When this matter was dealt with in the full House I spoke about it, but after the discussion last night I cannot possibly remain silent, and feel compelled to say a few words more about the production costs of wheat. I do not quote figures which I have taken from some blue book or other, or figures that I borrow from statistics, but those in my own experience. The figures give the actual costs connected with wheat farming in the Transvaal and what it costs to produce a bag of wheat. I have the figures here for my own farm. During the various years about 140 or 150 morgen on my farm were sown with wheat. I consider therefore that the figures can be taken as a faithful reflection of the actual cost in the Transvaal of producing wheat. I come first to the costs of cultivating a morgen of ground. To cultivate a morgen for the sowing of wheat the costs of cultivation the first time in the month of January for ploughing with a two-furrow plough and twelve or fourteen oxen is 12s. per day. For the second time the ploughing is again 12s., the harrowing 3s., sowing by hand or by corn drill in the most modern manner 1s., water leading 12s., reaping with a self-binder or with a sickle 10s., the transport and packing 4s. The seed—a half bag at £1—comes out at 10s. per bag cost price, food for workers 8s., the maintenance and repair of dams and water furrows 2s., depreciation of tools comes to 8s., and 8 Der cent, interest on the capital value of the ground at £25 per morgen comes to £2. Thus the cost of cultivating a morgen is £6 2s. Now I reckon that from one morgen I usually reap about 8 bags, therefore the work alone comes to 15s. 3d. per bag. But what further expenses are there? Firstly, the thrashing which comes to 1s. 6d. per bag. Secondly, the cost of the bags. I take a bag with thread at 1s. Everybody who knows anything of farming will agree that that is a very fair calculation. The carriage to the market comes on my estimate to 2s. 6d., and the commission to the co-operative society is 1s. Thus in all £1 1s. 3d. per bag. Then there are still various items to be included such as, e.g., expenditure for fertilizer, water tax, the last-named will also have to be paid if the ground is connected with an irrigation scheme. Personal wages and supervision are also not taken into account. Further, no account is taken of bad years due to rust, locusts, hail or drought. Everyone will thus agree that my estimate is very conservative, and my figures are confirmed by the report of the Board of Trade and Industries. I have read through that report which was only handed in a few days ago by the Minister, and I find that the average production costs calculated over three years are put down at £1 0s. 11d. per bag of 200 lbs. That does not differ much from my calculations of £1 1s. 3d. The cost for the chief wheat districts of the Union is given as follows: Malmesbury, 19s. 2d. ; Piquetberg, 19s. 9d. ; around Cape Town, 18s. ; Caledon, 18s. It is stated that the costs run from 16s. to 21s. for a bag of wheat. At the same time it is suggested that farmers will not possibly be able to exist if they sell their wheat at less than 25s. a bag. My view is that 25s. is not enough. That might do for large farms with a production of 2,000 or 3,000 bags, but on most farms only 200, 300 or 400 bags are reaped, and at that price hardly any living could be made from wheat farming. Then there are hon. members, I must say chiefly on this side of the House, who have made reproaches such as, e.g., that the farmers do not go to work in a scientific way. What is a scientific way? In my district the greatest trouble is taken to farm scientifically. Take, e.g., the plant we use. The progressive wheat farmer no longer sows by hand, but with a seed drill winch costs from £50 to £70. The reaping is done with the most modern self-binder and not with a sickle. The thrashing and grading is done with the newest steam thrashing engines. This is surely scientific working. Now I see that the Board of Trade and Industries recommends in the report to improve farming by using, e.g., more fertilizer and green manure. That is well, but capital is necessary for fertilizer, and with green manure it is necessary to leave the land fallow for a year, and every farmer cannot do that. Then the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) has half reproachfully said that the farmers do not cooperate enough. I believe that this half reproach applies as regards the Cape Province, because there are co-operative societies to buy the requirements, but the sale of wheat is not done through the co-operative societies. It is, however, an accusation which cannot be levelled against us in the Transvaal, because there we have proper co-operative societies, who sell the complete joint harvest of the districts to the millers of Pretoria and Johannesburg at the best possible prices, and that is one of the reasons why we in comparison with the other parts of the country get a fairly good price for our wheat, viz., 2s. or 2s. 6d. a bag more than farmers in the Cape Province. Then one of the hon. members, I think it was the member for Queenstown (Mr. Moffat) mentioned that the wheat farmer only works about 6 months in the year. I must decidedly contradict that. I know that on good grain farms in my district people are employed from the beginning to the end of the year exclusively in grain farming. In January and February the ground is broken up. At the end of March and April it is sowing time. May, June, July and August are used for water leading. September and October are for reaping. October and the beginning of November thrashing time, and December is employed for the transport of the wheat to market. In January ploughing commences again of the stubble land where the wheat for the following year has to be sown. Thus where the wheat farmer is to get the six months from to sit on the stoep smoking his pipe I do not know. In general wheat farming is one of the worst paid industries in the country. That is my experience, and I have experience not on a small but on a fairly big scale. I have carefully read the report of the Board of Trade and Industries. I must say that it is a good report, indicating that the members of the board have spared no pains to become well acquainted with wheat farmers, and the reproach which some hon. members have brought against the members of that board for not having considered the interest of the consumer is quite undeserved, at any rate in so far as the report on the wheat industry is concerned. To tell the truth, I think that they paid too much attention to the interests of the consumer and did not sufficiently emphasize the interests of the producer. That is my impression, because if the board had not been so concerned about the interests of the consumer their recommendations would be the same as those of the former board who did not recommend a protective duty of 5d. per 100 lbs. but 1s. per 100 lbs. In my opinion the board did not take account of the losses the farmers had to suffer as a result of drought, hail and other misadventures. Therefore my opinion is that the interests of the consumer are more protected than those of the wheat farmer. I see that the Minister of Finance has exactly followed within a hair’s breadth the recommendation of the board with regard to imposing an increased import duty and also with reference to the removal of the dumping duty. The assurance of the Minister that the dumping duty can again be reimposed at any moment it is necessary satisfies me, and I trust he will take that step if necessary. But I must admit that I am somewhat disappointed that the recommendations of the former board, viz., to put a duty of 1s. per 100 lbs. have not been followed. It is certainly not such a great burden on the producer. I reckon that the extra costs caused thereby to a household of five persons, wife, husband and three children would only amount to 2s. 6d. That is just about the cost of an evening at the bioscope.

In spite of the repeated explanations and statements of the Minister the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) in his speech last night still maintained that the wheat farmer would be worse off under the Minister's proposals.

Read my speech in “Die Burger.”

