville. I just want to say this, as the hon. member for Harrismith (Mr. E. R. Strauss) remarked here yesterday, those people are rough diamonds, and let me give the Minister the assurance that glittering gems can be made of those rough diamonds. Let me mention two examples. There has never been a greater statesman in South Africa than Paul Kruger; in the military sphere there has never been a greater soldier than Christiaan Rudolph de Wet. And so we can also find gems in this sphere, if only the people are given a chance to learn what has to be learned. But the Government is now advised to close the door. We cannot understand it. Perhaps the explanation is that when there are sufficient artisans, the work will be done more quickly, and there are certain friends who do not do that type of work. We do not find them amongst the bricklayers, the carpenters and the blacksmiths, but we find them amongst those who want to have the contracts and who want to deliver the material. At the end of this war, because of the Minister’s refusal to give us the assurance that Union citizens will have the privilege of being trained, we will find that people will again be imported from overseas, and that they will be given preference over South Africa’s own sons. We know that when this war is over thousands of unemployed will be thrown on to the labour market. There will be thousands and tens of thousands of returned soldiers amongst them; and I want to ask the Minister of Labour this. In this Bill he fixes an age limit; how many of those soldiers will be under the age limit and consequently entitled to be admitted? Even the returned soldiers will have to take second place to those who will be imported from overseas, and it is just as well that the returned soldiers should know that. I asked a moment ago how we in South Africa could accede to the Minister’s demand that the Government of this country be placed in his hands for five years. I just want to mention a few facts to show why we are opposed to that, definitely opposed to it, and why we hope that that disaster will never overtake us. That Minister is one of the biggest racialists in South Africa, because he has been in this House for 34 years and he has never had sufficient respect for the language of the Afrikaner to qualify himself sufficiently so as to be able to do without an interpreter in this House.

I think the hon. member must come back to the Bill.

Then I come to another matter. In this Bill there is no provision, as the hon. member for Christiana (Mr. Brink) indicated, in regard to the language in which the man must be trained. What is the motive at the back of it? Must the door be closed to the Afrikaner because he is bilingual, and must provision be made for those who are imported from overseas? But we want to protest against another provision in this Bill, and that is that when the Minister framed it he must have been colour blind. We do not want to evade our guardianship for a moment. We want to see to it that everyone in the country is able to find employment. We want to see to it that coloured persons, too, are given an opportunity of qualifying as artisans, and we want to see to it that even the native is given the right to qualify; but not together with the Europeans. There must be separation. We have reaped the bitter fruits of the policy of throwing Europeans and non-Europeans together, and that evil is constantly increasing. We notice the influx of non-Europeans to the cities, and in the light of past experience I want to warn the Minister that we will still reap bitter fruits if these things are not taken into consideration. No, I say that there is every reason why this amendment shoud be accepted. It must be accepted on the ground of the attitude and the statement of the Minister, on the ground of the incompleteness and the imperfection of the Bill which was introduced, because this Bill should have had a national background. For these reasons the amendment of this side ought to be accepted, and the Bill should be so altered as to enable the entire nation to benefit, and not only the section contemplated by the Minister.

As one who has found himself on certain points very much in agreement with what the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) said the other day on this Bill, and on the earlier part of the speech of the Leader of the Opposition, I regret that the Opposition have taken the opportunity of this debate to bring in the racial question. There was absolutely no necessity for them to do so; they have not only brought in the non-European question but the hon. member who has just sat down (Col. Döhne) attacked the Minister of Labour as a race hater because he was unilingual. Might I remind the hon. member that the Minister of Labour not so very many years ago sat in the same Cabinet with the Leader of the Opposition. I repeat that I regret the Opposition have brought this subject of the so-called segregation into a Bill of this character. I do not want to argue the whole issue with them again. I have done so on many occasions in the past, but I want to point this out to the Leader of the Opposition and to the hon. member who has just sat down, that when they say that they are in favour of opportunities for becoming skilled, being given to non-Europeans and for higher classes of work being done by non-Europeans in separate areas, they are saying something which has no relevance to the existing economic system in this country. As they well know, the non-European people of this country have not got the capital to build their own industries and only a completely planned economy can bring about a separation such as they seem to visualise. And even if they were prepared to introduce a system on these lines, it would necessitate this fundamental renunciation on their part—the renunciation of a policy which has been in existence for the last century—the renunciation of a policy of using cheap non-European labour in European industries. The policy of separating labour in the way the hon. members seem to visualise is impossible under present conditions where European-controlled industry is dependent on cheap non-European labour. Then there is this question of the drift of the African population into the towns—I cannot see what that has to do with this Bill, but as hon. members are aware, the vast majority of the native people who come to the towns from the reserves do unskilled work—they have no opportunity to do any other kind of work. They are untrained people and what that has to do with the Apprenticeship Bill is not clear to me. Now, the effect of this Bill, so it appears to me, will be that the Minister for the time being—and to a large extent, of course, it will be the Civil Service who will have to do the work—will have complete power to impose a particular labour pattern on industry by controlling the qualifications for skilled work in industry. Secondly, although the terms of this Bill are very wide, as I have indicated, almost any policy could be applied—it does provide a heavy bias in favour of the perpetuation of the existing system of apprenticeship. It provides a bias in favour of its maintenance, and even of its expansion. I say it provides a bias in favour of its maintenance because the bodies which the Minister is in terms of this Bill required to consult are composed of interests which have grown up under the old system. He is under an obligation in terms of the Bill to consult with these interests on a matter which essentially is the concern of the community as a whole since the community has a vital interest in industrial expansion. I say also that it provides for an extension of that system by the provision which does away with the schedule of industries within which trades can be designated under the existing Act as trades requiring apprenticeship and leaving unfettered discretion with the Minister and his officials, to designate any trade or industry as requiring apprenticeship. So in essence this Bill is one for maintaining and expanding the existing system of apprenticeship, and there is ample evidence, which I propose to quote at a later stage, to indicate that that system is not functioning in a manner which is satisfactory from the point of view of the expansion of South African industry as a whole, a subject with which I repeat the public is very deeply concerned. Those of us who have criticised this Bill have done so in a constructive spirit. What we wish to be assured of are the following things : Firstly, that in the administration of legislation of this kind, qualifications will not be imposed for entering into skilled occupations which are disproportionately high in relation to the degree of skill which is required in that particular trade.

Say that again.

What we want an assurance upon is that under legislation of this kind qualifications will not be imposed which are disproportionately high in relation to the degree of skill required in the particular trade or occupation.

Are you talking of educational qualifications?

Educational, and more particularly technical.

You cannot have the technical qualifications initially.

You must have the educational qualifications first.

Exactly.

What we want an assurance on is this—I shall say it again— that in imposing the qualifications for entering into skilled occupations such qualifications will not be disproportionately high in relation to the work that has to be done in a particular trade.

I give you that assurance right now. That disposes of one of the fallacies of your next door neighbour.

Secondly, that in the designation of trades for apprenticeship no trade will be designated which, through industrial re-organisation, or through subdivision, can be split into a number of simpler operations which do not require special qualifications. The need for this assurance is a matter on which I shall quote evidence later. And finally, that in the administration of any system of apprenticeship, there shall be equality of opportunity, so far as that can be secured, for all sections of the people of South Africa. Now, I referred just now to the wide powers which this Bill confers on the Minister—on any particular Minister, for the time being the Minister of Labour, and his officials—and I recognize that that is a tendency which is prevalent in all legislation which is now introduced in this House—a tendency which many of us regard with profound misgiving, not because of any criticism of any particular Minister but as a matter of principle. The hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. Burnside) raised that very principle in a sharp form at an earlier stage of the session when he suggested certain remedies, and we on these benches supported him in that respect, and as I have said, this is a tendency which we regard with a considerable degree of misgiving, more particularly when these powers are exercised in the economic field and can have the effect of limiting the opportunities of any section of the community to earn their living in such a way as they desire. I recognize that wide powers must be given in legislation of this kind, but before such powers are given we would like to see an enquiry, as suggested by the Social and Economic. Planning Council— not exactly of such a character because that was limited—but an enquiry into the whole pattern of our labour force in this country, with more particular reference to the occupations which do in fact need special qualifications to enable their efficient discharge. That is in essence what we on these benches feel we should like to see before legislation of this kind is proceeded with.

How does this legislation prejudice such an enquiry?

In this way—that naturally if as a result of this enquiry it were possible, as it should be possible, to indicate in what trades and industries special qualifications are necessary, those should be scheduled.

We have that already.

Not in this Bill.

Not in the Bill.

There is no schedule to the Bill.

Of course not. The schedule is too narrow.

I don’t say it should be the same schedule as exists under the present Act. What I say is this. The objective of the enquiry should be to indicate to this House in what trades and occupations special qualifications are necessary. Such trades should be scheduled and the discretion of the Minister limited to laying down qualifications for these particular occupations. I indicated at the outset that the Minister’s advisers under this Bill are bodies which are composed of interests in the particular industry concerned, and here I must sound a note of disagreement with the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge)—with whom I often find myself in agreement—when he laid stress on the priciple of self-govenment in industry. There are certain matters—such as conditions of work–in which self-government is obviously appropriate. That applies also to bargaining as to wage rates, etc. But when it comes to laying down a general pattern upon the basis of which the industry of this country is expected to expand, that is a matter which concerns the whole community and I am in general agreement with the remarks on that point of the hon. member for Swellendam when he asked for some form of public consultation and control in the application of apprenticeship regulations. Now, the composition of these committees, as foreshadowed in this Bill, and as they exist under the present Act, excludes participation of the public as such, except through the Minister, and secondly, as a trade union in terms of this Bill is defined as an organisation registered in terms of the Industrial Conciliation Act, that naturally also excludes from participation in the committees the vast majority of unskilled workers in industry. We are hoping that that will be changed in the near future, that the vast majority of unskilled workers in industry will be brought within the terms of the Industrial Conciliation Act.

It has nothing to do with the extension of industry.

I shall deal with that. These, then, are the bodies which advise the Minister in the administration of this Bill, and it is a matter of principle, of general principle, that it is dangerous to leave control of entry into particular occupations in the hands of those who at a particular time are already there. And those are the bodies, thus composed, who advise the Minister in terms of the Bill. Now the manner in which this system has operated in the past has led to a tendency both to restrict the number of skilled men who are able to serve this country, and secondly, there is evidence that numbers of occupations have been designated as skilled where that should not have been done. My objection to both these tendencies is that they limit the opportunities for productive work of vast numbers of workers. Now, the hon. member for Swellendam quoted figures indicating over a period of years the shortfall of artisans required in this country at particular times. And he indicated the figures of importations in order to make up the numbers. The Van Eck Commission reported that three-quarters of our European boys leaving school received no industrial training whatever, and as the hon. member for Germiston (Mr. Payne) reminds me, at the outbreak of war there was disclosed a very serious shortage of skilled labour in this country which involved the institution of the special C.O.T.T. scheme. On the other point, as to the designation of trades, which require particular qualifications, we have the evidence of the Industrial Legislation Commission. That body reported a number of years ago, and if the position has been to any extent rectified since that report, the Minister no doubt will be in a position to say so. On page 146 of the report of the Industrial Legislation Commission we find the following passage:—

The point I would like to make is that this system has led to this particular kind of thing which we are asking should be safeguarded against for the future, and that is the obligation to acquire a particular degree of skill where it is not really necessary and it is not in the interests of national economy as a whole that these particular qualifications should be imposed. I may say that Mr. Downes and Mr. Freestone, both of them men who have spent their whole lives in the trade union movement, were signatories to this Report. A little later the Commission says—

Now this was a body appointed especially to investigate the whole of the industrial laws of this country. The evidence which has been laid before the Planning and Economic Council indicates that, having regard to the increase of mechanisation of industry, apprenticeship periods need not be prolonged and the need for apprenticeship is lessening. The Council classifies industry into three divisions, those concerned with machine building, which has not developed very far in South Africa at the present time; the machine using industries and the machine repairing industries. In the machine building industries, according to the report, where apprenticeship is still most necessary, although it appears that the job can be learned in shorter periods now, a reduction in the period is called for. In the machine using industry the Council says that most of the operations are of such a character that they can be learned in a short period of simple training. In the machine repairing industry, although there again a considerable amount of technical skill is required, there is a large range of occupations in which all round experience is all that is required. I want to emphasise this point particularly in view of the very able and clear speech made yesterday by the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Wanless). Neither we on these benches nor other critics of this Bill have any intention of recommending a reduction of skilled work wage rates. That has never been our intention; it is socially unsound, unjust and unfair to interfere with established standards of life. All we are concerned with is that skilled rates should be applied to occupations which are in truth skilled occupations, and that the system of apprenticeship should be limited to its proper sphere, which is training for jobs which require special skill, and not operate in order to exclude large sections of the working class from performing operations which they are in fact perfectly competent to perform. Having determined what occupations do require skilled training, and having determined the number of skilled journeymen required by industry, then we say naturally there should be some limitation of the numbers coming forward. We look forward to a genuine attempt, even within the ambit of the capitalist system, which the Minister condemns and with which condemnation I am in full agreement, even within the ambit of that system we look forward to an attempt to plan our industries on the basis of full employment for all sections.

I said that precisely too, I also accept limitation.

I was not criticising the Minister, I was expressing agreement with him.

I appreciate your condescension.

There must be co-relation between the demand for skilled labour and the supply, and the extent of the demand should be planned periodically in advance in relation to the general utilisation of national resources, and this should be the only limiting factor. Having prescribed that limitation, then I say that the fullest opportunity should be given, as far as that can be brought about in South Africa, to all sections of the population to compete for the positions available. The hon. Minister, in his opening remarks, denied that the apprenticeship system operated as a colour bar. On that subject I shall again quote from the report of the Industrial Legislation Commission, which on page 19 of its report, says—

Later on the report says—

I want to be quite clear about this, because I recognise that this prejudice and lack of general educational facilities for non-Europeans are among the reasons why our apprenticeship system tends to operate as a colour bar. Again, the skill acquired in an occupation or trade depends upon the whim of some private employer as to whether or not he will train the apprentice, and that again must operate as a colour bar. It is not easy to suggest an alternative system, but I would suggest that where there are institutions which train for industrial work, and which are able to give practical training, those institutions should be designated and the course taken there should be regarded as an alternative to apprenticeship. I have indicated, or rather re-emphasised what we on these benches feel about the introduction of this Bill at this particular time. Our main objections are that it tends to perpetuate the existing system without providing any remedy for the criticisms which have been made of it in the past. By way of interjection when my hon. friend the member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) was speaking, the Minister said that the enquiry referred to by the Planning Council is going on at the present time. I should like, in view of that interjection, to read to the House what the Council does say in relation to this enquiry that is going on—

What the Council proposes is an enquiry into the whole subject of vocational training which, as is pointed out, is coming more and more to the fore in the more highly industrialised countries, and more particularly in America. For that reason we on these benches regret that the Minister has not taken the advice of the Council and postponed the introduction of this Bill until the whole question of the system of apprenticeship and the future employment of our labour force has been thoroughly investigated.

This Bill has already been discussed fairly fully, especially by this side of the House, but I cannot fail to rise and protest against the acceptance of this Bill. It is stated that those who oppose this Bill are trying to make political capital out of it. This matter is too serious to allow political capital to be made out of it. If there had really been an honest attempt to improve the position of the workers in general in the country, we would have voted in favour of it. But what do we find? We find that this measure, as has been said so often, is half-baked; and in saying that we are supported by the report of the Planning Council. They, too, say that this Bill should have been held over to allow of a proper investigation into this matter. The Minister, however, does not want to agree to that. Nevertheless he himself says that this Bill does not bring about any radical alteration in the system under the old Act. In recommending a commission we do not want to delay this matter. It is a serious matter which should be dealt with immediately by the legislators of this country. But it is better to wait for a little while rather than introduce a Bill which is not in the interests of those persons whom it ostensibly wants to assist. We have here an antiquated law which was practically a failure in the past, and which is being perpetuated now. Hon. members will agree that it was a failure in the past, and we owe the poor white problem, to a large extent, to the bad effect which this law had. I say, therefore, that the Act of 1922 failed. The Minister is now introducing a Bill which contains a few amendments which in actual fact give the Minister greater powers. The statistics quoted by the hon. member for Swellendam prove that in the past we had a shortage of trained artisans. In the past we had to import practically 50 per cent. of our artisans. If the position was that we did not have capable men, one might have been able to understand it, but I think both sides of the House will agree that our sons and daughters, Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking, are as capable as those of any other country in the world. This Bill does not make proper provision for greater scope to train our own artisans in this country to such an extent that we shall not be dependent on people imported from overseas. I admit that certain technical men with a great deal of experience overseas can be of very great value to us. I do not think that any one of us will protest against the importation of highly trained technical men in limited numbers for the benefit of our industries. But the introduction of this Bill frustrated the hopes of thousands of boys and girls who looked forward to better prospects once this Bill had been introduced. We have in mind more especially the people of the platteland who had practically no opportunities in the past. These poor boys and girls, far removed from the big centres, are not given an opportunity of receiving training, and this Bill does not give them that opportunity. In this connection I feel that there should be more co-operation between the Department of Education, the various education departments of the provinces, and the Minister of Labour. In the platteland we have gone in for centralisation. There are practically no farm schools today. Practically everything has been centred in the platteland towns. I think the time has arrived to provide more facilities for technical training. If we obtain that, there must also be better co-operation between the apprenticeship system and our trades schools. There is no recognition in this new Bill for boys and girls who may have had two or three years’ training in the trades schools.

