With leave, I wish to move the motion standing in my name in an amended form—

1. (a) the designation and definition of trades and the prescribing of conditions of apprenticeship;
2. (b) the extension of the application of the Act, and of the conditions of apprenticeship applicable in a designated area in respect of a designated trade in any industry, to apprentices or minors employed in the same trade in all industries or in a specific industry;
3. (c) the prescribing of conditions on which minors may be employed in any designated trade;
4. (d) appeals from decisions of the registrar;
5. (e) the grant of exemptions of a general nature from the provisions of the Act or conditions of apprenticeship; and
6. (f) such other matters as the Minister may refer to the board.

I just want to say in explanation that it practically means the acceptance of the amendment which the Minister of Labour placed on the Order Paper at my suggestion, the only alteration being that I add the words “obtaining uniformity as far as possible.” I just want to express my gratitude to the Minister that we were able by consulting him and his department to come to an agreement and that we are therefore practically in the position of moving this as an unopposed motion.

I second.

The motion as amended and moved by the hon. member is the result of discussions which we have had anent the matter. In my original amendment to his motion all this was contained, but the hon. member came to the conclusion that a little clarity might be sought for and found, and I have agreed to give him that. The result is his addition of (a), and I am most happy to accept it in that form, because it merely crystallises one of the portions of what was contained in my original motion. I therefore accept the motion.

Motion put and agreed to.

HOUSE IN COMMITTEE :

The CHAIRMAN stated the instruction to the Committee.

On Clause 1, †The MINISTER OF LABOUR:: I have an amendment here which will be consequential on the new clause which follows on the instruction. I move—

and in line 61, to omit all the words after “Labour” to the end of the definition of “Minister”.

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 3,

I now move the new clause as printed. The necessary alterations will be made in the report stage. I move—

1. 3.
   1. (1) As from a date to be fixed by the Governor-General by proclamation in the Gazette, there shall be established a body to be known as the National Apprenticeship Board to advise the Minister on all matters in which he may, in terms of this Act, act on the recommendation of the board, and on such other matters as the Minister may refer to it.
   2. (2) The board shall consist of the Minister and ten other members appointed by the Minister, of whom—
      1. (a) one shall be the Secretary for Labour, and one the registrar;
      2. (b) two shall be nominated by the Minister of Education for their knowledge of matters relating to technical training;
      3. (c) two shall represent the interests of prospective apprentices in or from rural areas;
      4. (d) two shall be appointed for their special knowledge of matters relating to apprenticeship; and
      5. (e) one shall be appointed from a list of persons nominated by such organisations as the Minister may deem qualified to represent the interests of the employers and one from a list of persons nominated by such organisations as the Minister may deem qualified to represent the interests of employees: Provided that if such organisations fail to nominate the number of persons specified by the Minister in a written notice given to such organisations, within the period so specified, the Minister may appoint such persons as in his opinion will be able to represent the interests of the persons concerned.
   3. (3) The Minister may in like manner appoint such number of alternates to the members referred to in paragraphs (b), (c), (d) and (e) of sub-section (2) as he may deem fit.
   4. (4) The Minister shall be the chairman of the board, and the Secretary for Labour the deputy chairman.
   5. (5) If the chairman and deputy chairman are both absent from any meeting, the members who are present may elect from amongst themselves a chairman to act at that meeting.
   6. (6) Members of the board referred to in paragraphs (b), (c), (d) and (e) of sub-section (2), shall hold office during a period to be specified by the Minister upon their appointment, and at such remuneration as he may, after consultation with the Minister of Finance, from time to time determine.
   7. (7) Any casual vacancy that occurs on the board shall be filled by the appointment of another member or alternate, as the case may be, in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (2) or (3).
   8. (8) The provisions of paragraph (b) of sub-section (7) and sub-section (9) of section five, sub-section (1) of section six, sub-sections (1), (2) and (5) of section eight, sub-sections (1) and (2) of section nine, and section eleven shall mutatis mutandis apply in respect of the board.

I wish to say at once that I welcome most heartily the decision of the Minister to establish this National Apprenticeship Board. I say that immediately because I have a proposition to make about the composition of the board and I do not want the Minister to get the idea that we are hostile to this board. Some of us felt that one obvious means of strengthening this Bill was to establish a board which would have supervisory control over the whole apprenticeship system, and that is what the Minister is now agreeing to under this new clause.

Not control.

Well, supervision over the whole apprenticeship system. I only want to ask the Minister a question or two about the composition of the board as he has put it down here. He has provided for the nomination to the board of the Secretary for Labour and the Registrar, and then he has provided for the nomination of two members by the Minister of Education to be chosen for their knowledge of matters connected with technical training. And then there is provision for two members who will have the knowledge in regard to matters of apprentices, prospective apprentices from the rural areas. He then provides two members who shall be appointed for their special knowledge of matters relating to apprenticeship, and thereafter he provides for representation of employers and employees. I was wondering what sort of special knowledge he had in mind under sub-section (d) of the clause—what special knowledge as distinct from the knowledge held by persons under (c) and (e). I feel that there is an advantage in having persons with certain special knowledge; in fact my whole point in raising this issue is to impress on the Minister the desirability of having someone on the board with a special knowledge of the conditions of the labour market as they affect non-Europeans. As the Minister knows, the African workers are steadily coming into the industrial field. The coloured workers are in the industrial field, but under conditions which have not always given them their best opportunity. I am convinced that there is everything to be said for a board of this kind, which is going to have supervision, for having someone on it who is specially acquainted with the problem of the integration of the natives into the industrial field. The Minister himself was speaking the other day in Another Place about his own views on the future, the industrial future of the Africans. He said it was his opinion and the opinion of his party that Africans should seek their industrial development in their own areas. I suggest that even on that basis, on the basis of that policy, some training will be necessary, and that that training can only be got in the field of established industry. Even if African workers are to do the work which the Minister himself is presumably visualising, in terms of that policy, in native locations or native reserves, they will have to obtain their training somewhere, and the process of giving them that training will need special accommodation in the industrial market; so what I want to suggest is that under sub-section (d) of this clause the Minister should make provision for the appointment of one person who shall have special knowledge of conditions as affecting non-European workers.

Just what do you mean by that?

One person who is familiar with the grades of occupation now open to non-European workers, the opportunities now available to non-Europeans, the background of their lives, and the need for extended opportunities. I think the Minister realises that the African worker in particular is in a different position in the labour market from any other part of the population; and as he has been coming into the labour market so his conditions are changing. The extent to which we are going to plan the change, and the future which we are going to develop for the African workers, is a special field of knowledge, and I feel it should have representation on this board which, as the Minister suggests, is merely a supervisory board, a board designed to bring together all views. I feel that on such a board the non-European worker should have his representative. I do not think that is an exaggerated claim to make, and I trust the Minister will consider providing for it under this sub-section. May I repeat the question with which I began? I should like to know what the other type of special knowledge is which the Minister visualises under this clause. I wonder whether I am by this suggestion infringing upon any other field which he thinks should be represented, in which case I would beg the Minister to consider putting in my proposition, if not as (d), then as another sub-section of the clause.

I listened carefully to what the previous speaker said, but I do not think she mentioned one ground why the composition of this board should be changed. I can understand her saying, as a representative of the natives, that someone having a knowledge of native affairs and the working conditions of natives should be appointed. But in the first place it is not necessary to place a representative of the natives on the board, because the board which will be appointed must have a knowledge of the conditions of both sections of the public. The urban representatives will know the circumstances of the natives in the cities, and the platteland representative will know the circumstances of the natives on the platteland. If we try to make the committee too big, it will make it impossible for them to function properly; and in the second place, as long as the member concerned is reasonable and honest and sincere, he will assist all sections of the community in connection with apprenticeship, and the members who are appointed will be in a position to get any information which they may want from the hon. member, or from other people who think that they were specially chosen by Providence to look after the natives. It is unnecessary to enlarge the personnel of the committee, and I do not think the Minister will improve matters by making such a concession. If he makes the membership too large he will create suspicion in the country in regard to the object of this committee. I also want to say that I greatly appreciate the concessions which the hon. Minister made in connection with this board. I realise that speakers in this House have urged upon him the desirability of such a board, and that he made this concession. I congratulate him on his reasonableness, but he must not spoil his work by making this committee too cumbersome. It seems to me the Minister is in a very good mood this morning, and I am afraid he may make all sorts of concessions which he may regret at a later date. We are satisfied with the personnel as suggested, and it is unnecessary to give representation to the various sections. If we have to give representation to all the different elements and all the various races, where are we going to end? I hope the Minister will not accept this.

The suggestions made by the hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) are two. One is that we should have a direct representative of the natives—whatever form that representation might take—included under (d); or alternately, an increased number of the board so as to incorporate in that body someone representing the natives directly. Now I agree with the hon. member who has last spoken as to increasing the number. The hon. member will recollect that one of my chief objections to the board which they proposed originally was that it would be too big and unwieldy and would not have special knowledge. Too big and unwieldy was my main contention, and I do not propose to increase the number of the board. Therefore we have to concentrate our attention on whether we should specify that one of the two who shall be appointed under (d) shall be appointed for his special knowledge and shall be a representative of the natives directly. I cannot agree to that, much as I would like to. However worried my hon. friend might be about an extension of my courtesy, I must call a halt there. My hon. friend for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) in his criticism of the hon. member for Cape Eastern is perfectly correct. When you start putting a representative of one race there you have to put representatives of other races there—you have the coloured people, the Indian people—you have all kinds of people there. It is a great composite population and I would have to put someone on to represent every section. There I cannot agree. The object of (d) is that we shall have a field of selection, not necessarily confined to those actually engaged in industry. There may be people who have been in industry. It is very difficult to say who these people will be, but I want to give myself the power to select the right people on the advice of the Secretary for Labour, whose knowledge of these matters is very widespread. I am afraid I cannot agree to the suggestion of the hon. member. I can not put it in this clause, but I shall have it under consideration, and if I can find someone, not necessarily specifically representing the natives, but someone who from his general knowledge carries that in his purview, then I would appoint such a person. I am prepared to give that undertaking.

New clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 3,

I just want to move—

The Civil Service must see to that.

Apart from those who are appointed by the Civil Service, officers are appointed by the Minister without the approval of the Public Service Commission, and it is desirable that everyone should be bilingual. I shall be glad if the Minister will accept this. He provides in connection with inspectors who have already been appointed that they will remain inspectors, but he does not stipulate that they must be bilingual. Provision is made for interpreters. I can understand that even a bilingual man may not be able to talk the native languages, and that inspectors should be entitled in certain circumstances to take interpreters with them, but I feel that as far as the two official languages are concerned, it should not be necessary to take an interpreter along. If the Public Service Commission appoints this officer, it is still desirable to provide in this Bill that everyone who is appointed shall be bilingual.

I want to support the amendment of the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren). The hon. Minister will make great progress if he will only state that it is his policy to see to it in connection with all appointments of officers who will perform work in connection with this legislation, that they are bilingual. If the Minister can give that assurance, he will eliminate all arguments in this connection. Failing that, we will be compelled to insist on this provision clause by clause. The Minister gave his wholehearted support to dual medium schools. He should now be prepared to accept the principle of bilingualism in practice. We would like to have a frank statement from him that he accepts our amendment as a foundation.

I have no objection to making that declaration at once. As a unilingual man I have realised my shortcomings in my relations with the very courteous members over there. I realise it at present where I have difficulty in following the arguments of hon. members. I give that assurance in the interests of apprentices themselves. I want to make perfectly certain that they can be controlled, that they can be understood and that they can speak and be spoken to in their own language. I am only too keen on that and therefore I want to give the assurance that when I tell them that all those officers are on the fixed establishment— that they are all officers who got their appointments from the Public Service Commission who themselves have laid it down that they should be bilingual and properly bilingual—it is unnecessary to put this in here. And it is all the more unnecessary to put it here, because if you put it here, it may mean that I am to be the person to decide whether they are properly bilingual or not, and that would be putting too much strain on my intelligence.

I am glad to hear the statement by the Minister in connection with bilingualism. I am glad that in every appointment he makes he expects the officers to be bilingual, and I am sure the whole House appreciates that. There is no member here who doesn’t desire that these people who are to be appointed as secretaries and so on should be bilingual. I do not doubt that there is no one in this House, whether he is bilingual or unilingual, who does not realise the necessity for that.

More particularly the unilingual ones.

But what I do feel is this. You never know. The Minister has to regulate matters under this Act but he may not be here tomorrow. There may be someone else.

That is exceedingly likely.

And the new Minister may not hold the same views which he holds, and that may cause trouble. I honestly feel that every officer—in fact every member of Parliament— should be bilingual.

Oh, come on. Don’t say that. Wait till I die.

Well, we shall make an exception so far as you are concerned. But I feel that the Minister should accept this. It does not introduce any new principle. The Minister is prepared to carry it out, so why should he have any objection to binding his successor to doing the same thing.

Only this. I had to decide who was bilingual.

Well, I feel we should have it in the Act. But after the Minister’s assurance I won’t press it any further. I feel that any Ministers in the future, after the assurance we have had will feel bound to see that these people are bilingual— and I hope that the Minister himself will also be bilingual.

I doubt whether it is desirable to have it here. The Public Service Commission has a standard of bilingualism—or should I say of both languages—they have a standard which they require from their officers—if they have not got that standard they are not appointed. There is just the possibility that the Minister who appoints is to be the man who has to decide what is bilingual, and I don’t want you to give me the chance of having to decide whether a man is less proficient than he should be. The Public Service Commission has its standard, and they appoint these people and it looks like treading on the toes of the Public Service Commission if we put it in the Bill. In reinforcement of the argument may I remind the hon. member of another Bill where the Select Committee agreed to put it in the Bill, and as a result of the intervention of the Public Service Commission I shall have to ask the Committee to frame it in a different way. There was a danger of the Minister having to set the standard. I don’t want to set the standard even for English, and I would certainly hesitate to say what is the standard required for Afrikaans.

I do not think the hon. Minister understands our attitude. I take it that there are certain people in the employ of the Government, whether temporary or otherwise, whom the Public Service Commission does not appoint.

Not these. I know you are thinking of inspectors. I am prepared to do something there. But this would be telling the Public Service Commission that they do not know their job.

It says here that the Minister may appoint an officer. The “officer” will have to be bilingual. But when you get to the inspectors and the people appointed by the Minister, the Minister will not insist on such conditions.

But they are officers.

You appoint such officers as you may deem necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act. That includes “officers”.

No, these are officers. The “officer” in the second paragraph is in the same category as the officer who shall be appointed registrar. It really means this, that whoever may be required to carry out the provisions of the Act will already be public officers whom I appoint. I do not appoint them as officers; they must be officers already in the Public Service, officers already on the establishment, who have been appointed as officers by the Public Service Commission.

Is there a clause dealing with the appointment of these people?

Yes.

Amendment put and rejected.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

On Clause 4,

In Clause 4 (2) (b) we find the following provision—

I do not want a racial debate on this subject, and I therefore move the following admendment—

In the first place I am afraid to give this right of differentiation to any person. In dealing with this type of case, every one should be treated more or less on the same basis, and we should not give the right to the Minister or anyone else to differentiate because it will eventually lead to difficulties. The Minister will ultimately have the right to do anything in this connection if he is given the right to differentiate. I feel, therefore, that the whole sub-clause should be deleted, and I therefore move accordingly.

I trust the Minister is not going to accept this amendment. This provision in the Bill is an ordinary provision of our industrial legislation; and I assume that it is for that reason that it is being put into this Act. I feel that as a matter of fact the hon. member is weakening his own general platform which is to get European workers in this country into industry, if he insists that the Minister should have power to differentiate on grounds of race or colour.

I do not want to differentiate at all.

It is our experience in the process of our legislation in this country that it is necessary that we should have this guarantee in our law, that this ground shall not be one which can be used. If the thing were left completely open, it would probably be possible for the Minister to differentiate on these grounds, and the Courts would probably uphold him. I feel that there is a safeguard in this for all sections of the population, and I hope the Minister will not alter it.

I want to point out that as this clause reads now these Committees can consist of people of different races and colours. You can have coloured men, Indians and natives on them because no distinction is to be made on the ground of colour. Such a committee can reprimand and suspend apprentices, which will mean that a European youngster may be suspended by natives or Indians. This is entirely in conflict with the outlook of the Afrikaner section of this country and I want to support the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren).

Was ever a Minister in a more difficult position and between Scylla and Charybdis? The one wants to say definitely by legal enactment, that colour shall be squelched. The other wants the field thrown wide open. Well I want to steer a middle course.

Does that mean that you are not going to change this?

And that is what I have done here. In these days when South Africa claims to be progressive, is it right that we should put into an Act something or rather leave out of the Act something which in effect says: “You shall not allow coloureds or natives to progress”? I cannot subscribe to that, and I do ask hon. members on that side to be a little more generous in their examination of this position. Do not always be endeavouring to oppress the natives and the coloured people. As a matter of fact, the fear expressed by the hon. gentleman that coloureds would be likely to sit in judgment over Europeans, is groundless; that is not likely to happen. I know of a case in the baking industry—I think the hon. member for Piketberg (Dr. Malan) mentioned it—where coloured people sit on the industrial council.

They put out all the Europeans.

Fortunately or unfortunately, as the case may be, that industry is very largely coloured. I think you have got to face that fact. I do hope that we will not do anything of so restrictive a character in this Bill by removing that proviso, and I must agree with the hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) that it should remain in the clause.

I do not think the hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) really understood my argument. I said definitely that I did not want any racial discussion on this matter. I did not move that that section should be taken out altogether in order to differentiate on the ground of race or colour. What I object to is the first part of the section which says that the Minister has the right to discriminate; he need not in any trade or calling treat everyone the same. He can differentiate, and that was my objection. If this clause is taken out there is no need to have that portion in in regard to race or colour because the Minister would not have power to discriminate at all. I asked for this power to be taken out. I feel that even if the section is taken out, there may still be discrimination. There is more than one way of killing a cat. I feel that it is our duty as far as possible in drawing up these laws to see that there is no power of discrimination at all, whether it be on the ground of race or colour or on any other ground, and that is why I move that this clause be deleted.

I cannot agree with the Minister. Two members are appointed by the trade unions and two by the employers. The trade unions do not recognise any colour differentiation and consequently coloured men will be appointed on these committees. You may have coloured men, natives and Europeans working in a particular industry, and coloured men may be appointed to the committees because the Minister is not allowed to differentiate. I can really see a serious danger in this because, as I see it, it means that non-Europeans will exercise control over white boys.

The hon. member is under a misapprehension. For what it is worth, natives are not recognised as employees.

What about coloureds?

Coloureds are. But my hon. friend was worried more particularly about natives.

All round— natives and coloureds.

You cannot tell a trade union or an employers’ organisation that they must select from this, that or the other group. You have to leave it to them. My hon. friend’s argument dealt with the appointees of trade unions. Is not that so?

Yes.

Well, you cannot say who they should appoint any more than I can tell the Nationalist Party whom they should put up as candidates to come into Parliament. Surely the employers’ and the employees’ organisations have the right to select their own representatives.