What I say here I noted personally, and it agrees with the report in the “Cape Times.” But I will take the word of the hon. member. Must I also take it that the hon. member has changed his view and now admits that the proposals are of great assistance to the farmer? If he keeps to his previous attitude I should like to ask him if he intends moving the rejection of the proposals. He would then have the pleasure of co-operating with the hon. members for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger). Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) and Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell), but he would then also have to vote against his higher leaders, the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) and Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt), because both admitted that the wheat farmer needed protection, and stated that the proposal of the Minister would assist in that. Possibly the hon. member for Caledon thinks that it would make no difference at the elections if he acts contrary to the farmers’ interests, seeing that his strength lies in the coloured vote. But his friend, ex-Minister Franz Malan, also once apparently thought so, and he at the last election came to earth on the small of his back. Even coloured voters are opening their eyes when you touch the interests of the wheat farmer, then you also touch the interest of the workers. The speech of the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) hurt me. I expected something better from him. I have a soft place in my heart for that honourable and frank member, and know that he means well by the farmers in general. So it grieved me that he said the wheat farmers did not work eight hours a day. They work sixteen hours a day and often more. I was once travelling in a cart between 3 and 3.30 a.m. with an Englishman in the Piquetberg district, and on several farms the farmers were already up and at work. The Englishman could hardly believe his eyes. It was a pity the hon. member was not there also. The farmers in the Western Province are the hardest working class in the Union. The hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) stated that the grain farmers mostly did their work by coloured labour. That is not correct. Every farmer and farmer’s son works personally. In the Piquetberg district there are comparatively few coloured people. That district is the whitest in the whole Union. The hon. member says that if farmers cannot make a success of grain farming without protection then they must give it up. The hon. member probably intends Lithuanians to take their place with potato plantations, such as is the case according to him in the Free State? But if the Lithuanians are to replace the farmers who then remain over for the Lithuanians to trade with? Through rainfall and other circumstances the Afrikander farmer has a much harder time than the Australians. The average yield in Australia is 8 bags a morgen, while in South Africa it is only 5.31. If it were not for that the Union would have a surplus wheat production instead of a shortage. Hon. members do not sufficiently understand what it means to assist the knee-haltered Afrikander farmer. The destruction of the wheat farmer would not only ruin ten thousand families, but would be the cause of some millions of pounds sterling being annually sent out of the country to import wheat and flour. We produce 70 per cent. of the country’s requirements, and that quantity reckoned at only 25s. per bag represents more than £4,000,000. The Minister has rightly said that the increased import duties on wheat will not increase the price of bread in the towns, although the price of wheat will rise.

Who would then pay the difference?

The millers. The increased import duty is already in force. The farmers are already getting 1s. 6d. per bag more than six weeks ago, and the price of bread is unchanged. That that would occur was prophesied by the Board of Trade and Industries in 1923, when the price of wheat was also 23s. 6d. and 24s. In their report of that year they stated expressly that the baker would not raise the price of bread unless wheat rose more than 5s. 5d. per bag and they proved that by a table of figures which the chairman of the Cape Master Bakers’ Association supplied them with. The board in the meantime stated that they were convinced that an extra import duty of 1s. per 100 lbs. of wheat would leave the price of bread unaltered, and they then recommended such an additional duty. Now if 1s. per 100 lbs. would not affect the price of bread why should 5d.? The hon. member for Be-zuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) tried to tell us that the duty would make a difference of £1,000,000 to the consumers. Where is his proof? But that hon. member is so accustomed to talk loosely and has such a thick skin that it is useless pointing out his mistakes to him. No, it is clear that while the consumer in the towns will not suffer as a result of the proposals the farmers will gain.

There was one thing the Minister referred to that I was unable to follow, and I hope he will make it clear. He said the dumping duties bad come into the ad valorem rate, or something to that effect. We have never had an ad valorem duty on wheat.

The hon. Minister is quite right. We have a specific rate of duty. I meant the duty actually paid. I was technically wrong to speak of an ad valorem rate. What I intended to convey was that if any dumping should take place, in excess of 7d. per lb. which we are adding to the specific duty, the dumping provisions will come into effect.

I listened with a good deal of interest to the speech made by the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) and with a good deal of it I could agree, provided it was possible to start this country anew. But he advocated something that savoured of bolshevism. We have had these suggestions made before in connection with other things. If we could start afresh, how differently we should do! Even with the Act of Union if we could have swept away everything instead of building on the foundation that existed, we might have acted differently. He advocated that wheat-growing should be done away with entirely, and that the industry should be afforded no help whatever. I have heard in this House, and still more in the old Cape House, similar things advocated in regard to the wine farmers, namely, that they should plough up all their vines and take to dairying. I have heard a similar thing in regard to the sugar industry in Natal. That seems to me to be a policy of despair, and I am unable to follow that line in regard to wheat. But the disconcerting thing in the hon. member’s speech was his statement that wheat-growing had been practically abandoned in the Free State. I presume that as he is a Free Stater—and we know how meticulously careful he is about every statement he makes in this House—that is correct. I am not so much in touch just now with details as I was, but some years ago I was on a commission that went into these matters, and we were told over and over again that, provided the farmers could get three good seasons, the Free State could supply all the Union’s requirements. Of course, they have never had three good seasons in succession. But if we have come to the position that the Free State is practically giving up wheat-growing, it is very disconcerting to one who wishes to see this country in a position to supply its own wheat ; for in this matter of duties I have always put wheat in a category by itself, as being a thing that it was in the interests of the country to pay something more for, and to give some protection to, as it was an absolute necessity to this country. Before the Industries Commission of 1912, it was stated that the only way to ensure a supply of cheap wheat in South Africa was to grow it here. Therefore, I have no objection to a reasonable duty on wheat. In 1903 when the different colonies, as they were then, agreed on a common tariff, a compromise was arrived at to place a duty of 1s. per 100lbs. on British and 1s. 2d. per 100 lbs. on Foreign wheat. Those duties have stood the test of 23 years, but now the Minister seeks to change them. He has given us the assurance that this will not cause a rise in the price of bread, but that the difference will be taken out of the millers. I have a very great respect for the business acumen of the millers, and I should be very much surprised if the duty were not passed on to the public. I hope it will not be, but I retain my doubts. It is a pity that the Minister has seen fit to disturb the compromise which has worked so well, for the result will be that the public will have to pay more. I think it would be a waste of time to appoint a commission to go into the question of the actual cost of growing wheat in this country, for there is nothing more difficult to ascertain than the cost of growing any particular kind of produce. A commission which sat in 1912 took evidence as to the cost of raising wheat, the following figures being given by various witnesses as to the cost of growing one bag of wheat. Caledon district, 15s. ; Malmesbury district, about 2s. more; Transvaal (Wakkerstroom district), 7s. 6d. One Transvaal farmer said his costs were 5s. 8d. per bag or, including interest on capital, between 8s. and 9s. A Free State witness declared that if the farmers had a good season they could afford to sell wheat at from 12s. 6d. to 15s. Mr. du Toit (Superintendent of the Government dry land station) said he obtained 12 bags of wheat per morgen, the cost being 6s. 8d. per bag. Practically the only buyers of wheat are the milliers, and as their profit is to be reduced under the new tariff they will try to obtain wheat at a lower rate so as to recoup themselves, for although nominally the difference between flour and wheat still remains, the percentage is different, and as it takes about 130 lbs. of wheat to make a bag of flour, the amount of flour a miller can produce is reduced and therefore he will not be able to sell flour at the same price as he has been doing. The Minister may find that his attempt to benefit the farmers in this roundabout way will not achieve his object. I was glad that the hon. Member for Bloemfontein (North) recognises that it is the business of the Opposition to look after the interests of the people, for that is what we are doing our best to do.