You have been misinformed.

In any event there is no proper recognition of that training. But if the Minister gives me the assurance that it is the case, I accept it. I must say, however, that I doubt it. If our sons and daughters apply to the Apprenticeship Committee, will their interests be looked after better than in the past?

The committee has not got the power.

Will there be no limitation? Furthermore, this Bill is not satisfactory as far as the age limit is concerned. Apprentices can only be admitted under the age of nineteen years. How often does it not happen that young men or young girls choose a profession or decide on a career at a youthful age, and then discover after reaching the age of nineteen years that they chose unwisely?

The Bill now makes provision for 21 years.

Yes, but even that is not quite reasonable. Then they have only just attained their majority. A little more time ought to be given to these young people. Experience shows that very often one makes the wrong choice to begin with.

In special circumstances we can make an exception.

Yes, but the Minister has the final decision; it is left to his discretion. We feel that we cannot do that. Furthermore, I feel that the section of the community which is treated most unfairly is the unskilled labourer. If the unskilled labourer can no longer attend an apprenticeship class, if he can no longer become an apprentice, he has no prospects. He may be a capable hard-working man, but he is not given an opportunity to improve his position and to become a skilled labourer. There too there is a deficiency. There are hundreds of capable artisans who have not completed an apprenticeship course. As a result of war circumstances many of these people were taken into employment, and it seems that the Minister now proposes to recognise those who did war work as trained artisans. If that is so, the Minister also owes it to other capable men who show that they possess ability to give them an opportunity of being recognised as trained artisans. Then we must also remember that as the result of changed circumstances much more machinery is introduced into industries, and in a large number of cases the period of five years for apprenticeship is far too long. I think the Minister himself will admit that in many cases it can be reduced. In conclusion, we on this side want to object to the fact that in this Bill no distinction is being made on the ground of colour. Coloured persons can also serve on these committees. We do not say that the coloured people must not be given a chance. Give them their quota. Their standard of living is quite different to that of the Europeans, but this Bill does not make provision for any distinction on the ground of colour. The powers of the committees on which coloured persons may also serve go so far that they can decide whether or not to accept European boys or girls for apprenticeship training. I think that is undesirable. Unfortunately, we have a Minister at the head of affairs today with strong communistic influences behind him, and we do not know where he will draw the line. I feel that that is dangerous. I condemn the constitution of the committees. We have repeatedly said that this is a national matter, and I think we must regard the constitution of these committees on a national basis, and appoint impartial national committees to deal with the applications. Many hon. members on the other side undoubtedly agree with our views on this Bill. But when it comes to the vote they will vote with the Government, because in the interest of the war they must try to keep the different elements on the other side together. The less-privileged sons and daughters in this country will pay for that. They want to see the war through, and they cannot therefore leave the Government in the lurch. They are also afraid that the labour element, of which the Minister of Labour is the head, will leave the Government, and they must therefore sacrifice the less-privileged boys and girls and agree with the Minister. I want to make a final appeal to hon. members, English-speaking as well as Afrikaans-speaking, to think once again before they vote in favour of this Bill. The future of Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking boys and girls is at stake.

Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat perturbed about this Bill for one or two reasons. One is that in the trades school as we know it today, the technical high school where young men are trained in certain trades such as carpentry, motor engineering and tailoring, they go through a very good intensive course for three years, and when they have finished their course they are given a remission of one year’s apprenticeship. This, I think, should be amended. I am quite convinced that the three years’ course at some of these trades schools is a very far-reaching education in the ordinary trades, more than would have been the case if three years’ apprenticeship would have been served. Therefore I am appealing to the Minister to try and give a greater remission than one year. The results have been wonderful at some of these places. They are given a technical training, and at the same time a practical and theoretical course better than they get in an ordinary apprenticeship training. We have seen the truth of this during the war. We know now that women can learn a trade in two or three weeks, learn to handle a machine that formerly they were not allowed to touch unless they had served a long apprenticeship. They can now handle a machine after a two weeks’ and not a five years’ course of instruction. They can handle it equally well as the man who formerly took five years before he was allowed to handle that machine. There is scope for far-reaching reforms in this Apprenticeship Bill. I am convinced that the ramifications of this Bill are so far-reaching that in my opinion it should really have been deferred. There is no immediate hurry for this Bill. Research work should have been undertaken. I agree with a lot of what the hon. member for Berea (Durban) (Mr. Sullivan) said, that there is no hurry for pushing this Bill through and I am sorry to have to disagree with some of the contents of this measure. I think that I would have supported members of the Opposition in their amendment had they not gone to the extent of making it a party matter. Had they not tried to make political capital out of it. Had it not been for that I would have supported their amendment.

What do you think of the amendment itself?

The main point is that there is not enough recognition given to the training of youths in trades schools.

The hon. member for Middelburg (Dr. Eksteen) who has just resumed his seat told us that he would have voted against this Bill and that he would have voted with us on this side of the House had we not made this a party question. It is not a party question, it is a national question—it is matter which affects the people as a whole. We stand for a White policy in South Africa and if the hon. member for Middelburg feels that we are adopting the right attitude in our amendment, it is nothing short of his duty to vote for the amendment whatever his position on the side of the House may be. We are afraid the whip has cracked and once the whip has cracked we know that members opposite obediently do as they are told. The hon. member for Cape Western (Mr. Molteno) when addressing the House tried to lecture us and told us that we on these benches had raised racial issues. He criticised the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) and he attacked him.

I did not attack him.

We want to keep the Europeans and non-Europeans separated. Now, just let me say this to the hon. member: We stand for segregation and if he wants to train people in the native areas as apprentices we shall raise no objection whatsoever, but that does not apply to our own industries in the white areas—there we say that preference must be given to our own race—to Europeans. Now let me come back to what the Minister has said on this Bill and to what he proposes in this measure now before us. Let me tell the Minister that we are always very concerned and alarmed at any bit of legislation he introduces because he has completely changed his attitude and his views since 1922. In those days he emphatically insisted on the maintenance of the status quo, he insisted on the maintenance of white civilisation, so much so that the attitude adopted by him and his supporters resulted in a strike and in bloodshed, and now he comes here with his half-baked legislation which even his own side does not want. The hon. member for Vereening (Lt.-Col. Rood) told us that he was opposed to it; the hon. member for Middelburg took up a similar attitude, and yesterday the hon. member for Losberg (Mr. Wolmarans) asked the Minister to agree to the Bill being sent to a Select Committee. This is a half-baked Bill. In 1922 the Minister had a white heart; his heart has now changed colour, and it is black, and he wants white and black to work next to each other in our industries. It is not only members of Parliament opposite who are opposed to this Bill—although, as I have already said. They have to vote for the second reading in order to keep the Minister and his followers on their side—but the newspapers which should support the Minister are also opposed to this Bill. They don’t welcome it, and in this connection I should like to quote from the “Cape Times” of the 20th April where the paper says this—

The hon. member cannot quote from a newspaper commenting on a debate during the same session.

Very well, then I shall merely say that the “Cape Times” in this article stated that the Minister had introduced legislation which contained nothing new compared with the 1940 Bill, but not only that, the paper says that it is an altogether half-baked Bill which it cannot support. It also asked why the Minister was in such a hurry. And not only is that newspaper, which should support the Minister, against this Bill, but the Planning Council is also opposed to it. If the Planning Council carries any weight with the Government—and if the Minister of. Finance who is at the moment responsible for the House is listening to what I am saying—if the Planning Council carries any weight with members of Parliament, and with the people of South Africa, the Minister of Finance should immediately give instructions that this Bill shall not be proceeded with. Let us see what the Planning Council says in its report—

1. (a) By insisting upon a higher educational standard so that apprenticeship training need not in part have to supply the general education which it is the function of the ordinary schools to provide:
2. (b) By making a year’s pre-apprenticeship training at technical colleges or trade schools compulsory for all prospective apprentices, in order to get a better selection of apprentices for the various trades and to acquaint the youths with the basic processes with which they will be concerned; those who fail can become semi-skilled operatives;
3. (c) By limiting apprenticeship to workshops with adequate facilities;
4. (d) By ensuring, through inspection, that proper workshop experience is gained by the apprentices in accordance with a definite programme; and
5. (e) By allowing the equivalent of a day a week for the attendance of classes during working hours, the passing of the courses prescribed to be a prerequisite to attaining journeyman’s status.

And then the Board goes on to say—

The Planning Council is held up to us every day; we are told about the great things the Planning Council is going to do and the recommendations it is going to make in regard to various matters, and here the Planning Council has come forward with a recommendation. It says that this Bill of the Minister of Labour is ill-considered and that it does not meet the needs so far as the future is concerned. It is something antiquated. But the Minister of Labour says that he is going to force the Bill through the House in spite of the recommendations of the Planning Council, in spite of the feelings expressed by hon. members opposite, in spite of the feelings of people outside, and consequently against the interests of the people of South Africa. If the Minister is not prepared to listen to me I shall be compelled to move the adjournment of the debate. He is now trying to persuade the hon. member behind him to vote for the Bill. He should have more respect for members addressing the House, but that is the sort of thing one can expect from those people. It is for that reason that Gen. Hertzog had to kick him out of his Cabinet, and if people opposite only had the courage they would also have kicked him out long ago. Now let me come to the Bill itself. Apart from the recommendations of the Planning Council we are of opinion that the Minister is not achieving uniformity by this Bill.

Do you know what the Bill says?

There is not the slightest uniformity under this Bill. The Minister of Labour introduces this Bill and simply tries to place himself in a position which will give him control over apprenticeship for all the various trades. We on this side of the House object to that. The Minister has told us that that is not so. Let me just tell the Minister what one of his own commissions, the Industrial Legislation Commission, said a few years ago. That commission pointed to the lack of uniformity and as an instance it mentioned the pay of apprentices. In Pretoria it was 10s. per week, in Cape Town 15s., in Durban 20s., East London 18s., Kimberley 15s. and Bloemfontein 22s. 6d. At the end of five years the pay of an apprentice in Pretoria was 75s. and in Port Elizabeth 110s. Now the Minister has introduced this Bill, and I want to ask him why he cannot bring about uniformity in regard to these various matters? We know that the cost of living in Pretoria is very high; in spite of that the apprentice there has to start at 10s. I want to quote further from the Commission’s remarks in this connection, to point out that there is no uniformity whatsoever on these matters. I want to refer to page 151 of the Commission’s report which contains this—

That shows that the Minister’s own commission held that there was no uniformity.

Do you want me to provide for it in this Bill?

The Minister will have the opportunity of replying, I am at the moment quoting from the report of the Commission.

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

When business was suspended I was showing the House that no uniformity was being achieved as a result of this Apprenticeship Bill and I was quoting from the report of the Industrial Legislation Commission of 1935 in order to prove my contentions. I want to refer to a few more points in that report before I deal with some other matters. In paragraph 745, on page 148, the Commission says this—

We know who those employers are, we know the amount of sympathy they have for the white worker in many instances—we know how much sympathy they have for the rural population, and I entirely associate myself with what this Commission says, that the apprentice cannot be left to the whim of the employer. A change must be made, but the Minister does nothing in this Bill to effect such a change. Then let me come to paragraph 775 on page 152 of the report where the Commission says this—

The Minister has not given any attention to matters of this kind. Why did he leave all these things out of the Bill? What was this commision appointed for but to make a thorough investigation? In 1940 the Minister took no notice of these matters when he introduced this Bill, and it was then found that the Bill was not practicable. We had hoped that after four years he would have brought in a better Bill, but we now find he has not done so. On the same page the Commission goes on to say this—

The Leader of the Opposition showed that he had gone out of his way to get more technical colleges established, and the foundation laid by him can be built upon. The Minister could have obtained co-ordination between the Educational Department and the Labour Department. There are trade schools and industrial schools at places like Wolmaransstad and Christiana and also in other parts where the children are given a three year training. They then go out, and many of them are unable to find employment and are not admitted as apprentices. In spite of this the Minister has allowed thousands of artisans to be imported. We feel that this is an unhealthy condition of affairs in respect of our own population in South Africa. There are a few other matters I want to touch upon. We feel that this Bill is so full of defects and that there are so many matters for which no provision is made that we have to propose an amendment. We want better joint control in the hands of a National Board. The Minister takes all the powers under this Bill, and we say we should have a proper committee or board which will be able to judge matters of this kind. Disputes with employers and employees may arise, and there must be a proper board. The second difficulty is this—and this is one of the principal points— we must maintain the colour bar. This applies to Clause 4 (e) (b) which deals with the constitution of the Apprenticeship Committee and this clause deliberately states that certain things “can” be done by the Minister and it also lays down certain things which he shall not take into account. In regard to the appointment of the Apprenticeship Committee the clause says this—

In other words, a committee on which non-Europeans serve can be appointed to decide about our European boys and girls from the platteland. I want to assure the Minister that we on this side stand for the colour bar in South Africa. We are getting tired of the way white and black are allowed to work together in the same factory and in the same place. This must be stopped.

If the Minister had got off in Adderley Street today he would have seen a coloured man drinking coffee in the same tea room with Europeans, Things are getting too bad. If the Minister were to go to Kloof Nek he would see Europeans and non-Europeans admitted to the same place. It should be stopped. We feel that white civilisation must be maintained in South Africa and that there must be a dividing line between white and black. There are some members opposite, too, who feel as we do and they are not going to vote for this Bill. The old Voortrekkers stood for white civilisation in this country and that civilisation has triumphed, and what do we see now? This Government is bringing about equality in every respect between white and black. How can the white man exist in South Africa where we have a native population of 8,000,000 against 2,000,000 whites, if the natives are pushed forward in every respect in the way the native representatives want, and for which the Minister is leaving an opening in this Bill? I want to protest most emphatically against anything of that kind being put into this Bill, and I want to protest to the Minister being able to appoint non-Europeans on a committee which has to decide about white apprentices. We have not yet reached a stage in South Africa where we allow non-Europeans to have control over our children. We want to do justice to the non-Europeans but if they are to be allowed to decide the future of European apprentices we are compelled to protest most emphatically against the Minister’s attitude, and against legislation of this kind. As I have said, we have no objection to natives in the native areas being trained to work in their own working places but we are definitely opposed to this being allowed in our own white areas. We have alreday seen what happened in Johannesburg where white girls were excluded from a trade union because they refused to work alongside non-Europeans. Those conditions must be stopped in this country. The Minister of Labour knows that there was a strike in Johannesburg because the status quo was not maintained, because the mines had increased the ratio of native workers to white workers. Yet now the Minister comes here and introduces this Bill which allows non-Europeans to be appointed to a committee which has to decide about the apprenticeship of white boys and girls. I want to express my strong disapproval of the Minister’s action and I want to ask hon. members opposite whether they can allow such conditions to continue. If they do so then I am convinced that the people of South Africa will settle with them in days to come. And now we come to the question of the recognition of vocational training. The provision made in that respect is inadequate. The period of vocational training is too long, there is no co-ordination. Finally, we are opposed to the closed shop policy as applied here. We want the Minister to act on the basis of merit and ability. According to the Minister’s statement 30,000 apprentices have already been trained, but during that same period 24,000 were imported into this country; while our sons and daughters cannot get the necessary training artisans are imported from overseas. In anticipation of the unprecedented industrial development which is going to take place, development such as we have probably never had before, our own sons and daughters should be trained to do the work. It may perhaps be necessary here and there to import special artisans but for the rest we should give our own boys and girls the opportunity to do the work. Besides, we want protection to be given to our own Union citizens so far as vocational training is concerned. We have already been told that a number of artisans are being imported, and we say that our own citizens must be protected. Our own flesh and blood should be given preference. I trust the Minister will give effect to these few suggestions of mine— and I hope that above all he will not leave this opening in Clause 4 for the appointment of non-Europeans on the committee. We must put a stop to Europeans and non-Europeans in South Africa having to work alonside each other, and segregation should also be provided for in this respect. So far as I can see, and so far as other hon. members who have studied this Bill can see, it does not improve the position in regard to vocational training. Probably there is an improvement here and there so far as the administration is concerned, but I can see no improvement in the Bill where it affects our sons and daughters. On the contrary. I am even afraid that Clause 22 (3) will have a detrimental effect. Whereas in the old Act Clause 14 (c) specially prevented this, the new clause provides that the prospects of the apprenticeship obtaining employment in the industry concerned at the expiry of the contract shall be considered when apprenticeship contracts are entered into. The old system as a result is made a dead letter. All the powers are placed in the Minister’s hands? Why? Because the Minister is putting up a ring fence now, and why is he doing so? Has he no confidence in the country’s future? So far as the building industry is concerned a few hundred thousand houses will have to be built but the Minister draws a narrow ring fence so that only certain people will benefit. The building of these houses will give a tremendous amount of employment, but the Minister restricts the opportunities to a few. The Minister apparently has no confidence in the future. We are also expecting industrial development on a large scale. The Minister, however, restricts everything to a small circle of people who are to be given an opportunity. We are expecting expansion on the Railways but the Minister refuses to train our own people so that they will be given a chance. Let me ask the Minister a question—it is a question which the hon. member for Westdene (Mr. Mentz) also asked—a question in regard to the wages of Europeans and non-Europeans. I notice that the Minister is having a conversation with another hon. member while we are carrying on this important debate. I am sorry having to accuse the Minister of discourtesy, but we have got accustomed to him.