After the statement by the Minister of Labour we want to lodge a serious protest against the attitude adopted by him. As this Clause reads, it does not refer to the personnel of the committees. The proviso reads as follows—

The Minister has been trying to give the House the impression throughout that it was a mistaken idea to say that such a committee would be constituted of different races, but he now says that that may happen. If a trade union recommends coloured men as members of the committee, they have to serve on it, and that will mean that those apprenticeship committees, which will also consist of coloured people, will have to decide what is to happen to white youngsters. If the Minister introduces that principle here, he will be introducing an element which will lead to a lot of friction and it will lead to a recurrence of what has already happened on the Witwatersrand. It is because we want to avoid that sort of thing that we want to make sure that non-Europeans shall not have a say over Europeans. We do not want to have non-Europeans on committees which will exercise control over European boys. If that is the Minister’s explanation, as I deduced from what he said, then we are going to fight this to the last ditch. Are we to take it that the Minister is going to allow nonEuropeans to be appointed to these committees? Is he willing to allow a clash and an outburst to take place? This matter touches a fundamental principle, and because it is a fundamental principle we are prepared to fight it to the bitter end.

According to Clause 27 such a committee can take action and can suspend or reprimand a white boy, and there is a possibility of his being suspended by a committee constituted entirely of coloured people. Let me put this to the Minister— if he had a son employed in such an industry would he tolerate a committee of coloured people reprimanding and suspending his son? It is in direct conflict with the feelings of the Europeans in South Africa, and we must insist on this situation being rectified, so that Europeans will be judged by Europeans only, and that Europeans will also deal with coloured people, and that coloured people will deal only with other coloured people and not with Europeans.

The reason for this clause apparently is that there may be consultation between the Minister, or there shall be consultation between the Minister and trade unions. There is ample protection in the clause for the maintenance of the democratic principle. It says the Minister “shall” consult before he puts into practice any of the things he is empowered to do under this particular section. He “shall” consult. These people are afraid that “shall” is too strong when it comes to consultation with the trade unions. I for one am perfectly satisfied that if the Minister is reasonable—and one cannot do anything about that ultimately; the Minister has to be reasonable; you cannot make him reasonable if he is not—but if the Minister is reasonable surely he will listen to the people whom he consults and obviously he will not do anything against the considered and expert advice he gets. I am perfectly satisfied that under the present arrangements this is the only thing we can do to safeguard the present position, and I want to say very strongly that I heartily agree that trade unions should always be consulted by any Minister when it comes to any particular trade for which those trade unions cater. They are experts, if anyone is an expert, and their advice will be wise advice, and if the Minister is reasonable, that is all that is wanted.

I would like to know this from the hon. Minister. In Sub-clause 4 of Clause 4, it is stated that “the Minister may assign to any committee an officer …” That officer, I take it, will be a civil servant?

Yes.

He will be bilingual. But it states further—

There is no qualification there in regard to bilingualism. I want to know whether the Minister will be prepared to accept the following amendment—

I will accept that.

I am sorry the Minister did not answer the question I asked him. I asked him very clearly whether he held out the prospect of our having committees with non-Europeans as members— coloured people or Indians. It is a vital principle so far as we are concerned, and we want to have an assurance from the Minister. If we cannot get that assurance we shall have to oppose this clause. If the Minister is not prepared to accept the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) to delete the whole of Sub-clause B, if he wants to retain the right of discrimination—which I do not think he should do—then I am going to move that the whole proviso which I have just quoted be deleted. I therefore move—

It is a very dangerous thing to lay it down in a legal provision that the Minister shall in no circumstances differentiate on the ground of race or colour. He may find himself in a position where he considers that there must be differentiation because circumstances require it in order to preserve peace and order in the country and also in order to maintain the correct relationship between European and non-European; yet under this provision he will be powerless if he has not got the right to do so. I do not think the Minister of Labour realises the danger there is in this proviso. It is like à bomb underneath his bed, and he should realise the menace in good time. I again want to appeal to the Minister of Labour and I want to ask him, even if he is not prepared to delete the whole sub-clause, at any rate to agree to drop the proviso. Let him give us the assurance that there will be no non-Europeans on these committees together with Europeans.

I am surprised at the hon. member for Germiston (Mr. Payne) agreeing with the Minister. I think he ought to realise that the relationship between the races in Germiston has already caused a lot of trouble, and that that trouble is not yet over. And there it wasn’t even a question of the committees—it was a question of Europeans and non-Europeans working alongside of each other. I want to lodge a most emphatic protest against such a clause being passed. If this sort of thing happens, it will have repercussions which will be much worse than the condition of affairs which we have already had on the Rand.

I fail to understand how a Minister can allow himself to be tied hand and foot by a clause of this kind. It simply means that he cannot differentiate. In the Western Province it may perhaps not be so palpable, but in the northern provinces, in the Free State, for instance, a position may arise resulting in feelings running high so that the Minister may consider it necessary to differentiate and not have non-Europeans appointed to those committees as such would cause a lot of unpleasantness. Under this clause he would not be able to do so. Perhaps the Minister does not fully realise the feeling there is on this colour question, especially in the Free State. I can assure him that if he accepts this clause, preventing him from differentiating in certain instances, and compelling him to have Europeans and nonEuropeans on the same committee, it will cause a commotion among the public, not only in the Free State but also in other parts of the country. I appeal to the Minister, therefore, not to allow himself to be bound hand and foot by a clause of this kind.

Question put: That all the words from “under” in line 20 down to and including “advisable” in lines 21 and 22, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the clause.

Upon which the Committee divided:

Ayes—66:

Abbott, C. B. M.

Abrahamson, H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Bawden, W.

Bell, R. E.

Bosman, J. C.

Bosman, L. P.

Bowker, T. B.

Burnside, D. C.

Carinus, J. G.

Christie, J.

Christopher, R. M.

Cilliers, H. J.

Clark, C. W.

Connan, J. M.

Davis, A.

De Kock, P. H.

De Wet, H. C.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, A. C.

Eksteen, H. O.

Faure, J. C.

Fourie, J. P.

Gray, T. P.

Hayward, G. N.

Henny, G. E. J.

Higgerty, J. W.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hopf, F.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Latimer, A.

Lawrence, H. G.

Madeley, W. B.

Miles-Cadman, C. F.

Molteno, D. B.

Morris, J. W. H.

Mushet, J. W.

Neate, C.

Payn, A. O. B.

Pocock, P. V.

Prinsloo, W. B. J.

Raubenheimer, L. J.

Robertson, R. B.

Russell, J. H.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Sonnenberg, M.

Steytler, L. J.

Stratford, J. R. F.

Sullivan, J. R.

Sutter, G. J.

Tighy, S. J.

Ueckermann, K.

Van Niekerk, H. J. L.

Van Onselen, W. S.

Waring, F. W.

Warren, C. M.

Waterson, S. F.

Williams, H. J,

Wolmarans, J. B.

Tellers: G. A. Friend and W. B. Humphreys.

Noes—22:

Bekker, G. F. H.

Boltman, F. H.

Brink, W. D.

Conradie, J. H.

Erasmus, H. S.

Klopper, H. J.

Le Roux, J. N.

Ludick, A. I.

Luttig, P. J. H.

Malan, D. F.

Olivier, P. J.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Potgieter, J. E.

Serfontein, J. J.

Stals, A. J.

Steyn, A.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Warren, S. E.

Wessels, C. J. O.

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

Question accordingly affirmed and the first amendment proposed by Mr. S. E. Warren negatived.

Question put: That the proviso to Paragraph (b) of Sub-section (2), proposed to be omitted, stand part of the clause.

Upon which the Committee divided:

Ayes—69:

Abbott, C. B. M.

Abrahamson, H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Bawden, W.

Bell, R. E.

Bosman, J. C.

Bosman, L. P.

Bowker, T. B.

Burnside, D. C.

Carinus, J. G.

Christie, J.

Christopher, R. M.

Cilliers, H. J.

Clark, C. W.

Connan, J. M.

Davis, A.

De Kock, P. H.

De Wet, H. C.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, A. C.

Du Toit, R. J.

Eksteen, H. O.

Faure, J. C.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedman, B.

Gluckman, H.

Gray, T. P.

Hayward, G. N.

Henny, G. E. J.

Higgerty, J. W.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hopf, F.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Latimer, A.

Lawrence, H. G.

Madeley, W. B.

Miles-Cadman, C. F.

Molteno, D. B.

Morris, J. W. H.

Mushet, J. W.

Neate, C.

Payn, A. O. B.

Pocock, P. V.

Prinsloo, W. B. J.

Raubenheimer, L. J.

Robertson, R. B.

Russell, J. H.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Sonnenberg, M.

Steytler, L. J.

Stratford, J. R. F.

Sullivan, J. R.

Sutter, G. J.

Tighy, S. J.

Ueckermann, K.

Van Niekerk. H. J. L.

Van Onselen, W. S.

Waring, F. W.

Warren, C. M.

Waterson, S. F.

Williams, H. J.

Wolmarans, J. B.

Tellers: G. A. Friend and W. B. Humphreys.

Noes—24:

Bekker, G. F. H.

Boltman, F. H.

Brink, W. D.

Conradie, J. H.

Erasmus, H. S.

Klopper, H. J.

Le Roux, J. N.

Ludick, A. I.

Luttig, P. J. H.

Malan, D. F.

Olivier, P. J.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Potgieter, J. E.

Serfontein, J. J.

Stals, A. J.

Steyn, A.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Swart, C. R.

Warren, S. E.

Werth, A. J.

Wessels, C. J. O.

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

Question accordingly affirmed and the amendment proposed by Mr. Serfontein negatived.

Remaining amendment proposed by Mr. S. E. Warren put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 5,

I am very sorry that this clause has not been put the other way round so that representation will not only be given to the two interested parties, viz., the employers and the employees, but so that the State will also be represented. There is an official who is appointed by the Minister, but the committees to all intents and purposes are the bodies which rule the admission of apprentices, and thus the constitution of the committee may still be the cause of many deserving cases being kept out. We do not, however, object to that so much, because we feel that as a result of the Minister’s concession we now have a National Board and that people who want to sign up as apprentices, and who are not admitted, will have the right to appeal to the Apprenticeship Board. We now feel that there is protection, so that the “closed shop” is cut out. As the clause stands, it is possible for the two parties to come together and to decide to admit only certain people as apprentices. We are satisfied, however, because there is an appeal to the National Board, but these committees can be so constituted as to include Europeans, nonEuropeans, Indians, coloured people and natives as members, and we feel that that is a wrong principle. We feel that the committee must be constituted entirely of Europeans. We want the control of industries to remain in the hands of the Europeans, and I therefore move—

This question was to a certain extent dealt with on a previous clause, and the Minister then said that there was a misunderstanding. But now we come to this clause and here there can be no misunderstanding. Here we come to the actual constitution of the committees, and I want to urge the Minister to get up and tell us clearly and unequivocally what his attitude is. We are dealing here with the actual constitution of the committees, and our proposal is that these committees are to consist of Europeans. The reason why we propose this is because we want to prevent a condition of affairs under which nonEuropeans will be on committees and will have control over the admission of Europeans into industries, and will control the whole future life of these Europeans. It is because we cannot tolerate this that we move this amendment. Whether the Minister and his supporters want to know it or not, you have to preserve a certain amount of separateness in South Africa and we cannot allow the non-Europeans to dominate the Europeans. The Europeans are the guardians of the non-Europeans and not the other way round. If you allow the nonEuropeans to have a say over the Europeans you turn the tables and you place the guardianship over the Europeans into the hands of the non-Europeans. I want to warn the Minister. I asked the Minister on a previous occasion during this debate to be considerate especially in regard to fundamental questions, and I am making a special appeal to him now to meet us here, because if he doesn’t do so, he will be laying the foundation for serious clashes in days to come. I do not know whether we have any precedent in this country under which the Minister himself has to carry out the law and also has to be chairman of the Board in whose hands the administration of the law has been placed. As the Minister will now be responsible to the people for the administration of the law in his capacity of Minister and Chairman of the Board, he should remember that if any conflicts or clashes arise as the result of the provisions of this Bill, the responsibility for such conflicts will be placed on him. What we are asking for is something very reasonable, and I am convinced that if hon. members opposite could speak and vote in accordance with their feelings on this subject, many of them would vote on our side, in order to avoid those conflicts and in order to maintain sound relations between Europeans and non-Europeans in this country. It is because the position is such a serious one that I want to ask the Minister not to remain silent, but to make a frank statement and to put his position clearly. There is no middle course. The Minister must say either that he is going to have non-Europeans on the committees or that he agrees with us. The Minister must take up a definite attitude. I appeal to him to maintain the principle of the guardianship of the white man over the nonEuropean, and not the other way round.

It is quite evident from sub-clause (b) that the idea is to preserve equality of representation on the Apprenticeship Committee, equality between the employers and the trade unions, but that equality can be disturbed by the chairman. It therefore depends on the disposition of the chairman whether he leans to one side or to the other. I would therefore suggest that the Minister consider the advisability of appointing a chairman who belongs to neither a trade union or to an employers’ union. We should have an assurance from the Minister that he will take care when appointing a chairman that he does not belong to either of these. I would suggest the addition of the words “who shall not be a member, and who shall not be in the employ of an employers’ organisation or a trades union.” If we have that additional safeguard, either by an amendment or by an enunciation by the Minister that impartiality will be assured, and that we shall have equal representation of the employers’ representatives and the trades unions’ representatives presided over by a man who is entirely neutral, we can be satisfied. I feel that it is not an unreasonable request.

I hope the hon. Minister will take note of our request. If he allows non-Europeans to be appointed to these committees, the effect will be most demoralising. Can one imagine white men going hat in hand to a committee, some of whose members are non-European? It is humiliating. The Minister should realise the danger and accept our amendment. Any white man who is in favour of segregation will realise the danger and will favour our amendment. Before voting on this clause we want an assurance from the Minister that he accepts this. It is a matter of importance to both sections of the community, European and non-European. We do not want to deprive the non-Europeans of any rights; we do not want to deprive them of the opportunity of earning their livelihood; but we are in favour of segregation, separteness, so that every man can earn his living apart from the other race. The dividing line between European and non-European must be maintained. In Australia they tried the other system, and they gave the non-Europeans the same rights as the Europeans had. After years they found out that this was quite wrong, and that they had done an injustice to the non-Europeans in particular by allowing them to have the same rights and privileges as the Europeans. The whole social order was dislocated, with the result that the aborigines have almost entirely disappeared. If we apply the principle laid down in this Bill, we are doing an injustice to the non-Europeans. Give them the opportunity to develop in their own sphere and in their own way, but lay it down that only Europeans are to be appointed to chose committees to deal with matters affecting other Europeans.

I again want to draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that Clause 27 of the Bill clearly states that if an apprentice, a white apprentice, does anything wrong he is brought before the committee. The committee may quite possibly consist of a mixture of coloured people, Europeans and Indians, so that white apprentices will have to appear before a committee composed of coloured people and Indians. It is in conflict with our Afrikaner traditions, and we are not going to tolerate it. If my son or my daughter is trained as an apprentice and has to be judged by Indians or coloureds it will cause a lot of ill-feeling. I am afraid the Minister has already compromised himself to such an extent, that he finds it practically impossible to make any further concessions. We know what his attitude was in regard to putting telegraph messengers— whites and coloured—on a basis of equality, and we know what his attitude was in regard to the strike at Germiston. In the Transvaal and in the Free State especially, where the coloured people have not got as many privileges as they have here, a position like that is not going to be tolerated. In Cape Town you find coloured people occupying any seats in the buses, but the Europeans don’t sit next to them—they automatically take other seats. Now the Minister is going to aggravate the position. He is going to give the coloured people a say over the white girls and boys, in conflict with the traditions of the Voortrekkers. We have had experience of the feelings of the Dominionites in regard to Indian infiltration. As soon as a question of colour arises, there is trouble. I am surprised that the Dominionites do not support us. Apparently they only think of Natal, but we think strongly on this question. The policy of the old Voortrekkers in Natal was that if a native had committed a crime, he was punished in the native country. And if a white man had done anything wrong in the native area, he was sent back and punished by white people. They never allowed a white man to be dealt with and sentenced by natives. If you do that you look for trouble. When I was in Wakkerstroom, where there is a by-election in progress, I found that this matter was one of the burning questions among the farmers—this question of the equality of white and coloured. We already find that on the trains, coloured men in uniform have the same privileges as my wife has, for instance, and now the Minister is going a step further, by subjecting the white child to the judgment of non-Europeans. It will have repercussions right throughout the country and I want to warn the Minister. I support the amendment: The white man must remain the master of the non-European.

I hope the Minister will not accept this amendment. I hope he will accept the amendment standing in my name and which I now move—

1. (iv) the members appointed to represent the employers’ organization and the trade union shall be persons who are actively engaged in the industry in respect of which the committe has been established.

Why make fish of one and flesh of another.

I feel that the constitution of these committees is badly balanced, and that whilst the employers and the trade unions are represented, neither the public nor the prospective apprentices are represented. That is why I move that these committees should be enlarged by bringing in representations of the Juvenile Affairs Board. They are, after all, a representative body, not alone representing the public but also these very apprentices which the committee has to deal with. I think the public are entitled to that representation. You have accepted the principle in this new Clause 3 (a), where the public has representation. I do hope that this principle of wider representation will be brought about. It will not disturb the equality of representation if you add two to represent the trade unions, two of the employers and two of the Juvenile Affairs Board. Then the second part of my amendment which has been tabled is that the members appointed to represent the employers and the trade unions shall be persons who are actively engaged in the industry in respect of which the committee has been established. While I am absolutely a protagonist for trade unionism, while I believe in well organised and well managed trade unions, there are some trade unions which are in the hands of secretaries and executives who are a real danger to the trade union movement.

And to the public.

Yes, and to the public, and I feel that some of these people should not be entrusted with the future of our youth. In some trade unions you have secretaries and executives who are far more interested in their own welfare than in the welfare of the workers, and I say such trade unions so constituted should not hold the destiny of our youths in their hands. I think the Minister will receive this very favourably, because I would like to quote from a speech he made in Durban in 1940 at a Labour congress. The Minister then said—

I would like to know if the Minister is still of the same opinion that we have to protect the public and the apprentices from the influence of these people who control some of the unions.

It is coming home to roost.

Who wrote that?

The Minister, Mr. Madeley, said that on the 25th March, 1940, at Durban. This was in a speech he made at his congress. I would like to know if he still believes that the public are entitled to that protection from these agitators and professional secretaries who have only their own interests and not the interests of the workers at heart. I hope the Minister will protect us and help us to see that something is done for the real protection of our youths whose future cannot be entrusted to some of these executives.

The hon. member wants you to put in a capitalist representative.

I am afraid my hon. friend is doomed to disappointment. Now I want to reply to my hon. friend, the member for Boshof (Mr. Serfontein). He wants me to adopt one thing or the other, he leaves me no alternative, no middle course, he wants me either to declare for coloured or for white.

That you cannot do.

Of course not, neither can you.

Why not?

Because you will vitiate all the protestations of the past, especially that of the hon. member for Piketberg (Dr. Malan), who said that the coloured man has his place in the Union of South Africa. Don’t let us be hypocritical about it, let us be straightforward.

[Inaudible].