When we deal with the farming industry we have many experts in the House, but they are not practical farmers. They have possibly only read about the subject, but yet they talk a great deal about the farmers. The hon. Member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) said last night that the farmers were careless in their work or that they did not farm thoroughly enough. I can assure him that they farm in the best way to get a profit. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) bought a farm a few years ago, but I do not know whether he is a practical farmer. 1s he not merely a cheque book farmer? I should like to see the balance sheet of his farm. The hon. member for Lydenburg (Mr. Nieuwenhuize) is a farmer, and he gave the House a detailed statement of the expenses connected with wheat farming, but his calculation is still lower than that of the Select Committee which was appointed in 1918 to see what could be done to increase the wheat production of the country. Then it was a statement by practical farmers, and even that calculation was higher than the data of the hon. member for Lydenburg. The hon. member has mentioned various items, but what about the interest on capital invested in land and cattle, and what about the value of the farmers own work? The little profit there is, is considered sufficient for the farmer. Does his work not count at all? If a farmer had to calculate what his own personal work was worth and what he would get for it if he occupied another position, he would give up farming. The experts know little of practical farming. All that some of them can answer if a farmer asks them what the nature of the ground is that it would be fruitful if it only had more fertilizer. The hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. Buirski) a farming representative said that the ground in his constituency was fertile but that the rainfall was irregular. It is just the reverse, because the ground there is unfertile and the rainfall regular. If we were to have as much rain in the interior as they have at Swellendam or Caledon we should be able to farm. The Select Committee I have already referred to, urged that the farmers should be advised what to do to increase their wheat production. The advice was given, but not the protection. The wheat production cannot be increased without protection. The Government and the Minister of Finance did the right thing in giving protection to the wheat farmers. If the farmers do not know at all what they will get for their wheat they will not produce wheat because the market is too irregular. While the farmers in the Western Province may still be able to do so notwithstanding the irregular market because the climate and rainfall is so regular, the farmers inland cannot do it, because the wheat production will be a double gamble to them. They there have both nature and the market against them and the farmers cannot venture too much. Most of the hon. members opposite are professional men—many are lawyers or merchants—and when they go farming they always have their profession to fall back upon. That is not the case with the ordinary farmer, and if he fails he has to go to the relief works. The hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) would be able to resume his black bag and commence practising as a doctor if his farming should fail. The farmers have, however, to be careful, and that very carefulness is their salvation, because as a result they do not venture too much. I congratulate the Minister on his proposal and I hope the Government will continue along the same way.

Item as printed, put and agreed to.

On Item 15 (b).

I have got in my hands the report of the Board of Trade and Industries on this particular item. The board state—

I think this is a question to which the principle audi alteram partem very strongly applies. I do not think the other side has been properly heard in connection with this matter. The brewers of this country have done everything possible in regard to encouraging the production of barley in the Union suitable for brewing purposes. I know from my own knowledge that the brewers have imported seed barley into this country and sold it at cost and under cost to the farmers of the Union, so as to get sufficient barley raised in this country to meet their requirements. In that case it is necessary or desirable to increase the duty from 3s. to 4s. per 100 lbs.? The only import that is made is by the brewers, and they import malt or malting barley from overseas to make up any shortage in the supply of South African barley. They buy every pound of barley suitable for malting which is produced in the Union, and have spent large sums in erecting large makings in South Africa. I have here the yearly importations of malt for several years past, showing that they range from 11½ million lbs. in 1913 down to 234,374 lbs. in 1924. It is well known by those who are engaged in a trade such as this that they must look forward a year, and that they must keep sufficient stock in hand so that they are not brought to a standstill. Hence the increased importation at the beginning of 1925. On that alone the Board of Trade, upon representations made to them from certain districts, have recommended, and the Minister has accepted, an increase in this particular duty. The production of barley in the Western Province, which is the principal barley growing centre of the Union, during the past eight years, was as follows: 61,000 bags of 150 lbs. in 1918-19 ; 23,00 bags in 1919-20 ; 70,000 bags in 1920-21 ; 102,000 bags in 1921-22 ; 56,000 bags in 1922-23 ; 33,000 bags in 1923-24 ; 45,000 bags in 1924-25 ; 70,000 bags in 1925-26. It will be noticed from the figures I have just given how erratic the production is from year to year, in this province, the principal district where barley is grown. It is very necessary, therefore, for brewers to keep a stock ready for a year ahead in case of a short season’s production. In the Transvaal the production of barley is very small, not averaging more than 10,000 bags per annum. Barley has to be railed from the Western Province to the malt houses at Pretoria and Johannesburg. Indeed, for the last two years the Pretoria malt house has been shut down owing to an insufficient supply of colonial barley. The total brewing requirements of colonial barley amount to about 160,000 bags of 150 lbs. per annum. That amount is never obtainable, for I have just shown that the production in the Union has ranged between 70,000 to 20,000 bags during the past eight years. Not 50 per cent. of the requirements of the brewers of this country is produced by the Union itself. In the Western Province the farmer gets 15s. per bag of 150 lbs. for good barley, 13s. 6d. per bag for second grade, and 12s. 6d. for third grade, while in the Transvaal the farmer gets 16s. to 17s. per bag. Agricultural statistics show that the average cost of production to the farmer is from 7s. to 9s. per bag of 150 lbs. for which he gets 15s. That would seem to be a very fair profit, without any question of putting on extra duty. The barley which is bought from the farmer here is unscreened. The screening alone makes a difference of 10 per cent. At the present time the world’s price for best quality screened barley is 9s. per 100 lbs., against the price of 10s. per 100 lbs. paid to the South African farmer for unscreened barley. The price paid to the Western Province farmer has gone up over a period of years from 10s. 6d. to 15s. per bag. It is the brewers who have built up the market for South African barley, and they would take practically double the present quantity if they could get it in the country. There is a paragraph in the Year Book (1924 p. 425) which I should like to quote—

Under these circumstances, and in view of the figures which I have presented, official figures which can be easily examined, I would like to ask the Minister if it is fair to impose an increased duty on this particular article. I agree with what the hon. member for Kimberley (Sir Ernest Oppenheimer) said the other evening with regard to the question of bounties. This is a commodity, the growing of which might very well be stimulated by giving a bounty. Surely when we are not producing one half the requirements of the country, to put on an additional duty is unnecessary, and I would urge the Minister to take this matter into consideration and re-submit the question to the Board of Trade.

In my district there is a considerable amount of barley grown. For years there have been sent to Johannes burg about 22,000 to 25,000 bags per annum. The price was about £1 per bag and the farmers then found that it paid better to grow barley than wheat. Gradually the price of barley became less, however, and consequently its production became less. I must say that the reduction arose through the action of the beer breweries. They first of all did their share well and assisted in supplying the farmers with barley seed, and they were willing to buy barley at a good price. I do not know whether in those days it was possibly so difficult to obtain barley, but I know that at that time many of the wheat farmers laid themselves out for the growing of barley and that they were successful. Gradually, however, that became less. As soon as there was anything defective in the barley, as soon as there was the slightest smell, it was rejected for the making of beer by the breweries, and in the end the farmers were stuck with the barley and had to feed it to the pigs. Then the growing of barley in the Lydenburg district retrogressed badly. There is still, however, a part of the farming population which grows barley, and I think when protection is on the order, it should also be considered. We must not forget that it is used for the making of an article of luxury, viz., beer, and all the arguments that protection will send up the price of bread, and that the price of wheat should be kept as low as possible, disappear in the case under consideration. Beer is something people can live without. It is only a luxury. Therefore, if, by the cultivation of barley, incomes can be got by the farmers, we should take into consideration the protection of this industry. I hope and trust the Minister will agree with me that this farming should also be protected, and will maintain the proposed increase in duty.