I am listening to you and I am judging your remarks at their correct value.

The Minister was asked— and I hope he will reply to this question— whether he would see that there was a differentiation made between the European and non-European messengers in the post office in Johannesburg. The Minister did not reply to this question the other day. Is he prepared in future so to fix the wages that Europeans who live on a higher level than the non-Europeans will be paid in accordance with their standard of living? Or is the Minister prepared to go on as he is doing at present and treat all civilised people on a basis of equality? I think we are entitled to a reply from the Minister. I also want to refer to the instance mentioned this morning by the hon. member for Frankfort (Col. Dohne). The Minister says that the electorate has been very foolish in sending the members on this side to Parliament. He used to be a member of a Government which was formed by this Party. The people whom the Minister has described as foolish will give him a good deal to think about in days to come. But it is most extraordinary to note that the Minister has a number of foolish people with him on his side, because he has told us: “Don’t blame me for things which are wrong because what sort of a Government and what sort of a Cabinet have we got?” Outside this House the Minister runs down the Government, but here he intrigues with them. It is only his salary which keeps him there. He should not be there, and hon. members opposite should make him feel that he is not wanted where he is now.

The main objection to this Bill so far as hon. members over there—on the Nationalist benches—are concerned, is that the artisans will have a say in regard to the apprentices to be trained for a particular trade. They say the people employed in the industry are to have no say. They contend that the artisans are putting up a narrow ring fence around themselves, and they contend that anyone should be allowed to take up a trade. The Hon. the Leader of the Opposition in his speech said that the tradesmen had forced up the wages because of the scarcity of tradesmen in the particular trade in which they were employed, and that they had created that scarcity for the purpose of being able to force up the wages. He said that apprenticeship committees were composed of the representatives of organised workers and employers. Tradesmen, so he continued, wanted to create a scarcity of labour for their particular trades in order to force up the wages. It was to their natural interest to do so. A tradesman, I want to tell the Leader of the Opposition, wants to protect himself through his organisation. Who is going to protect him if he does not protect himself? The Leader of the Opposition says that he can take any man and teach him certain jobs within a few hours. And that man he regards as a skilled worker ! The Leader of the Opposition’s main objection is probably against standard wages which the tradesmen have achieved for themselves after many years of hard struggling.

Where do you get all those stories from?

I don’t know where the Leader of the Opposition gets his views from. He says it is in their interest to have the wages forced up. Of course it is. It is also in their interest to stand together and protect themselves because if they do not protect themselves nobody else will, and the object of a trade union is to protect its members. If the hon. member does not know that he will never understand the views and interests of the workers. I wonder if the Leader of the Opposition thinks that because a nurse has worked in a hospital for ten years she is able to perform operations. Will he, no matter how good a nurse may be, allow her to operate on him? No; he will get a skilled medical man to perform the operation. It’s a most peculiar thing that the people who have most to say against this Bill are members of the professional class. Fortunately they are not all as foolish as that—and some of them leave it to people who know something about trade to talk about the trades. We are faced here with a frontal attack on a Bill which is in the interest of trained and skilled workers, and the impression is being created among the public that nobody is prepared to say anything in favour of the Bill. Is it not extraordinary that hon. members over there should try to create the impression that everybody is opposed to the Bill, and that no publicity is given to the views expressed in this House in favour of this Bill by the mouthpiece of the Chamber of Mines and by the mouthpiece of the Opposition? The mouthpiece of the Chamber of Mines, the “Cape Times,” even yesterday did not publish any of the speeches made here in favour of the Bill, nor did the mouthpiece of the Opposition, of the Nationalist Party, publish them. The country must be given the impression that the whole of Parliament is opposed to this Bill by the propaganda of the Opposition mouthpiece, and by the mouthpiece of the Chamber of Mines, but the public will say that the Minister of Labour must be a wonderful man to get the Bill passed in the face of the Opposition of the whole of Parliament. It is a most striking fact that the mouthpiece of the Chamber of Mines makes exactly the same propaganda as the mouthpiece of the Opposition. Do hon. members know why that is so? It is because the Chamber of Mines wants apprenticeship to be extended in South Africa; they do not want to see proper control exercised over apprenticeship, and that is what the Opposition are also pleading for. The Opposition, like the Chamber of Mines, wants anyone coming from the platteland, any newcomer, to be admitted to the mines. In 1932 there were 3,000 certificated mineworkers who had no work at all and who were almost starving. It is striking to see the Opposition making propaganda jointly with the Chamber of Mines. The public must be given the impression that the House is opposed to this Bill and that the Minister alone is in favour of it.

But you are sitting at one table with the capitalists.

The whole world knows why we stand by the Government; we stand by the Government for one great cause. We do so openly, but the Chamber of Mines and the hon. member over there are working together under a different system. The Government side refuses to believe that the Chamber of Mines is backing another horse, but we are beginning to find it out. Speech after speech made here in favour of the Bill is suppressed by the mouthpiece of the Chamber of Mines and by the Nationalist Party Press. That is the position. We say that it is essential for vocational training to be properly controlled. It is essential for people in the trades to be properly trained, and it is just as essential to prevent a trade from being flooded by more people than it can accommodate. If that happens, if a trade is flooded, we shall experience the same thing as the mines experienced when the Chamber of Mines discharged 5,000 Europeans in order to replace them by natives who were cheaper. That was the cause of the rebellion. And then the Leader of the Opposition comes here and tells the House that unless Europeans and non-Europeans are segregated South Africa will be faced with a disaster such as it has never been faced with before. It is because we want to protect the tradesman that we are going to prevent that. We do not want indiscriminately to admit unskilled labour to any trade. We do not want unemployment to be caused in any particular trade. That is why we want to protect the skilled workers. The Leader of the Opposition is today playing the game of the Chamber of Mines, and nobody can tell me that he is doing it unconsciously. He is too clever for that, and too astute a politician. The members of the United. Party never wanted to believe that the Chamber of Mines were digging a hole to trap them, but here we have evidence of it. And those who do not yet believe it will get further evidence later on. There is the horse which the Chamber of Mines is going to back. That horse is the Opposition. If we don’t make proper provision now I can tell hon. members what will happen. When expansion takes place, that self same great industry will step in and say that there are a great many jobs open and that we must allow unskilled men to be taken on, and the idea is afterwards to have such masses of them that the protection which the tradesmen enjoy today will be broken down. That is the whole object of all this business. They want to open the floodgates and they want no control anywhere. We cannot tolerate that; this is not a Bill, which, as hon. members try to make out has to provide for unskilled workers. This Bill relates to specific trades and those are the trades which have to be protected in this country. This is not a Bill to provide for unskilled workers, and now the Leader of the Opposition gets up and tells us that this Bill has been introduced under the influence of the communists. He told the House that the Labour Party brought this forward under the influence of the communists. Now let me tell hon. members this—if we were to start an agitation in favour of raising the wages of unskilled labourers, that would be also described as communism. There is a tendency in this country, a tendency fostered by the Opposition, to say that it is a sign of Communism when the workers rebel against being oppressed, and protest against their treatment. When one talks about higher wages, and when one pleads for better conditions, one is immediately told that Communism is at the back of it. The Opposition should stop opposing this Bill which is in the interest of the workers; particularly when we bear in mind the potential expansion of industries we should realise the necessity of having control over the men who have to work in those industries, over the men who have been trained to work those specific industries. If we do not do so we will get chaos, and the result will be that certain trades will be flooded, and unemployment will eventually become a very serious factor. Then they come here and try to bring down the wages of highly paid workers by employing the argument that there are large numbers of other people willing to do the work for lower wages. We had the same thing in 1933 when 3,000 subsidised mineworkers could not find employment. When they pleaded for better conditions they were told to keep quiet, because there were many people waiting to step into their jobs. And that is the sort of thing which the Opposition is fostering by carrying on in the way it is doing. You will get a tremendous surplus of artisans and they will be used to bring down the wages of the others. The hon. member for Frankfort (Col. Döhne) made a remark which gave me considerable pleasure. He referred to Paul Kruger as an ideal statesman. Let me tell the hon. member that Paul Kruger had the greatest respect for the trade unions. Let the hon. member read the first report by the Chairman of the Mine Workers Union. In that report the Chairman states that when a deputation of trade unions called upon the President and when 32 amendments were proposed, Paul Kruger accepted 28 amendments from the mineworkers and four from the Chamber of Mines. These were amendments to the mining regulations. I was glad therefore, to hear the hon. member refer to Paul Kruger. There is a world of difference between Paul Kruger’s point of view and that of the Opposition. Paul Kruger carried out the wishes of the trade unions, but the Opposition want to go in the very opposite direction. If hon. members have respect for Paul Kruger they should support the trade unions. The hon. member also spoke about returned soldiers. When we were making provision for returned soldiers to get vocational training, when under another Bill we tried to establish a scheme for such vocational training, we did not have the co-operation of hon. members over there. What did they say? There was just as violent opposition on that occasion as we are having against this Bill today. That is my reply to the hon. member for Frankfort. On that occasion we wanted to make provision for the training of hundreds of thousands of people, but hon. members opposite opposed it, and now they come here with then organised opposition to a measure which is essential, a measure which has the blessing of all trade unions in South Africa. I appeal to this House not to allow itself to be used for this type of propaganda. Hon. members of the United Party can now see how the Chamber of Mines is co-operating with the Opposition. I appeal to hon. members to give their support to this Bill and I hope the Minister will take up a strong stand and see the Bill through in spite of all the opposition.

It is high time we got back to the Apprenticeship Bill which is now under discussion in this House. In the speech of the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. Van den Berg) we did not hear a single word about apprenticeship or about the importance of apprenticeship. He spoke here on behalf of the interest of groups of artisans who are established in their trades, and he is not the least little bit concerned about those who still have to be trained. The Labour Party has not got the slightest bit of interest in those people in the country who still have to be trained for the various trades. The Labour Party is only interested in the group which is already in trade and if they can manage to increase the wages of those people they proclaim to the world that they are the workers’ champions. They are no more the champions of the workers or the people who have to be trained as artisans than the biggest capitalist. If a Government or a Minister comes to Panliament with an Apprenticeship Bill which is supposed to be an improvement on the existing Act such a Bill gives expression to the Government’s last word, and the members of the Government in that Bill set forth their ideas about apprenticeship, about the importance of apprenticeship to the country, and the importance of apprenticeship in the country’s economy. We therefore assume that this is the charter not only of the Minister of Labour but also of the Government which is in power today. This is their last word on the matter. This is the fullest development they could achieve in the year 1944 in regard to this question of apprenticeship and the training which the people of South Africa so urgently need and the training which our industries need. Well, we now have the last word of the Labour Party and of the Government. They must stand or fall by their last word; they cannot come and tell the country tomorrow or the day after that this is only a temporary measure. This Bill expresses the opinion and the views of the whole Government. This is the best they are able to do—the S.A.P. Government and the Labour Government combined. Yet this Bill does not contain a single word to indicate to the country that they have the slightest conception or the slightest ideä of what apprenticeship really is or what it really is intended to be. South Africa is a country of long distances—thousands of miles from East to West and from North to South. We do not have just small groups of workers in big towns to look after. We do not have just one layer of the population to be considered for apprenticeship; it is not just the prerogative of a small section of the population to say that this skilled work in industries is particularly its own. No, the skilled work in our industries, and our activities, belongs to the whole country. It does not belong to just one group which can derive the benefit of that training and of that skilled work. Now, let us look at the matter from a different point of view. How many of our sons and daughters from the country districts have in the past had the opportunity of being considered for apprenticeship? The door was simply shut to them. It was made impossible for them to be trained for the trades, and now in this year 1944 the Government comes here with its final word on the subject. We had expected a scheme which would really have been applicable to the country as a whole, but our expectations have been in vain. The whole country has been looking to the Government to see whether it had any scheme for the future, whether it was really going to do something in regard to the serious question of the training of the rising generation for the country’s skilled work, but they looked in vain to the Government because this Bill is a frustration of all the hopes they had cherished. First of all the Minister makes no provision in this Bill for those people who are trained by the vocational schools— there is no provision to reduce their period of apprenticeship although they have already had certain training in the work of their future trade. The Minister of Labour, of course, represents only a group of the workers and he only thinks of them. He wants to make it impossable for the apprentices to be trained in such numbers as to enable them to play any part in the skilled labour of the country. He simply refuses to take any account of the Government schools and of the schools established with the assistance of the Government and Provincial Administrations to give vocational training to our children. I know perfectly well what is at the back of it. He simply wants to keep the power in the hands of a small group of the workers. We are not opposed to skilled labour. On the contrary we say that it is in the interest of the country and also in the interest of skilled labour to extend skilled labour. It is in the interest of the country to have an increase of skilled labour, and to bring the opportunity of becoming skilled within the reach of the great majority of the workers in South Africa. That is where this side of the House and that side differ. We want to widen the powers of the organisations of skilled labour to the greatest extent possible, but hon. members over there want to keep that group as small as they can. They are not concerned about unemployment. No, in actual fact it is part of their system, both of the Government Party and of the Labour Party. They are not worried about unemployment; they are only concerned about the small group of skilled workers who are now going to be an even more closed preserve. The hon. member who has pust spoken tried to give the House the impression that we were opposed to skilled workers getting a good wage. That is not so. We on this side of the House have always advocated a good wage being paid to a skilled worker. We have always wanted him to make a decent living. It is self-evident, but we do not want to turn that group into a closed preserve. We want to expand the extent of the skilled labour circle, and there is no indication in this Bill that that will be done. There is no sign in this Bill of its ever having been studied by experts and by educationists. The Minister does not even know that there is a link between education and apprenticeship. If we watch the signs of the times as they have shown themselves during the past few years, and if we take notice of the propaganda made on this side of the House, we must come to the conclusion that in South Africa there is the closest link, the closest connection, between education and apprenticeship, and we say that our technical and normal colleges are all part of the training organisations in this country which have to train our people to become skilled workers. We say there must be a definite line leading from the school to those activities in the country where the child one day will have to earn his livelihood. There must be a definite bond, a definite link between the school and the practical training which has to take place immediately afterwards. There is no sign in this Bill—this Bill which is the Government’s and the Labour Party’s final word—to show that they are even disposed to connect these things up with each other. It is of the utmost importance that the child attending school today should have the right to continue his education so that he can pass from his school training to what I have called “practical training.” Twenty-five years ago I spoke about practical training (broodopleiding). In those days it was looked upon as something terrible. I was told that we must have intellectual training. I say we must look after the child’s practical training, and the intellectual training can come after that. In that respect the Minister at least has a sufficient conception of the position to realise the importance of this aspect. People who live below the breadline have to be given a practical training so that they can live on the breadline, and above the breadline. We must look after the important link between the practical and the school training, and we also have to look after the important link with the livelihood of the citizens. I should like to know what steps the Government has taken to ascertain from the Education Department and from the educationists in this country what the problem throughout South Africa is? We have hundreds and thousands of schools turning out so many people every year, but what becomes of the vocational training of these people, and how many of those people need vocational training? Only a Government Department can give us that information, no private organisation can do so. We have to look to a Government Department to find out what percentage of the children have to go into professions after leaving school, what percentage has to become skilled labourers and what percentage have to take up other careers. We should have a wide analysis, a comprehensive analysis, of the whole population of this country. Has any effort ever been made to find out what the real extent of this problem is in relation to the thousands of children leaving school every year? Not the slightest attention has been given to the real problem which faces South Africa. The problem amounts to this, that the child from Gamoep and from Springbok should have the same opportunities of becoming an apprentice as the child feeding at the manger here. The training facilities at our universities are situated at centres where about 500,000 members of our population are gathered. Those people feed at the manger. They have the best chances and the biggest chances of availing themselves of the opportunities which the Government has provided. Has an attempt ever been made to provide educational and apprenticeship facilities to such an extent that everybody in this country, in every corner of the country, can be considered for those facilities? It has never been done yet. Now that we are dealing with an Apprenticeship Bill, a Bill which concerns the continuation of the child’s education, we have an opportunity—here where we are dealing with the Government’s final word on the subject—to see that our sons and daughters from the platteland are given the same consideration in regard to these facilities as those who feed at the manger. But on the other hand we know that with the Apprenticeship Committees which have been appointed, apprenticeship is being kept beyond the reach of the people of the platteland, and also of the people living in the bigger dorps and smaller towns where there are no industries. We know that the Government has appointed a commission to enquire into the establishment of industries in small towns and villages, but very little has come of that. So far very few industries of that kind have been established in the smaller towns, and I say we have in the past always had this position, that apprenticeship to all intents and purposes has closed its door to the youth of the platteland, and of the smaller towns and villages. I say that this Bill contains no sign that there is any wish or any idea on the part of the Government or the Minister to make apprenticeship available to all sections of the population. And that is why we say we should do away with these apprenticeship committees, and that instead of those committees we should have a National Board which would also be representative of the Government of the country—a Board which like the Planning Council, could ascertain and analyse what is necessary for the country, and which could then equip apprenticeship on that basis. We know that in future everything will not be left to private initiative, but if we carry on with these Apprenticeship Committees it will mean that those committees, and consequently apprenticeship as well, will be in the hands of private industries. We have therefore put forward a scheme from this side, that in South Africa we want a National Council for apprenticeship. We should remember that if private initiative does not take any interest in particular enterprises the Government will have to step in and will have to promote such industries by means of a utility company or by means of State enterprise. We shall then need apprentices in all those directions. It is perfectly clear that it is no longer a question of private initiative alone, and the apprenticeship committees can no longer be left in the hands of private concerns. We must have an Apprenticeship Board, constituted on a national basis. It must be a sort of National Planning Council for Apprenticeship, and it must be stabilised by giving it powers to enable it to make sure that everyone throughout the country is given the opportunity of the apprenticeship required to meet the needs of the country.