I doubt whether the hon. member for Albert-Colesberg (Mr. Boltman) is sufficiently well qualified to discuss this from either point of view. The hon. member is noted for his attacks upon myself. He must forgive me if at last the worm turns. Nobody knows better than hon. members on that side of the House that in certain parts of this country certain portions of a trade are almost, if not wholly, in the hands of coloured people.

Furniture making.

I am coming to that, furniture making in which hon. members on that side take a big interest. They do not object to coloured men manufacturing furniture for them, but God forbid, they say in effect, that the coloured people in that industry shall themselves decide and control their own business. Is that fair? I am appealing to the conception of fairness which I believe some hon. members over there possess. If I put in here that the chairman or any member of the Apprenticeship Committee shall be European, I am acting unfairly to that coloured section who are interested in this industry in any particular part of the country, and that is why the Minister must decide who shall be the chairman of the board without any restriction as to colour. Let me say to the hon. gentleman over there, who is so much worried about the North, up there the apprentices in industry are entirely white. Now then, here comes my discretion. If you have a European industry, naturally both the members and the chairman will be European entirely, but where you have coloured people entirely it is very natural that they should not have imposed upon them a European to control their business.

Why not say so?

I am saying so. Surely to goodness you are not going to have a whole clause laid down with all this in it, saying that where there is a coloured community it shall be a coloured chairman. The coloured people themselves may advise me to select and appoint a European chairman. They may do that, and in many cases the probability is that they will.

You do not know the coloured people.

My hon. friends don’t hestitate to have their furniture made by coloured people.

What we don’t want is a mixed committee.

You allow them to deal with you directly in the manufacture of your own furniture and in many other things.

Why not come to the point about the mixed committee?

What about the mixed household?

You mean the servant? You call that a mixed household?

The servant nurses your children; you have no objection to that; but I will take another occasion to make reference to that, when you make your long awaited attack upon me in the estimates.

What is the long awaited attack?

On colour.

You have a conscience.

The hon. member is the last man in the world to talk about a conscience. I now come to the hon. member for South Peninsula (Mr. Sonnenberg), who has had an unfortunate experience from his point of view. On the principle of the devil quoting scripture, the hon. member has quoted a speech that I made, and every word of which I adhere to. Now what was that speech directed to? It was directed to trade unions to put their house in order. The hon. member is very much concerned because he has had what he feels to be an unfortunate experience with a particular trade union.

I did not say anything about my own experience. I said some of the trade unions had executives who were only interested in themselves.

All right, if my hon. friend did not seek to give that impression, I accept his assurance and I withdraw the remark I made with regard to it. The point is this, that on that occasion I wanted the trade unions to draw their officials from their own ranks.

Very sound advice, Walter.

Yes, very sound advice. The trade unions have complete freedom of action. Does the hon. gentleman presume to lay down instructions to an employers’ organisation? Does he go along to his Chamber of Commerce and say: “You are not to select so-and-so to represent you”? Certainly not. He would receive a considerable amount of castigation from his fellow members of the Chamber of Commerce if he tried to say to them that they should not have so-and-so to represent them upon such-and-such a body. The trade union or the employers’ organisation concerned, are the best people to decide who shall represent them. The speech that I made is one where I was advising the trade unions to do what was the right thing, in my estimation, but I had not the right to impose my opinion upon them, and certainly I will not have anything in the law, at any rate with my consent, which imposes upon them my will as to who shall represent them. I cannot accept any of the amendments.

Will the Minister reply to the question of wider representation?

We on this side of the House have always been under the impression that there are only a few Ministers in the Cabinet who are colour-blind, and we had always hoped that the leader of the Labour Party, the Minister of Labour, would not be easily infected by the ideas of the Minister of Finance in regard to the colour question. We expected a lot of him when he joined the Cabinet; we expected him to have the interests of the workers at heart, and we expected him to introduce legislation in the interests of the white workers in particular, because he is a white man, and I do not believe that he differs from us in our conception that the white man in South Africa is the guardian of the non-European. We want to protect the interests of the white man, and at the same time we realise that we are the guardians of the non-European. The attitude which we adopt on this side of the house is that we want to maintain the guardianship of the white man over the non-European. But we are now told by the Minister of Labour that that is not what he wants, because this proposal of his amounts to this; that non-Europeans on these apprenticeship committees will have control over Europeans. I ask hon. members who can think clearly about a matter of this kind what we are to think of the argument used by the Minister of Labour against the amendment proposed by us with the best intentions in the world to this clause. His argument is that non-Europeans look after our children. It is a ridiculous and childish argument and we did not expect it from him. If I have a native or a coloured man in my service, I don’t make him the master of my family. In my family he remains “Jim”, and he looks after my children because I pay him for it. But if the Minister introduces a Bill of this kind, and if he appoints apprenticeship committees containing a number of non-Europeans, then it means that those non-Europeans dominate the European. That is what it amounts to and we do not expect the Minister to come forward with such childish arguments. We protest against this clause, and we protest against the Minister’s attitude and we want to appeal to him and to hon. members opposite to see that fair play and justice are done to all sections of the community; to see that the white man maintains his guardianship in this country, and not to allow legislation of this kind to be passed under which powers such as these are given to the Minister, by which non-Europeans will be the masters of white children. If we put the non-Europeans in such a position of power as against the whites, the Minister should remember that the Afrikaans-speaking section of the population is very sensitive in regard to a question of this kind.

And the English-speaking section too.

Yes, particularly in Natal, where the colour question is also causing a lot of trouble and where a violent onslaught is being conducted against the Government because it refuses to stop the infiltration of Indians, with the result that white areas are getting into the hands of non-Europeans. Instead of the Government availing itself of the opportunity to prevent such things, we find the Minister of Labour introducing a Bill such as this in which the colour line is not drawn and in which he even goes further and makes it possible for non-Europeans to become the masters of European children. Can the Minister mention any instances of reasonable Europeans having served on such committees and having failed to do justice to the non-Europeans—can the Minister mention any instances where the interests of the non-Europeans have not been properly looked after? The Minister used another argument. He said that we allowed our furniture to be made by non-Europeans. What is wrong with that? The non-Europeans are doing all kinds of good work in this country, and if committees of Europeans are appointed, those committees will look after the interests of the non-European workers, and the Minister cannot prove that such a committee will fail to protect those coloured furniture makers. The Minister’s argument was a childish one. All of us as responsible and Christian people have protected the interest’s of the non-Europeans on those committees, and we have at the same time seen to it that white civilisation in South Africa is being preserved. If we allow the Government to take this step and if we permit non-Europeans to become the masters of white children, we shall be endangering the very existence of white civilisation in this country. We shall make it possible for the coloured people to sit in judgment on the whites. White representatives, who stand for right and justice for all sections of the community cannot possibly tolerate this. We want to make a final appeal to the Minister of Labour and to every hon. member opposite to support us in this connection, and to vote for our amendment, so that in future only Europeans will serve on these committees.

I am not colourblind. My forefathers were guardians of the non-Europeans in this country. My opinion is that my forefathers have always treated the natives and the coloured people fairly in this country. I do not see my way clear to vote for this clause as it stands. I do not find any fault with the amendment of the Opposition. I am absolutely opposed to equality. During the past few days in this House it seemed that many representatives were pleading for equality. I am against equality, and I do not see my way clear to vote for this clause as it stands.

What I intended saying to the Minister of Labour has just been confirmed by the remarks of the hon. member for Losberg (Mr. Wolmarans). I do not want to make party propaganda out of what he said. But I want to put it this way, that latterly we have had a development in South Africa which gives us reason to think that there are people who are prepared to make a hybrid country of South Africa. We have the bitter example that within the Cabinet of the Union there are at least two Ministers who are in favour of equality, namely, the Minister of Labour and the Minister of the Interior. I want to allow the hon. Minister of Finance a little latitude because I think his brain always rules his feelings. His feelings may be in favour of equality, but his intellect prevents him from saying so. But the Minister of Labour made a surprising statement here this morning. He does not hesitate to say that he is willing to make the chairman of the apprenticeship committee a non-European. What does that mean other than equality? What does it mean other than placing Europeans in a subordinate position to non-Europeans? What else can it mean? Let me say this to the Minister that no decent European will take part in the deliberations of those apprenticeship committees if a kaffir or a coloured is the chairman. The hon. member who has just spoken, spoke as a child of the Voortrekkers who wants to keep this country a white man’s country, but the Minister of Labour who comes here from goodness knows where, cannot understand the Afrikaner community. If he allows that sort of thing, it is the end of the European’s policy in South Africa. The Minister wants to have the legal right to appoint non-Europeans to these apprenticeship committees, and also to make the chairman of the committees a non-European. That means that the white man will have to subject himself to the decision of the coloured chairman. He will be the boss, and the Europeans who give evidence before the committee, will have to go hat in hand to a non-European. The Minister now advances the argument that we live side by side with coloured people inasmuch as they are our servants in our homes and because they look after our children. Has there ever been greater misrepresentation? The hon. member for Green Point (Mr. Bowen) stated in this House that we allow coloured people to travel with us on the same horse cart. What a foolish argument! While the coloured person sits next to me on the cart—and I admit that it happens—I am there as his boss and he as my servant (diensbode), as we put it in Afrikaans. On this committee he will serve as my equal, but not only that, the Minister goes to the length of appointing him as my superior— he is made the boss of Europeans. That is what you are doing here. I want to tell the Minister this morning that if there is one man who is engaged in inciting South Africa and in making the position between Europeans and non-Europeans difficult, it is the Minister of Labour, together with the native representatives and the Minister of the Interior. That is why the Afrikaans-speaking labourers in Johannesburg do not want to have anything to do with him. He is engaged in bringing about a coloured South Africa— a coffee coloured nation. That will be the practical effect of his policy. We are concerned about these things, because with him, in the same Cabinet, is the Minister of the Interior, who held it against us that we allowed our non-European servants to sleep in a room in the backyard. He wants them to sleep in the same house as we do. We are expected to give them a room in our homes. Our daughters or sons are expected to sleep in one room while non-European servants sleep in the adjoining room, inside our homes. That is the policy which they are propagating. That is the policy to which they subscribe. And I want to tell the Minister that he knows the position in regard to industrial development in South Africa as well as I do, if not better. The strikes which we have had in South Africa had their origin for the greater part in the competition between Europeans and non-Europeans. We had, for example, the case of Mrs. Moll and Mrs. Nel, which had its origin in the same principle. I want to tell the Minister that he is playing with fire. He must not think that he is rendering the non-Europeans a service. People like he and the Minister of the Interior and the native representatives in this House, and people with the mentality of the Minister of Finance, will be the cause of clashes in South Africa between Europeans and non-Europeans. In fighting to prevent those clashes, we do so not because we bear the non-Europeans any malice. We do not bear malice towards any man because his skin is not the same colour as our own. We are fighting for the preservation of European civilisation, and we are prepared, therefore, to fight to the bitter end.

The hon. Minister need not take all this talk very seriously, because it is meant for Wakkerstroom; nothing else. Let us take the history of our friends opposite.

What about your own history?

Who was the party in South Africa to appoint a black man as a commissioner of oaths in this country? It was always laid down that a Commissioner of Oaths or a Justice of the Peace should be a white man. Who was the first party to appoint a black man as a Commissioner of Oaths? The white man had to take his oath in front of a Commissioner of Oaths who was a black man.

I do not believe it.

The Nationalist Party. Mr. Tielman Roos, when he was Minister of Justice under the Nationalist Party Government appointed the first black man as Commissioner of Oaths in this country.

For natives only.

When the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) stood for Parliament in 1926, who were the people who were on his platform?

You always attack people when they are out of the House.

Who were on the platform? Le Grange and Smidt and a native by the name of Masabalala.

You are talking nonsense.

That is history. I wrote these things down. There was a black man on his platform.

Why do you not say that when the hon. member is here? You always attack people as soon as they are out of the House.

My friends have attacked the Minister of Labour. I want to tell them that the Minister of Labour has never had a coloured man on his platform.

Do you want a coloured committee or don’t you?

Just take your medicine. Don’t be in a hurry. Who is the Minister of the Crown who got up in this country and said: “One thing you must do is to give the coloured people a vote?” The leader of the Nationalist Party.

“Twak”.

“Twak” but “sterk twak”.

And you chew it.

Order, order!

I do not mind being interrupted by fools. When our friends on the other side talk about the coloured question, I always think of the time when I was a boy, when the majority of the workers on the platteland were white men. What happened to those white men? They drove the white men off the farms so that they could employ cheap coloured labour.

That is nonsense.

How many white men do you find on the farms today? All their servants are black men. No, Sir, it is pure hypocrisy; nothing else. My friend, the Minister of Labour, will not be disturbed by this loose talk. He is an old campaigner. To say that the Minister of Labour is causing a fight between white and black in this country is nonsense. The Minister has had a policy for many years and he has stood by it— separation between white and black in this country. That was his policy and it was broken down by the Nationalist Party.

Nonsense.

What is the good of our friends talking? I have visited many factories in Johannesburg and I have seen Afrikaans-speaking workers and English-speaking workers working side by side with coloured workers and there is no trouble. There is no trouble because those workers have not got the inferiority complex which my hon. friends have got.

You have a Wakkerstroom complex.

My friend is the son of a rich man. He has never worked, but the Minister and I have been through the mill and we are not afraid of black trade unions. We know that the white trade unions will uphold the prestige of the white workers of this country. The Minister has followed this policy of his consistently. He has been hanged for it; he has been drawn for it …

And you will be, too.

My friends have never been hanged, but I am not so certain that we are not going to hang them after the war. The Minister has fought for the whites in this country for 40 years. For the hon. member for Albert-Colesberg (Mr. Boltman) to get up and say that the Minister is bringing about a conflict between white and black in South Africa is wholly dishonest and unfair.

Order, order!

The hon. member must withdraw the word “dishonest”.

I will withdraw the word “dishonest”.

I do not mind it coming from you.

I say it is wholly unfair to attack the Minister. Now I want to come for a moment to the hon. gentleman on my own side. He is laying down the principle that the workers must not appoint their own leaders. He would like to have his own little trade union to appoint the leaders. But I want to tell him that those days are gone. You can never recapture those days. They are gone and the trade unions and the working class in this country are not going to allow anyone to appoint their own leaders. The history of this country has shown that, and what is more, they have appointed particularly good trade union leaders in South Africa. The trade union leaders in this country are as good as anywhere else in the world. I remember the time when even Mr. Ivan Walker was called an agitator. He was called an agitator by my friend. And he was one of the best trade union leaders we have had in this country. Those days of appointing leaders for the workers are gone, and just as those days are gone, so the days are gone when my hon. friends can say who shall be the chairman of the Apprenticeship Board. My friends need not talk about coloureds and Europeans working together. When I go about in the Western Province, I am surprised to see how many factories there are which were erected with the money of those hon. gentlemen, in which all the workers are coloured workers. There is no one who appoints more coloured workers than my hon. friends on that side.

Rubbish.

What about the factories at George? Has my hon. friend ever been to the factories at George? Does he know how many coloured workers there are in those factories? Let him go to those factories and tell them to get rid of the coloured workers and the coloured furniture makers. The point is that the coloured man is now taking his place in industry. He is entitled to appoint his own leaders. My friends know it. They close their eyes, but in their hearts they know that every word I said here is true. Perhaps they do not know. If they did, they would know that every word I have said said here both as regards their history, in regard to chasing the white man off the veld, and in regard to employing coloured workers in their factories, is absolutely true. You have chased the bywoners off the veld.

You do not know what you are talking about.

I know what I am talking about. My hon. friends can’t bluff me.

But you are bluffing yourself.

They can’t bluff me. I know them. I know their families. I know their careers. [Time limit.]

The hon. member who has just spoken is always bubbling over with history. He knows everyone and he knows everything. He is a “know-all.” The other day when the hon. member for Smithfield related his history to the House he ran away with his tail between his legs. When the hon. member for Smithfield stood up and said that he wanted to tell the hon. member’s history he ran away as fast as his legs would carry him. It is not the first time that the hon. member has levelled attacks on individuals and then immediately afterwards has cleared off.

That’s how we know him.

That is untrue.

He has speaked out of here.

I have never speaked out. I am not afraid of you.

To show how little he understands about the whole business he comes here and says that the Nationalist Government appointed the first coloured Commissioner of Oaths. But was that not done precisely in conformity with the policy of separation? Was it not done so that a coloured person might take the oath before one of his own people? That is just an example of the fairness which the Nationalist Party has always displayed towards the coloured man. The policy of the Nationalist Party always has been that it does not want any mingling of the races. Have we not had a fight in this House over the colour bar? That hon. member then voted with us. We fought the question out here in two consecutive Sessions.

That is also history.

Did we not later have a joint sitting of both Houses in order to push the measure through, and that hon. member voted with the Nationalist Party for the colour bar. Was there not what one might describe as a devil of a row over the colour bar? The United Party fought us tooth and nail. We had later to have a joint sitting of both Houses to prevent that race-mingling. The present Minister of Labour could at that time accept a post under our Government, and he voted with us. At that time I believed that the present Minister was genuine in his support of the colour bar.

You will recall that at that joint sitting I proposed an amendment.

The Minister did not at that time vote against the Government. He was a Minister in that Cabinet.

He was not.

I was not.

Were you not a Minister in 1926?

Are you talking about the joint sitting.

Yes.

Read my amendment.

In 1926 you were Minister of Posts and Telegraphs.

Not when the joint sitting was held.

When the motion was before this House you did not vote against the Government.

Read my amendment.

Did you vote for the Government? That is the point.

He did not vote against the Government.

He did what the Labour Party are now doing.

That is the Labour Party’s old policy. They come here with amendments in order to be able to say to the outside public that they stand for this and that, but when it came to the stage of voting they nevertheless voted for the Government. We see them run away every time. An attack has been made here on the Nationalist Party by the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow). The Nationalist Party has always stood for separation and for the maintenance of the colour bar. We are very clearly at the cross-roads in South Africa over this matter. The Minister now wants representation for the coloured people in every direction. I want to put this question to the Minister. Will he be prepared to allow a coloured person to sit here in this House? Is he prepared to allow the coloured community representation in this House?

Would he sit at the same table?

We have here a body on which the Minister proposes to give the coloured people representation as against the Europeans. If he does that I want to ask whether he will be willing to see coloured people in the Assembly and in the provincial councils? No, there they fall back in the face of public opinion, because public opinion is so strong. In this Bill certain powers are conceded to the apprenticeship committee. It will be seen in Clauses 12 and 13 what powers this Committee has. A member of that Committee can walk into a factory and order the Europeans in that factory to produce documents and furnish information. In other words the coloured person can walk into the factory and say to a white person: “I require this from you, and I must see this and I must know that.” He can roam round in the factory and look about there amongst the Europeans. He arrives there as the big noise, and the European proprietor and the European foreman must show him round and carry out orders he gives. I want to warn the Minister that that sort of thing will occasion difficulties. It will give rise to great difficulties when a coloured person is placed in a position to give orders to a European. We have no objection to the coloured person also being represented, but this principle on which the Minister now wishes to work of having mixed committees will give rise to difficulty. That Committee can appoint one of their members to institute an enquiry ….