Many of the arguments which were advanced during the previous debate in connection with wheat and flour are, of course, applicable to the cultivation of barley. It is a question of the difference in conditions in this country. One of the chief reasons why your farmer needs protection is on account of soil and rainfall conditions. We find that last year, during the first eleven months, malt was imported into this country to a value of £70,000. Farmers are not able, with their very costly irrigation facilities, to grow the cereal at a remunerative price, and that is why they think they should have this additional protection. I understand one of the chief complaints in the past has been with the methods of grading adopted by the growers. The board, after investigating the whole matter, came to the conclusion that barley cannot at present be remuneratively grown, and that it would not be unreasonable to ask the people who use this product, even if it entails a slight increase in cost, to bear this burden.

I quite accept the position as the Minister puts it, but there is no evidence at all in the report to show that the other people were heard at all on this matter. That is the real complaint. I do not think there is very much in putting a shilling on. The great thing is that the country is not producing sufficient for the needs of the country. The price having gone up from 10s. to 15s., I do not exactly see where the duty is required, and I still think the bounty is the thing, and I suggest that to the Minister.

I would like to associate myself with the remarks made by the Minister of Finance in regard to grading. It is unquestionable that the brewers come along and classify into first, second and third grades. It is mostly second and third grades and very seldom first grade. Just as you have now, in the case of mealies, certain stabilized grades, I think if that could be established it would assist the farmers very much, and that is what I would like to suggest to the Minister.

I hope the Minister will pay a great deal of attention to what my hon. friend has said, not only in connection with barley, but also in regard to wheat ; and the Government should go into the whole question of establishing grades for our cereals so that we shall be able to sell them in the way it is done all over the world. There is no means of the farmer knowing what are the official grades of these products. It is a very-important question. We have no corn exchange in this country, unfortunately.

The right hon. member is going off the point.

I merely wish to say that I think the Minister might go into the question of establishing grades for all our cereals.

Item put and agreed to.

Item 29 put and agreed to.

On item 43,

The Minister, when dealing with this question of the sugar duties, mentioned that he proposed to put on a suspended duty provided the retail price is definitely fixed. The question, therefore, to a certain extent resolves itself into what that retail price should be, and it is quite evident that no arrangements can be entered into between the refiners and the growers and the merchants and the retailers, unless it is a fair and reasonable one. In dealing with this matter on a previous occasion the question arose as to what is the present price of sugar, and I quoted the price at 4d. The Minister, in reply, mentioned that the price was 3½d. I would ask the Minister whether he is agreeable to accept the figures given by the Minister of the Interior and laid on the table yesterday in the monthly bulletin of statistics. In table 5 they give the average price in different places of various sugars. The one we are considering is No. 1, granulated white sugar, for which the price in Cape Town in March was 3.8d. ; in Port Elizabeth it was 3.55d. ; in East London it was 3.75d., and in Durban it was 3.63d., and I would point out to the Minister that during March the price charged to the retailer would be somewhere in the neighbourhood of 24s. 2d. to 24s. 6d. per 100 lbs. There is no average here as low as 3½d. The average price in Durban, which has to bear no carriage, was 3.63d., and it averaged from that up to 3.8d. If, when the price is 24s. 2d. to 24s. 6d., it is not sold on an average as low as 3½d., what possibility is there of its being sold at 3½d. when the price on the basis of the argument of the Minister himself is going to be raised to 26s. 3d.? The whole argument for putting on this duty is in order to enable the producer to get a better price. The argument of the Board of Trade report is that the producer and the refiner cannot come out unless they get £25 per ton. I have to point out to the Minister that if the price of sugar is going up to £25 per ton it will be impossible to make a retail price lower than that existing to-day in any port when the price is only 24s. 2d. to the retailer, which is something about 23s. to the wholesaler. I think one of the gravest steps we are taking is to succumb to the gentlemen on the cross-benches and start price-fixing just as though we were in the middle of a war. It is a very dangerous step to take, because the Minister will gather from the speeches coming from the cross-benches that the idea of price fixing has attracted them most intensely. They have already suggested many and various other commodities that should have their prices fixed, and it is a very dangerous step to take, but if the country is going to take it. I do urge that, at any rate, a reasonable price should be fixed. If the Minister is going to fix the price for sugar at 3½d. per lb., he is wasting the time of the House in putting it on the order paper at all—wasting the ink—because no arrangement will be, and can be, come to between the producer and the refiner and the wholesaler and retailer. I do suggest that he should put the price at 4d., and it would then be open to any retailer to sell it at 3½d. by way of advertisement, or if, like some retailers I know, he provides only 14 ounces to the lb. But it will not be possible for a man, when he is going to give honest weight, and not put the profit on something else, to sell at 3½d. a lb.

I want to start rather earlier than the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford). I am opposed to the duty altogether, and I think the increase is monstrous. There is somewhat of a difference of opinion as to what the real increase is. It says here—

Do we understand that the duty is going to be 8s. if the suspended duties are to be put into operation? I think an addition of this kind, which practically doubles the duty on low grade sugar is unjust to the consumer of South Africa. I go further, and say it is entirely unnecessary, if the industry were run in an efficient manner. Does my hon. friend know what the present duty of 3s. 6d. at the present moment costs the consumers in South Africa? I take the figures I quote from a Natal expert, whose article appeared in a special issue of the “Star” of the 16th March. They put down the total output for 1925 at 235,000 tons, and the local consumption in South Africa at 170,000 tons. There was a small importation last year—not much—of 5,841 tons—special sugar for jam and sweet making—special sugar which you cannot get in South Africa, I am informed. Taking the total consumption as 175,800 tons, imported Cuban sugar can be put down in the stores at Cape Town, free of duty, at 16s. 8d., whereas the price of South African sugar put down in the stores, and not paying excise of 1s., is 22s. 6d. Therefore, there is no question about it that the South African sugar, when sold, takes advantage of the duty which is put on imported sugar, and is sold accordingly at an increased price. The duty at £3 10s. a ton, as it is to-day, is £616,300. On the small quantity of imported sugar it is £20,000 about ; and the consequence is, that of this total which is paid, no less than £595,000 which comes out of the consumer’s pocket, goes into the pocket of the sugar interests, and never sees the treasury at all. How can it?

Sugar magnates.

Exactly. It never sees the Treasury, and that is where the Minister was wrong the other day in querying the figures of the hon. member for Kimberley (Sir Ernest Oppenheimer)—that all these duties go into the Treasury pocket. They go into the makers’ pocket.

That was not what he said.

Certainly.

Read the speech.

My hon. friend does not know the millions of money the consumer pays which never come into the Treasury at all. Now my hon. friend wants to double this duty, and make it 7s. instead of 3s. 6d. ; why? Simply because the sugar industry is increasing its production. It is a flourishing industry, and last year was a record in production. They produced last year more than ever before, and the consequence is that 65,000 tons had to be exported overseas at a dead loss. They could not sell it at more than £11 to £14. They are selling here at 22s. c.i.f. and 22s. 6d. put into a store. The Board of Trade shows a loss of from £5 to £9 according to the class. The consumers in South Africa have to make up that loss which these gentlemen sustain on their exports oversea. That is really the position, and it must be admitted that this is a grave injustice to the taxpayers of South Africa. Why should they have to pay an increased price to enable these people to export and find a market for their sugar?

But you are not criticizing my proposal now, but criticizing the duty. I am going to fix the price.

Let my hon. friend have a little patience. I am showing that there is no necessity for this increase—that is the reason for my mentioning these figures.

There is going to be no increase to the consumer.