We have the Planning Council for that.

The Planning Council is not there for apprenticeship. What we need is a National Council in regard to apprenticeship.

Why for apprentices?

Because we do not want to restrict it to thirty or forty but because we want to consider the position of more than 100,000 young men in this country.

Do you want the Planning Council also to control the medical profession?

Certainly not. If the Minister were to appoint such a Board for apprentices he would just have to appoint people who know nothing about apprenticeship. That may possibly have been the Government’s practice in the past—to appoint people to boards simply because they knew nothing about the matters they had to deal with. That certainly cannot be said about the Planning Council. It is not necessary for a Board to be appointed consisting of people who have no knowledge whatsoever of the matters they have to deal with. This Board which we suggest has to be thoroughly conversant with all the matters they have to deal with. In regard to the schools for vocational training I want to draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that no provision is made in the Bill for a reduction in the period of apprenticeship because of the training which these young people have had in the various trades in the trades school, and in that respect the Minister should certainly make some provision. There is no provision in the trades schools for people to attend from outside the areas. The children in some parts of the country have to walk the soles off their shoes ….

You can put that question to the hon. member for Boshof (Mr. Serfontein).

I did not succeed in getting a single one in.

This is a very difficult matter. Provision must be made so that people from all parts of the country will be allowed to come in. It should be determined what is needed, and a selection must be made of those who have to get a practical training. We have our school inspectors; we have principals of schools; we have medical officers, and we have parents. We look after our children to see that they are physically and mentally healthy, and we must also take the trouble to find out what the particular talents and gifts of the children are. But what is the use of finding out what the children are gifted for if there is no opportunity provided in the trades schools to give them a practical training so that they may one day become skilled workers in those particular trades? And now, while we have one of our best opportunities, when we should have a comprehensive Bill before us, we should take our chance and see to it that a link is established between the school, between the trade or the practical training, and the preparing of the child to earn his livelihood. Provision is made for people up to 19 years of age.

The hon. member has apparently not read the Bill.

Very well, up to 21 years of age.

Yes, what difference do a few years make? You might even allow people with grey beards.

The Minister knows perfectly well that this difficulty does not arise in the towns. Here in the towns where the people are near the manger they don’t have these difficulties, but it is outside on the platteland where the young men between 15 and 21 years of age do not get the opportunity to become apprentices, it is there that the difficulty is experienced. After all I have said it must be clear that the Minister of Labour and the Government have not been able to see eye to eye. The Minister of Labour has forced a wedge into the Government ranks, and as a result he has had to come along with a weakened Bill which is going to mean nothing new and which is certainly not going to have the effect which a Bill of this kind should have. And now we find that the Minister of Labour gets up at a meeting and says this—

It is the high light of humour for the Minister of Labour to make a statement like that to South Africa. He said so last night, and today we find him standing up here on behalf of a small group of tradesmen, and so far as the rest of the country is concerned well, he does not worry about them. He told us that under this Apprenticeship Act 30,000 tradesmen have been trained, but in addition to that about 24,000 artisans have been imported. I am not saying we should never import artisans; I would not be so foolish because I know that certain industries have not yet come into being in this country and we sometimes need technicians from overseas, but we have not developed with our apprentices in the way we should have done. We have not developed and extended the system to such an extent that we have given an adequate number of people the opportunity of becoming apprentices to meet the country’s requirements. I think it must be clear to everybody that it is not our intention by any manner of means to bring down the wages of skilled workers, but we want to extend skilled labour along with our industries in the most effective way possible and we do not want any doors closed, either by committees or by this Bill. We want a board to represent the State and that board will have to decide and fix the number of people that can be absorbed in the various industries. That board will have to determine the new industries which can be established in which such workers can be employed. We must have a board appointed by the State for the placing of apprentices in the particular directions for which they have been trained, and if such a scheme is carried out in this country it will provide ä solution for one of South Africa’s great problems, a problem which we will yet have to face. Now, there is another point—the relationship between white labour, coloured labour and native labour—it is a serious problem. We on this side of the House feel that it must be our object to provide employment for the whole population. The employment must be of such a nature that every section of the population will be able to make a good and decent living, so that they will be able to be properly housed, feed and clothe themselves as they should do, have proper health services and all the necessary amenities of life. That is our conception. That is the object which we have in view. We don’t only want that for the white population; we must also have it for the coloured people and for the native population, but to say that we can allow the white section of the population to deteriorate would be extremely foolish. It is perfectly clear that the more educated section of the population will be the first to benefit by further training and education. That does not absolve us from the obligation to provide for the other sections of the population. But if we do not yet realise that the time has arrived when we should provide for the separate parts—for the separate groups—then I say we are going to find ourselves in an impossible position here in South Africa, as the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) has already said. We must make provision for all the people and we should not try and cast reproaches at each other and accuse each other of trying to do this, that or the other thing to certain groups of the population, of wanting to harm or prejudice certain groups. We on this side of the House cannot be accused of pleading the cause of certain sections of the population for the sake of their votes. We can talk about the coloured people and about the natives in relation to this Apprenticeship Bill without any political motives.

Still, there was a time when you tried very hard.

In spite of the fact that we did not have the support of those people we did our best for that section of the population. We did not get their support in the days when the Minister was with us. I think the Minister would be wise if he were to realise now that he has brought a measure before this House which is not worthy of being looked upon as the Government’s final word, or even the final word of the Labour section of the Government. It is not worthy of a man who told an audience last night that he was going to turn South Africa into a happy country within five years. It would be better for the Minister to agree to the withdrawal of this Bill so that he can have this question re-investigated, and then come along with a Bill which will make adequate provision for the practical training of your youths.

I am quite sure that the House is indebted to the Chairman of the most powerful trade union in South Africa for his address on the Apprenticeship Bill, but I am not too sure whether I can congratulate him because in the interest of the safety of the people of this country who unfortunately get ill from time to time I should shudder to think that he would apply to the medical profession the same wide open doors which he is apparently asking for in connection with other things.

We train them in colleges; we want you to train your people too.

Oh, I know that the hon. member has no intention of applying that to his own business. That is characteristic of Nationalist Party propaganda, they are always asking for people to do things which they themselves are not prepared to do, and I can assure the hon. member who today was probably talking in an excess of zeal, now that he is representing a seat of learning rather than his old seat of sheep farming which he used to represent—I can assure him that in many trades and industries which will be affected by this Bill there does enter into the work of a workman a degree of responsibility to the public, and of possibility of danger to the public which is quite as big as that which enters into the medical profession.

But they cannot bury their mistakes.

And I can now tell the hon. member that if the medical profession could guarantee us the same level of tuition and efficiency in regard to their profession as we can guarantee in regard to the skilled trades, not so many people would die.

The hon. member expresses his gratitude in an extraordinary way to a profession to which he is very much indebted.

I don’t know that I have ever been indebted to the medical profession—I have always had to pay—and pay very well for what they have done for me.

I am talking about the skill.

You cannot take it.

There is this to be said for the medical profession unfortunately from our point of view, that they bury all their mistakes, and there is no one left ….

Why are you left?

There is no one alive to tell the tale.

You are.

If you build a house and it falls down you can blame the bricklayer or the architect, but if a doctor treats you wrongly then, of course, you are buried.

But you are still here.

But the whole point, I think, boils down to this. The Nationalist Party have never been particularly brilliant in matters of economics in this country. The Nationalist Party has never had a policy which bears upon the actual production, apart from farming in this country. I always search for an ulterior motive when I suddenly find that the Nationalist Party which is 100 per cent. composed of farmers, suddenly embarks upon a campaign against a Bill of this description. I am a little bit suspicious that there is a reason behind it and one does not need to seek far to find the reason, and the reason is to be found in the large number of individuals who took advantage of the C.O.T. Scheme. Those individuals took advantage of the C.O.T. Scheme. They were anti-war individuals and instead of utilising the war period as a means of serving their country, they utilise the war period as a means—at the instigation of the Nationalist Party of course—of serving their own ends, and so they joined the C.O.T. Scheme. They received their original training in the C.O.T. Scheme. When it came to the question of taking an oath to serve the country which gave them this training, they refused to do it, and so about 1,500 of them are roaming about the country today; and the Nationalist Party have the audacity to ask the Minister of Labour to open the door in his Apprenticeship Bill to allow these people who refuse to serve their country, to get into skilled jobs. That is the whole truth. [Laughter.] The hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) is laughing. We are accustomed to his laughing at his own jokes. The hon. member for George may not know it, but that is actually the position. I am surprised at the hon. member for Stellenbosch (Dr. Bremer). He has probably been persuaded by his Party chiefs that there is something pernicious in this Bill, when in actual fact the criticism from other quarters of the House is that the Bill contains nothing new. I am amazed at the passionate, sentimental outbursts of the hon. member in dealing with a Bill which contains nothing new.

I told you what it should contain.

You took a very long time to say very little.

Not as long as your Minister did.

As I understood the hon. member, he is now advocating a policy which is going to deal with the poor white problem in South Africa. That is rather peculiar, because I seem to remember that the Nationalists Party was in power in this country for 14 years, and I do not seem to remember that they ever dealt with the poor white problem. As a matter of fact, one of the things which the Nationalist Party has to its credit is that the poor whites in this country increased by 100 per cent. during their period of office.

That is nonsense.

You cannot prove it.

It was the Nationalist Party which instituted the policy of cheap white labour at 3s. 6d. per day. In those days the hon. member for Stellenbosch, who was then the member for Graaff-Reinet, did not complain about the Apprenticeship Act. He did not fulminate against anything in those days, but in those days we did not have the mountainous intelligence of the hon. member for Aliwial (Capt. G. H. F. Strydom). But even since he has, been wafted into this House the Nationalist Party have still not been able to advocate in this House a policy which will deal adequately with the poor white problem. I can assure the hon. member for Stellenbosch and his colleagues that if they do want to deal with the poor white problem in the Union of South Africa—and in that they will have the assistance of the Labour Party—I assured them that quite the wrong way to deal with that problem is to begin with an Apprenticeship Act. I want to ask hon. members of the Opposition this. What is the use of producing skilled artisans in the thousands if there is no employment for those skilled artisans?

No one ever suggested it.

But that is the whole tenor of your Party’s amendment. Of course, it is quite probable that you have not read the amendment.

It is more likely that you did not understand it.

I can assure the hon. member that there are portions which I quite frankly admit I do not understand, and which the hon. member did not deign to enlighten the House upon. For instance, we have this paragraph here which says—

If the hon. member is prepared to tell me what that means, I am quite prepared to sit down. A more meaningless sentence I have never read in my life.

You should take a correspondence class.

That is probably the first fruits of the hon. member for Westdene (Mr. Mentz) having been sent to the new correspondence school.

That is an original joke.

I can assure the hon. member for Westdene that he will probably find himself missing in the next election.

I want to come back for a moment or two to the Nationalist Party. They interest me very much. As a matter of fact I find that fascinatingly interesting. I think they are one of the most amusing experiments in political science, and their incursions into the field of economics are even more amusing actually than they themselves as a political party. I want to deal for a moment with the hon. member for Durban (Berea) (Mr. Sullivan), whom I do not see in the House. He is probably at this time collecting social security outside the House. Probably the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Dr. V. L. Shearer) is with him. The hon. member for Durban (Berea) saw fit to make an attack upon this particular Bill from the view point of an educationist. The hon. member for Durban (Berea) made great play of this statement which was made by the Economic Planning Council. Let us get this right in this House. Either we are a duly elected Parliament representing the people of this country for the purpose of governing the people of this country or we are not. Either we are the Parliament or the Economic Planning Council is the Parliament. Hon. members will have to make up their minds which body is the Parliament. If the Economic Planning Council is to be the be all and end all of what is going to happen economically in this country, then the hon. member for Durban (Berea) and all the rest of us had better go home and leave Parliament. I should hate to leave it because the Planning Council is an advisory body; the Planning Council is the body which in the first instance was asked to investigate certain things and, according to their investigations, to make reports as to the lines on which planning should be done in this country. As far as I can gather the Social and Economic Planning Council has so far not suggested anything in the nature of planning. Their social security report cannot be termed planning. Their report in which they asked for an investigation into the Civil Service cannot be termed planning. And now they have the audacity—because they admit that they themselves know nothing about it; they are apprentices and very poor apprentices at that; they admit that they know nothing about it—and they have the audacity to suggest that a Bill which has been considered by a Minister who has been a skilled workman all his life, a Bill which has been considered by the trade movement, which has been considered by a department which has a skilled workman at its head, should be referred to a committee. They have the audacity to suggest that all that consideration which has been given to the Bill is a waste of time and that it should be reconsidered by a Committee. And what is the other Committee which they suggest? The other Committee, I gather from the speech of the hon. member for Durban (Berea) is to consist of the Secretary for Education, who is an educationist, the four Provincial Directors of Education (that is five educationists) plus the Director of Technical Education (that is six educationists) plus a representative of the Technical Colleges (that is seven educationists) and one representative of industry and one representative of the Trade Unions. So in the meantime we have seven individuals on that Committee who have never handled a tool in their lives, seven individuals who are not skilled craftsmen at all, who have never served an apprenticeship; and yet against that seven we are asked to appoint one representative of industry, who may himself never have been a skilled craftsman and on the other hand one representative of the Trade Unions, so we may find in a Committee of nine members that there is actually only one man who is a skilled craftsman himself, and that—says the Economic Planning Council—is a Committee which is more competent to draft a new Apprenticeship Bill than the Minister who has served his apprenticeship and who has worked for many years in skilled trade, which is more competent than the head of the Department of Labour, Mr. Ivan Walker, who has also served his apprenticeship, and the Department behind him in which many of the officials have likewise served their apprenticeship. And so the Economic Planning Council tells us that for all these years we have been wrong and that they are the people who really ought to make an engineer. The people who must now turn out engineers are people like the hon. member for Durban (Berea) who have a degree in a stupid footling science like economics. The hon. member for Durban (Berea) apparently considers that he is more competent to produce a first class fitter than the hon. Minister, who is not only a trained engineer but who has worked in many parts of the world as a highly trained and skilled engineer. I am a tailor, but the hon. member for Durban (Berea), from the wealth of his economic knowledge, apparently supposes that he is a fit and proper person to train a tailor rather than I. We are suffering on the one hand from the impositions of bureaucracy and we are also suffering on the other hand from the impositions of highly intellectual people who, merely because they have gone to school for a number of years longer than some of us have, appear to think that they can stand up and tell us how we should do our work. There is only one way in which you can make a competent fitter or turner, or carpenter or bricklayer and that is by teaching him his trade on the job. It is no use the hon. member for Durban (Berea) or the hon. member for George, who is also a school teacher in this House occasionally, from their wealth of book learning getting up and telling youngsters how to lay bricks; they have to be shown and they have to be allowed to practice how to lay bricks and similarly with the tailor or the cabinet maker or the carpenter.

Give us your views on the Bill.

I should imagine that my views are sufficiently entertaining, whether I speak on the Bill or not, and I am not even led astray by the remarks of the hon. member for Stellenbosch. If my hon. friend will give me one of those marvellous texts that he used to the House, I am prepared to stop.

You had better say something; your time is nearly up.

This is very important. Underlying the whole of the Nationalist case is their political outlook. They have realised at the last election that they were completely wiped out of the industrial areas of South Africa. They realise that if they are to progress as a political party in South Africa, they must get some sort of support in the industrial areas.

You got the support of the capitalists.

But on this occasion, as the hon. member for Krugersdorp has pointed out, you people happen to be on the same side as the Chamber of Mines. But the case the Nationalist Party is making today is the case which the Chamber of Mines has been making for many years, and this is not the first time that the Nationalist Party have been hand in glove with the Chamber of Mines.

I think the hon. member must come back to the Bill.

I do not know …

Who are you hand in glove with?

I do not know whether the necessity of being relevant is only imposed on Government members of the House, because I noticed that the hon. member for Stellenbosch strayed very far from the strict interpretation of relevancy.

Order, order!

Order, order! That is a reflection on the Chair. I must ask the hon. member to withdraw it.

I am quite prepared to withdraw it, but that is how it looks to me.

Order, order !

I feel that the Opposition to this Bill is a political opposition. It is not an opposition based on any objections to the principles contained in the Bill; it is not an opposition which is based on any sound logical arguments as to how the Bill will not work, but it is an opposition which is put forward mainly in order to make Nationalist propaganda.

[Inaudible.]

I shall not reply to you; every time I reply to you Mr. Speaker calls me to order.

I think the hon. member would be well advised not to take any notice of these interruptions.

Yes, I think so. It is an opposition which is based upon the idea of making a suggestion to the unskilled people of the country districts that the Nationalist Party can hold out to them the hope of becoming skilled mechanics merely by their going to town. The Nationalist Party knows full well that their present economic policy is not a policy which will continue to appeal to the poor unskilled labourer in the country districts. They know that they have exhausted all their propaganda in the years gone past.

They have been found out.

They have exhausted all their propaganda, and as the hon. member for Germiston (Mr. Payne) points out, the people in the country districts are beginning to find them out, and so they have seized upon the Apprenticeship Bill to stage a grand show in the House.