They have the right to suspend the employment of a white lad.

An apprentice may be obliged to appear before a coloured committee. The chairman of that Committee may be a coloured person, and the Committee has the right to suspend the services of such a lad. You may talk as much as you like about all these wonderful ideas of equality and putting them on the same level but in the practical application of that policy you are going to be faced with difficultiees. You will annoy the white man in South Africa. You will have clashes between Europeans and coloured people. This party stands for a policy of separation. We want to see that justice is done to the coloured people. Give every section their rights separately. If we do this there will be no collision between Europeans and coloured people, but this step of allowing coloured people to serve on the same committee as Europeans will hasten this collision. I want to warn the Minister that there is a strong feeling throughout the country on this matter. Just remember what the public reaction was to the recent observation by the Minister for the Interior in connection with the difficulty about giving Indians representation in the Provincial Councils. Look at the reaction that followed on that. Let the English-speaking people rather stand up and say that they would prefer to have a republic rather than this mixing. An English-speaking person recently came to me and said: “If we have to choose between a republic in which the Europeans will have the authority and the British Government under which this mixing occurs then we would rather choose a republic.” Even members on the Government side of the House are strongly opposed to this. Just look at what the reaction of the hon. member for Losberg (Mr. Wolmarans) was. And there are other hon. members on the other side of the House who in their hearts feel the same about it. There are more members who feel that way and the Minister must take cognisance of the danger signals throughout the country. I predict that this matter of the colour line is the one thing which will bring the Afrikaans-speaking and the English-speaking together in this country against the Minister of the Interior, the Minister of Labour, the Minister of Finance and others. They are playing with fire. I would advise the Minister to accept this amendment, and to see that an end is made of this mixing in the workshops and round the table otherwise we are going to have more trouble in this country.

I am astonished to hear the Minister say that he is even prepared to allow a coloured person to sit on this Committee, and what is more the chairman of the Committee may be a coloured person. We on this side of the House want to register the strongest protest against this policy on the part of the Minister. I predict that if this Bill is allowed to go through as it stands at present it will be the greatest blot in the Statute Books of South Africa. We want to make a further earnest appeal to the Minister to reconsider this matter. He should not lend an ear to the stories that are retailed here by the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow). Whenever we on this side of the House advocate matters of vital interest and importance the hon. member says that he takes no notice of fools. If that is what he takes us for then I want to say that there is not a bigger fool in the House than that hon. member. We want to ask the Minister not to regard this matter lightly. He will cause the biggest revolution in this country when he compels an apprentice to appear before a Committee on which coloured people are serving. This will be the biggest blunder ever committed by the Minister, and I want to ask him with due courtesy to consider this matter and to agree to the addition of the word “European”. The white race in South Africa has always been fair and just towards the coloured people. The hon. member for Hospital has stated here that there are coloured people working with Europeans in factories. But I want to say this to the hon. member that the coloured people are treated with the greatest fairness and justice by the people under whom they are working. We on this side of the House do not want them to be placed on an equal footing. We as trustees will see to it that they are treated with justice. We again appeal to the Minister to include this word “European” in the Clause.

I want to speak in English because I want to make a suggestion to the Minister in connection with this clauso. I do not think the hon. Minister realises what it will mean to the older European section of this country if you were to say to them that on this commitee you may put a chairman who is a coloured person or that you may have a mixed committee.

The Minister will never do it while he is in power.

It is no good saying that the Minister will never do it. This clause gives him the right to do it. If my hon. friend over there wants to speak he can get up and do so. He was not in the House when the Minister spoke. The Minister stated in this House that under this clause he was not going to have the right taken away of putting coloured people in the committee as well.

I did not say that.

What did he say?

In any case whether he said it or not, this clause gives him the power to do so.

Do you deny that it makes provision for that?

I realise that there are coloured tradesmen. I would have no objection to a committee which is constituted of coloured people only to control the trade in which the workers are coloured. But what we object to is a mixed committee. What I want to suggest to the Minister is this, that we should leave this clause over and go on with the rest of the Bill in order to give him an opportunity of studying this question and consulting his Department, and then coming forward with some sort of amendment which will satisfy both sections of the community. In other words, where the coloured people control any particular trade, we have no objection to their having their own committee. We have no objection to that. We do not want to do an injustice to the coloured people. No one on this side of the House wants to do that. It is no use arguing that we have coloured servants, that we have coloured workers in the factories. As I have stated before, the trouble is that a certain section of the community …

What is your suggestion as to how it should be done?

Where you have coloured people controlling a section of any particular trade and you think it is necessary that they should have have a committee, give it to them by all means, provided that committee is constituted only of coloured people.

That is what it will be in effect.

It is no good the Minister telling me what he will do. He may not be there tomorrow. I hope the Minister will live many more years, but he may die tomorrow. We do not know what his successor is going to do. He has the power under this clause to appoint a mixed committee. If the clause empowers him to do that, then that clause is wrong, and I do not think you will find a single section of the public, unless they are abnormal, who would suggest such a thing. We must remember that hundreds of years have elapsed since a small handful of Europeans came to this country. Throughout these years they have remained white, and they have only been able to remain white because they have insisted on this policy of separation. Take the Voortrekkers. A handful of Voortrekkers went amongst hundreds of thousands of natives, and they remained white. We are proud of that. We are jealous of our rights. We do not want to take the coloured man’s rights away. Give him his rights, but you cannot expect the people of this country to be satisfied with a mixed committee. You cannot expect them to be satisfied with a committee, the chairman of which is a coloured man. The very idea that a coloured man has the right to regulate these meetings, to call European witnesses, to administer the oath and to conduct the affairs of the committee, is repugnant. On the other hand, if there are coloured people who want to have such a committee for their own people, give them that right if their claim is justified. But the whole clause will have to be withdrawn and redrafted. If that is not done, we will go on talking until 6 o’clock tonight.

Do not threaten; that will not help.

If the Minister will not accept this suggestion I cannot make him do so. I suggest that he should leave this clause over, and in the meantime, with the assistance of his Department, try to get some sort of clause which would be acceptable to both coloureds and Europeans.

Business suspended at 1.0 p.m. and resumed at 2.20 p.m.

If you will allow me to say so, I know it is not quite relevant, I was accused by members opposite of making a speech and then running away. I apologise to members. It was not done intentionally. Had they sent me a note I would have remained. There is nothing I deprecate more than a man making a speech and then running away. I am quite prepared to stand up to them at any time. Now my friends on the Opposition benches have discussed this question of citizenship. The Minister has said that these men are citizens and they are entitled to be treated as citizens. Let me read what the hon. member for Piketberg (Dr. Malan) said on the same question. Writing to the A.P.O. Magazine, he said this—

When was that?

On the 23rd December, 1923—

Just what the Minister said. And then the hon. member went on—

We still say that.

You still say that you are not going to give them full rights.

We are.

The hon. member who is telling me that should have a surgical operation.

You can only be insulting.

Speaking at a meeting at which I was present, where a Malay priest was in the chair, reported in the Cape Argus on the 17th June, the hon. member for Piketberg said this—

Not social.

There you are—economic and social.

He didn’t say social.

Yes, here it is in the Kings and Chronicles of Israel. And then he went on—

Yes, politically.

That is why I say it is pure hyprocrisy ...

Order, order! The hon. member cannot say it is hyprocisy on the part of the Opposition.

I didn’t say it was hypocrisy.

You did.

I said it was pure hypo crisy if any man were to say that outside this House, and they are saying it at Wakkerstroom at present. Now hon. members opposite have attacked the Minister of Labour and they say that the Minister has brought in a Bill which will make the country black and bring whites and blacks together. We know what the policy of the Minister is today. Now take Dr. Malan talking at Worcester. What did he say there?—

No wonder my hon. friends don’t want the Minister of Labour to die. They are afraid they may get the hon. member for Piketberg in his place. My hon. friend over there says that I am a know-all. Hard lines on them if I am. I want to close with this. The late Charlie Malan, whom we all respected—he was Secretary of the Nationalist Party—and he wrote this letter to the natives of Queenstown—

Out of what are you quoting?

I am quoting from Hansard. Apparently the hon. member can neither read nor see. The other day we had the very interesting position that the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) supported the attitude adopted by the Opposition against this Bill. We well remember that hon. member standing cheek by jowl with Masabalala, a native, the first Communist who had taken part in the fight at Port Elizabeth when Miss van Rensburg, a Voortrekker’s daughter, was shot. The Nationalists got Masabalala on the same platform with the hon. member for Beaufort West who was at that time fighting Queenstown. It is all recorded here in the Kings and Chronicles of Israel.

We all know that people who live in glass houses should not throw stones, and the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) has got less right to quote anybody else than any member in this House.

That is cheap.

Not cheap, it is true. I can say many other things that are worse, but I do not want to say them.

You can say what you like; nobody will believe you.

If anybody’s speech had as little effect upon the feelings of the country as that of the last speaker, it would be no good to have Parliament, because nobody takes any notice of what he says.

[Inaudible.]

When I finish you can go on. I know you have no sense or any commonsense at all.

Order! The hon. member must address the Chair.

As far as the coloured people are concerned, we have never tried to do them an injustice. The hon. member who spoke last tried to get outside the issue. What we are now discussing is whether you are going to have a coloured man as chairman of these committees, and whether you are going to have mixed committees or European committees.

[Inaudible.]

Mr. Chairman, I wish the hon. member would please give me a chance to speak.

Don’t squeal.

I don’t squeal. There are members in this House like the hon. member for Green Point (Mr. Bowen) who has told us in the House that he dances with coloured people, and that he has danced with coloured women.

That is a lie.

Order, order! The hon. member for Green Point must withdraw that.

I do withdraw, but I say again that I claim the right to ask the hon. member to withdraw a statement which hè knows to be false.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that.

All right, I shall withdraw it, but I claim the privilege of answering the hon. gentleman when he sits down.

On a point of order, sir, is it parliamentary for a man to get up in this House and say that a member of Parliament dances with coloured women? I would like your ruling on that.

There is nothing to prevent the hon. member from making that statement.

I would like to ask the Speaker’s ruling on that, I think it is a ruling that should be given.

The hon. member for Swellendam.

Mr. Chairman I was sitting in this House when the hon. member said that he had attended dances. I said: “Do you dance with coloured people?” He said: “Yes”.

I did not.

The hon. member must accept the word of the hon. member for Green Point,

I am prepared to accept it if the hon. member says he did not say it. What I want to make plain is this, that socially we, as Europeans, are not going to be the equals of the coloured people. If the hon. Minister wishes to bring that about we will fight it to the last ditch.

Was Dr. Malan wrong when he said that?

You know it is not the case.

Order, order!

Mr. Chairman, I cannot understand why these hon. members are so illogical. They are going to have mixed committees, they are going to vote to give the Minister power to appoint coloured men as chairmen on committees on which Europeans sit; that is what the section gives him power to do. And they cry out when one talks about people wanting to claim social equality. They are so illogical that they say: “Put them together on the board.” I do not say the hon. Minister will do it, but he is given the power in this section, and I say then why cry out when you are told that you want social equality? That is what the position actually is. Hon. members are hopelessly illogical. I make the suggestion to the Minister, and I take it he would not accept it, that if he wants to give these coloured people a committee we have no objection, none whatever. Give them a committee, but let the committee be all coloured people; why try and mix the colours? I also make the suggestion in order that we can get on with the discussion of the Bill, that he leaves this section to stand over so that his department may draft something which the Minister may bring forward later on. If he does not want to do that it is his business. For a man to get up here and quote out of speeches made by Dr. Malan whether it was in 1823 or 1923— we are living in 1944— I do not believe that Dr. Malan said that. I do not believe that he said he was in favour of social equality.

I read you what he said.

I know the Minister of Finance has some sort of a book there. These things are put in a book and are dished up. This is the fifth time this has been dished up, and the peculiar thing is that these things are always said when the member for Piketberg (Dr. Malan) is not here. He is here now to speak for himself. Hon. members take a passage out of a speech, a couple of sentences here and there, twist the whole business and give a misinterpretation of the whole thing. The attitude we have always taken towards the coloured people is that they should have rights as far as economic and political rights are concerned. We have never said it is not so, but the difference between us and the hon. member for Hospital is that we are prepared to take the coloured people into our kitchen, but he wants to take them into the bedroom. That is the trouble. We are prepared to allow the coloured man to develop on his own lines, to give him shops and anything else, but we are not prepared for any mixing. Where it is possible to give these people a committee, give it to them, but please don’t mix the colours, because if you do that you are looking for trouble. The position is plainly this, if the Minister is not prepared to alter this section so that Europeans sit on European committees that deal with Europeans, and he is not prepared to give the coloured people their own committee but wishes to mix us up, we are not going to stand it.

What do you want to give them the vote for?

[Inaudible.]

I am not talking of members like the hon. member for Pretoria (Sunnyside) (Mr. Pocock). I am talking about South Africans, whether English-speaking of Afrikaans-speaking who are sitting on that side of the House, and I do not think a single one of them, if he consults his heart and his brain, and wishes this country to remain a European country, will agree with this proposition of mixing the colours. Do not mix them.

Mr. Chairman, may I say that I was in full agreement with this clause at it was drawn, and may I say also that I sit on a mixed committee of an institution which is a Government institution of this country. May I say, Sir, that the first coloured representatives who sat on that committee were invited to that committee by the Leader of the Opposition, who was then Minister of Education, and may I say, Sir, that I can find no better behaved member of the committee than these self-same coloured people.

What committee is it?

The Athlone Blind School. The Provincial Administration was entitled to a representative on that committee, entitled by the dictum of the hon. member, the Leader of the Opposition, Dr. Malan.

I never appointed such a committee.

The Administrator nominated a coloured man and a very good coloured man.

Oh! I thought I appointed the committee.

All the other members for that committee were elected, but the Provincial Administration, like the Municipality of Cape Town who were financially involved in running the institution, sent their representatives.

It is quite another story now.

It is not quite another story. I sit on that committee, and Dr. Malan appointed a coloured man, and I am very pleased he did. I have intervened in this debate before on the question of the behaviour of coloured people, and I said I thought coloured people behaved in their social circles as well as Europeans behaved, and in some instances probably better. I instanced the matter of a dance, I said I had been to coloured dances and saw their behaviour, and when asked whether I had danced I said emphatically that I had not. I deprecated and I do deprecate and I deplore the attitude of any English-speaking or Afrikaans-speaking men if they put their arms round a coloured woman and dance with her. It is wrong. I have no objection to economic and political equality, but I do object to social equality. My name has been dragged through the countryside, and I am told at a meeting a statement was made from the public platform by the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) that I had said, as the hon. member for Swellendam has said this afternoon, that I would prefer to dance with coloured women. That was said by the hon. member for Waterberg, and the hon. member for Swellendam repeated it in this House this afternoon.

I did not say you preferred it, actually.

You said that I did dance.

That is right; that is what I said.

I made the statement that I deplored social inter-mixture, or mixed dancing; there can be no question about it. Hon. members opposite are so lacking in constructive principles that they are doing their damndest to undermine the position of those who are trying to lay the foundations of a decent social structure in South Africa on foundations ….

A decent social structure—what do you call that?

The Leader of the Opposition has pledged his party up to the hilt to equal economic rights, equal citizen’s rights, equal education and social rights for every coloured man in this country. It was he who drew the distinction between non-European and non-European; it was he who claimed that the coloured man must take his place in line in all things social, educational, political and economic, and everything else with the European in this country. He has pledged his party and the Government of South Africa to give the coloured man the same opportunities of developing as the European section, and he cannot deny it. The distinction which is drawn between non-Europeans is a distinction which the hon. member himself is responsible for, that is to say, the separation between coloureds and natives.

The native is not supposed to have a square deal.

The coloured people in this country total almost one-half of the European section. We have only 2,000,000 Europeans, and we have 1,000,000 coloured people and the hon. member for Piketberg has said that the coloured people will walk in line and in step in all their development with the European sections in this country. If I repeat that openly I am saying it because of the pledge which the hon. member has given. I see no objection to that pledge. Why should they not have the right to be represented on the Apprenticeship Committee? What is the objection? The hon. member knows that the Juvenile Affairs Board is a mixed board and it was so all through the time the hon. member was a member of the Government. One is not supposed to use the word “hypocrisy” and one does not, but it is flagrantly dishonest when one goes outside this House and endeavours to undermine in a contest which is going on, the position of opponents by making statements which are untrue in fact, which have been denied repeatedly in this House, and which I deny again. I do hope that hon. members will not fall to the depths to which the hon. member for Waterberg fell when he knew that I had repudiated the insinuation that I had danced with coloured women, or that I was in favour of any European dancing with coloured women. I hope that will not be repeated from a public platform. Let us hear no more of this alleged action of the hon. member for Green Point. I claim for the coloured people in this country the same rights and privileges as are given to Europeans.

We on this side of the House adhere to every word we have said in the past in connection with natives and coloured people. We on these benches have always advocated separation, and it is on that account that we have opposed this proposition of the Minister’s. The first fruits of the policy that we have always advocated are the three representatives of the natives who sit on the cross benches. We have not the least desire to deprive the coloured people of their political rights, but they must be kept apart. We even introduced a Bill in this House at a certain stage to accord the coloured people separate representation. When we advocated that we stated that the coloured folk in the North Should have representation with the others. We stand firm by that. But is it right to have mixed committees of this description?

Today you say that, and tomorrow you will say something else.

We do not worry about what the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) says, because he is a political chameleon. He is one of the biggest political turncoats that we have ever seen in South Africa. He has a history behind him, and we know that he wants to subordinate Afrikanerdom and that he even wants to deny the Afrikaner his language rights. We have adopted this standpoint of separation, and we have not interfered with the rights of the coloured people in the slightest degree. Now the hon. member is trying to find a sting in this proposition of ours.

That is also untrue.

The Minister of Labour must be reasonable. The proposal of the hon. member is a reasonable proposal. We on this side of the House have always said that the coloured people are fully entitled to have their apprentices and that they must be represented in their trade unions. We fully realise that there are certain industries in which coloured people comprise 90 per cent. of the workers, and we are not in the slightest degree averse to them having their own committees. Seeing that there is a national council that can keep an eye on these apprenticeship committees we have reason to believe even more strongly that the policy of the Minister, or of any future Minister, will be carried out. We do not want to deny the coloured people their rights, any more than we want to deny the Europeans their rights, but we wish to have separate representation for them. Take a place in the country where there are certain industries which comprise from 90 per cent. to 100 per cent. coloured employees; they are organised in that industry, and under this Bill they may have separate committees which will be able to regulate these matters for them. That is all we are asking. I fail to see why there should now be any raking up of the past. All that we wish to do is to carry out the policy which we have advocated for all these years, that in certain industries provision must be made for organisations for coloured people and again there must be organisations for white people. Where they are working side by side they must not be allowed to sit on the same committees, and in that case the committee must be comprised of Europeans. That is all that we are asking. We do not want to take the bread out of the mouths of the coloured people. The hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) must admit that the policy that we stand for in connection with the natives is fairer than the policy of the other section. She has herself repeatedly stated that whenever we have to deal with the natives the views of the Afrikaans-speaking statesmen have always been fairer towards the natives than the view of the English-speaking people. Now she wants to come here and set herself up as being the only one who is inspired by fairness and justice.