The pity is that my hon. friend and his crew behind him have not been in business.

The consumer is going to pay the same price per lb. as now.

I have my grave doubts. Besides, they have preferential railway rates. The railway rate is sixth class for South African sugar, and third class for imported sugar. Take sugar from the Point, Durban, to Johannesburg ; on South African sugar the rate is 3s. 3d., but on imported, 6s. 5d. It is calculated that is worth one-halfpenny per lb. Increase in the duty means an increased burden on the people of £1,000,000.

How?

Because it must come out of some peoples’ pockets. It shows how green the hon. Minister is. Is it going to be picked up on the veld or on the streets? The merchant is not going to pay—he takes good care of himself. According to the report, it is expected that the present year is going to be a record one. The more they grow the more they have to export ; and the more they export the bigger the losses—so there is no end to this business. The time will come when they will come for an increased duty—to increase the duty still further. This is the evil of this system. It is one of those cases which I wish to impress, so that the House will clearly understand. If there is an increase of production, there may be an increase of consumption in South Africa, but not to meet competition. The more you export the more you lose, and you come to the taxpayers to make it up. There have been several enquiries into this sugar industry, and I will quote from the Sugar Enquiry Commission of 1922 on this very point. They point out that unless the South African industry can produce sugar to compete with sugar from abroad, they will have to look to the South African sugar to make up at least some of the difference between the home and the export price, and that the expansion of the industry beyond South African requirements may be a very doubtful blessing to the nation. They go on to say that the utmost protection that can he justified is sufficient to cover reasonable economic cost of producing sufficient sugar for the needs of South Africa and that is provided for in the existing tariff. And I want to point out that it is not exactly a beggarly industry. Have hon. members ever looked into the report of the Collector of Inland Revenue? That shows that the taxable income of the sugar farmers is one-fifth of that of the whole of the farmers in the Union, and yet they want to put their hand again into the taxpayers’ pocket.

That is where you are wrong.

The commission says that it appears to them too high a price to pay for the expansion of the industry beyond the requirements of the Union, while the consumer, by means of increased duties and fixed prices, makes up for the loss.

Where are we raising the price?

The hon. Minister is a little bit as I said—I do not want to repeat it. This sugar industry is not conducted in an efficient manner. Take even the report of the present Board of Trade who entered into this matter very thoroughly. [Time limit.]

These increases are greater than my hon. friend in front of me seems to imagine. There is a fixed definite increase of 1s. per 100 lbs. plus a suspended duty of 3s. 6d. That is an increase of 28 per cent. and a threatened further increase to make the duty up to 100 per cent., a total of 128 per cent.

Quite wrong again.

I can only go by the schedule. But I shall be glad to hear where it is wrong. While this threatened increase in a stable commodity of the people’s food is being discussed we have three members of the Labour party and one Labour Minister taking an absorbing interest in the matter and that Minister is the Minister of Defence who, for years, in his leadership of the Labour party, championed the people’s food and the rights of the people and attacked the late Government for its alleged failure to look after the question of cheap food for the people. I find him sitting in alliance with and under the leadership of the Minister of Finance, who yesterday told us that the effect of these wheat duties was to stabilize the price of bread and to remove any hope, so far as it rested with the Government, of the people ever seeing a reduction in the price of bread. And the same Minister is raising the duty on sugar to an extent which, if the late Government had attempted it, he would have denounced them as being for ever in the pockets of the sugar magnates of Natal. I have been looking into past history and find that in 1920 the Minister of Finance moved a resolution in the House of Assembly to the effect that the continued refusal of the Government to take effective steps to fix the price of wheat, maize and other necessary foodstuffs inflicted great hardship on the mass of the people ; fostered unrest and discontent and was inimical to the well-being of South Africa.

Hear, hear.

Bread, he said, was the staple food for the mass of the people, and that the Government, in adopting Mr. Burton’s prejudiced attitude was entering on a dangerous course. That motion was seconded by another labour colleague, the present Minister of Labour, in whose hands we are told the wellbeing of the working people of South Africa is safe. Two years later when the hon. member for Piquetberg (Mr. de Waal) moved a motion in this House increasing the duties on flour, the Minister of Labour moved an amendment to the effect that the House was not prepared to do anything that would increase the burden on the people, and that the whole matter should be referred to the Board of Trade. To-day we see them sitting cheek by jowl, in a protectionist Ministry, with the Minister of Finance, the main features of whose budget are to stabilize the price of bread and increase the price of sugar.

No.

And to increase the price of the working man’s suit ; and no doubt they will go to their constituents and say they are the champions of the consumer. They have fooled the people for a part of the time but they are not going to fool the people all the time. I have been looking up the Minister of Labour’s minority report of the Cost of Living Commission, which he issued in 1920. In that report he says the granting of higher wages more than provides justification for still higher prices so that we had wages chasing prices and that in this “catch-as-catch-can” economic scramble the owners of the means of production and exchange have always the first and last pull. To-day, as Minister of Labour, he says the sugar farmer should make the workers and consumers of South Africa pay more for sugar and is assisting the wheat farmer to see that the price of wheat never goes down and assisting the tin-pot clothing industry to see that the working man pays more for his suit. I agree with my hon. friend that the effect of this legislation is that the poorer classes of people are going to pay more for their sugar, so that the sugar growers may dump their sugar into other countries.

Before these free trade arguments are answered by the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) I should like to say a word to the two previous speakers. I am obliged to the last speaker for having quoted our remarks, of a few years ago.

Why don’t you stick to them?

But our present action shows exactly that we are sticking to the same principles now. What was our objection to the previous Government? That they were entirely indifferent to the interests of the consumer, and that the fixing of prices they would not think about, and to-day we are fixing these prices. In regard to the sugar proposals, the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) is arguing as if he were on one of the free trade platforms of forty or fifty years ago and pointing out the A.B.C. of economics in these matters. He said here is an industry which is producing and flourishing and the Government propose to put on this tax—he did not say it, but what he implied was—so that they get a bigger price for their sugar. Part and parcel of this proposal is that the retail price at the coast shall be fixed at the present price.

25s. is the fixed price.

The hon. member had a good go up to his limit and cannot make three speeches while we are making ours. What is then the difference?. They said: Oh, you must not interfere. One of their shibboleths seems to be that supply and demand will fix the price and you must not dream of fixing prices. The Government has two objects in this legislation. The hon. member spoke of nothing going into the Treasury. Of course not. The design is not to increase the money coming into the Treasury but to secure the position of the sugar industry against the flooding of the market with cheap sugar from oversea. As for adding to the cost to the consumer, part and parcel of the proposal is that the price shall be fixed at the present price.

What about wheat?

I can understand the impatience of the hon. member. He said that in 1920 we should have demanded that the Government should cease their indifference to the interests of the people, and should cease their eternal refusal to take any part in fixing prices. We are entirely consistent in this proposal, which is to prevent the sugar industry being abolished by the wholesale introduction of cheap foreign sugar, and at the same time to prevent the industry taking advantage of the people by raising the price of sugar in consequence of this increased duty. I quite understand the point of view of the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger). He is severely logical, and he would not care if the whole industry went out of action. You cannot isolate these matters from the existence of one of the great industries, and whatever my own predilections may be in favour of free trade in the abstract, I am not prepared to give effect to those predilections, and see the whole of the sugar industry go by the board. I am not only not ashamed of my crimes, but I can assure the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) that I glory in them. As to wheat, the price of bread is governed by the price of flour. [Time limit.]