What about the opposition to this Bill from your allies, the capitalists?

I will have none of your American tricks. The intention is not to show us directly—because even the Nationalist Party are afraid of that—but at least to imply to the unskilled worker in the country districts that all they have to do now is to come into town and the Nationalist Party will make them mechanics. There can be only one possible result to an opening of the door to an unlimited number of apprentices, and that is a reduction in the wages of the skilled man. Before we had apprenticeship legislation in this country we on more than one occasion had the position where sons were being employed at low rates of wages while the fathers were walking about the streets idle, and it was in order to stop the exploitation of juvenile labour by the employer that apprenticeship legislation was first of all introduced; and the same thing will happen again. We of the Labour Party are perfectly clear in so far as our association with the other side is concerned. We associate with the other side in the prosecution of the war effort. The war effort with which the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) refuses to have anything to do. But we have always made it clear that we do not accept the economic policy of the United Party. There are times when the Nationalist Party tell us that they do not accept it either, but I now find that the hon. member for Beaufort West is apparently in agreement with the hon. gentleman on the other side of the House who attacked this Bill. If any explanation is due, I think that explanation should not come from us but from the hon. member for Beaufort West.

Don’t try to get out of it that way.

It is quite obvious that the hon. member for Stellenbosch in an excess of zeal told the House that this was the last word on the Apprenticeship Bill. That is nonsense, just as the story which was told here by the Hon. Leader of the Opposition is also nonsense. This is not the last word in the operation of the Apprenticeship Act. It must be obvious to all members of this House that not all the youths in this country who joined the C.O.T. Scheme were cowardly enough to refuse to take the oath. But the majority of them not only took advantage of an opportunity whereby they could learn a skilled trade at the Government’s expense, but they were also prepared to carry the knowledge so given to them into the actual field of operations; and quite apart from this House allowing itself to be persuaded by the Nationalist Party to open the doors to these people who were prepared to take all they could get from the Government and then refuse to give anything back in exchange, the apprenticeship business in this country must develop in the direction, in the next few years, of making provision for these returning C.O.T. boys when they return from up North having contributed their bit towards bringing the war to a victorious conclusion; so there is no question of this being the last word on the Apprenticeship Act. It is quite obvious that at the present moment the apprenticeship regulations need tightening up. It is quite obvious that this is not a case to be left until after the war. In the very interests of the men who have gained some kind of technical training in the army and who have contributed their bit towards the prosecution of the war we must tighten up the regulations in order to see that the cowards do not slip in at the back door and take advantage of this training which has been given to them freely by the Government. We stand on the side of the people in this country who are prepared to see that the men and even women who have given of their best in working for this war, as distinct from actual fighting in this war shall be looked after. The country is not going to benefit by a flood of apprentices. Even in dealing with the men and women who come back from the army, there is no point in producing skilled workers for whom there are no jobs. But the question of finding employment for skilled workers is not a question which can be rightly discussed in an Apprenticeship Bill. That is a question which my hon. friend should direct to the Minister of Economic Development, and when he directs that question to the Minister, I can assure him that he will have my assistance. But in the meantime in a Bill of this description, to leave the door wide open for anybody and everybody to become apprentices, to become qualified, merely by having a certain amount of training, merely by having a slip of paper is not going to do us any good. You cannot simply say that we are going to have 10,000 skilled men instead of 5,000 skilled workers in this country, and then think that the country will be better off; if you have only got work for 5,000 skilled workers, it is no use producing 10,000 skilled workers. In that case it would be stupid to produce more than 5,000. There is no advantage to be gained in training more people than you can absorb. I notice that the Nationalist Party suggested in their amendment that if we had another Apprenticeship Act, it would not have been necessary to import skilled artisans from overseas. But the war situation is an entirely different thing. Artisans had to be imported from overseas in the early stages of the war, because we foolishly allowed our own artisans to go and fight, instead of keeping them here. If in peace time you have more artisans than you have work for, the only possible result must be a reduction in the wages of the skilled artisan and a reduction in the skill of the artisan himself. If South Africa is to look forward to any great industrial expansion, she will need very highly trained and highly skilled artisans. To get highly trained and skilled doctors— the hon. member for Stellenbosch knows that the medical profession is surrounded by very stringent regulations—and the more stringent the regulations are, the higher the skill we are likely to obtain; the higher the skill we attain, the greater will be our industrial development. For that reason I believe that this Bill is certainly a Bill which should not only be supported by the House but it is a Bill which is absolutely necessary. The Hon. the Leader of the Opposition made great play of the fact that this Bill was orginally introduced in 1940. I believe that is all the more reason why this Bill should be placed on the Statute Book this session. It is a Bill which is being asked for by the trade unions in this country. It is a Bill which has the support of the employers in this country, except a few employers who are represented in this House by the members who criticise this Bill. It is a Bill which will help us very considerably in the industrial development of South Africa, and in our method of dealing with those men who have become skilled to a certain extent during the war and to whom we have made promises which I feel this House is prepared to carry out.

Attacks have been made here on the Nationalist Party by hon. members of the Labour Party. The hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. Van den Berg) and the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. Burnside) attacked the Nationlist Party because they criticised this Bill. This measure was also criticised by hon. members on the Government benches. The strongest criticism against this Bill came from the Government benches, but these hon. members come along and put all the blame on the shoulders of the Nationalist Party. The question is, why do they not attack the opponents of this Bill on their own side? The Labour Party has deviated to some extent from the standpoint which they adopted some years ago. The Re-united Nationlists Party’s criticism of this measure is that it does not make provision for unskilled workers to be trained as artisans. That is one of the criticisms which we on this side of the House levelled against this measure. The hon. member for Krugersdorp has just told us that this legislation has nothing whatever to do with unskilled labourers. He adopts the attitude on behalf of the Labour Party that this Bill has nothing to do with the training of unskilled labourers. In 1939 I moved in this House that provision should be made to train unskilled labourers as artisans, and the hon. member for Krugersdorp moved an amendment thereto, and the second point of his amendment was—

In May, 1939, he adopted the attitude that facilities should be provided to train unskilled labourers to become skilled labourers, but today he gets up and rejects that. That only goes to show that once a man starts drifting from the national anchor, he drifts very far. In 1939 the hon. member for Krugersdorp also pleaded for the unskilled labourers. We on this side of the House feel that we want legislation, which makes provision for the effective training of artisans. There has been a need for such legislation for a long time, with a view to making provision for the proper training of artisans and the application of this system of training to the economic conditions in South Africa. My criticism of this Bill is that it suffers from defects and deficiencies which existed in the old Act too. The shortcomings, the gaps, in the old Act are being perpetuated here, and no steps are being taken in the present Bill to remove those shortcomings. There are two points especially on which we feel strongly. Facilities must be created in an Apprenticeship Act to give the unskilled labourers an opportunity of becoming skilled labourers, and in the second place a distinction on the ground of colour must be drawn in all industrial legislation in South Africa. That fits in with the needs of South Africa. South Africa is not a country like England or France or Germany, where there is only a European population. In South Africa we have a European population and a non-European population, and if we want to maintain the European civilisation in South Africa, we must take steps to draw a distinction between these two sections in our industrial legislation. I do not say that the non-European should not receive training. He must also find employment to enable him to live, but we as the European race of South Africa, especially the Afrikaans-speaking section, strongly insist upon a colour bar in South Africa. Take, for example, the training of artisans. Even the Minister will admit that the training of artisans does not take into account the economic conditions of South Africa, and this Bill which has now been introduced perpetuates the existing inconsistencies and shortcomings. In South Africa we have experienced a remarkable economic development. Ours is a country of great distances, and as in Australia and in America, settlers have made this country habitable, and as in those countries the first inhabitants in this country also concentrated primarily on farming. But cities gradually come into being, industries are built up, and people from the platteland come to the cities in order to make a living. In South Africa we have also had this development, but here the European population extended to the platteland until the discovery of gold and mineral riches in South Africa attracted people from overseas, and until factories sprang up in the cities. What was the result? The result was that large numbers of artisans were drawn from overseas. We got a large number of artisans from overseas and amongst them, and in addition, there were large numbers of unskilled non-Europeans. There was a tremendous gap between the wages of the unskilled labourers and the skilled labourers. That is still the case today. According to the Wage Act one has to pay £4 and £5 to an unskilled labourer in the factories, while the skilled labourer receives £30 and £40 per month.

But in Australia you will find that an unskilled labourer receives £15 to £20 per month. According to the report of the Economic and Planning Council we are paying the unskilled labourer as little as 14 per cent. of the wage which an artisan receives. In Canada where you have European labour on the Railways they do not receive less than £16 10s. per month. Why is that? It is because in that country there is only European labour, and these people must be given a living wage. But what do we find in South Africa? In the first place we find that the artisans are people from overseas. They have entrenched themselves in the trade unions and used cheap native labour to do unskilled work. But in the course of time, owing to the economic conditions, people who did not have an aptitude for farming came from the platteland, and they drifted to the cities in order to work in the factories. What is the result? A man comes to the city to make a living at the poor starvation wage of a few pounds per month which is paid to unskilled labourers. The results can be seen in the slums of Johannesburg and Bloemfontein and other cities. How can one maintain the European civilisation on such starvation wages? This man has no right to become an artisan. We therefore adopt the attitude that our legislation must make provision to assist people to become skilled artisans. I have personally dealt with the cases of people who were skilled. I have in mind, for example, the case of a carpenter who does good work but the laws of the country do not allow him to become an artisan. He may be 25 or 30 years old and he cannot become an artisan. I made an appeal to the Government in my motion in 1939 to create facilities for the unskilled labourers, enabling them to become artisans and to receive decent wages. The Minister of Demobilisation rejected the motion. I asked the State to give a subsidy to adult unskilled labourers and to give them an opportunity of learning a trade over a number of years. But that was rejected. That was in May, 1939. Shortly thereafter the war broke out, and the present Government then proposed that Afrikaners up to 35 years of age who had passed Standard VI could obtain a basic training in the engineering industry or in any other trade, on condition that they took the red oath. If it is necessary in time of war to give training to people and the right to become artisans, it is necessary to give the people training in peace time when there is poverty and misery in the country. If it is necessary to train people during a time of war it is also necessary to do so in time of peace. There are thousands of people who struggle to make a living and who have to work at a meagre starvation wage. They ought to be given a chance. I want to point out to the Minister that there is discrimination against the unskilled labourers who are not given an opportunity to become artisans.

We protected our industries by resisting competition from overseas. In addition to that we have the Wage Board and the Industrial Conciliation Board, with the assistance of which wages are fixed. We protect our industries so that they can exist, but then we also compel them to pay a decent wage to their workers. But what do we do? We fix a living wage for an artisan but the unskilled labourers receive a wage of only £4 or £5 per month. There is unfair discrimination against the unskilled man. The costs of living are rising and the people find it very difficult to make ends meet. That is why we have Communism in this country. We have thousands and thousands of people who have no alternative but to work at starvation wages. They have no chance of making headway, and that drives them into the hands of Communists, who incite them against those people who do own something in South Africa. This is a critical state of affairs. In any country the State ought to see to it that a man who wants to work receives a decent wage. But what are we doing? We are importing artisans from overseas on a large scale. We have the official figures here. From 1919 to 1939, 24,774 artisans were imported into this country. I have worked it out that if an artisan gets £25 per month—and I think on an average he gets more—it amounts to £300 per annum, and that means that if all the imported artisans worked throughout that period at £300 per annum, they have already drawn more than £100,000,000 in wages in South Africa. It is of the utmost importance that South Africa should, in the first place, look after her own sons and daughters. There is not a country in the world which will allow an influx of immigrants unless its own sons and daughters have been provided for. But we are allowing it. It is noteworthy that in times of prosperity the immigrants flock into this country, up to 2,800 in one year, but in times of depression the stream becomes smaller. It is of the utmost importance for the economic position in our country that steps should be taken to ensure that the sons and daughters of this country receive preference, and that they are provided for in the first instance. But we have a large mass of unskilled labourers in the cities, and they are compelled to work at starvation wages, while we import artisans. If there is a possibility of openings in industries, we ought in the first place to take steps to train our own people to do the work. We ought not to allow artisans from overseas to come in and fill those positions. I also want to point out that representations have been made in this connection. The Dutch Reformed Churches held a big congress some years ago to discuss the poor white question. The Government was represented at that congress. It was a nation-wide congress, and it was clearly shown that the root of the evil of poverty in South Africa can be ascribed to the fact that we have so many unskilled labourers who have to work for low wages. At that congress the Government was asked to create facilities to give these people employment. The. Industrial Commission which sat in 1935 also urged in its report that legislation should be introduced to give the unskilled man an opportunity of improving his position. We had the case in Cape Town of a workshop where unskilled European labourers worked together with artisans. The artisans received a fixed wage, but in addition to that they were also paid for piece work. At the end of the week they received quite a few pounds for piece work, and out of gratitude to the unskilled artisans, they gave the unskilled man a present of a few pounds at the end of the week for his assistance. They recognised the value of his work, but the State does not do so. These starvation wages are the root of all the difficulties in South Africa. Unskilled workers must have an opportunity of improving their positions and becoming semi-skilled labourers, and later skilled labourers. The sons of South Africa, and not the immigrants from overseas—whether they are Germans or Frenchmen or Englishmen—must fill these positions. The question is, what is the policy of South Africa with regard to the colour question? Where do we stand as far as that matter is concerned? We, a handful of Europeans, must maintain the European civilisation as against the vast masses of non-Europeans. It is clear that the country must choose whether or not we want to maintain a European civilisation. I think the time has arrived when we should put this matter before the country and let the country decide whether or not we want Europeans and non-Europeans to mix. This Bill makes no distinction ; it does not draw any dividing line. In other words, this Bill makes provision for non-Europeans to serve on the apprenticeship committees? What position are we creating? We are going to allow non-Europeans to decide whether a European lad will be taken on as an apprentice.

Where on earth do you find that?

The Minister’s Bill clearly states that there will be no distinction on the ground of race or colour. As far as the composition of the committees is concerned, there will be no distinction. It clearly states here: “Provided that there will be no distinction on the ground of race or colour.” Now the Minister denies that, but it is stated clearly in his own Bill that there will be no distinction. I think the Minister now realises that. Non-Europeans will decide whether or not a European lad may be apprenticed in the building industry or in any other industry.

We have never had that.

The Minister says that there have been no cases. What happened in the bakery trade in Cape Town? About two years ago the chairman of the management of the trade union was a non-European, and there were three non-Europeans on the management. The management consisted of five persons. The Europeans were in the minority. They came and complained to me that a European girl had to sit alongside a pitch-black native at the meetings. She cannot leave the trade union. She has to pay her subscription to the trade union every month. If she does not attend the meetings of the management she can be put out, and then she loses her employment, because then the closed shop principle applies. That is the position. I raised this matter at the time, and in reply to a question the Minister of Finance stated that there were fourteen trade unions in South Africa in which there were non-Europeans and Europeans. The coloureds and natives have the right to protect their interests, just as we have the right to protect our interests. But we have got to the point where we must have a clear dividing line. We must not tolerate the position that these unfortunate people who are struggling to make a living in the trade union should have to sit next to coloured persons. Would that be tolerated on the platteland in the farmers’ associations? The farmers would never tolerate it, but these people come from the platteland and in the slums one finds that white and black have to associate. We must put a stop to that. I think that my party, as I do, will oppose every measure which does not make a distinction on the ground of colour. We shall oppose that until the very end. The Minister ought to give the coloured people and the natives an opportunity to develop on their own. We have said in the past that there must be a quota, a proportion of Europeans and non-Europeans in industries. The European race has the right to demand that its interests be protected, and as far as the colour bar is concerned I hope the Minister will be prepared to accept our amendment and to rectify the position.

I have had 34 years’ experience of Parliament and never yet have I experienced so innocent a little measure so viciously attacked upon such flimsy foundations, never, and like the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. Burnside) I am beginning to wonder why it is that these attacks are being levelled against this little measure.

Take care; your own people will vote against you.

I want to make this perfectly clear.

Look at your party; only two of your people are sitting there.

Well, I do not know that that matters very much, because hon. members on this side have brought a certain amount of intelligence to bear upon an examination of the Bill. [Interruptions.] Allow me to talk.

That shows you what they think of you.

Is the hon. member afraid to hear me discuss this Bill and the rather ridiculous strictures passed upon it? Be that as it may, I also am delving with my mind into the possibilities, to discover what is the real reason for these attacks upon the Bill, and Sir, I do not leave out certain members on this side of the House, and it is just as well for them to thoroughly understand that I have paid some regard to the attitude of mind and the actions adopted by certain members on this side. My opinion, Sir, is not quite coincident with that of the hon. member for Fordsburg on this matter. My own opinion is this, that it is beginning to be thought that possibly the war is drawing to a close, and it is not quite so necessary to placate the trade unions of the country. If that is the idea underlying some of the opposition to this Bill let me at once tell those hon. members that they have been rather precipitate.

That is a nasty thing to say about your own people.