That is an entirely different matter.

We are equally in favour of fairness and justice for the nonEuropeans, but we ask for the acceptance of this principle, and I should very much like to ask this of the Minister. We are anxious to assist him with this measure, and if at the moment he is not in possession of adequate information on the matter let him move that this clause stand over till tomorrow or the next day, and then a modus vivendi can be found so that we can discover what is best for the country. We want to do the best for the Europeans, the coloured people and the natives in the country, and we see that this provision contains the possibility of tremendous clashes occurring. Here we have a Minister who is well-disposed towards the standpoint of this House, but it may happen that there will be a Minister who is not inspired by the same spirit. Accordingly, I want to appeal to him to adopt the suggestion of the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren).

I think it is time that I had a word or two to say on this matter. I hestiate, indeed I would not charge hon. members on that side of the House with misrepresenting the position; but I hope they will forgive me if I regard them as being misinformed and misapprehensive as to what this clause is. I suppose it would not be human if they did not have one eye on the Wakkerstroom election. I do not charge you with initiating that for this purpose, but shall I say that coincidently hon. members hope it may have some effect.

Walter, you have Wakkerstroom on your nerves.

No, it is on your nerves, and not even on my mind. Of course you have given up the ghost there. There was a certain character in one of Dickens’ books, the Fat Boy, who was always jumping up behind somebody’s chair and calling “G-r-r-r-r-.” That is what hon. members over there are doing; they are trying to frighten people, but they are not doing anything of the sort. The hon. member for Piketberg I associated myself with at the time, and I still do, with his argument in favour of full economic and political rights for the coloured.

Look at Hansard.

Read it to us.

Well, I certainly don’t know how Hansard is going to get all this down. They must be having a deuce of a job.

You evidently don’t take much notice of what the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) quoted from Hansard.

It was a clear-cut issue and Hansard and none of them were under any misapprehension of what the hon. member said. The hon. member for Piketberg (Dr. Malan) is like myself.

Oh, no, no.

Oh, yes, yes. We stand up for what we believe. Doesn’t the hon. member? Oh, I’m not going to flatter the hon. member that he’s altogether like me.

No, he has some redeeming features.

I pay him that compliment that he stand for what he believes, and when he gets his teeth into a thing he sticks to it. And I am certain he he is not prepared to run away from the statement read by the hon. member for Hospital. But why all this sound and fury? Why are they protesting? What are they against? …. They are like Pickwick’s Fat Boy—they are against something which is not there. They are g-r-r-ing all the time.

What an argument !

Now there are two aspects of this question—this question of economic and social rights. The question of social association is one of personal selection. I choose whom I will socially associate with. The hon. member for Piketberg does. I am not going to assume that he chooses this, that or the other one. He chooses as he likes, and so does the hon. member for Green Point (Mr. Bowen). So do I. Hon. members opposite are mixing up that personal selection with the economic rights of the coloured people. They are assuming that the near association economically, involves association socially. It doesn’t. And let me say this. The hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) has referred to my British origin with a view to pointing out to the House that I am rather loose, lax, in my examination of this position—in ’other words: “Madeley, you are an Englishman, you don’t understand our point of view; you are prone to be associated socially with this kind of people.” It is not so. No one clings more strongly than I do to purity of descent. One thing I am determined to uphold as far as I possibly can, and the hon. member for Piketberg has been associated with me in my political history for very long, and he will bear testimony to that ….

Till you went wrong.

Is that the sort of interjection one expects from the responsible leader of a party? Well I shall leave that and not discuss it any further. I am sorry I appealed to him for his support. But I say that I take second place to no one in my anxiety to maintain purity of race. And I lay this flattering unction to my soul, that I can put my hand on my heart metaphorically speaking, and say that neither I nor any associate of my family was the cause of the production of coloured people in South Africa.

All the more reason why you should protect others.

I do. I am securing two things: one is economic justice for the coloured persons, and the other is that we shall make our social contacts a matter of personal selection. I don’t secure that in this Bill, of course. It is a common controlling factor in the whole of our life, namely the right we have between all of us to make our own social selections. Hon. members opposite make great play of the fact that they are prepared to let coloured men in industry, where they are the controlling or the whole factor, have their own committees—presumably with their own Chairman and what not. Well, presumably that is accomplished under this. But if we have it the same way as the hon. members wants it then we cannot possibly have it because he insists on the Chairman being white.

I don’t want a mixed board at all.

We have the grr-rr-ers again because the hon. member is reading something which is not there. He is building up a straw man to pull it down.

Oh, nonsense.

It is not nonsense. Everything the hon. member has been saying is pure arrant nonsense. I want to give effect in a practical form to what they say they are prepared to accept, and therefore I must ask the House to accept the Clause as it stands.

In regard to what the hon. the Minister has just stated here, namely, that the economic rights of everyone must be respected, I want to ask him whether that has always been his policy. Has it always been his policy to protect the economic rights of every citizen of the country? I am sorry that the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) is not in his seat because I should like to reply to him. The policy of the Nationalist Party has been proclaimed time and again. From the time when the late Gen. Hertzog came with his segregation policy our policy has been that the coloured people must be kept apart from the natives—that there should be a dividing line. It is true that the late Gen. Hertzog said in 1928 that he would introduce the women’s franchise in 1930, but why is it that the hon. member did not quote the words that were used by Gen. Hertzog on that occasion? It was the policy of the Nationalist Party at the time that women’s suffrage was introduced in 1930 that the coloured people should be separate from the Europeans, and that they should be next to the Europeans. Notwithstanding the assurance that was given in 1928 that the Nationalist Party undertook to grant the franchise to coloured women if they were again returned to power the Prime Minister of the day introduced a Bill in which the women’s franchise was accorded to European women only. What was the attitude of the Minister of Labour at that time? What was his policy when Gen. Byron at that time proposed that the franchise should be given to every woman in the Cape where the man had the vote, and thus to native and coloured women as well where the men enjoyed the vote? The present Prime Minister had then voted in favour of that, but the present Minister of Labour voted against it. He voted in favour of the franchise only going to European women. At that time he evidently was not so concerned over the economic rights of the coloured people, because the franchise is also an economic right of every citizen in the country. He voted in favour of the franchise for European women only. What we are asking for here is that whenever we have to deal with the coloured community or Malays or Indians or natives then we should allow them their own councils and committees, but we must not call mixed councils into being. I should like to ask hon. members on the other side of the House, who represent towns on the platteland, what their view is on the question of mixed councils sitting in judgment over employers who actually are exclusively European, and over employees who in many instances are non-European, but who in many cases may be Europeans. What will they feel about a mixed council of that sort? I am convinced that no hon. member who is sitting on the other side and who represents the platteland will say that he approves of such mixed councils. That is the clear standpoint of the Nationalist Party, separation, a dividing line between Europeans and coloured people, and between coloured people and the natives. This is a policy which the Nationalist Party stands for and for which it is prepared to fight.

I think it is clear to most of us that all parties in this House have a responsibility for the fact that this clause is in the Bill as it stands, because all parties during the period of our political history from 1922 have administered the original Act. I think this particular clause corresponds very closely to the section in the original Act. In addition we have already agreed to grant the Minister power to differentiate industries, irrespective of colour; it is only logical therefore that we should allow this clause to go through to fit in with the scheme. I want to appeal to the House to stop touching the electric currents of the past, to stop these recriminations; and in view of the desperate needs of our country, let us beware that we do not bring this House into disrepute, and bring democracy into a position of being despised by the people. We have a tremendous task; and unless we all pull together to help the Minister with this Bill, which is helping in laying the basis for a new South Africa, we are going to fail completely in our task as a democratic Parliament.

The hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) thought fit this afternoon to quote words that were supposed to have been used by my Leader in 1928, or thereabouts, in connection with the franchise for Indian women.

Coloured women.

Coloured women. I want to ask the hon. member for Hospital if he disapproves of my Leader having said that? Does he approve of him having stated that under the existing circumstances?

I am still in favour of that. If he proposes it I will support him.

I understand from the hon. member that he is still willing to grant the franchise to coloured women.

Absolutely. I have always said that.

It is perfectly true that the hon. member said that; I was going to read it out.

I haven’t changed.

But seeing that he says he still adheres to this, I assume that there are other hon. members on the other side of the House who still say this as well.

I have not changed.

I should like to read out to the hon. member to show that apparently he would also receive support from his Leader.

I do not know anything about that.

I should like to acquaint him with the attitude of his Leader. When this Bill in connection with the women’s franchise came up in 1928, the hon. member for Hospital stated that the native women in Cape Town should be given the franchise.

I still say that.

I am glad that we have now got this out of him. But now I want to make an appeal to him to introduce a proposal of this character because we would then be able to see whether his Leader, the Prime Minister, will also adhere to his standpoint. What did the present Prime Minister say when Gen. Byron’s Bill came up which would have had the effect of granting the franchise to the native women and the coloured women—

The hon. member has Wakkerstroom on his brain, perhaps because he has staked so much money on the result. While he adheres to his standpoint, I want to ask whether the Prime Minister also adheres to his standpoint, because in contrast to what he said in 1928 that the coloured woman and the native woman in the Cape should also get the franchise, he has never done anything about it.

I think that the hon. member should now return to the clause.

I should just like to return to the hon. member for Hospital. He has made a serious accusation against my leader and I want to thrash that out. I will just conclude by saying that while my Leader stated in 1932 that the coloured people should appear on a separate voters’ roll, and while that has been our standpoint all these years, the hon. members on the other side of the House are definitely against that. We have progressed and co-operated in the development of the conditions of the country. They remained where they were, and today they resent the fact that we have progressed from the point where we were twenty years ago.

The Minister was friendly the one moment and angry the next. With his changing friendliness and anger he did an egg dance. I will return to the position as I set it out this morning very fairly. I will come to the point in dispute over which this serious debate has been concerned. The hon. member wanted to give the impression on a previous clause that it was not the case that Europeans would sit with non-Europeans on these committees, that they would not sit on the same committees. I challenge him to deny this. That is the impression he gave. If the House had accepted that impression and if we had allowed Clause 5 to go through as it stands, then the Minister would have achieved his object. I do not think that there is anyone more sorry than the Minister that we have revealed what their actual standpoint is in connection with this matter. And what strikes me very forcibly is who the members are on the other side who are supporting the Minister against our amendment. There is the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) who right through this session, since his return to the House, has always ranged himself on the side of the native representatives and has argued on their side and voted with them on every possible occasion. Then there is the hon. member for Green Point (Mr. Bowen) whose attitude on this matter is known to everyone. He goes so far as to say that he wants absolute social equality. That is to say he is also in favour of mixed dancing. But today he does not want to dance with them, because that would sound bad in the ears of Wakkerstroom. But once Wakkerstroom is past then he will again be prepared to dance with them. Absolute social equality includes that. I think that I have clearly explained our standpoint. We do not want to have mixed committees, and there are many hon. members on the other side of the House who feel exactly as we do on that. We do not want committees on which there are non-Europeans, committees which will have great powers and which will have to exercise all sorts of functions. We do not want to place any European in a subordinate position in respect of a non-European. Our policy is clear. What are the functions of the committees? It is necessary to mention them. They are laid down in Clause 12, and I want to mention three important functions, the three powers that the committees have. I will use this as an argument for us not having mixed committees who will be in a position to adjudicate over European employees. This clause states, in the first place, that the committee in accordance with this Bill, must institute an enquiry, and in accordance with the circumstances make recommendations to the Minister or to the Registrar over any matter that falls within the province or duties of the Minister under this Bill, and the functions of the Minister under this Bill are legion. The committees will have the power to make recommendations to the Minister throughout the country in connection with any matter that falls within his functions or responsibilities under this Bill. That is far-reaching. Such a committee will have to decide on the question whether a European will be accepted or not. In the second place, the committee will have to enquire into any dispute that arises out of an apprenticeship contract that may be referred to it by one of the parties to the contract. Just think of the significance of that. The mixed committees, on which coloured people will be sitting, assume here the form of an arbitration court. Here the Minister lays down in the Bill the principle that an arbitration court shall be set up to decide disputes, and that a mixed court will have the power to adjudicate in the case of Europeans. We are objecting to that. I want to ask hon. members on the other side to rise in their places and to say whether they are prepared to submit the case of a European to the arbitration of a court comprised of non-Europeans. If they are not prepared to do this, they have not the moral right to vote for the matter as it here stands. The third important duty of the committees is to perform the duties and work in connection with any other matter relating to apprentices that may be prescribed. This is a considerable power in respect of all matters affecting apprentices. We refuse to allow non-Europeans to give such decisions and to handle such matters affecting Europeans. We refuse to accept that the Europeans should be placed in a subordinate position. I do not know that we can make this any plainer. The hon. Minister had an opportunity during the course of the lunch hour to alter the provision if there are actually institutions with 100 per cent. coloured people, and where they can appoint such a coloured committee. He does not want to do that. He may make provision for that, but we do not want these mixed committees. The hon. the Minister must not attempt to bring us under a certain impression, while later on being at liberty to carry out something else. It put the matter calmly and quietly. We are making an objection. This is to us a matter of fundamental principles. The Minister wants now to light the fuse and to disturb the relations between European and nonEuropean in the country. Any man who has a white skin, any European person, will refuse to appear before an arbitration court or before a commission on which non-Europeans are sitting and who have to decide his case. The Minister must expect that we shall fight him in this matter to the last ditch, and further if it is necessary.

I expect Parliamentary privilege permits the hon. member who has just sat down (Mr. Serfontein) to make the statement, as he did, that the hon. member for Green Point— myself— danced with coloured women before the Wakkerstroom election …

He didn’t say that.

… and will again dance with them when the election is over.

You don’t know what I said. You should go to a dual medium school.

I have been in this country sufficiently long to understand the hon. member’s Afrikaans. My standpoint is perfectly clear and well known to the world. And I say again, with the hon. member for Piketberg (Dr. Malan), that I am prepared to concede the claim of the coloured people that they shall have equal opportunities for all their civilised functions the same as are conceded to the European people. They are entitled to the same economic, political and social privileges and the same opportunities for development, and of prosecuting to the full their innate ability; and for putting whatever capital they may have into the various institutions— and it is not for us to deny them those fundamental privileges and rights. When I say that they are entitled to social privileges I mean nothing more than what I say, and do not say anything more than the hon. member for Piketberg. If it is possible for us to unite together, to have clubs, so can the coloureds unite together and have clubs. If it is possible for us to unite together and have dances, so is it possible for them to unite together and have dances.

That is our segregational policy; give them all the facilities.

I say that that is their right, and it is a right which was conceded by the hon. member for Piketberg (Dr. Malan) [laughter]. The hon. member laughs …

He cannot help himself.

The words that I use are twisted and innuendos are read into them to make out that I am a misogynist or whatever it is. I do ask hon. members not to make these suggestions. It does not enhance their case. It does me no harm, it does them a tremendous amount of harm and it undermines the basis upon which society is built in this country. God knows that we have people in this country who are prepared to have mixed entertaining and mixed dances. I say that on mixed Boards where the privileges of citizens are equal, they are entitled to sit as citizens if the citizens want them. They are denied the right to come to Parliament but they have the right to sit in the Provincial Councils and to sit in Town Councils and in Village Management Boards and in every Board where the fundamental rights of citizenship are exercised. I claim that for them and I am not prepared to depart from that standpoint at any price. God knows that they are having their rights whittled away, but let me say that I am not ashamed of the attitude I take up, but I do say that it is doing my hon. friends harm when they try to attack my particular point of view, which, I admit, may be more liberal than the point of view of others. But when they try to pin these innuendos which they read into my attitude onto the tail-coat of the Party, they are only undermining their own position. Let me close on this note just in case hon. members opposite think that it was out of the goodness of the heart of the hon. member for Piketberg or out of the goodness of the heart of the Nationalist Administrator of the Cape Province, Mr. Fourie …

The Leader of the Opposition appointed no one on that Committee.

I challenge him to prove that. I can produce the documents. It was at my suggestion that the Government nominated a coloured man to sit on that Committee. It was done and it was done at my suggestion. It was at my suggestion that the then Administrator of the Cape Province. Mr. Fourie, appointed another coloured man to represent the Cape Province on that Committee. They did that at my instance; at my request. They did not object, and I am very pleased they did not object, and I look forward to the day when we will have a completely coloured community capable of assuming the responsibility of running an institution such as the Athlone Blind School.

Is it a school for coloureds?

Of course it is a school for coloureds.

But what is wrong with that?

That is our policy.

Just in case hon. members swallow the bait too soon, let me say that we have a white principal; we have a white lady vice-principal; we have two or more European instructors. They are being run by a mixed committee. And why not?

You have white Ministers of religion holding services for coloured people.

I am talking about a mixed committee which is controlling the action of Europeans. And why should they not if it is in their interests? Let me say that this attempt to slander the cause of the coloured people does my hon. friends no good and only brings discredit to South Africa.

I want to assist the Minister a little. When I spoke this morning he said that when the colour bar was before the House he was not at that time a Minister. He also said that he at that time moved an amendment. My contention was that he voted with the Government for that Bill and that he is responsible together with the Government.

We talked about the joint sitting; that is what I understood.

Oh no, we talked about the colour bar.

I spoke about the colour bar in connection with the mining industry. It was at that time called the “colour bar.”

[Inaudible.]

If Donald Duck has finished perhaps I may be able to say a word.

I have misunderstood you.

My point was that the Minister had voted for what was clearly a colour bar.

I thought you meant the joint sitting.

Now the Minister admits that I was right, but I should just like to read what the Minister said in order to show that it does not help to come here with all sorts of chatter about equality. The Minister said—I am reading from the English version—

What is the point?

I am merely reading this out to confirm what I said this morning. Here the Minister said that it was necessary for our civilisation, and he said we could not wait any longer. At that time he was very strongly in support of our standpoint.

I also added there that there should be equal pay for the same work.

The hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) as usual ran away; he did not vote.

Like your father in the Boer War.

But he nevertheless protected himself by using these words—

This is what he said about the party who are now sitting on the other side of the House—

His position has weakened very considerably since then.

I am reading this to show how the very members who at that time stated that it was a very good thing to have a colour bar and that we could no longer wait for it, now come along with other stories and that is the tendency in regard to which we are sounding a warning.

The more the members on the other side talk the clearer it becomes that we really must adopt this amendment, because we see now that hon. members such as the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) declares straight out that even a coloured woman must have the franchise. I want to point out that this is all absolute political hypocrisy.

The hon. member may not say that.

On a point of order may I just ask whether the ruling of Speaker Jansen in this connection does not exclude “political hypocrisy”?

No. The very opposite. Before the hon. member proceeds may I draw the attention of the Committee to Standing Order No. 90, which deals with tedious repetitions.

Hear, hear!

That “hear, hear” from you is a boring repetition.

It is absolute political bargaining, because if those hon. members on the other side of the House mean this honestly, then they will go further and introduce a Bill which will give the coloured women the vote. Why do they not do that? They will not do it because they know that the fifteen seats the United Party have to thank the coloured vote for would then be represented by coloured people.

That is Dr. Malan’s policy.