It is refreshing to see the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Black-well) standing as the champion of the masses.

I am just as good a champion as you are.

I should be very sorry for myself if I were only as good as the hon. member. He quoted a resolution that was moved from these benches in 1921 against any taxation on foodstuffs, but he forgot to inform the House that he voted against the amendment. We challenged the Opposition last night to put forward an amendment to delete any of these items, and we will vote with it, but the Opposition is afraid that if it does put forward an amendment, the whole of our party may vote with it, and thus upset the balance so that they have run away from their bold assertions. I am not enamoured of the proposals in connection with sugar. They are, however, a great deal better than anything we have been accustomed to from the South African party, because they accept the principle we have been fighting for, and that is the fixing of prices. But the consumer is prejudiced by having the price fixed which is in excess of what should be fixed, taking into consideration all the circumstances of the industry. The whole of the conclusions of the Board of Trade in this matter are based oil facts which the Board itself has admitted to be erroneous. The Board has not the actual figures as to the cost, while the amount set down for depreciation is excessive. Until we have the real figures, it is unreasonable to say that the industry is not in a position to pay its way. The startling fact in connection with the matter is that under the proposed arrangement, the South African consumer will have to pay £25 per ton for sugar. We are consuming 170,000 tons of sugar per annum. On the other hand, the overseas consumer will only pay £15 per ton for South African sugar, so that we are being charged £1,700,000 more for sugar than the consumer overseas will pay for the same quantity of that article. We are exporting 66,569 tons of sugar at a loss of £660,000, and presumably the object of the suspended duty is to make good that amount to the South African sugar industry. What is the argument for the proposal? The Board of Trade says that, owing to the heavy production, it is exceedingly doubtful if any country will return a profit on last year’s working. The object is to make good the supposed loss by encouraging the industry to dump sugar overseas at the expense of the people of South Africa. Let us enquire if there really is over-production. We are consuming 170,000 tons per annum—that is, every individual in South Africa consumes 2 oz. of sugar per day. That is not an excessive amount, and the people would be healthier if we could increase their spending capacity by ¼d. per day, and thus enable them to consume 85,000 tons of sugar annually, in addition to the amount already consumed. Is the industry entitled to ask for relief on the grounds that it is playing the game by its employees? Its labour is the most miserably paid in South Africa, and the conditions cannot be better described than in the words used by one of the witnesses before the Select Committee on the Areas Reservation and Immigration and Registration Bill (Mr. Bajpai), who said—

I cannot follow all the arguments that have been used this afternoon. The conditions of labour in the sugar industry are equal to the conditions of any other industry in South Africa where a mixed population is employed. The native labour engaged in the sugar industry is probably the highest-paid agricultural labour in the country, and the white men in the mills are paid proper trade union rates.

No, they are not.

What is the actual case against the industry based upon? The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) argues that it would be better if the industry went to pot. I have here a cutting from the “Daily Express” of London, dated March 30th, calling the attention of the people of England to the fact that there are one million tons of sugar too much in the markets of the world, the price was low, and that sugar was practically being thrown on to the world’s market. It also states that the Cuban growers had been selling sugar for less than the cost of production. Sugar is relatively much cheaper now than it was before the war. I would like at this stage to point out what the sugar industry has done for this country, before it is permitted to be ruined by the dumping of foreign sugar. When the war broke out, the first thing that the sugar industry did was to voluntarily restrict the price to the consumer. An arrangement was made with Gen. Botha, by which the industry agreed to restrict the producers’ price to the merchants. That reduced price went on for some years, until it was found that speculation in sugar was rife all over the country. The industry was compelled to send representatives to Cape Town to give evidence before a select committee and ask the Government to restrict the price to the consumer in the interests of the producer and the consumer, because of the huge profits which were being obtained by the distributing section, in some cases 100 per cent. above the real price. As a result of these representations, the Government fixed the price. Later on, when the price soared to over £120 per ton in Europe and sugar was selling in New York at 1s. 11½d. per lb., the consumer in this country was getting his sugar at 4d., 5d., and 6d. per lb. During all those years of the war, the sugar industry of South Africa sold its product to the consumer in this country at a price which could not be approached anywhere else in the world. And yet, to-day, there are hon. members in this House who would willingly see the sugar industry of this country wiped out. In his annual address to the share-holders of the Cuban Cane Corporation, the President stated that, before they could hope to pay a dividend to their shareholders, they must get 3½ cents per lb. f.o.b. for their sugar. That means that that sugar could not be landed in Cape Town with the present tariff under £26 14s. per ton to enable the Cuban producers to produce at a profit. We are now asked to sell at 3½d. per lb. and sell our sugar here in Cape Town at £20 a ton, at a price under the actual cost of production in Cuba. Under the proposal of the Minister, we are actually asked to land our sugar here in Cape Town at £20 per ton, because, when it is sold here at 3½d. per lb. and the tariff charges are met, the industry will have to land its product in Cape ports at £20 per ton. If the export be taken into consideration, all that the industry can hope to average per ton is £17 14s. I would put it to hon. members, how is it possible for the industry to come out on these figures when the Board of Trade itself says that it costs £20 19s. 3d. to produce a ton of sugar?

Including profit?

Without any profit. The Board of Trade and Industries has gone into this question in a most painstaking manner and brought forward a very admirable report. The whole object of the board, as far as assistance to the industry is concerned in raising the duty, is to enable it to produce at a profit, to enable it to come out and give that necessary profit at which it can live and carry on its work. Under the best circumstances as things are to-day, all we can hope to do is to carry on until the sugar position in the world brightens. The sugar industry of the world cannot continue at its present low, depressed condition. In England to-day the growers of beet are being encouraged by a bounty of more than we are to obtain for our sugar, viz., £19 10s. This means that the millers get their beets for nothing. We have to compete with a world’s market which is so full that they do not know what to do to-day with the sugar, and one great country has had to restrict its production. No country which is producing sugar will allow that world surplus to enter. My hon. friend (Mr. Jagger) would, however, sacrifice our industry by preventing us from getting the benefit of this increase of duty under a mistaken belief that he is rendering a service to the consumer. The only result would be to put up the price to the consumer.

I was rather interested to hear the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) twitting the Labour party with having moved a resolution in 1920 asking the Government to fix prices and then, as he says, running away from it. We, naturally, do run away from a thing when we have succeeded. We have got the Government in this case to fix the price of sugar to the consumer. If the Labour party is as successful in all its endeavours as it has been in this particular case in getting the interests of the consumer preserved, I am satisfied with the progress of the Labour party. I am also interested to find out the real reason why the hon. member for Bezuidenhout would not move an amendment on this particular matter. It is now clear ; in 1921 the Labour party moved such an amendment and he voted against it, and he dare not go back on that vote. It is very evident that this sham fight is nothing but an attempt on his part to make party capital, and that he himself does not believe in it. I do not know what his reason is, but I should very much like to know. I would like to point out to the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) that although it is probably quite true that the sugar industry did play the game by the people of South Africa during the war period, there have been periods since when the industry has had opportunities of organizing proper machinery. It has not all been hard times with the industry since the war. One mill in the year 1923-’24 made a profit at the rate of 124 per cent. I suggest that mill and some other mills could have done a great deal more towards improving their efficiency than they have done. The report of the accountant of the Board of Trade is not by any means flattering to their methods. If they want to ask the country to play the game by them they ought to improve their business efficiency. The labour conditions in the sugar industry are not what they should be in this country. The sugar industry incidentally is one of the industries—probably the industry—responsible for flooding this country with cheap Asiatics, and I do not think the public will forget that. I know of cases where they employ skilled Asiatics as chemists in the mills at a third of the salary of a European chemist. I know of one specific case where they dismissed a European chemist getting £25 a month in order to take on an Indian at £4 a month. It is very wise for the Government to be chary about giving protection to such an industry. If it would mend its ways and not, try to drive trade unionism out of its mills, as it has done; if it would play the game by its employees, then it would deserve consideration. The conditions of labour in the sugar industry are not too good, and I hope the Wages Board will be put on to the industry, and if they find that the conditions are not what they should be, that protection will again, be taken off, because any industry which subsists on the basis of labour below a decent standard of life, is not an industry entitled to, protection.

