1.—13.

10

■will be necessary to legislate in the matter. The boy evil is more apparent in the matter of competition, employers of men being quite unable to compete with employers of boys. I know of two firms in this town. In one place men were employed; in the other boys were employed. A large tender was opened, with the result that the establishment which employed boys got the contract. Later on, when another contract was at stake, the firm which had employed men discharged them and took on boys, so that it might compete for it. This Bill will not do away with that evil as an employer may bind as many boys as he likes under it. We would like to see a Bill regulating the number of boys to the number of men. With regard to the boys learning their trade—speaking of my trade—the boys in a large number of cases do not learn it; I refer particularly to country offices. Very often the boys serve one time here and another time there, and they never properly learn. Boys frequently pass through numbers of offices as learners. I have known cases where boys have passed through several offices in this way. One case in particular I know of where a boy had passed through seven offices, and then applied for admission to the Typographical Society, and of course we had to admit him. We want a Bill to make employers bind their boys, and teach them their trade as they should be taught. I would like to say a word or two on the Bill itself. I should like to see a clause inserted 3. An additional clause? —Yes; an additional clause, that an employer should not bind as many boys as he chooses, for this reason : I think some jurisdiction should be placed in the hands of the Inspector. Take a country office, for instance. If a man binds seven, or eight boys, will he have the least chance of teaching them their trade ? I think not, and I think this should be stopped. I think the best thing is to place the matter in the hands of the Inspector, and let him have some jurisdiction as to the number of boys who shall be bound in each factory.. The factory employer may bind any number of boys, without caring whether or not they learn their trade; he may do so knowing that in twelve months' time he will cease to exist, and the boys will be thrown upon the market. Of course, they would be entitled to get certificates ; but the chances are they will not get a billet again, and they may have to seek some other particular trade, and their time would thus be absolutely thrown away. I think, under the circumstances, that the Inspector should have certain control in regard to apprenticing a number of boys. In clause 16 of this Bill I find that the nonhandicraft apprentice is provided for as far as holidays are concerned, whereas the handicraft apprentice, I presume, is provided for in the Factories Act only up to the age of eighteen. A boy going to the printing at the age of fourteen would leave at the age of twenty, because we recognise six years as the time of apprenticeship. The result would be that he would be deprived for two years of holiday payments. i. You think the apprentice should be paid for holidays?— Yes ; that is the position taken up by us. Clauses 17 and 19 do not seem to dovetail into one another. Clause 17 says, "From and after the commencement of this Act no young person shall be employed in any registered factory at any handicraft unless such young person be duly apprenticed to such employer by deed of apprenticeship under this Act, and every such deed shall be read and construed subject to the provisions of 'The Factories Act, 1891,' in so far as the same are applicable." If you refer to clause 19 you will find, "Every young person employed at any handicraft, whether apprenticed or not, shall on ceasing to be so employed be entitled to receive from his employer a certificate under his hand, setting forth the period of such young person's service at such handicraft, and every employer who without good cause refuses, neglects, or delays to give such certificate shall be liable for each such offence to a penalty not exceeding £5." One says he shall be bound, and the other says he shall receive a certificate after employment in each handicraft, which to my mind, infers that he need not be bound, unless the Bill only provides for boys employed in factories. As far as I can see of the third schedule, I think that it is unfair to the employers, as it fixes the rate of wages too high. I think the third year should be reduced 5 per cent., the fourth 10 per cent., the fifth 10 per cent., and the sixth 15 per cent. 5. You do not think the wages too high in the first and second year ?—No, I do not think the wages are too high in the first and second year. I think, in the table issued by the Council the scale of wages is very much better, although, in some cases, the rate is too high; I consider 255. to 30s. at the end of an apprenticeship enough. But, of course, this does not apply to the whole colony, only to Wellington. Our table, which fixes a proportion of boys to journeymen as well as the rate of wages to be paid to apprentices, was brought before the Trades Council Conference, but it was thought advisable not to touch it. It might have been right as far as Wellington was concerned, but in other parts of the colony entirely wrong, so it was decided to leave it to the Minister to see what he could do in the matter. Ido not think I have got much more to say, only that the president and I have come here to-day particularly to urge upon the Government to bring forward this Bill and pass it next session. 6. Oh, you want it dealt with next session ?—Yes. I now speak on behalf of the Trades Councils of the colony, as our Council is acting as the Executive. We have had letters from every one of the Trades Councils asking us to urge the Minister to pass the Bill into law next session, and I hope he will do so.' At the next Trades Council conference the whole matter will be gone into, and no doubt then some improvements will be made. 7. You speak of apprentices being bound. Of course you refer to printing particularly. It would be difficult to insert a clause to provide generally what the length of apprenticeship would be, seeing that different trades have different terms of apprenticeship ?—Yes ; we recognise that, and think it would be better to leave the determination of this point to the Governor in Council. 8. You mention that an additional clause should be added limiting the number of boys to be bound in your trade.—No, I did not say that. I said that in fairness to boys this discretionary power should be left in the hands of the Inspector. An employer binding eight or nine boys might not, after a time, have sufficient work to keep them going, although he would be obliged to keep them. This would be unfair to the boys, and, under these circumstances, I think therefore that