That is why I am convinced that this is absolute political bargaining, these so-called rights of the coloured people for which they are fighting. If they are honest in their intentions they will introduce legislation to give the vote to coloured women. But then those fifteen seats for which they have to thank the coloured vote would be represented by coloured people. There is something else behind the whole business. They want to exploit the coloured people. Suppose that there are coloured people sitting jointly on the committee; then they will exploit those coloured people who are on the committee for their own purposes and aspirations, just as they have done today in the political sphere. Accordingly I feel that the time has arrived when we should once and for all adopt an honourable attitude on all sides in regard to the coloured people. Afrikaans-speaking people and English-speaking people who have grown up in this country together with Europeans are convinced that the non-European can only attain his full rights if he is placed apart. In that way he would be able to obtain his privileges, but not when you take him into your ranks in order to exploit him for your own political advantage.

The hon. Minister has attempted to make out that we on this side of the House want to make political capital out of this matter ….

Absolutely.

… because there is an election at Wakkerstroom. As far as I am personally concerned, I have never given that a thought. I think that is a mean allegation coming from the Minister when we are trying to do our duty, and I regret the fact that he made it. It just shows the mentality of the Minister, I would just like to say this to him. He went further and he said that we set up skittles only to knock them down. He went further and said that this Bill makes provision that there will not be a coloured chairman sitting on a committee on which there are Europeans. That is what he said. He went further and said that the Bill as it now stands is just as we would want it—Europeans on the one side and coloured people on the other side. I want just to tell the Minister that I can read a little, and that I have a little intelligence. I do not want to say that it as great as his, but I would like to wager him that what he stated there is not correct. We know that under this Bill we are going to have mixed committees, and this Bill allows the Minister to appoint a coloured person as chairman of that committee over Europeans, and that the committee that he is appointing, on which Europeans and coloured people may serve, will adjudicate on matters affecting Europeans. This is my challenge to the Minister. I maintain that this Bill really does make provision for this, and the Minister cannot deny it. It does not help to try to obscure the matter with a lot of talk. I want to stand by the facts, and I say that if he takes this step he will be doing something that he knows is wrong. An hon. member on the other side of the House has stated that this provision is the same as that in the Act of 1922, but he knows just as well as I do that time does not stand still. It marches on. In the past there was no difficulty under the law, but in the future we are going to have it. Those people are today far more developed than they were twenty years ago. And because the Bill makes provision for this they are going to demand it, and if you refuse it then you are going to have an everlasting agitation and soap-box orators are going to stir up the coloured people. On the contrary, if the Bill says: “We give you equal rights where you are in the majority, or where you are alone in any industry, to have a committee.” On the other hand, you must have a committee, all the members of which are Europeans. It does not help matters to come here and talk about a committee of a blind school for coloured people. That is something entirely different. I say that just as you have Ministers who teach the coloured people, you will also have white teachers who instruct coloured people. If they have a mixed board it is wrong; it is not only I who feel in that way. I am certain that all the Afrikaans-speaking, and the English-speaking members on the other side feel the same as I do about it. I challenge the Minister to prove to me that what I have stated here is wrong, whether there is an election in Wakkerstroom or not. It does not help to say that mixed boards will not be appointed, and that coloured people will not be appointed. This Bill gives the Minister the right to appoint mixed boards. All that I ask is this. Make the country safe for the white Afrikaner, for the existence of white Afrikanerdom in this country. That is all that I ask. If hon. members on the other side do not care about what happens to our European civilisation. I can do nothing about it. I cannot hold them back. The fact that the Minister has tried to obscure the subject by all sorts of imaginative utterances, leave me cold. I know what the provisions of the Bill are, and under the Bill as it here stands he is in a position to appoint mixed committees. Having listened to what the Minister said when the colour bar was introduced, and when I hear what he says today, and I recall what happened when the alterations were made in the Factories Act, then I am seized with fear that notwithstanding what he is saying today, namely, that he will not appoint any mixed committees, he will allow himself to be overridden by those who want to abolish the colour bar. I have now been sitting in this House for six years, and I know what occurred in connection with the colour line for which we asked in factories. That experience is behind us, and the Minister must not take offence if I think that he will do this.

I think it is regrettable that so much political capital should be made out of this question. Notwithstanding the denial on the part of hon. members on the opposite side, I am convinced that much capital is being made at this juncture on account of the Wakkerstroom election, and I can assure them that a shock is coming to them on this issue.

A shock is coming to you.

The more I listen to the hon. gentlemen on the Nationalist benches, the more I am convinced that they do not know anything about this Apprenticeship Bill. They are merely drawing a red herring across the trail. There is nothing in this Bill to alter the policy with which the trade unions jealously guard their rights as workmen. It may be argued that when the Minister of Labour recently introduced the Wage Determination which was for all unskilled workers, it meant that coloureds and natives would replace the European. I maintain that the argument put forward by the members on the Opposition benches is definitely an insult to the intelligence of the thousands of Afrikaners in the trade union movement. I am satisfied in my own mind that as long as the European workers predominate in any particular trade, so long will the committees and the chairmen remain Europeans. If the Opposition is afraid that one day the hon. Minister of Labour may pass out, I am satisfied that on this side of the House there is no member who would not follow in the footsteps of the Minister of Labour. If there is any change in policy, then I can only say that it will come when the Nationalists get into power, if they do ever come into power. In conclusion I want to remind hon. members opposite that if they fear coloured representation on these Boards, exactly what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition was prepared to do 20 years ago, the same thing may happen as happened in the Pretoria City Council where there are coloured Councillors, but only if coloured workers predominate in trade unions.

You were kicked out of the City Council in Pretoria.

Yes, but not by my many Nationalists friends in Pretoria.

I just want to ask the Minister if he has ever known in the history of South Africa, where a coloured magistrate has passed judgment on a white person. I get no answer to that. Now I would just like to refer him to this. The hon. member for Boshof (Mr. Serfontein) has quoted Clause 12. Let us turn for a moment to Clause 27 sub-paragraph (3). Here we find that suspension can be effected by an employer. If the suspension has been made by an employer then it can be confirmed by a committee. Then we read in Subsection (5) that such an order can have the effect of a civil judgment. In other words, the order of the committee has the force of a civil judgment. It then boils down to this, that the order of the committee on which coloured people are serving will have the same force as the judgment of a magistrate. That is altogether unique in the history of South Africa, that a non-European can pass judgment over a European.

Are you aware of the fact that that has been the law for the past twenty years?

We want to alter that, and I want the Minister to be honest enough to alter it. Now I want to put these two questions to the Minister. In the first place, can he give us the assurance that mixed committees will not be appointed? We do not worry about a coloured committee being appointed for coloured people. But will he give us the assurance that there will not be a mixed committee? In the second place, if there is a coloured committee, can he give us the assurance that the committee will never exercise jurisdiction over Europeans. Those are the two things which we fear may possibly occur under this Bill, and we want to have it clarified in this connection.

That is a fair question, and I give you my assurance.

We are glad to have that assurance from the Minister.

He cannot give you the assurance.

In any case, we have the assurance of the Minister. Will the Minister incorporate that in the Bill?

No, he will not do that.

The first point on which we now have an assurance from the Minister is that there will not be mixed committees. The second thing is that a coloured committee will never pass judgment on a white person. He has also given us that assurance. Why then does he not put that in the Bill? The Minister agrees with us but he will not incorporate it in the Bill. In conclusion, I would like to refer him to the following: If a committee is elected, two of the members will be chosen by the trade unions— we know that at the moment the trade unions are coloured in their organisation; they acknowledge no colour line— then the employer appoints the other two members. The employers are today under the power of those trade unions. Pressure will be exercised on them to appoint coloured people to those committees, and although the Minister gives that assurance, I do not know how he can give effect to it unless he clearly lays it down in the Bill. Finally, I would just say this. Last year or the year before last, a coloured Board was appointed to adjudicate on certain affairs relating to coloured people. Objection was raised by the coloured people that the Board would be comprised only of coloured people, or only of Europeans. They wanted to have a mixed Board. We found that those coloured people exerted very strong pressure. That is why we are fighting so hard for the Minister to satisfy the request that is made by this side of the House.

The hon. Minister knows that what we are saying here is correct, and he has given us the assurance that he will act in the way we desire. But the Minister must understand that although we trust him that is not to say that we can trust his successor. We do not know who we are going to get. We may perhaps have the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) as Minister of Labour, and what a mess we are then going to have. He wants to have equality. He is the leader of the Liberals. Or we may have the hon. member for Green Point (Mr. Bowen). The Minister admits the reasonableness of what we are here demanding, and he has stated that in order to meet our objections he will so act as to satisfy us, but he is not going to incorporate that in the Bill. That is our objection, that the Minister does not want to insert this in the Bill. I again express the hope that the Minister will try to let this clause stand over till tomorrow or the day after tomorrow, and then his department can redraft the clause in order to make provision for what we have asked.

No, it must remain as it is.

This clause will have tremendous repercussions in the country. We are afraid of that, and that is why we are adopting this standpoint. There is abroad in South Africa a spirit of absolute equality in the social and industrial spheres, and this clause creates the opening for elements in our industries to create a position, by means of this committee, such as we have here described. We are not going to worry ourselves over the observations of a member such as the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hopf) who has stated here that we have an eye on Wakkerstroom. He has already been thrown out of the Municipality of Pretoria, and still more of them will yet be thrown out. We do not worry ourselves about his personal observations. We are making these proposals from the bottom of our heart, and with no other motive.

I am sorry that the Minister of Labour will not accept our suggestion. I want to give the Minister the assurance that this matter weighs heavily with the Afrikaners. It is to them a matter of vital importance. Throughout this century we have fought for a demarcating line, and we are very concerned over this sort of legislation being placed on the statute book, as it signifies that the dividing line is going to be removed. The Minister of Labour may, as an individual, proceed cautiously, but his supporters on the other side give voice to remarks and observations which cause us anxiety. The hon. member for Germiston (Mr. Payne) has stated here that he sees that the natives and the coloured people are even going to sit in this House. The hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hopf) proceeded from the standpoint that there must be no dividing line. In the past he has voiced sentiments to which we take the strongest exception. Amongst other things he has stated that he would rather have a native in his drawing room than a poor white. He stated this at a congress in Pretoria.

On a point of personal explanation, I never said anything of the sort.

I am sorry that the hon. member denies that because I was present at the congress. It was on the occasion when coloured trade unions were under discussion.

On a point of personal explanation the hon. member is confusing me with Councillor Sidney. He said something of that sort.

Then I am sorry that I ascribed that to the hon. member. They sat alongside each other. I maintain that those influences in the United Party and in the Labour Party are causing us anxiety, and that if this Bill should go through we shall presently have coloured people on these committees. We have trade unions in which there are coloured people, and the result can be that the non-Europeans will later acquire authority over our European children in these committees. We feel that that is wrong, and we want to make an earnest appeal to the Minister not to imagine that we simply want to delay this Bill. To us it is a matter of vital importance, and we want to express the hope that he will now see his way open to give us the assurance that in the composition of the committees Europeans and non-Europeans will not be placed together.

Amendment proposed by Mr. J. H. Conradie put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—26 :

Bekker, G. F. H.

Boltman, F. H.

Booysen, W. A.

Bremer, K.

Brink, W. D.

Conradie, J. H.

Erasmus, H. S.

Klopper, H. J.

Le Roux, J. N.

Ludick, A. I.

Luttig, P. J. H.

Malan, D. F.

Olivier, P. J.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Potgieter, J. E.

Serfontein, J. J.

Stals, A. J.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Swart, C. R.

Vosloo, L. J.

Warren, S. E.

Werth, A. J.

Wessels, C. J. O.

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

Noes—62:

Abbott, C. B. M.

Abrahamson, H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Barlow, A. G.

Bawden, W.

Bell, R. E.

Bosman, L. P.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowker, T. B.

Burnside, D. C.

Butters, W. R.

Christie, J.

Cilliers, H. J.

Clark, C. W.

Davis, A.

De Wet, H. C.

De Wet, P. J.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, A. C.

Du Toit, R. J.

Eksteen, H. O.

Fawcett, R. M.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedman, B.

Gray, T. P.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Hemming, G. K.

Higgerty, J. W.

Hopf, F.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Madeley, W. B.

Maré, F. J.

Miles-Cadman, C. F.

Molteno, D. B.

Morris, J. W. H.

Mushet, J. W.

Payn, A. O. B.

Payne, A. C.

Robertson, R. B.

Russell, J. H.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Sonnenberg, M.

Steyn, C. F.

Steytler, L. J.

Stratford, J. R. F.

Sturrock, F. C.

Sullivan, J. R.

Sutter, G. J.

Tothill, H. A.

Van Niekerk, H. J. L.

Van Onselen, W. S.

Wares, A. P. J.

Waring, F. W.

Warren, C. M.

Williams, H. J.

Tellers: G. A. Friend and W. B. Humphreys.

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Amendments proposed by Mr. Sonnenberg put and negatived.

In this clause it is laid down, inter alia—

Even though it happened with the consent of the person concerned, the decision is still not invalid. I can understand the decision being valid if it is a question of vacancies, when the full number of members is not present. But when a member or alternate who has not been duly nominated, sits and takes part in a decision, it still remains valid. That is very far-reaching. I wonder if the Minister realises what the implications may be. People who have not been duly appointed by the Minister may take part in the discussions of the committee; they may take part in a majority decision, and that decision will remain valid. I want to ask the Minister to accept the following amendment which I move—

I understand the point of the hon. gentleman, but I do not think he realises why this is put in this form. As you know, committees are appointed and are composed of appointees by employers’ and employees’ unions, the one an organisation and the other a union. Now there is always a delay between the actual nomination by a body competent to nominate and the actual appointment by the Minister. Now that nominee may take his place, knowing that he has been nominated, knowing that he is accepted, but his actual appointment has not come through, he may take his place on the committee and a decision may be taken on which he has voted. The next day he is appointed; he is really the same person, the right person to be there.

He may not be appointed by the Minister. The Minister is not compelled to appoint a nominee.

No, we can refuse to appoint.

Supposing you refuse to appoint him?

Then that decision would be upset.

Not according to your Bill.

This has been the practice for all these years, and there has been no such hitch ás the hon. member seems to fear.

It is a dangerous thing.

I believe the position is that where a trade union or an employers’ union make their nominations, the person nominated by them attends the meeting and registers his vote, although he has not yet been appointed by the Minister, and in these circumstances the decision which is taken is not invalid. The appointment only becomes binding when the letter of appointment is signed by the Minister. This person may therefore vote at the meeting, although the Minister has not yet appointed him. When we look at Clause 8, we see that the chairman of the committee has the power to convene a meeting at any time. No provision is made for a definite notice. He can convene a meeting at any time. Well, the trade unions may have nominated someone. The Minister may not yet have appointed the person concerned, because he is only regarded as having been appointed when his letter of appointment has been signed, but he now attends a meeting and registers his vote. The next day the Minister may not appoint him. It means then that he voted at a meeting when in actual fact he was not entitled to vote. An invalid decision has been taken, but that decision is valid whether the man is appointed or not. It does not seem reasonable to me. I do not know what the Minister’s Department thinks of it, but I think a dangerous step is being taken here.

Amendment put and negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

On Clause 6,

Here I move the following amendment—

I just want to read what is laid down in this sub-clause, and then the Minister will see that this amendment is not unreasonable—

Does the Minister realise what that means? It means that where a trade union makes a nomination or where an employers’ organisation makes a nomination, and approaches the Minister of Labour to have the person appointed whom they respectively nominated, the person so nominated represents them. But as soon as he acts in the light of his honest convictions, in a manner which does not benefit the employers or the employees, the trade union says: “No, we no longer want you.” Someone who has a knowledge of these matters told me that this provision was not in the old Act; and it is a hopeless position. This person who represents either an employers’ organisation or a trade union may want to act fairly in the interests of the country. It may not, however, suit those organisations, and they then withdraw the nomination. It is going to create an impossible position. If this subclause (2) remains, we may just as well hand over this matter to the trade unions, because the persons who are nominated by them will have to vote as they dictate. When the trade union nominates a person, the trade union has confidence in him. When the employers organisation nominates a person, they have confidence in him. The Minister then appoints such a person, and once he has appointed him he ought to serve on the committee for a fixed period, and be able to act according to his convictions. At the moment the man is in this position that if he does not do just what the trade unions want, they appoint someone else. As the sub-clause reads at the moment, they can do so at any time, and we are of opinion that they should only have that right at the end of the period of nomination. Let us appoint such a person for, say, three years; after that period the trade unions can then nominate another person. At the moment the position is that if the man who is appointed does anything which does not suit the trade unions, they can simply pass a resolution asking the Minister to cancel the appointment and to appoint someone else. If we are going to do that, it seems to me that these committees will not be worth anything. It means that the members who serve on the committee will not be able to act according to their convictions; they will always have to look to the trade unions and the employers’ organisations. That should not be allowed. If a person behaves badly and does anything which is immoral or dishonest, the Minister should have the right to dismiss him. We have no objection to that. But to do it, as is indicated here, without giving any reasons, is not fair. I therefore move.

I want hon. members and the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) in particular, to appreciate that the representatives on a committee are the representatives of the bodies concerned—of the trade unions—the hon. member seems to be concentrating his attention on the trade unions.

No, I said employers too.

Well, then the two organisations are represented on the Committee. The Minister is only the via media.

I quite understand that.

Then surely if a trade union or an employers’ organisation finds that a man or men they have put there are not carrying out their desires, they should have the right to replace them.

They are there to carry out what is right.

They have their conception of what is right. If the hon. member were the arbiter of right he might consider that this or that man was not doing the right thing. The organisation nominates a man because it wants a policy carried out.

Question put: That sub-section (2), proposed to be omitted, stand part of the clause.

Upon which the Committee divided:

Ayes—64 :

Abbott, C. B. M.

Abrahamson, H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Bawden, W.

Bell, R. E.

Bosman, J. C.

Bosman, L. P.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowker, T. B.

Burnside, D. C.

Butters, W. R.

Carinus, J. G.

Christie, J.

Christopher, R. M.

Cilliers, H. J.

Clark, C. W.

Connan, J. M.

Davis, A.

De Wet, H. C.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, R. J.

Eksteen, H. O.

Fawcett, R. M.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedman, B.

Gray, T. P.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Hemming, G. K.

Higgerty, J. W.

Hopf, F.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Latimer, A.

Madeley, W. B.

Maré, F. J.

Miles-Cadman, C. F.

Molteno, D. B.

Morris, J. W. H.

Mushet, J. W.

Payn, A. O. B.

Payne, A. C.

Prinsloo, W. B. J.

Raubenheimer, L. J.

Robertson, R. B.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Steytler, L. J.

Stratford, J. R. F.

Sturrock, F. C.

Sullivan, J. R.

Sutter, G. J.

Tothill, H. A.

Ueckermann, K.

Van Niekerk, H. J. L.

Van Onselen, W. S.

Wares, A. P. J.

Waring, F. W.

Warren, C. M.

Willams, H. J.

Tellers: G. A. Friend and W. B. Humphreys.

Noes—22 :

Bekker, G. F. H.

Boltman, F. H.

Bremer, K.

Brink, W. D.

Conradie, J. H.

Erasmus, H. S.