I am saying it about you too. They have been rather precipitate. They cannot yet afford to do without the support of the trade unions, and they cannot afford to push the trade unions aside. I want to know this, Sir, what on earth have the trade unions got to do with this Bill from the point of view of the controversy that has arisen out of it; and that is what causes me furiously to think. The trade unions, as trade unions, except of course that their membership of the future is involved, have nothing to do with the machinery of this Bill nor the introduction of the Bill, nor its passage, nor its administration, and Sir, it is very significant to me that quite a large number of members of this House, notably on that side, have prefaced their remarks with the statement: “I have nothing against trade unions, but!” Sir, the man who has nothing against the trade unions has no necessity to refer to the fact, and the fact that he does find it necessary to say that he has nothing against trade unions leads me to suspect that he has everything against trade unions, and this “disjunctive conjunction but” emphasises that. My hon. friend, the educationist over there, will probably see the subtlety of that. It makes the meaning abundantly clear: “I have nothing against trade unions, but …” and then they proceed to “but.” There are other things that cause the adverse criticism of this little Bill, and it is remarkable how many members have read so much into the Bill that does not exist there, was never intended to be in the Bill and will not concern the Bill in its administration.

The trouble is that there is so little in the Bill.

They have read, and my hon. friend is also a sinner in this regard, they have introduced bogys into the Bill that were never there, and like the hon. member for Berea (Mr. Sullivan) have multiplied their efforts to build up straw men in order to knock them down, to show their remarkable cleverness. What on earth did the hon. member do?

He tried to improve your Bill.

Oh, no, the hon. member was demonstrating his extreme kindness and his approbation of my Bill.

Hardly that.

Well, perhaps my hon. friend will tell me what it was then. Well, there must be some underlying reasons for attacking the Bill. And one of the reasons for attacking this Bill is the abysmal ignorance on the part of some members. Those who attacked the Bill have not read it. Others who have read it don’t understand it. Oh, I am not referring to the hon. member for Gordonia. I shall deal with him separately from the ruck.

Do you want to congratulate him?

Yes, he can be congratulated. In a lot of very poor soil he has produced a certain amount of good—he has turned out to be a flower in the midst of very poor soil.

Well, then, he is not a sterile flower like your Bill.

Anyhow, that flower does not smell like yours.

Order, these personalities must cease.

Oh. Mr. Speaker, surely I am allowed to answer—I have the right to reply to hon. members.

Yes, but you can do it in a decent manner.

You don’t understand decency. There are others who have attacked the Bill as a result of their prejudice, either personal prejudice or their prejudice against the movement which I represent, and that sort of criticism, that sort of strictures, I resent very much indeed.

What a martyr you are !

Others have attacked it because they have such a conceit of themselves that they think they can guide the whole world.

Et tu quoque.

One final reason for passing strictures on this measure comes from one hon. member on this side of the House.

Not only one.

One hon. member on this side of the House who suddenly developed a conscience.

Hear, hear.

And that is the hon. member for Vereeniging (Lt.-Col. Rood). Hon. members over there cheer the idea of a conscience. Do they know what it is?

Yes, something you have not got.

It would be interesting to see the marginal note which might be made by the hon. member against the word “conscience.”

He did not criticise your Bill.

I beg your pardon, he did; he made a vicious onslaught on the Bill.

That was before the Caucus.

You seem to know a lot about it.

My friend will get ear ache again from having his ear to the keyhole.

No need to do that, it was bawled about the passages.

I don’t want to strain the conscience of any member of this House. They can vote for or against this Bill as they like, and then afterwards they can answer to the trade unions—let me tell hon. members over there that they will not be exempt from the resentment of the trade unions of this country for the attitude they adopt towards this simple measure designed solely to the end that we might train highly skilled artisans and shall not flood the industries with them, so that we shall not tear down the wages of our workers. And that is the key note of it all. That is the be all and end all of it. And hon. members over there read into this the most malicious things designed by me under cover of my ministerial prerogative and the powers I seek to have conferred on me. But I wish to pay a compliment to the hon. member for Gordonia and the hon. member for Swellendam.

What’s wrong with them?

Those two hon. members did at least examine this Bill from the point of view of assisting the people of the country. They were mistaken, of course. They have also read into the Bill things that are not in it. They regard it as a Bill which should be all-embracing. Circumnavigating the whole Union of South Africa—its operations not being confined to the mere training of apprentices, but securing jobs for the thousands of people who have nothing whatever to do with being trained as skilled artisans. From that, of course, they did develop this argument, that if they are not being trained they should be, and I put it to hon. members over there—their position is that the solution of the poor white problem, the solution of unemployment, is that you should train everyone in a skilled trade and hope to God that everyone will get a job.

Well, give them the opportunity of being trained.

The opportunity is there. Again I want to draw the hon. member into kindly co-operation with me—as indeed I have been able to have his co-operation and that of the hon. member for Swellendam, and also of the hon. member for Boshof (Mr. Serfontein) on many occasions—despite the heated manner in which the hon. member for Boshof treated me a little while ago.

I am always prepared to support something good.

Yes, and the hon. member has always supported me.

This effort of ours to carry into the countryside opportunities of training is a very essential one. But what is more essential, in fact what is a very essential corollary of the training, is the provision of opportunities to obtain work at the trade in which a man has been trained. And to that end my friend, the Minister of Education, and I, have got together. My friend was very helpful in one part of the tour I took through the country, examining the quality and quantity of the training in the schools, the vocational schools in the countryside. I met, and I had great pleasure in meeting the hon. member for Boshof, and I want to pay him this compliment, that in his constituency there is one of the best country trades schools existing.

Thank you.

But I want to point this out to all hon. members who have been urging that I should give full recognition to the time spent at the vocational school, that in no case did I find that a school was so thoroughly equipped that it could properly train the people there, that it could train them to such an extent that the whole period of training might be counted for exemption from apprenticeship. I want to say to the hon. member for Middelburg (Dr. Eksteen) who was under the impression that no allowance was made for these trainees, that invariably we allow 50 per cent. of the period of training and sometimes more, according to the school from which they come, the opportunities presented by that school for complete training, and the ability of the youngster to have absorbed the schooling given to him. But 50 per cent. certainly, and sometimes more. But it is not sufficient. I agree with the hon. member for Gordonia. And here I want to say that in consultation with the Minister of Education we have set up this committee for which everyone has been crying out in retrospect— for it has been done. Yes, and it is a matter of information to the hon. member for Berea (Mr. Sullivan) too—a committee composed of two educationists.

Hear, hear!

That does not necessarily make them fully qualified, because they happen to be educationists. These educationists who are able to acquire ….

What about the training?

Well, what about it?

What are the qualifications of the members of such a committee?

My hon. friend need not fear, I have too much respect for the qualifications that are required, ever to put him on to a committee of that kind.

That’s very cheap.

Well, he asked for it. Two educationists and two members of the Labour Department. And here may I say in passing that the Leader of the Opposition who quoted with great gusto leading articles which had appeared in the “Cape Times” and in the “Argus” omitted to state that in one of these leading articles—I think the “Cape Times”— they reproached me and my Department for not having qualified trained men within the Department and not having qualified trained men to examine this problem and to go on this committee which I have appointed. [Interruptions.] Oh, does it matter? I am addressing this House and not the “Cape Times.” I want to say at once that the head of my Department is a skilled trained man— a printer. And Mr. Logie who is on this committee was himself originally an apprentice and is now a fully trained man—he is an engineer, with tremendous experience of the Apprenticeship Act, and its effect on the rest of the community. That was the original personnel of the committee upon which the hon. member for Berea built some of his strictures, but now perhaps it will meet with his approval.

What committee did I criticise?

The hon. member has been out since then.

Not all night.

No; I have now added to that committee a member of the Planning Council and one representative of the employers of the engineering industry, and one representating the trade unions in the engineering industry, and the business of that committee is to enquire among other things into the matter brought before our attention today by these two hon. members over there, namely, whether our vocational training system as applied to the countryside is sufficient and efficient. Whether any more vocational schools are required, and how we can best arrange for the vocational education of the countryside— of course, always having regard to the probability of employment in the trades in which they have been trained and educated. That is one of the things which they have to enquire into. But that will be insufficient, and here I agree with some hon. members. That will be insufficient if we cut it off short there. And the time has arrived, and that will be the business of the Planning Council, to see in how far we should encourage and actually do the establishing ourselves of industries in the countryside. And I am rather enamoured of that plan myself for many reasons. One is that it will begin to break up the congestion caused by the congregation of industries in the town, and the slum conditions which arise, and the confined conditions under which the workers have to live and work as a result of that congestion of factory concerns in cities and towns—and so I want to see our industries opened out. We shall make for health, we shall make for the improvement of the whole surroundings, we can beautify the conditions under which the workers work in the factory. Surely that is a consummation very much to be desired. There are instances in this country already where those who manage or own factories realise the advantages not only from the health and beauty point of view, but also from their own point of view of having beautiful surroundings for those working for them. And inevitably follows the question of increased efficiency. I want to give these people the feeling of countrification, so that they can enjoy the free open air of the country while doing the country’s work—but it carries with it this obligation, that you shall not come to me time after time and urge upon me that we should keep the wages down in these factories, however small these factories may be, because forsooth it has a very unsettling effect on the labour of the countryside. You have to do that. You cannot have it all ways, nor is it desirable that you should have it that way. Get your factories into the country—give opportunities to your people in the countryside to work in the factories in healthy surroundings and under healthy conditions, to maintain a decent standard of living that will go on improving rather than retrogressing in order that we shall strive for an uplift for the whole of the people in the country. That is what I want.

And we want it too.

Yes, we all want it. Then don’t let us have these carping miserable little criticisms which you have been pouring out on my Bill when you realise the attitude of mind I am bringing to bear on this question. It is all for progress, not for shutting out or shutting up. But may I say to my hon. friend for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger)—my lady friend down there—

Where is your other lady friend?

I am only concerned with the one down there at the moment. Leave me to make my own arrangements.

Now you are smiling we like you much better.

Does she want to tear down the barbed wire entanglements around these preserves?

No.

Then why did you preach as you did? That was the impression. I may be dull, or perhaps the kind lady was not quite explicit.

I think you were rather angry.

Could I ever be angry with you? I might be annoyed with the lady temporarily only, but angry, never. Certainly never sufficiently angry not to hear what she says. I always listen to the voice of the charmer.

Now be careful.

But I hope it is not a barbed wire entanglement.

Well, you won’t tear your stockings, I shall see to that. That has given me the opportunity of saying what I want to say, and I want to say to hon. members over there, and especially to the hon. member who now adorns Stellenbosch (Dr. Bremer).

Adorns?

Oh, yes, he does. I am artistic enough to say that. You cannot push out the circle surrounding the artisans of the country without reducing the wages.

Unless you expand industry.

Precisely.

We said that.

You said it under your breath.

Oh no, we said it quite emphatically.

I said it loudly enough.

No, my friend got so excited he did not know what he said; I have never known him so excited, delightfully excited—because when he is excited he says the most amusing things. Now I want to come to the hon. member for Piketberg (Dr. Malan).

You are telling me.

I am not only telling you, I am telling the rest of the House. He made great play of the importations into this country, and the hon. member for Bloemfontein (District) (Mr. Haywood) fell into a similar error in another direction in the matter of figures. The hon. member for Piketberg said a lot and laid the blame inferentially, if not directly, on the operation of the Apprenticeship Act. He said we imported 5,600 or 5,800 artisans while at the same time we had our own sons and daughters walking the streets looking for work.

In 1932 they were.

Allow me to give you chapter and verse. The hon. member for Bloemfontein (District) capped that by saying that we had imported 24,774 people. It just shows how necessary it is for hon. members to be sure of their facts before they found their criticism of a Bill on those figures. He said 24,000 and then he did a little bit of rapid mental arithmetic and he found that they were costing us £1,000,000.

No, £100,000,000.

Did you say £100,000,000? Alright, what is £90,000,000 or £100,000,000 to the hon. member when he is criticising my Bill; what do figures matter. You were both wrong.

And you were right.

Yes, always. The hon. member said we imported 24,000 artisans. As a matter of fact it was 24,000 immigrants altogether. The hon. member for Piketberg was nearer right. He does take a little care to verify his figures, but the circumstances were entirely different from what he desired to bring home to the House. It is perfectly true that from 1935 to 1940—5,710 artisans were imported. But whom were they imported by—the Nationalist Party. Anyone would think that two things caused that—the existence of the Apprenticeship Act and the administration of this horrible person Madeley. That was the impression sought to be conveyed on a gaping House. Between 1935 and 1939, 5,660 were imported, and during the whole of that time the hon. member who represents Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) who made such a vicious attack on me, was one of the shining lights of the Government.

Not the Nationalist Party.

And the late Mr. A. P. J. Fourie …

And Gen. Smuts.

If you were so keen on stopping importations, why did you not stop that? No, they did not mind using them then. But now they find it is quite a different thing, and it is quite nice to try and blame me, and they want to level their attack here—but whom are they really attacking? Themselves. How many have been imported since I have been controlling the Portfolio of Labour since 1939—exactly 50.

You cannot get them now.

Now there is one thing which I must enter the strongest protest against, as stated by the hon. member for Piketberg. He said what I think in his calmer moments he would not say again, and I feel perfectly certain from the attitude which the hon. members over there generally adopt towards me—that they would not support what he said—he said that this Bill which I have introduced and which I shall be resposible for administering— he said that under the powers, the very wide powers which I shall have conferred upon me I shall discriminate between sections. That is what the hon. member for Piketberg said. Is a statement such as that consistent with the record I bear? Is that consistent with the experience which hon. members over there have of me? Do they really believe that I shall discriminate as between sections—which means that I shall give preference say to the English over the Afrikaans section? That was what was insinuated.

I don’t think he said that.

He went further and said : “Madeley will exclude those whom he wishes to exclude.” A charge of discrimination against me which I resent very bitterly and which has not the slightest foundation in fact. I have never done such a thing and I never will; I do not ask a man his name when I am appointing him or giving him a job, or helping him over a stile. Two things I want to stress, and two things only. One is the statement that under this apprenticeship system of ours it is inevitable that you will have a small coterie of highly-trained artisans on the one hand and a whole mass of pick and shovel men on the other. The experience of the administration of the Apprenticeship Act in all its bearings gives the lie to that, Sir, in fact and gives the lie to that in prospect. My own trade union, as I indicated to the hon. lady down there in the course of her remarks, my own trade union, one of the most highly-skilled in the country and one of world-wide reputation has for years recognised a grading between the highly skilled and the lowest one of the lot to the extent of no fewer than five grades of operatives; and let me say this to hon. members who may fear the possibility of trade unions exercising their powers wrongfully, that already, as the result of discussions I have had with the trade unions, they have agreed to extend the operative system in order that the development of industry throughout South Africa shall not be retarded by the sharp contrast between the skilled artisan and the unskilled labourer. They have already agreed to that. Meet them as generously as they are meeting you. The trade unions, Sir, gave up numberless privileges that they have fought for for years during the war period, they gave them up in a patriotic endeavour to make sure that South Africa should play her part nobly in this contest, they gave them up without requesting anything in return, not demanding a quid pro quo, not asking for any recompense. It was a spontaneous gift to the nation. Then respond to that generosity and say: “We do not distrust you, you trade unions; we have had sufficient experience of your honesty of purpose, and we respond as generously as you have to your gesture.” I have a note here, and I think hon. members ought to know it, indicating how loose words in this House reverberate round the Union, how they hurt the susceptibilities of people who have been freely giving of their all, and how careful you ought to be in your strictures of responsible bodies of the trade unions. Because of what has been said here, especially by some members on this side, the trade unions have got alarmed and I am being inundated with telegrams from the trade unions of this country urging that this Bill shall be passed because it is in the best interests of the country itself as well as in their interests. It is well for us to have a highly trained staff of artisans in this country. Now, Sir, let me come to the concluding point, the point that is the key note of the amendment of the hon. gentleman over there, and which the hon. member for Berea is so anxious to assist, namely, the control of apprenticeships by a national body. What do they mean? A national body representative of whom? Surely it is obvious that such a body should have representation from every industry and every trade, it must have that. How can they know the ramifications of the unions, how can they know the internal workings of industry, how can they know the apprenticeship requirements of any one industry if they have not got representation from every industry? And would not that be unwieldly, unworkable, unpractical, impracticable, and an impossible situation? Such a body would have to consult the very committees I am setting up in order that they might know how many apprentices can be absorbed by this or the other industry. Mr. Speaker, the House will forgive me for saying so, but that is the most stupid assertion by a responsible party and stupidly supported by the hon. member for Berea.

[Inaudible.]

But you did, you said; the first remark you made; when the hon. member got up, Sir, the first remark he made was that he supported the viewpoint of the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) that there should be a national board. Let me come to another point, that of education. Here there is a conflict of opinion between hon. members here and oven there. Naturally hon. members over here want the minimum limit of education reduced, while the hon. member over there wants it raised. Let me say here in passing, that I as a skilled mechanic, having had some experience, have met some of the finest artisans in the world who could not pass the sixth standard. This is not a question of cultural education at all. By education you cannot instil brain power, the ability must be there, it must be inherent.

You can develop it.

True, you can direct, guide and improve it, but education does not put brain there, it does not initiate brains. There must be co-relation between brain, eye and hand to make the artisan, but it does not necessarily mean that you have got a better mechanic because he is educated. I am a believer in the view that mind is hereditary, and I do sav this, that through generations of education a youngster starts with a mind more amenable to education.

But isn’t a rising standard of education essential for improved industrial efficiency?