I beg to remind the House that the Government did not act precipitately in coming forward with these proposals in regard to protection for this industry. For a considerable time now representations have been made to us that the industry was in difficulties and that we should apply the ordinary dumping laws. Knowing the position, the Government hesitated to take action, and said they were going to have a very thorough investigation before acting, and the Board of Trade spent a considerable time and went very fully into the whole question. Their report is in the hands of hon. members. I think one thing is pretty clear, that if we really want to preserve this industry for South Africa then something should be done. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) and the hon. member for Troycville (Mr. Kentridge) think the great consideration should be that the people of South Africa should have their sugar at the cheapest possible price, and we need not worry what becomes of the industry. Well, that is not the policy of the Government, and I do not think that attitude would be endorsed by the majority of the people. No, we should, if we find reasonable protection is necessary to preserve the industry, not hesitate to act. I submit the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) was unreasonable when he made the broad and general statement that this was again an instance where we were going to increase the burden of the people. Is it correct?

Yes.

I submit not, because we are going to propose legislation to the House in which it will not be possible for the producers or distributors to exploit the general public ; in other words, the public will be protected to the extent that they will not be charged more for sugar than they are paying now.

Is that legislation for the sugar industry only?

Yes. Having dealt with the whole matter on its merits we found it was the only possible way to deal with the situation. If we gave increased protection we had to be certain that the people would not be asked to pay more than at present. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) pointed out that we were asking people to pay £25 a ton. whereas the public overseas were getting it at £11. But he knows that is only the export price in this country ; he knows that heavy duties are added in most countries, and I think the retail price in South Africa compares very favourably. He referred to the heavy loss on export. That is due to the fact that to-day you have a very low world price, which is really below the cost of production. That fact was established by the board. Of course, that cannot continue indefinitely. Prices will go up, and that will automatically reduce the loss on the export price. The hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Sturtaford) dealt with the retail price which we are going to fix. He pointed out that 3½d. would be insufficient. He quoted the census statistics to show that in most of the principal centres the price averaged from 3.55d. to about 4d. per lb. That is a question of fact ; we shall have to find what the actual facts are. The board actually did find that in some of the coastal centres sugar was sold over the counter at 3½d. a lb. That is a fact, and at those centres in Cape Town they get their sugar at the same price. The hon. member says that that should not be the criterion, because very often the retailer, to attract custom, would be prepared to sell a particular line at a sacrifice. We want to know exactly what is the true economic price at which sugar could be sold in this country, and that is the price we want to fix. As at present advised, it is 3½d. per lb., but between now and the time legislation is introduced into the House I will ask the board what is the actual price which the public is paying at the present time, and that is what we want to preserve, because it must not be forgotten that if the world’s position in regard to sugar improves, and we have stabilized the price at a certain figure, the industry cannot come to the Government and say you must raise the price in South Africa. They must be content to stick to the price, and for that reason we should be careful that we do not fix a price that is unreasonable, otherwise we achieve nothing. To fix the price below what it is to-day would not be doing the industry a good service. I shall ask the board to investigate very carefully. As I pointed out on a previous occasion, we need not concern ourselves beyond control when it reaches the consumer, and what we intend to do is to see that the consumer pays no more than he is paying now. If he is paying more, we want to get at what that is. I want to point out to the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) and the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell), who did not seem to grasp the actual increase we are proposing here, that the present active duty is 4s. 6d., and the minimum duty of 3s. 6d. never came in, and was put into our tariff for the purposes of bargaining and as a threat—under certain circumstances, if the industry did not play the game, it could be 3s. 6d.

Does that include excise?

That does not come in here. The excise only comes in when sugar is exported. The increase is 3s. 6d. —4s. 6d. to 8s.

Your own schedule shows 1s. minimum.

Yes.

Then, if I made a mistake, why be offensive about it?

The hon. member assumed that that minimum duty operated, but it never operated at all. There can never be talk of an increase of 128 per cent. What the hon. member intends to establish is what the actual increase on the effective duty is—not what it may be.

On your own schedule!

The schedule is quite correct.

It has been a little difficult to understand.

Well, that is unfortunate, but that is the way I have to give the information to the House, under the rules of the House. My complaint of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) is that he is so cocksure in basing conclusions on the wrong basis and drawing a wrong conclusion on the figures. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) was a bit more careful. He was not quite so sure or so cocksure of his ground, and he is rather an older politician than my hon. friend. I think in the case of this sugar duty, as in the case of the flour duty, hon. members who believe in free trade have their views, but in this case I think the consensus of opinion is that we ought to do something, and this is the only possible way to do something for the industry to protect it.

We seem to have been playing the old game of the pea and thimble trick for a considerable length of time this afternoon. We want to find out where the pea is, and who is going to pay this increased price. Some hon. members suggest that the public are going to pay the difference of roughly £340,000. Personally. I think the public will pay, either directly or in some other way. The industry will get £340,000 more, and the Minister of Finance says that the consumer is not going to pay one penny more. The problem is, who is going to pay it? Is it going to come out of the air? According to what the Minister of Finance has said, the people who are going to pay it are the small grocers, who are going to have a tax of £340,000 per annum levied upon them. After the speech of the Minister of Finance, I would say that the industry and commerce will very unwise if they have anything to do with the proposition. The industry will be on much safer ground if they retain their independence, and the Government will be on safer ground if they eschew, once and for all, price-fixing schemes. There is one problem as to the effect of this extra duty being put on. It may stimulate production of sugar in Natal. This industry is entirely different from the other industries we have been considering, and it is an industry which is producing more than is required for home consumption. In the other industries the converse is the position. If you increase the sugar output you are not going to increase the home consumption. Instead of dumping 30,000 tons a year, you will have to dump 30,000, plus any increased output, on outside markets, and it is a very problematical question whether you should continue your production after the total home consumption requirements have been catered for. You get into the position of being an exporting country and of having to dump your surplus on the markets of the world. Personally, I think we are going rather too far in this matter of protecting the sugar industry. I would protect the production for home consumption ; but it is going a long way when you start protecting the production for dumping purposes.

I think the majority of this House are in favour of protection to a certain extent and with a specific object, say, the object of enabling an industry to establish itself. We have to face the same thing in other agricultural things. Take beef. In 1912 we imported 9,000,000 lbs. of beef. A duty was put on in order to enable the meat industry to live, and in 1923, our imports had gone down to 5,000 lbs. ; in fact, in 1919, we actually exported 45,000,000 lbs. of beef. The object has been attained, and the duty makes no difference to the price we receive for our beef. Exactly the same thing applies to mutton, where the duty saved the position, and might now be taken off. In a few years the cheese industry will establish itself, and you have the same thing with regard to butter where we are just getting to the point of its being a self-supporting industry, and are entering on the exporting stage. What is the object of this duty in the case of the sugar industry? Is it to enable it to establish itself as a self-supporting industry, or is it to enable those who are making big sums of money to go on doing this?