Klopper, H. J.

Ludick, A. I.

Luttig, P. J. H.

Malan, D. F.

Olivier, P. J.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Serfontein, J. J.

Stals, A. J.

Steyn, A.

Strauss, E. R.

Swart, C. R.

Vosloo, L. J.

Warren, S. E.

Wessels, C. J. O.

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

Question accordingly affirmed and the amendment negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

On Clause 7,

I want to move as an amendment—

This clause gives the Minister the right to dis-establish any committee at will without giving any reason. The continued existence of the committees is entirely in his hands. I do not think the Minister will have any objection to this amendment. After all, he is the chairman of the Board. I therefore move that the Minister should only act after consultation and in collaboration with the Board.

Am I to understand that before the Minister disestablishes a Committee he must consult the Board?

Yes.

That might lead to a lot of delay. This is an alteration of the original Act which allowed vitiation of a committee under certain circumstances, but we found that a recalcitrant party to a committee held up the business of the committee without the Minister having the power to dissolve it. I want a short cut and I don’t think it prejudices the powers of the Board if the Minister is allowed that short cut. Please don’t press it; it is not necessary.

Amendment put and negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

On the motion of the Minister of Labour an amendment was made in the Afrikaans version which did not occur in the English version.

I move—

Yes, I accept that.

Then I won’t say anything more.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 12, On the motion of the Minister of Labour an amendment was made in the Afrikaans version which did not occur in the English version.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 14,

I move that that Clause be negatived for the purpose of inserting a new Clause—and if this amended Clause is agreed to then I say that if anyone can disclose anything under that, well, he must be pretty clever.

Clause 14 put and negatived.

On new Clause to follow Clause 13,

I move—

1. 14. No member of the Board or of a committee, or of a sub-committee of a committee, or any alternate to any such member, or any inspector, authorised person or officer, or any person allowed to be present at any meeting of a committee or of any such sub-committee or at any interrogation by an officer, shall disclose to any person, except to the Minister or an officer or for the purpose of the performance of his duties or the exercise of his functions under this Act or when required to do so before a court or under any law, any information in relation to the financial or business affairs of any person, firm or business, acquired in the performance of his duties, or the exercise of his functions under this Act, or while attending any such meeting or interrogation, as the case may be.

Agreed to.

On Clause 15,

I move—

I should like to ask the Minister in connection with the conditions of apprenticeship, what his policy is going to be in connection with the medium of instruction. Will it be mother tongue instruction, or what policy is he going to lay down? Then with regard to the payment of fees by apprentices, is there any policy in connection with bursaries or anything of that kind, or is the Minister going to submit it to the national committee? What are the Minister’s views?

As I have already informed the House a Committee has been set up to go into the whole question, but in addition to that we have now decided to set up a Supervisory Board which will advise the Minister on all these points, and I do not think it is necessary for us to stress the matter in this Clause.

Amendments put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 16,

I beg to move the following amendment—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 18,

I move—

1. (2)
   1. (a) After publication of the relevant notice under sub-section (1) no person shall take into his employment (otherwise than as an apprentice) in the trade and area to which the notice relates any minor other than a minor who has completed the period of apprenticeship prescribed under section fifteen in respect of that trade and area, without the written consent of the registrar.
   2. (b) The registrar may grant or refuse his consent if after consultation with the committee concerned he is of opinion that it would be in the interests of the minor to do so, and may, in granting his consent, impose such conditions relating to the employment of the minor as he may deem fit.
   3. (c) If the employment of any minor (other than an apprentice) terminates for any reason, the employer shall notify the committee concerned thereof in the prescribed form within seven days thereafter;

and an amendment in the Afrikaans version which did not occur in the English version.

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 19,

I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 21,

I should like to move the following amendment—

1. (e) has successfully passed a course of training at a recognised vocational or trades school.;

and to insert the following new sub-section to follow sub-section (1) :

1. (2) Any person who has passed the course referred to in paragraph (e) of subsection (1) shall be granted a recognition of at least 75 per cent.

I may say that I pleaded this matter fully during the second reading debate, i.e. that proper recognition should be granted to persons who received vocational training in recognised vocational schools and trades schools. In principle the Minister agrees with me. Why should we place a boy who took a course in a recognised vocational school, on the same footing when becoming apprenticed as a person who has not had any training whatsoever? He may have completed his course. It may have been a course of five years; why should he be placed on the same footing as the youth who has not taken any course whatsoever? The Minister of Labour will remember that he said that we should get uniform vocational training in our country, and that we should also develop a uniform standard of skill. This clause lays down which persons may become apprenticed. Certain persons may not be taken on as apprentices. For example, anyone who has not attained the age of fifteen years; anyone who is required by law to attend school, etc., may not bind himself as an apprentice. Then it is provided which persons can bind themselves as apprentices, and under that heading we now move that any person who has passed or completed a recognised course in a recognised trade school, shall receive recognition for at leaset 75 per cent. of the time which he spent in the trade school.

I know that the Minister himself would like recognition to be given in respect of the training of apprentices in trade schools. We have now made provision in this Bill for a board in order to achieve uniformity. When we have achieved that uniformity in our schools under the supervision of this proposed board, our youths will complete those courses; and what we move here is that when an apprentice has completed a recognised course, his course should be recognised to the extent of at least 75 per cent. for apprenticeship purposes. We realise that the man who leaves school will not be a fully qualified artisan, and that he will still have to receive training under a fellow-artisan. But he has already passed a course in one of the institutions established by the State, and we now ask that proper recognition should be given in respect of such a course.

No, Mr. Chairman, I am afraid I cannot accept that. Hon. members know perfectly well that all youngsters do not react alike to education in any particular direction. Some are better than others, and you cannot reduce them to an average rate of 75 per cent. Each case must be taken on its merits, we have to take into account the attainments of each individual. The effect of this amendment in one part of it would be that apprenticeships would be confined to those who had the apprenticeship training. I think hon. members had better let it go as it is.

I cannot understand why the Minister should not accept this amendment. At the second reading his objection was that there was no uniformity as far as vocational training in the various trade schools was concerned. The quality of the work in the various trade schools differs. The Minister examined all the trade schools, and it appeared from his examination that even in connection with the same trade there was a difference in the standard attained by the various trade schools.

There is a difference between schools and also with regard to specific trades.

That is the reason why he would not embody in this Bill a definite recognition in respect of a trade school course; but that argument now falls away. After the acceptance of this national board, that argument falls away. The Minister will now be the chairman of the board, and it will be the function of the board to lay down a uniform standard in respect of all trades and in respect of all trade schools. Once the board has laid down the standard, what objection can there be to accepting this amendment? We ask that when any person has passed such a standardised course in a school, where the standard is controlled by the Minister and his board, he should receive proper recognition in respect of the course. He should receive recognition in respect of the training he received when he is enrolled as an apprentice. Why not?

Why?

The Minister raised this objection during the second reading debate. We are now pointing out to him that he will have control of those schools through his board; he will have control of the conditions of apprenticeship and apprenticeship courses; why should recognition not be granted therefore? The Minister can ensure that the training is adequate; we should then readily recognise that training for purposes of apprenticeship. The argument which the Minister advanced against this has fallen away, and I want to ask the Minister to reconsider this matter. That is the logical consequence of the acceptance of the proposal in connection with the board. It is a logical consequence; and it is also a consequence of his argument at the outset that we should have a uniform standard of vocational training in this country. I also want to ask the Minister not to be unduly hasty in his judgment. We are trying to help him with this Bill. We want to have the best possible Act on the Statute Book, an Act which will bring about uniformity. Since we are making this serious effort to ensure that good artisans will be trained in this country, I hope the Minister will appreciate our assistance and consider this matter in that spirit.

I am not questioning the bona fides of hon. members, I know they want to make this as good as they can, but the amendment is not, I submit, consequential upon the setting up of this board. The board decides the standard of training, but you cannot measure off the boy’s brains and his ability to absorb training like yards of cloth.

If you have completed the recognised course?

We want to have power to differentiate in regard to the capacity of the youngster as displayed by test.

You are controlling the board and the board controls the test.

No, the test is something that is practical, and quite frankly you cannot know how much percentage you can allow until you have actually tested the boys.

What recognition is proposed?

As you know, we have 50 per cent. recognised now; why 75 per cent. and not 95 per cent.?

The Minister must acknowledge that all apprentices when they have finished their course, are not efficient, you have some more skilled than others. Then what is the difficulty in connection with this? We apply a standard test and say they must at least have attained 75 per cent., and we say that the course must be recognised. We acknowledge that all the students who pass through are not equally efficient, some of them of course will have to stay longer. It may be that an apprentice, after serving five years, does not obtain the efficiency that the Minister expected of him, yet he sends that man into the world as a tradesman. You do not have equal efficiency with all people, and that is exactly the same with the students in these institutions. You cannot get that absolute uniformity that we are trying to get.

My hon. friend has missed one very important factor, and that is that the employer decides whom he will employ. It is true that after five years’ training he is presumably a competent artisan, but if he is not competent after that training an employer does not employ him.

But you pass him out.

We do not say that he is a competent tradesman, but we say he must have five years’ training before he himself can claim to be a journeyman. But he cannot force an employer to take him on. The employer decides, just as he decides, who shall be his apprentice.

He may take a less skilled man if he wants to.

Yes, but he must pay him journeyman’s wages, and if the employer comes to the conclusion that man is not worth the wages to him, he cannot say to the man: “You must accept something lower,” and he therefore says: “You have got to go.” That is the custom right throughout trade. I have been subjected to it myself, and I know all about it. The ultimate deciding factor is the employer. I hope the hon. member will not press his amendment.

There is no logic in the Minister’s contention. The man who is in a school, which was specially established by the Government for the training of apprentices, is not an ordinary workman; he is a teacher as well as an artisan. He is a teacher who specialised in the training of youths, and the apprentice who is entrusted to his care receives more instruction from him than he does from the artisan with whom he works. Surely the Minister, as a skilled man, knows—and everyone knows—that the apprentice who receives his training at the hands of an artisan learns very little from him, because the artisan may be a good workman, but he is not a teacher. In the trade school we have specialised teachers. I agree with the Minister that not all apprentices are equally receptive as far as instruction is concerned. That is quite correct. But the apprentice who reaches the standard, both in theory and in practice, which is laid down by the Minister’s board, will be passed, and those who do not reach it, will fail. We do not ask that the training of all candidates should be recognised. But if a candidate has successfully undergo a period of training, perhaps gaining 95 marks out of 100, the Minister may come along and only offer him a reduction of 50 per cent. That is why we find that hundreds of apprentices who were trained in these trade schools are not employed today in the trades for which they were trained; but we find them as clerks, station foremen, shunters etc. We wasted the money which was spent on their training. We want to avoid that unsound state of affairs. We want the Minister so to arrange these training institutions that they will be in a position to give efficient instruction to the apprentice. They are under the authority of his board, and he should bring the standard of the work in these schools up to the required standard of the trades concerned. He might even concentrate certain trades in certain schools, but the work should be standardised. In the same way as we have a matriculation examination today which is the same throughout the country, so we can also have a uniform standard for any particular trade throughout South Africa. The Minister should not be able to say that the standard of one school is higher than the standard of another school. It is his duty to see to it that they attain the same standard. If that is achieved and the apprentice undergoes any particular course, the success which he achieves should be recognised by the department. The Minister of Labour already recognises it to a certain extent, but not sufficiently. He recognises it to the extent of 50 per cent., but we say that that is not enough. We may have a brilliant apprentice in the trade school who gains a 95 per cent. pass. In practice he then gets a rebate of 50 per cent. in respect of the time which he spent in a Government school, which is under the supervision of the Minister. The Minister will appreciate that that is not enough. That apprentice ought to know more than the apprentice who receives his training in the trade. He learns with the same instruments under a qualified teacher, and he has to pass a State examination. The Minister recognises his training, but not sufficiently. He will admit that 50 per cent. is not sufficient. The Minister should not take the sub-normal child. Not all the children who go to trade schools are sub-normal pupils. Many of the pupils are brilliant students. We want to attract brilliant pupils to the trade schools, we do not only want to send committed children there. We want to train our people in trades, because we aim at becoming an industrial country. The Minister should make those schools so attractive that they will attract the best children in the country. South Africa will need them. But he will not attract the best pupils to his own schools by forcing down their value, by treating them with contempt, as it were, in practice. It is our desire that those schools should become training centres for the best brains in the industrial sphere, and in that respect we want to help the Minister. I hope the Minister will reconsider this matter in a friendly spirit. If he does that he will find sufficient grounds for the acceptance of our proposal that there should be a minimum recognition of 75 per cent. We still leave room for elasticity, because we feel that there are some pupils who will be entitled to greater recognition. That, however, we leave to the discretion of the Minister and of his board.

I want to put a very frank question to the Minister, and I hope he will give me a very frank reply. During the recess special honour befell him which other Ministers have not had. He was at Jacobsdal. There he saw the work of the trade school, and I think the work which he saw in that trade school made a lasting impression on him. He examined the work as an artisan; and I now want to put this question to him: Does he think that those pupils have reached such a standard of efficiency in their work that he can give them 75 per cent. recognition? That is a frank question and a friendly question. I think the Minister has a mental picture of the whole of Jacobsdal before him. In his mind’s eye he can see the beautiful work again, and he can hear himself talking. He congratulated the boys on their work, and he also made certain promises to them. He said: “I shall give you recognition!” I want to remind the Minister that he said that there were defects in the Act of 1922, and that that Act should be amended. After he had inspected all the work as connoisseur, he used these words—

I am not sure that I did not say to him at the time: “Just don’t forget Jacobsdal.” If he wants to put South Africa on the map, he should accept our proposal to standardise the trade schools properly and to give at least 75 per cent. recognition to the pupils. I want to ask him whether he thinks the work at Jacobsdal is of such a quality that he can give 75 per cent. recognition?

No; I shall reply to that.

Is it 51 per cent. or 74 per cent? The Minister is a connoisseur of this work; and that is why I put this question to him. He told me that recognition was already being given to the extent of 50 per cent. That was the position before he was at Jacobsdal. There he told the youngsters that he would do something for them. He said he would introduce an amending Bill and do something for them—“I shall give you recognition!” Why does the Minister adhere to 50 per cent? And if he adheres to 50 per cent., what becomes of that promise? He made a solemn promise, and we would like to know from him whether he is going to give effect to that promise. It was a very solemn promise, and I want to ask the Minister to carry it out and to tell us to what extent he is going to give greater recognition than was given before his visit to Jacobsdal.

If I were asked what percentage I would give to those charming ladies who make such lovely pastries there I would give them 100 per cent. right away, but I would not give Jacobsdal more than 50 per cent.

But they have always had it.

Exactly; but I will give some of the others less.

But what about recognition?

No, I did not say that, as a matter of fact, the promise I made was a negative one.

But you did not eat negative cake; the pastries were not negative.

Shall we say that I have indigestion this time. Please let me continue. My hon. friend, I think, had left. He had another engagement, and I met the committtee including the principal of the school.

I was there.

In that case my hon. friend will remember that the principal asked me to agree to give full recognition for the time spent in the school. I said: “No, you will not get that.” I was very frank about that, and 50 per cent. is the guaranteed percentage. That is an encouragement. While I spoke most highly of the standard of the pupils, and while I spoke most highly of the teaching capacity of the masters, you have got to remember that they were trained in one direction only, and the industry which they will enter has very wide ramifications indeed, and they can only obtain all the necessary qualifications in the workshop. If the time arrives, then full recognition can be given. But the ultimate decider of the fate of apprentices is the employer. The employer decides whether he will be employed or not, and if you place the rate of pre-apprenticeship training at too high a level, which in turn means a higher commencing rate of pay, the employer will prefer to train his own apprentice.

He is worth more.

He may be, but the employer has to decide that, and if the employer has to pay too much by way of a commencing wage he will say: “No, I won’t have this man át all; I will train my own men.” I do suggest that you leave it as it is, and we will administer it sympathetically, and I will endeavour to give the fullest recognition. Do not misunderstand me now. I do not want members to say later on that I said that I would give full recognition. I will give as much recognition as I possibly can.

I want to express my sympathy with the view taken by the hon. Minister in this regard. The question as to giving recognition by way of reduction in the period of apprenticeship because of preapprenticeship educational standards or because of some special vocational training is a very difficult matter, at the present time. In the first place, we have varying educational standards throughout the country. Then again the question as to the school leaving age in the different provinces has not yet been co-ordinated; there is still another question, and that is that in many of the provinces there are no facilities for vast numbers of our young men to get this preapprenticeship vocational training. Notwithstanding these facts, however, the very thing that is being asked for is in many cases actually in practice. For example, the Railways, in taking on apprentices after their entrance examination, do make allowances for apprentices who have got at least the Standard VIII educational qualification. I believe they get some reduction.

They get nothing at all.

We give that all along the line.

That is my experience, at any rate. Then again the question as to qualifications in the varying trades is also important. For example, a boy entering the printing trade must have, for his six or seven years’ apprenticeship, at least matriculation qualification. These are all matters which will have to be considered at a later stage when we have a better co-ordinated national system of education and training for our boys. As a matter of fact, I think the Minister has these powers in this Bill. In Clause 15 (2) (i) he may prescribe any other condition of apprenticeship of whatsoever nature, which he may deem expedient to prescribe. Whereas in Section 15 (2) (b) there is specific reference to the period of apprenticeship, the variations in such periods which may be allowed, and the circumstances under which those variations may be allowed. I think the better plan would be to let the matter stay as it is, and let the initiative come from the employer and from the Education Department which is responsible for bringing the boys up to the educational standard required.

Amendments put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—24 :

Bekker, G. F. H.

Boltman, F. H.

Bremer, K.

Brink, W. D.

Conradie, J. H.

Erasmus, H. S.

Klopper, H. J.

Le Roux, J. N.

Ludick, A. I.

Luttig, P. J. H.

Malan, D. F.

Olivier, P. J.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Serfontein, J. J.

Stals, A. J.

Steyn, A.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Swart, C. R.

Vosloo, L. J.

Warren, S. E.

Wessels, C. J. O.

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

Noes—63 :

Abbott, C. B. M.

Abrahamson, H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Carinus, J. G.

Christie, J.

Christopher, R. M.

Cilliers, H. J.

Clark, C. W.

Connan, J. M.

Davis, A.

De Kock, P. H.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, R. J.

Fawcett, R. M.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedman, B.

Gluckman, H.

Gray, T. P.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Hemming, G. K.

Higgerty, J. W.

Hopf, F.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Latimer, A.

Madeley, W. B.

Miles-Cadman, C. F.

Bell, R. E.

Bosman, L. P.

Bowker, T. B.

Burnside, D. C.

Butters, W. R.

Morris, J. W. H.

Mushet, J. W.

Payn, A. O. B.

Payne, A. C.

Prinsloo, W. B. J.

Raubenheimer, L. J.

Robertson, R. B.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Stallard, C. F.

Steytler, L. J.

Stratford, J. R. F.

Sturrock, F. C.

Sullivan, J. R.

Sutter, G. J.

Tighy, S. J.

Tothill, H. A.

Ueckermann, K.

Van der Byl, P.

Van Niekerk, H. J. L.