I am coming to that, if my lady friend will allow me. She is always so impatient. I am dealing with the education side of it. I will say at once to calm my hon. friend’s fears that I believe in the continued uplift of education, the raising of the standard. That is a very different thing from the hon. member for Berea, who said give them an eighth standard education and a shorter apprenticeship period. Let us carry that to its logical conclusion; make it the ninth standard and a three years’ apprenticeship; tenth standard and two years’ apprenticeship; make him a professor and he will learn to be an artisan from a text book. No, no, it only shows you ….

Oh, no, he did not say that.

Rubbish, sheer rubbish, madame, you have to have a workshop experience to become an artisan, and you cannot learn it out of a book. The hon. member for Berea argued in favour of shorter apprenticeship. Well, as the result of our investigations I take power in this Bill to reduce the number of years of training in any particular trade. As a matter of fact, the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Wanless) drew your attention to the reduction from five to four years only three weeks ago. Well, we will go on doing that, but the first consideration before we depart from any of the regulations governing apprenticeship conditions, is that we want to be convinced that what we are doing is right, that if we shorten the period of training we are not doing it to the detriment of the training of the youngsters. Everything will be taken into consideration. Well, Mr. Speaker, I think I have dealt with all the points that have been made and all the points that were in the Bill or have been dragged in in the course of this discussion. If I were to deal fully with all those points I would keep the House all night. I think I have said enough, Sir, and I think I have convinced the House that there is necessity for the passages of this Bill in the interests not only of the artisans as a class but of the country as a whole. It is well that we should have a trained artisan staff ready to undertake the tasks of the future. The only thing we have got to avoid is the wholesale manufacture of artisans, the result of which will only be that a few will have the jobs, probably at lower rates because of the fierce competition from outside, and the mass of them walking the streets looking for some other sort of work. We have got to have balance in this matter, and balance we shall have under the administration of this Bill. I move the second reading, Sir.

Question put: That all the words after “That,” proposed to be omitted, stand part of the motion:

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—69 :

Abbott, C. B. M.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Bawden, W.

Bell, R. E.

Bodenstein, H. A. S.

Bosman, J. C.

Bosman, L. P.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowker, T. B.

Christie, J.

Connan, J. M.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

De Kock, P. H.

De Wet, H. C.

De Wet, P. J.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, A. C.

Du Toit, R. J.

Faure, J. C.

Fourie, J. P.

Goldberg, A.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

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.

Morris, J. W. H.

Mushet., J. W.

Neate, C.

Payn, A. O. B.

Payne, A. C.

Pieterse, E. P.

Pocock, P. V.

Prinsloo, W. B. J.

Robertson, R. B.

Russell, J. H.

Shearer, O. L.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Stallard, C. F.

Steenkamp, L. S.

Steyn. C. F.

Stratford, J. R. F.

Sturrock, F. C.

Sutter, G. J.

Tighy, S. J.

Tothill, H. A.

Trollip, A. E.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Van der Byl, P.

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.

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

Noes—27 :.

Bremer, K.

Conradie, J. H.

Dönges, T. E.

Erasmus, F. C.

Erasmus, H. S.

Fouché, J. J.

Grobler, D. C. S.

Haywood, J. J.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Louw, E. H.

Ludick, A. I.

Luttig, P. J. H.

Malan, D. F.

Mentz, F. E.

Olivier, P. J.

Serfontein, J. J.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Strydom, J. G.

Sullivan, J. R.

Swanepoel, S. J.

Vosloo, L. J.

Werth, A. J.

Wessels, C. J. O.

Wilkens, J.

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

Question accordingly affirmed and the amendment dropped.

Original motion put and the House divided :

Ayes—68 :.

Abbott, C. B. M.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Bawden, W.

Bell, R. E.

Bodenstein, H. A. S.

Bosman, L. P.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowker, T. B,.

Christie, J.

Connan, J. M.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

De Kock, P. H.

De Wet, H. C.

De Wet, P. J.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, A. C.

Du Toit, R. J.

Faure, J. C.

Fourie, J. P.

Goldberg, A.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Henny, G. E. J.

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.

Morris, J. W. H.

Mushet., J. W.

Neate, C.

Payn, A. O. B.

Payne, A. C.

Pieterse, E. P.

Pocock, P. V.

Prinsloo, W. B. J.

Robertson, R. B.

Russell, J. H.

Shearer, O. L.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Stallard, C. F.

Steenkamp, L. S.

Steyn, C. F.

Stratford, J. R. F.

Sturrock, F. C.

Sutter, G. J.

Tighy, S. J.

Trollip, A. E.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Van der Byl, P.

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.

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

Noes—27 :.

Bremer, K.

Conradie, J. H.

Dönges, T. E.

Erasmus, F. C.

Erasmus, H. S.

Fouché, J. J.

Grobler, D. C. S.

Haywood, J. J.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Louw, E. H.

Ludick, A. I.

Luttig, P. J. H.

Malan, D. F.

Mentz, F. E.

Olivier, P. J.

Serfontein, J. J.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Strydom, J. G.

Sullivan, J. R.

Swanepoel, S. J.

Vosloo, L. J.

Werth, A. J.

Wessels, C. J. O.

Wilkens, J.

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

Motion accordingly agreed to.

Bill read a second time; House to go into Committee on the Bill on 25th April.

I move—

Mr. Speaker, the immediate cause of the introduction of this Bill is the fact that the Reserve Bank would, during the course of the next year, lose its right of issuing notes. The Currency and Banking Act, No. 31 of 1920, created the South African Reserve Bank and gave the Bank the sole right of issuing notes for a specified period of 25 years. Unless, therefore, legislation is enacted before that period of 25 years expires, the right will fall away and we shall, in fact, be back where we were before 1920. Now, of course, it is customanry for a central bank to have the sole right of note issue, and it is not usual for that right to be subject to a time limit such as was imposed in the Act of 1920. Our Reserve Bank, When it was instituted, however, was in the nature of an experimental venture, and that is why this probationary period was provided for in the Currency and Banking Act. I said that our Reserve Bank was in the nature of an experimental venture in the first instance. Perhaps I should explain that. Of course, our Reserve Bank was by no means the first central bank in the world, but it was, one may say, the first central bank of its particular kind. Prior to 1920 central banks existed only in the older States of Europe, and outside Europe in the United States, in Java and in Japan. There was then no central bank in any of the newer States of Europe; there was no central bank in South America or Central America, and there was no central bank in the British Empire or Commonwealth except in Great Britain, and generally one may say there was no central bank anywhere in the world in a country which had reached more or less the same stage of economic development as that which the Union had attained in 1920. We in the Union were therefore in 1920 experimenting in establishing in a relatively young and undeveloped country a bank which would at once be the bank of issue for the country and which would also fulfil the role of a central bank as the centre of the monetary and banking system of the country. The constitution therefore of the banks which were in existence at that time in the older countries—the Bank of England, for instance, or the central banks in the older countries of Europe—the constitutions of those banks were not very helpful to us in laying down the basis on which our own central bank should operate, and as a matter of fact in the laying down of the provisions of the Currency and Banking Act in this regard it was to the United States and to Java that reference was chiefly made. I think it is only right that at this stage I should refer to the assistance which the Government of the day received in the framing of the constituion of our Reserve Bank from Sir Harry Strakosh. I do so because of the recent death of Sir Harry, a death which I am sure is deplored by all who knew of his services to South Africa in this and in other connections. It was because of the fact that the South African Reserve Bank was set up to a large extent as a pioneering venture, that it was given its charter only for a limited period. Well, I think we may say that the bank has now come through its period of probation. Not only is its position today as a financial institution very strong— and that indeed is one of our main reasons for facing our financial future with confidence—but it has definitely established its position in the economic life of South Africa. Holding that position, in addition to the issue of notes, it fulfils the three-fold functions of a central bank. It centralises the cash reserves of the Union. It fixes rates of discount and so exercises a general control over banking operations, and it regulates the amount of currency in accordance with the demands of the country’s business. I say that the bank has successfully established its position in the economic life of the Union in the fulfilment of those functions. In view of those facts and in view also of the very high prestige which our South African Reserve Bank has today throughout the world, it is right that we should now regard it as having passed through its period of probation, and grant it its charter without limitation of time for the future. By doing that we shall be placing it in the position which ordinarily a central bank enjoys, and that is what Clause 10 of this Bill—in a sense the central clause of the Bill—sets out to do. It was because of the necessity of ensuring the future of the reserve bank as a central bank that this Bill is being introduced. But we have felt that it is appropriate in fulfilling that object at the same time to consolidate and amend the Law dealing with the Reserve Bank. As I have said, our reserve bank was created by the Currency and Banking Act of 1920. That Currency and Banking Act has three chapters. Chapter 1 deals with gold certificates. Well, Sir, these have merely historic interest. Chapter 1 is long since obsolete. Chapter 3 contains miscellaneous provisions relating to commercial banks and those provisions in Chapter 3 of this Currency and Banking Act were repealed by the Banking Act which was passed two years ago and which now provides comprehensively for the control of our banks other than the South African Reserve Bank. We are therefore, in effect, left merely with Chapter 2 of the Currency and Banking Act, and that was the chapter which created the South African Reserve Bank, defined its powers and indicated the method of its operations. That Act has, of course, been substantially amended since 1920. Hon. members, if they look at the schedule will see that several subsequent enactments have been passed which we now propose to repeal amending the Currency and Banking Act of 1920. We propose to repeal this because we are dealing in this consolidated measure with the matters dealt with in those portions of the Act which are to be repealed. Perhaps I ought to make it clear seeing that there appears to have been some misconception in regard to the matter, that we are only repealing later legislation in so far as it affects the Currency and Banking Act. We are not, for instance, repealing the whole of the Currency and Exchanges Act of 1933. Sections 8 and 9 of the Currency and Exchanges Act which deals with gold exchange are not being repealed here and will therefore continue to remain in operation. In reenacting the law dealing with the Reserve Bank we are taking advantage of the opportunity to set forth more clearly and specifically than is the position in the existing law what the Reserve Bank may do and what it may not do, and at the same time removing some of the restrictions and limitations which it was deemed necessary to impose on the bank during its probationary period. That is done in section 8 and 9 of the Bill, and I think I should emphasise the point that we are not making the powers of the Reserve Bank narrower in this Bill than they have been in the past. We are making them rather wider. In framing these important sections, sections 8 and 9, we have of course taken into account not merely the provisions of the Currency and Banking Act of 1920 but also of the amendments of those provisions introduced since 1920, more especially the amending provisions extending the scope of the bank’s powers in respect of discounts, advances and investments in accordance with the recommendations of the Kemmerer and Vissering Commission. We are also taking account of the developing conception of the scope of central banks generally as revealed in the legislation of other countries, passed since 1920. I think I can say fairly that the acceptance of Clauses 8 and 9 of this Bill will bring our Reserve Bank into line with the modern trend in central banking legislation and at the same time make it clear that it is not designed to compete with the commercial banks and other financial institutions in their appropriate field of operations. After all, what we expect of the Reserve Bank is that it should on the one hand maintain a sound currency position and on the other hand control credit to the extent necessary in the interest of the national welfare and stability generally, and it is that that Clauses 8 and 9 are designed to achieve. At the same time we also propose to amend certain other provisions in the existing law. I think it will perhaps be more convenient if, rather than deal with the Bill now before us clause by clause, I draw attention to those particular clauses where significant changes are proposed. In the first place I would draw attention to Clause 3 (ii) of the Bill. Clause 3 of the Bill deals with the Board of Directors of the Bank. The Board is managed by 11 directors, the Governor, the Deputy-Governor, three others appointed by the Governor-General and six elected directors. To that extent we do not propose any change. In the present law both the Governor and the Deputy-Governor of the bank must on appointment be persons of tested banking experience. We feel in the light of experience that that is an unduly restrictive provision on the choice of the Deputy-Governor, and the tendency in legislation elsewhere has been to relax that requirement as far as the Deputy-Governor is concerned, while retaining it as far as the Governor is concerned. Then I would pass on to Section 15 where we propose to make certain changes. I would draw attention in the first place to Section 15 (ii) which deals with the voting powers of interlocking companies in relation to the bank. Under the present law no stockholder may hold more than £10,000 of stock. The reason for that provision is obvious. There is, however, an exception to that. When the original Currency and Banking Law was introduced the commercial banks were required to subscribe to the original capital but subject to the limitation that they would not have voting powers in respect of more than £10,000 of stock, and those provisions are retained in Section 14 of this Bill. There is, however, a possibility under the existing law for companies with interlocking directorates in effect being able to exercise voting power to the extent of more than £10,000 and there is therefore a danger of their exercising an undue influence on the control of the bank, and so in order to maintain the essential priciple of the existing law that that no stockholder should exercise influence to the extent of more than £10,000 stock held, it is proposed in Section 15 (ii) that there should also be that limitation in respect of a group of companies with interlocking directorates. I would also draw attention to Section 15 (iii) of this Bill. That, it will be noted, lays it down that no stockholder who is not domiciled in the Union shall be entitled to vote at any meeting of stockholders. The reason for that, I think, is obvious. This is the South African Reserve Bank and must be controlled purely from South Africa. That provision has hitherto existed in the regulation framed under the Currency and Banking Act. It was assumed originally that we had the power to make such a regulation. It has, however, been held by counsel that that regulation is inconsistent with the terms of the Act, and therefore in order to maintain the position that no stockholder domiciled outside the Union will have a vote at a meeting of stockholders, it seems to be necessary to make this provision in the law itself. Then Section 16 deals with the allocation of the surplus to the reserve fund, the government and the shareholders. The effect to the existing law is that a reserve fund is accumulated out of profits up to the amount of the paid-up capital of the bank and that thereafter the profits go to the Government, subject to the payment of a 10 per cent. dividend to the stockholders. At the present moment, of course, the bank has the full amount allowed by statute in respect of its reserve fund, namely £1,000,000, and therefore today when the bank is earning more than 10 per cent. on its capital and is not allowed to pay out more than 10 per cent. of the capital out of those profits to the stockholders, all the rest goes to the State. In view, however, of the expansion of the operations of the bank it seems to us to be reasonable that provision should be made for the expansion of the reserve fund, and therefore in Section 16 (iii) it is proposed that after a dividend at the rate of 10 per cent. has been paid and before the surplus of the profits is paid over to the Government, one-tenth of that surplus shall be paid into the reserve fund. I think that will be accepted as a correct provision in the present circumstances.

There is no limit then to the reserve fund?

No. Then I would draw attention to Section 25 of the Bill which deals with liquidation. No doubt it is a very improbable contingency, but one has to provide for these improbable contingencies. In any case the bank can only be placed in liquidation by an Act of Parliament. At the present moment the reserve fund and the surplus assets, in the event of liquidation have to be divided between the Government and the stockholders in the proportion of 60 to 40. In view, however, of the proposed expansion of the Reserve Bank we feel that in this respect there should be some modification, and we propose therefore in Sub-section (3) of Section 25 that—

How are you going to determine that average price?

According to the market price; I do not think there should be any difficulty in doing that. There are regular quotations and there should be no difficulty in determining the average price over a period of twelve months. Then I would like finally to draw attention to Section 11 of this Bill, in respect of which there appears to have been a certain amount of misunderstanding. The Currency and Banking Act provided for the convertibility of the notes of the Reserve Bank in gold. The Currency and Exchanges Act of 1933 provided for the suspension of that convertibility. We are not on the gold standard today. Under Section 11 of this Bill it is laid down that the notes of the Reserve Bank will be legal tender, with the obligation on the bank to redeem those notes in gold on demand. Of course, if we stop there, then the enactment of this Bill would make a substantial change in the position of this country. But the following Sub-section (2) lays it down that the Governor General may by proclamation suspend the requirements imposed upon the bank by Sub-section (1), in regard to the redemption of notes in gold. That means, of course, that things being as they are, immediately this Bill becomes law such a proclamation will be issued and we shall therefore be in exactly the same position as we are today.

So we will be on the gold standard from the time this Bill becomes law until the proclamation is promulgated.

My hon. friend need not be afraid that we shall be on the gold standard for more than a minute. I hope I have succeeded in giving the House a clear picture of this Bill. This Bill does not contemplate a radical change in the position. If anything, it extends the powers of the bank.

In what respect?

The main respect is, of course, in so far as it gives the bank an unlimited charter for the future in regard to the issue of bank notes. But there are also slight amendments in paragraphs 8 and 9 extending the powers of the bank in dealing with advances, discounts and investments. The main point is of course that the adoption of this Bill will now terminate the probationary period which was instituted in the Act of 1920 and will place the bank on a permanent footing. The Reserve Bank has an important part to play in South Africa. It has played that part well, and for that, I think we can say that South Africa owes a deep debt of gratitude to those who have acted as Governors and Deputy Governors of the bank—to Mr. Clegg, Mr. Postmus, Mr. Jorrissen and Dr. De Kock. They have occupied positions of very great responsibility indeed. They have discharged their duties in such a way as not merely to gain the confidence of South Africa but to establish the prestige of the institution over which they presided throughout the world and the effect of the Bill will then be to give the bank, on the basis of its present constitution, a secure footing for the future.

The hon. the Minister has told us why he has brought in this Bill this year; he has given us three reasons. In the first place he has to extend the bank’s sole right, which is now lapsing, to issue bank notes. In the second place he has to consolidate the existing legislation and thirdly he wants to amend it here and there and to improve it or bring it up to date. But there are two things which the hon. the Minister has not told us. I hope he will do so when he replies to the debate. These two questions are : Why does the Minister refuse to keep pace with banking developments in almost every country in the world, especially in every young and progressive country in the world? The form of legislation which we have here has been tried in all the other Dominions. They have tried it and they have rejected it in the course of time. They have improved it. Why is the Minister the only one to stick to it?