Van Onselen, W. S.

Waring, F. W.

Warren, C. M.

Waterson, S. F.

Williams, H. J.

Tellers: G. A. Friend and W. B. Humphreys.

Amendments accordingly negatived.

I should like to ask the Minister what the age limit is for admission. The lower limit is fifteen years; what is the upper limit?

Will you please repeat that?

What is the highest age at which an apprentice can be registered?

Twenty-one years is the highest age in the ordinary course of events. But in special cases it may be an age above twenty-one.

What would the Minister call special cases where he would depart from the twenty-one year age limit?

The Minister does not decide what constitutes a special case; the committee decides that.

I just want to ask the Minister whether he will take into account that the age of the children in the platteland when leaving school is usually higher because they go to school at a later age. Will he take that into consideration?

That is the reason why we increased the limit to twenty-one years. It is a compromise between the one section and the other.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

On Clause 22,

I want to move the following textual amendments—

In Sub-Clause 3 there is a point which I would like to raise with the Minister. The clause provides that—

In the Act, as it stands at present, the Inspector may only refuse to register a contract subject to the approval of the Committee and if the Committee does not approve then he may not refuse to register the contract. That is the law as it stands at present. The new clause seeks to widen the powers of the Registrar. He may now refuse to register a contract after consultation with the Commiteee, and whether the Committee approves or not, that need have no effect on the Registrar’s decision.

Under the Act of 1922 he could not take that into consideration.

I think it is a pity that the Registrar’s powers are being extended under this clause. Perhaps the Minister will tell us why he has done so, and consider the advisability of revising the clause to conform to what it is at present.

I move—

If the Minister reads the old Act he will see that it was unlawful for the Registrar in registering a contract of apprenticeship, to take into consideration the future prospects of an apprentice to obtain employment after the completion of his apprenticeship. Now the Minister is making that lawful, with the result that numerous people who might have wanted to enter into contracts of apprenticeship, will be excluded; and this is a dangerous clause. Section 14 (c) of the old Act read as follows—

I shall also read it in English for the Minister’s information. [Section read.] The last provision is now being removed, and it is now definitely laid down that where such a contract is entered into the Registrar, if in his opinion it is not in the interests of the minor to register such a contract, will have the right to refuse it. How could he know that? He could only decide that on the ground that there are too many apprentices, and that after the completion of their apprenticeship, they will not be able to obtain employment. We must encourage a regular flow of skilled men. We may have a temporary depression, and then the Registrar may say that he refuses to allow further contracts of apprenticeship to be entered into. The depression passes, and then we may have a shortage of artisans. How can the Registrar know what the prospects of employment of an apprentice will be in four or five years’ time? I think the Minister should delete that provision, and if he deletes it he can substitute the sub-section of the old Act. But I think he can do away with it altogether, because today there is a board which can say whether there are sufficient artisans, and they will determine how many apprentices should be trained. I think after the Minister went to the length of appointing the board, this sub-clause (3) is redundant.

It seems to me the Minister refuses to accept this amendment. This condition is the cause of poor whiteism in this country to a large extent. The Minister must understand that the man who learns a trade is usually a man who did not have the means to study further.

You are wrong; he is going to accept it. I can see it on his face.

Will you accept it?

No.

If a child after passing Standard VI or VII does not study further, it is usually because his parents cannot afford it. That child wants to become an apprentice so that he can in due course become an artisan. If he is not allowed to enter into a contract of apprenticeship, he is doomed to pick and shovel; he has to work with pick and shovel for the rest of his life. He becomes an unskilled labourer. In the past the number of apprentices was restricted, because it was feared that there would be too many artisans, and that as a result of that there would be unemployment. What is the result of that attitude? During the past twenty years approximately 30,000 artisans completed their apprenticeship, and approximately 30,000 artisans were imported from overseas; in other words, it gave rise to poor whiteism because those children were doomed to make their living with pick and shovel. I should like the Minister to understand that. As a result of that, we created a sort of artistocracy of artisans in this country. There are bricklayers and other artisans who earn from £60 to £80 per month. Compare that with the salary of the youths who enter Government service. How many of them earn as much as that? Here you allow the Registrar to judge whether the man will be able to obtain work after the completion of his apprenticeship. Why have you got a national board? If they really have the interests of their fatherland at heart, they will not consider possible unemployment which may arise after the man has completed his apprenticeship. They will see to it that he gets his training and becomes a skilled labourer. Special provision was made in the old Act that when a man applies to enter into a contract of apprenticeship, it cannot be refused. Now the Minister deletes that altogether. They are now apparently going to make princes of the artisans. There is no right of appeal. Only the Registrar is allowed to say whether or not the man may become an apprentice. It seems to me not only to be unfair, but it is unjust. The Minister is committing an injustice to this country, this country which he adopted, by saying that the Registrar may refuse contracts of apprenticeship because he is afraid that there will be no work for the apprentice on the completion of his apprenticeship. Our complaint is that there are not enough artisans in this country, that there are not enough of our own artisans, that we had to import numerous artisans, men who did not have to undergo the apprenticeship which has to be served in South Africa. When a man comes from Holland or England, we do not know how long he was apprenticed. He comes here and holds himself out as an artisan, and once he is in the Union, he is accepted as an artisan. If the Minister imposes this further restriction that the Registrar should be afraid that there will be too many artisans, and that he can refuse to have contracts of apprenticeship entered into for that reason, it means a further restriction, and then this Bill represents a retrogressive step as far as apprenticeship is concerned, and that is an unsound and wrong provision. The Minister cannot tell me that he has evidence to show that it is necessary to do this. It has not been done in other countries. If we have too many carpenters or too many artisans, they can go to other countries, just as they came to this country from European countries when there was unemployment there. Why incorporate a condition into the Act which is the opposite of the provision which was contained in the old Act, which already placed a wall round artisans to make aristocrats of them. I should like the Minister to say why this is being done. The number of artisans to be trained must now be restricted, and the Registrar has to say for how many artisans there will be work in five years’ time. Why does the Minister not leave that to the National Board which is being appointed? Why should this power be placed in the hands of one man? What is the object of the National Board? They have to determine what percentage of artisans there should be as against apprentices in any trade. What is the use of that if the Registrar, behind their backs, can do as he pleases? The National Board will ascertain what the natural span of life of an artisan is. It is about 30 years. It may be a little longer, but let us accept that figure. We then say that there are many thousands of artisans, and we work out how many apprentices should be trained in order to keep that number up to strength, taking into account the possibilities of expansion. Now the Minister wants the Registrar to have the sole right of determining how many shall be admitted. There is no right of appeal. Assuming the employers are prepared to take on apprentices, and that the latter are willing to bind themselves, then the Registrar may come along and say that they shall not be admitted. It will only have a retarding effect on the expansion of apprenticeship, and it will then become necessary to import more artisans. The object of this Bill is to prevent the necessity of importing artisans. That object is now being defeated.

I should like to say to the hon. member for Houghton (Mr. Bell) that the reason why we have not repeated that is because it proved unworkable. In practice the Registrar never refused to register unless he had consulted with the committee concerned.

We don’t want him to consult the committee alone but also the Board.

He does though. The Registrar and the committees concerned are closely in association with the capacity of the industry to absorb. Now what is the object of this Bill—the protection of apprentices with the idea that they should be properly trained and become artisans who can occupy good jobs and get artisans’ wages. Now what is the good of training a tremendous number of artisans and overflow the industry concerned?

What about importations?

The importations you are talking about were under your own regime.

No, that is not so.

I have told hon. members before that we have imported only 50 since I have held this portfolio.

What about Col. Reitz’s statement?

What did Queen Anne say on her deathbed?

Is that Col. Reitz’s deathbed politically?

Above all things they have the right to appeal to the Minister.

Where is the right of appeal?

Everyone has the right of appeal to the Minister. Even the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren). All through this legislation hon. members over there have led me to suppose that they look upon me as an ideal Minister of Labour.

As an ideal dictator— don’t get any wrong impressions.

Hon. members have said: “It is all right while you are in charge, but we don’t know what future Ministers will do.” Having some distant hope—a hope which is very remote indeed— of coming into office themselves and occupying this seat, they have a fear of what may happen then. And they have been paying me compliments by assuming that if I remained in office everything would be all right, and this Act would be a splendid one.

We say it may be all right.

They have an appeal to the Minister and after all that is the only sound right of appeal they can have.

Apparently the Minister has not read his own Bill. Let him see what it says here in Clause 22 (3). It makes the position perfectly clear there that after consultation with the committee concerned, the Registrar may refuse to register any contract of apprenticeship if in his opinion it is not in the interests of the apprentice to register the contract and he may have regard to the apprentice’s prospects of obtaining employment in the industry concerned at the expiry of the contract. For the Minister to tell us that we must take this war period, and realise that while he has been Minister of Labour no artisans have been introduced is ridiculous. No craftsmen have been imported because you couldn’t import them. But from 1934 to 1938, at a period when there were 5,000 odd apprentices in this country, in the neighbourhood of 5,000 tradesmen were imported.

During the war we have exported quite a number.

Quite possibly, because industries have been changed and you have taken in a number of half-trained men. It is ridiculous to talk of importations in war time because that was a period that was entirely abnormal. There is no doubt that the Act was disgracefully abused in the past. They imported thousands of men, tradesmen, at a time when we could have trained apprentices. I want to say this that there is not the slightest doubt that this section as it now stands will mean the reduction of the amount of apprentices and will lead to an increase in the number of poor whites. The man who becomes a tradesman is usually the man who has not got the money to go further with his education, and if you don’t allow that man to take up a trade, you turn him into a poor white. Even if this country cannot employ him, if he has a trade he can usually find employment somewhere else. The old Act was collared by people who controlled apprenticeships and they made a disgrace of it. People who could be trained were not trained and this Bill will have the same effect. The Minister says it didn’t work well. It did not because the employers were dilatory in their duty in training apprentices and that will happen again unless we take drastic steps. Experts have told me that this section is a retrograde step and that as time goes on fewer men will be trained and more will be imported. Some people even say that the trade unions don’t want apprentices, they prefer to see men imported. Some employers don’t want apprentices because they don’t want to train them. But they owe a duty to the State. Why should we be afraid of a little worklessness and in consequence go to the other extreme and not train apprentices? I reallly feel disgusted with the Minister in not agreeing to withdraw this section because it is a retrograde step no matter what he says. You will reduce the number of apprentices, and aggravate the situation. I have not had time to think about Wakkerstroom and I resent the Minister throwing that at us all the time. I have not placed any bets either. But I do know that the people in the country are dissatisfied with the Government and as sure as I’m standing here in a few years’ time this party will be in power. Let the Minister leave Wakkerstroom out, it doesn’t worry me. I am not trying to make any propaganda for the election. We on this side, that section of our party which is dealing with this Bill, want to improve the Bill, and now we are asked to vote for something which is retrograde. If the Minister wants to force it through the House, very well, he can steam roller it through, but the people outside will not be satisfied and I say again that it is our duty to make good citizens and good tradesmen, so that they will be an asset to the State and there will be no need to import people from outside. We have our own people who have shown that they can be as good tradesmen as you will find anywhere else in the world. So why should we refuse to train apprentices? We know what is behind it all. Some people don’t want apprentices because they want to secure their own positions in the event of bad times coming, and these men who are so keen on securing their positions are earning between £60 to £70 per month whereas a few years ago they were earning only £20 or £25. By this Section you will only create more trouble. We know that when these Committees sit and go through the contracts there is at the back of their minds the fear that they will lose some of their privileges. We are not against trade unions. What we fear is that trade unionism should have a monopoly and keep South Africa out of the trades.

They don’t do it.

I have given these figures of importations from 1934 to 1938, when as many tradesmen were imported as we had apprentices here finishing their contracts. In other words 5,000 young South Africans were kept out of trades and doomed to unskilled labour with pick and shovel while you brought people from England, Holland, America and all over the world and you gave them the jobs which our people should have had. You cannot argue it away. It is not use talking about what took place during the War. We have been living in abnormal times during the War. Just remember that the 1922 Act doomed to poor whiteism 5,000 families because the youngsters were not given contracts. And don’t tell me that they were not South Africans. A little while ago I went to the Juvenile Advisory Board, and out of the applications for apprenticeships only 6 per cent. were given contracts. And if this Act is going to restrict our own people from becoming tradesmen for the benefit of people who have to come from 6,000 miles away it is nothing but a disgrace.

I hope the Minister will reconsider this matter. In reply to the hon. member for Houghton (Mr. Bell) he said that it had been found that the Registrar never did refuse contracts of apprenticeship which had been recommended by the Committee. How could he? He didn’t have the power. But this Section proposes to give him that power. Who know conditions in a particular sphere of industry better than the local Committee. I do not quite like this and I hope the Minister will go into this and consider whether it is wise. I hope the Minister will take it in that spirit. I am not criticising it, but there appears to be something which gives the Registrar the power to override the decisions of the local committees. Then there is another point. I see that power is given to the Registrar to use the reason that after the apprenticeship is completed there may not be employment for a particular apprentice. But it takes five years to complete an apprenticeship and it must be very difficult for a Registrar to say what will be the position in five years’ time. I hope the Minister will consider that.

It seems to me that it is hopeless to expect that a Registrar will function properly if you are going to appoint him and then say that his powers will be limited beyond the point where he is going to be useful. I cannot imagine that a Registrar would consider exercising all these extra powers except in the interests of the apprentices and that is clearly indicated in the clause.

Nothing of the kind.

Yes, it is indicated there. In our imperfect system we find that there are many ways by which the law can be evaded and very often a fair case can be made out for what is really an evasion of the law. I do not think that the Registrar would deliver a a judgment unless he was satisfied that most of the people concerned in the issue were on his side. To talk about the number of artisans that have been imported into the country in connection with a clause like this is just wasting time. Supposing we have someone out of malice importing an endless stream of artisans that doesn’t preclude this position that an employer may seek to exploit a boy under the cloak of apprenticeship when he is unable to give that boy the training he should have. We know that that kind of employer exists. The laws don’t eradicate them and it seems to me that we must agree that if you are to bring the thing to the perfection which you hope for then you must couch in your authority, which is given to the proper person the power which he should have to do his job. If we cannot find people who are reasonable and just, and want fair play, then of course that is a horse of a different colour. But obviously here there was a keen desire to see fair play done and there is no danger in giving the proper official the power to see that fair play is ultimately done, and I am quite satisfied that this clause under our present arrangement is a clause which will not run contrary to the interests of our young men, neither will it prevent any boy, whether he lives in the country or the town having access to a trade, but it will prevent people from exploiting a boy by pretending they can train him when in fact they cannot.

I don’t understand the amendment from the opposite benches. May I ask hon. members opposite if their amendment to delete sub-clause (3) is accepted, how it will be possible to control the number of apprentices. It is a controlling clause with a restrictive effect and because of this it is a clause containing a certain element of danger. It would be possible under this provision, if there was a continual refusal to register apprentices in any particular trade, that in the end we would not have any new skilled artisans. The trouble here is that the Registrar is expected to exercise a prophetic genius and to say what will be the position in a trade some years hence, when an apprentice completes his training. I would prefer the clause to follow the present Act. There is in the present law the right to refuse to register a contract by the inspector of apprenticeship, who may only refuse subject to the committee’s approving of it. Now that is a condition which I would like to see restored in this clause …

Well, propose it.

… that the Committee’s approval should be a condition precedent to the refusal by the Registrar. That would meet the case, but it is impracticable to delete this sub-clause. I don’t think the Minister in his reply has given us a full enough explanation of the position in regard to this change. His explanation was a very brief one. I think the Minister is right in upholding that this clause must be maintained, but I would ask him to consider restoring to the committee the power, which at present it enjoys.

After the speech by the hon. member for Houghton (Mr. Bell) we are quite prepared to leave the Bill in its present form. Let the hon. member move it. He does not do so. That is what we get from the other side of the House—not the slightest assistance. He gets up and suggests something which he thinks is essential, but then he does not move it.

The Minister says he will accept it.

Then I move an amendment in that spirit. We would be satisfied with that.

I propose to accept the suggestion of the hon. member for Houghton (Mr. Bell).

He stole someone else’s thunder.

Ana to restore the original provision, the one which the hon. member for Boksburg (Mr. Williams), also wants. We can put it in on the report stage. Now the reduction of the number of apprentices during the depression was due to the fact that employers were unable to employ new apprentices. In many cases they had no work for the apprentices they already had.

There was no depression from 1934 to 1938. If the Minister thinks that the years 1934 to 1938 were depression years, he is sorely mistaken. 1938 was a very prosperous year. I cannot believe that because there was a depression they did not train artisans in great numbers during those years. And then I want to put this question to him: If there was a depression why were so many artisans imported? Almost the same number of artisans were imported as the number who completed their apprenticeship here. The Minister’s excuse is altogether wrong. The depression had nothing to do with it. I shall be satisfied if the Minister inserts the provision in the report stage, and I shall not say anything further on the subject. But he must not except me to swallow everything.

I must place on record my regret that the Minister has given way on this particular clause.

The hon. Minister, I take it, withdraws his amendments on this particular clause.

No, Sir, leave that in. I have given an undertaking that in the report stage we will restore the original wording.

With leave of the Committee, the amendment proposed by Mr. J. H. Conradie was withdrawn.

Amendments proposed by the Minister of Labour put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 27,

I move—

Agreed to.

Clause as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 28

I should like to move an amendment to allow a right of appeal to the Minister. If the Minister is prepared to accept it, I shall not enlarge on it.

No, I cannot accept it.

Clause 28 reads as follows—

1. (a) With the consent of the Registrar by agreement of the parties thereto, or
2. (b) by the Registrar, after consultation with the committee concerned, on his own initiative or at the instance of any party thereto, if he is satisfied that it is expedient to do so.

Here practically all the power is placed in the hands of the Registrar. He has the right to terminate the contract on his own initiative. I know the Minister will say that he will consult the committee. But that is not enough, and I therefore want to give the right of appeal to the Minister’s board.

I want to show the hon. member that his amendment is unnecessary by directing his attention to Clause 29, which provides for an appeal after consultation with the Board.

I want the Minister to understand that I have more confidence in the Board. I would be prepared to give the Board more power, because if we have a board constituted as we expect, we may get a lot of knowledge and usefulness from them. They ought to be of assistance and they ought to see that the state of affairs that has existed does not exist in the future. Consequently, I am glad the Minister is adding the Board.

I am putting the Board in.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 29,

I move the amendments as printed—

This will meet the point made by the hon. member if we add “after consultation with the board and the committee concerned”.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 30,

I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 31, On the motion of the Minister of Labour an amendment was made in the Afrikaans version which did not occur in the English version.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 32,

I want to move the following amendment—

I move this amendment because it has come to our notice that there are institutions in the country which have done good work for the last nineteen years in training artisans. We feel that the activities of those institutions should not be unrestricted, but that their courses should comply with the requirements of the Act.

At 6.40 p.m. the Chairman stated that, in accordance with the Sessional Order adopted on the 25th January, 1944, and Standing Order No. 26 (1), he would report progress and ask leave to sit again.

HOUSE RESUMED :

The CHAIRMAN reported progress and asked leave to sit again; House to resume in Committee on 5th May.