In what respect?

That really is the kernel of our objection to this Bill. In the second place I should like the Minister to answer us on this point: Why does he rufuse to mould this Act into a fixed legal form? There are certain powers and privileges which the Reserve Bank has at the moment, but which it only has under the emergency regulations, powers which it has today under emergency regulations and which only enable the bank to fulfil its functions as a Reserve Bank …

What are those powers?

The principal power provided for in the emergency regulations is that the bank shall be the only buyer and seller of gold and bullion at the moment. That is one of them. The Minister knows that the bank, if it did not have that power, would find it difficult to carry out its duties today. That is the foundation of the authority and the effectiveness of the bank. By issuing an emergency regulation the Minister has admitted that. Why is not that converted into proper legal form?. We admit that we have passed through a very difficult time, particularly at the beginning of the war. We admit that, but I think the Minister will also have to admit that the post-war period will perhaps be even more difficult and still more dangerous, and the bank will then require certain powers and privileges. The Minister may say that there is a clause somewhere under which regulations can be issued, but if it is found that the bank cannot function in times of stress without those powers and privileges, and those powers have been conferred on the bank under emergency regulations, and if we know that difficult times are ahead, why are not those regulations moulded into legal form? That really is the kernel of our case against the Bill and I propose to elaborate the point. Before going any further, however, I want to say, that I hope that while we shall criticise the constitution and the powers of the Reserve Bank nothing we may say will be regarded as a reflection on the present management and control of the bank. The hon. the Minister paid a tribute to the present President and Vice-President of the bank. I think the whole of South Africa appreciates the way the bank has functioned during the difficult war period of five years. We also know that these in particular are the people who have been responsible for the development of the bank from a small beginning to an unquestioned position of prestige, respect and authority, not only in South Africa but also beyond our borders, and I want to say that we also appreciate what they have done, and nothing we may say must be regarded as a reflection on those people. Now before continuing my criticism, I want to find fault with the Minister. Why did not the Minister take the trouble to submit an explanatory memorandum to the House in connection with this Bill? Banking—we frankly admit it—is a complicated science and is highly technical. I do not want to pose as an expert on banking. I know my limitations in that respect only too well. It is a complicated subject and the least we could have expected of the Minister was an explanatory memorandum of the changes he is making in the existing Act, and the meaning and effect of those amendments. The absence of such an explanatory memorandum has made our work a great deal more difficult and I think the Minister should in future when he is dealing with a highly technical Bill show the House that consideration. Now, let me proceed with my criticism of the main principles of the Bill. Let me say that I look upon this Bill as the most important legislation to engage the attention of the House this Session. I regard it as the most important because on this Bill is going to depend more or less— on the powers granted to the Reserve Bank, and the way the Bank uses those powers— is going to depend what kind of a South Africa we shall have in the post-war period. In this Bill we are creating a body to which we are going to entrust the whole monetary and credit policy of South Africa, and it is a matter of the utmost importance to us in whose hands we place these powers. If we entrust these powers to private hands we shall have no guarantee that our banking policy and our credit policy will always take into account only the general interests of the country, and the general welfare of the nation. We shall know if we do so that private interests are at stake, and that at the critical moment the profit motive will play some part or other. South Africa has had experience in the past. Every country in the world has already had experience of it. Surely it is a matter of the greatest importance to know in whose hands we place the power to determine the monetary and credit policy of South Africa. Because we regard this Bill as a reactionary measure, because we feel that this legislation places this tremendous power of life and death over the economic life of the people into private hands— a tremendous weapon for good or for evil in the post-war period— for those reasons we find this Bill unacceptable and for those reasons we are going to oppose it. Now let me tell the House at once that I propose moving the following amendment—

We are proposing this amendment and I want to say at once that if it appears that the Select Committee cannot complete its work— there is no such hurry— and if the sole rights to issue bank notes has to be extended this session for the Reserve Bank, we assure the Minister of the co-operation of this side to pass such a piece of legislation before the end of this session. I don’t want the Minister to retort that the Select Committee will not be able to complete its work, and that as a result we shall find ourselves in this difficulty, that the Reserve Bank no longer will have the sole right to issue notes. I would almost repeat what I said before, because the Minister has lately got into the habit of putting into our mouths words which we never used. Now, I should like to proceed by telling the House why we are asking for this whole matter to be referred to a Select Committee. At the beginning of my speech I asked the Minister why he refused to keep pace with banking developments in all the young and progressive countries in the world. I do not want to take Australia’s case because the position there is somewhat different. There they practically started with a State Commercial Bank and changes were made continually with the result that the two cases are not always analagous. But New Zealand started in exactly the same way as we did. Their Reserve Bank legislation was on practically the same basis as ours and after they had tested it and weighed it they found it too light, and we find that they have introduced legislation which contains the kernel of what we propose here in our amendment, namely that the power over the monetary and credit policy shall be taken out of private hands. That is a power which must be given to the State only; and we find in New Zealand that they have completely changed the direction of the bank there. Today the Government appoints all the directors of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand. They did not even want private capital invested in the Reserve Bank there. The New Zealand Government bought out the private shareholders, with the result that New Zealand today has a Reserve Bank which not only is under State control but is also State owned. It is a purely State institution. All the money in it is State money and all the say over the bank is with the authorities who are responsible to the State alone. That is what has happened in New Zealand. The Minister will perhaps say that that happened because in New Zealand there is a Labour Government and that this is part of the programme of the Labour Party, but let us take Canada. They don’t have a Labour Government there, and events there show the direction of banking development in every young country in the world. Canada has the very same kind of legislation as we have. They also had private capital in their Reserve Bank and private directors on the Directorate. But what did they do? In 1938 they passed a law and they bought out all private interests in the Bank. From that moment the Reserve Bank of Canada became State owned. Today it is a State institution and every director serving on the Directorate is appointed by the Government. There, too, the Bank is a pure State institution. That is why I asked the Minister why he had not kept pace with this development direction in banking institutions. Why is South Africa the only one to stick to antiquated banking legislation? And not only antiquated banking legislation, but it seems to me that in some respects we are actually going backwards. What did the 1920 Act provide? I propose confining myself especially to the constitution of the Bank which was created by the Act of 1920. In terms of that Act the directorate was to consist of eleven directors. The Government appoints the President and the Vice-president and then there would be another nine directors. Three of them were appointed by the State, so the State had five representatives on the Directorate. Commercial banks and financial interests in South Africa, by means of shareholders, obtained the right to nominate certain people, viz. : three, and the Government thereupon appointed those nominees. We therefore find that under the 1920 legislation the State, out of eleven directors, eventually had the say about the appointment of eight of the eleven. The shareholders only elected three outright. This happened in the days of the old S.A.P. Government.

Could anything good emanate from the old S.A.P. Government?

Yes, the hon. member may well ask. Probably there was dissatisfaction in financial circles about their having so little say over the bank, and probably pressure was brought to bear on the Government with the result that one of the last things the old S.A.P. Government did— perhaps it was one of the causes of its demise—was to introduce a change in this respect as a result of which the shareholders were given the right finally to elect six directors, and the State would then only appoint five finally. In the 1923 Act it was provided that the State would have five representatives, and private interests six. Instead of improving on the position of 1920 we went back a step in 1923, and now the Minister comes here with this Bill and he perpetuates that position. He simply says in this Bill that the Directorate will consist of eleven members and that five of them will be elected by the Government and six by the shareholders. What does that mean?

The other three are nominated by the banks and appointed by the Government.

Under the 1923 Act the Government appointed five out and out. Commercial and financial circles which had shares in the bank made certain nominations and the Government then appointed those nominations.

But only from the nominees.

Clause 9 (2) of the Currency and Banking Act of 1920 provides—

That is exactly what I said.

The Governor-General could not appoint anyone except those nominated by them.

That means that the Government finally decided on the appointment of eight out of the eleven members. In the event of the banks nominating certain people whom the Government did not want to appoint the Government would simply tell the Banks to nominate someone else. The Government had the right of veto. Why cannot the Minister see the point? What is obstructing his intellect?

He should take a correspondence course.

I say that in 1923 underpressure from the capitalists a concession was made with the result that they out and out elected six directors and the Government appointed five, and that position is now being perpetuated in this Bill, They can argue as much as they like, but the position is that on the Reserve Bank as now constituted private interests today have six representatives as against the Government’s five. I know what the Minister’s reply will be. I can hear him argue that out of the eleven the Government appoints the only two full time people, the two officials who have to deal with the work every day, namely the President and the Vice-President. They are the people who manage the Bank, so that by the appointment of those two people the Government none the less has the management of the bank in its hands. I only want to ask the Government whether that was not the case in New Zealand, Australia and Canada? And why did they find it necessary to make the change and not to allow private interests on the directorate; there certainly was no question of a majority. The Minister of Finance will tell me that they are co-operating very well now, that the Government and private interests are co-operating excellently. I admit that they have co-operated most excellently during the past five years, but the point is that all the members of the Board are in sympathy with the object which the Government stands for. The banks, too, were prepared during war time to put the profit motive into the background. They were prepared to do so, let us admit it. But after the war when the real hard times come, what guarantee have we that that attitude of theirs will continue? That magnificent co-operation which the Minister can tell us about, which exists today, while the banks during the war period have put the profit motive into the background— what reason have we to expect that after the war is over the profit motive will not stick out its head again and that there will not be a clash of interests. The great question so far as I am concerned is this— that is the cardinal question— who is master in the Reserve Bank? I can quite conceive of there being co-operation at a given time, between all the big capitalistic elements in the country, for their own benefit and not for the benefit of the people, and by reason of the fact that they are in the majority on the directorate they can force their monetary and credit policy on the Government and on the country. That is the one thing which a Government must keep in its own hands— control over the monetary and credit policy of the country. And if it is not in the Government’s hands, if it is in private hands, the Government has no power. The next question I asked the Minister was this: Why does he refuse to mould into legal form the power and privileges which he found it necessary by regulation during war time to give the bank? The Reserve Bank has to exercise control over the commercial banks. The commercial banks are out for profit. The Reserve Bank can exercise control over the commercial banks only in one of two ways. It can do so only if Parliament gives it the right to do so and embodies that right in the law of the land. If it has not got that power, it must be able to apply financial sanctions to the private banks. If it does not possess the legislation powers to force its monetary and credit policy on the private banks and to force them to act in accordance therewith the Reserve Bank must be in the position, must be able, to apply financial sanctions to the other banks. Now we come to this important question which I want to ask: The bank is given no legislative powers. Is it then in a postion, is it able, to apply financial sanctions to the commercial banks? I propose referring in particular to two of the big commercial banks. We have quite a number of commercial banks but when we talk about the commercial banks we have two particular banks in mind. I shall mention their names, because I can see no objection to doing so— they are the Standard Bank and Barclays Bank. Is the Reserve Bank strong enough to be able to apply financial sanctions to these two commercial banks? Is the position of the Reserve Bank such that it can force these two banks to act in accordance with its policy? We know this—that these two banks—I am not talking of the others now— are financially strong enough to get along without the Reserve Bank. There is only one way in which the Reserve Bank can still exercise pressure on them and that is in the financing of the foreign trade. The value of our exports is only about £30,000,000, and we import to a value of £100,000,000. The two commercial banks hâve not got sufficient foreign exchange abroad to pay for this. The only bank which has such foreign exchange is the Reserve Bank. Now these two banks have to go to the Reserve Bank and buy foreign exchange from it for their foreign trade, and in that way the Reserve Bank can bring pressure to bear on the two existing commercial banks. But that power the Reserve Bank at the moment only gets under the Emergency Regulations which confer on it the sole right to buy and sell gold and bullion. It is only because the Reserve Bank sells that gold abroad that it has foreign exchange—that it has sterling and dollar credits in other countries. This enables the Reserve Bank to exercise pressure on the commercial banks. Hon. members can now see how essential it is that the Reserve Bank shall retain that power of having the sole right to buy and sell gold. I thought that that power would be provided for and determined in this Bill, but what do we find? The Minister has told us that the powers of the Reserve Bank are extended in Clause 8. But what do we read in Clause 8 about the purchase and sale of gold? It is provided here that the bank can, with due consideration to the provisions of Clause 9, do a number of things, and then we get this in the next paragraph (g)—

The only power the Reserve Bank gets is that it can buy gold and sell gold. I want the Minister to explain why these are the only powers given to the Reserve Bank in this respect. He knows that the Reserve Bank cannot get along without the sole right to buy and sell gold. That sole right makes it strong as against the commercial banks. It is that power which enables the Reserve Bank to apply the thumb screw to the commercial banks if it should become necessary. Why is it not provided for in the law? What is the position now? The Bank at the moment has that power under the Emergency Regulations, but as soon as the war is over the Emergency Regulations lapse and the Reserve Bank will in all probability have to enter into competition with the commercial banks for contracts with the gold mines. The Reserve Bank will then have to compete with the commercial banks for contracts with the gold mines in regard to the handling of gold. The Minister will probably tell me that the Reserve Bank can compete with the commercial banks because certain factors tend to assist it. But the danger with which we are faced is this, that the time may come after the war when big capitalists will want to collect and make snug, they may become impatient of restrictions, and there may be a plot between the Chamber of Mines, the mining magnates, the commercial banks and big capital in South Africa, and unless the Minister issues a regulation they will be able to deprive the Reserve Bank of the handling of gold, and if the Reserve Bank resists, it will be powerless against the commercial banks in South Africa, and it cannot be held responsible for the credit policy of South Africa. I want to ask frankly, why does not the Minister insert a clause in the Bill to say: The Reserve Bank shall be the only buyer and seller of gold and bullion. That is the only weapon which the Reserve Bank possesses. The Minister admits it by the power he gives the bank under the regulation in times of war. Those regulations will disappear after the war, and the question is whether in that post-war period, which will perhaps be more difficult in this country, the bank will not have the sole right. That weapon is taken from it, and what guarantee will we have then that big capital will not conspire for their own benefit and at the expense of South Africa? Does the Minister want a recurrence of what South Africa experienced after the last war and in 1929? The Minister will have to say again: “People, I am sorry, but I did not have control over the financial policy and the credit policy of the country.” That is the excuse he will make. We request the Government to make timely provision so that the Reserve Bank will have the power to exercise control. We know that South Africa is the paradise of the capitalists. The capitalists have been spoilt here by the tradition that they possess political power. The capitalists will try and collect after the war. One does not know what schemes they may devise. The hon. the Minister will say that the Treasury and the President of the Reserve Bank are strong enough to resist the capitalists, but that has not been found to be so in the past, and we ask the hon. the Minister to amend the Bill in such a manner as to avoid a recurrence of what happened in 1920, 1921 and again in 1929.

And in 1933.

One does not need a knowledge of banking to realise the powers the banks exercise. The Minister must not ask me to tell him exactly how they set about things, but we know that at the moment the banks are begging people to accept credit. It is going on all over the country today. Can the Minister deny it? Today they beg you take up bonds with them. They are perhaps prepared to go a little further today than they usually do, but as soon as the war is over, as soon as the Reserve Bank has not got the power to interfere in regard to credits, the bottom may drop out of everything and people may lose overnight what it has taken them all their lives to build up. I say that we are not going to vote for a Bill which places this tremendous power over the economic life of South Africa into private hands. We are not going to vote for a Bill which makes the Reserve Bank powerless under the constitution as against the commercial banks. We demand what we are asking for in our amendment, and I shall read it again, because I am afraid that words may otherwise be attributed to me which I have never used. We demand full effective control by the State over the financial and credit policy of this country. We demand—

1. (1) That the Government appoints all the directors on the directorate of the Reserve Bank, thus to secure effective State control over the banking and credit policy of South Africa.

If the Minister says that millions of private capital are invested in the Reserve Bank, I say that the law guarantees them 10 per cent. [Time extension granted]. I have not much to add. We either buy out private capital which we can do in the same way as they did in New Zealand and Canada, or we guarantee them the 10 per cent. on their capital investment. Ten per cent. on such a safe investment as the Reserve Bank is a good investment—

1. (2) The Reserve Bank will act as the only buyer and seller of the country’s gold production.

That is our inexorable demand. If you take it out of the hands of the Reserve Bank you are powerless against the commercial banks—

1. (3) The Reserve Bank lays down the credit policy for the whole country and the commercial banks shall act in accordance therewith.
2. (4) The commercial banks can make advances only in accordance with the policy of the Reserve Bank.
3. (5) Loans on securities can be subscribed by the Commercial Banks only with the approval of the Reserve Bank.
4. (6) All surplus investable funds of the commercial banks shall be invested with the Reserve Bank.

So far as the last point is concerned, it makes no difference if we are not on the gold standard, but we anticipate the day when we shall be on gold again. This Bill is not only intended for today but for the future. It will strengthen the authority and the position of the Reserve Bank. These are the minimum demands we make in regard to our Reserve Bank legislation.

I want to second the amendment. As we now have a consolidating measure before us, we are given the opportunity, 23 years after the introduction of the original Act, of reviewing the whole position, or remedying the defects and shortcomings of the existing constitution of the bank as well as its operation, and of studying the experience of Central Banks, here as well as elsewhere, and of using that experience for our own benefit. Why did we propose this amendment? In view of the late hour, however, I wish to move—

I second.

Agreed to.

Debate adjourned; to be resumed on 24th April.