No, it is to protect the industry against the dumping of sugar below the cost of production in other countries.

If there is no possibility of the sugar industry ever standing on its own legs, and if we are for all time to bear that burden to enable the industry to live, I do not think it is too sound. Although I heartily support this duty as it stands, I hope it is with the idea that we are not going to be burdened with it for ever.

I think the Board of Trade, in the course of their investigations, have established that at present you have this world condition that you have an absolute over-production resulting in the dumping of sugar below the cost of production. It is an industry which is always subject to price fluctuations. Within a few years the industry may be able to sell its products in the world’s market at a much higher price, and we want to secure this price for our own people here. We have told these people that if we protect them from dumping, the people must continue to get their sugar at the present price. In a few years the world position may alter that very much, and very much higher prices may be obtained in the markets of the world, when, of course, this protection will be absolutely unnecessary again.

I should like to support the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford). It is certainly desirable that the producer should be protected, and that at the same time the consumer should also be looked after, but in this respect I am afraid that, as the matter is before us now, the distributor has not been considered sufficiently for the work that is being done.

He is being wiped out.

I do not go so far as that. The Minister proposed £25 per ton to the wholesaler, plus a 5 per cent. profit.

No.

The result will be that the cost to the retailer or the distributor will be that the c.i.f. price will be £1 5s. To that you have to add dock dues, landing and other charges, which are approximately 4d., that means £1 5s. 4d. The wholesaler’s 5 per cent. is equal to 1s. 3d., making £1 6s. 7d. The charge for delivering it to the retailer is 6d., total £1 7s. 1d., which will be the net cost per 100 lbs. to the retailer. The Minister proposes to fix the retail price at 3½d., equal to £1 9s. 2d. per 100 lbs., which would give a gross profit to the distributor of about 2s. per 100 lbs. The distributor has to take into account the cost of handling, the cost of paper bags, and also the loss of weight in journeying from Natal, which I put at 8d. per 100 lbs. The net result is that the distributor would have a profit of about 3½ per cent. to 4 per cent. on their outlay. I think this is hardly enough to pay the wages of the men they employ. I would like to see the difference taken from the producers, but you cannot expect them to go on producing sugar at a profit of 4 per cent. At the same time, I would not like to see the price to the consumer increased beyond 3½ per lb.

It is very unfortunate that the sugar industry is confined to a small portion of South Africa, and that only two members represent it in this House—the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) and myself. Sugar growing has always laboured under great difficulties in South Africa. At the date of Union, the duty of 4s. 6d. per 100 lbs. was taken over from Natal, and later an excise of £1 per ton was imposed. To hear hon. members argue, one would think that sugar was one of the principal items of food. But the army rations, which are founded on a scientific basis, provide for 1¼ lb. bread, 1¼ lb. meat, and only 2 oz. of sugar a day. A great deal has been said about the duty on sugar, but the average household spends more on soap than it does on sugar, yet soap, which can in no wise be called a South African industry, for the only South African ingredient in it is water, enjoys a protection of 35 per cent, more than that accorded to sugar. The sugar manufacturers only import the bags in which the sugar is put, a little sulphur and a little bonechar. All the rest is South African produce, grown by South Africans, white and black. It has been said that sugar was responsible for the introduction of Indians. To a certain extent that is true, but before their importation was stopped, the ordinary farmers and coal mines were very much larger employers of Indian labour than was the sugar industry. To-day there are comparatively few Indians employed on the sugar estates, and the majority have been there for years.

How many white men does the whole of the industry employ?

I cannot give you the figures, but it employs a very large number and the proportion is increasing. No Indians are employed by the Zululand sugar industry. The north and south coast railways owe a great deal of their prosperity to that industry, and they produce more revenue than all the branch railways in the Cape Province put together.

They carry at a very low rate.

Governments are afraid to produce the records showing the details of the working of branch railways.

If you are doing so well, why do you want any help?

It is tonnage, not money. Tonnage means money to somebody. The money is spent in Natal, and a great deal goes to the Free State to feed the natives, employed in the sugar industry. Even with the proposed increased duty the sugar industry will still be the lowest protected sugar industry in the world for countries which produce as well as consume. It is absolutely wrong to say that the English consumer obtains our sugar at £15 per ton. The British preference is 4s. 2d., which is more than the effective duty on Union sugar at present. If hon. members wish to encourage the negro-grown sugar of Cuba, let them get on with it, but I understood the object of this Government was to have a white South Africa. The proposed price means 23s. 6d. at Durban, and as jam manufacturers get the sugar at £3 less than the ordinary consumer, the sugar producers will obtain only £19 10s. per ton, and as the cost of production is £20 19s. 7d., there is an actual loss of 30s. per ton. In regard to the remarks of the hon. member for Griqualand (Mr. Gilson), the market is still protected in favour of locally produced butter, the duty on which is 3d. per lb., and not ½d. per lb.

I said the duty on beef and mutton might be taken off to-day, and that in a very few years the duty probably would be removed

The Minister seems to think that the price of sugar is going up.

I said it possibly would, but I did not say it was an immediate prospect.

I do not think there is any prospect at all, with Germany commencing to produce beet sugar and Belgium doing the same. There is not the slightest chance of any permanent increase in the price of sugar. As to the remarks of the Minister of Defence, even with fixed prices our consumers will still have to pay a contribution of something like £600,000 a year to the sugar producers. You can land Cuban sugar here into store after paying freight, landing charges and everything else, for 16s. 8d. I would like to ask what is going to be the position of the jam manufacturers. I understand you give them a rebate of duty to the amount of £3 10s., which will bring the price to the jam manufacturers to 19s. 6d. As a matter of fact, that is not going to enable them to export, as far as I can see. That would be a bigger industry than the sugar industry, if it were only allowed free play.

They get very good protection.

Do they get such terms as will enable them to export? Supposing they pay 19s. 6d. while they can land sugar here at 16s. 8d.—

What protection do they get?

We are not talking about protection. They want to export, and they will export their product if they get cheap sugar. Does my hon. friend know how many white people are engaged in this industry? The report of the commission of 1922 states that some 600 settlers are growing cane in Zululand and Natal, and that the mills, etc., employ 800 Europeans. As far as I can make out, there would not be more than about 1,500 or 1,600 white men employed in that industry to-day. It would pay this country to pension those gentlemen off. We have paid this industry about £600,000, and if you distribute that amongst 1,500 people they would have quite a decent pension each, and the country would be just as well off. I think this increase of duty is entirely uncalled for; and I would suggest to the Minister to leave the position as it is at the present moment. I do not ask him to take off all the duty, because I recognize that it would not be possible under the circumstances.

With all due deference to the hon. member who has just spoken (Mr. Jagger), I do think that he carries his free trade to an absurdity when he talks in that way and tells the House that the country would be better off without the sugar industry. The hon. member lays great store by the Economic Commissions’ report. One paragraph of that report I will read to the hon. member—

The hon. gentleman wishes to wipe out the whole sugar industry.

No.

That is where the fallacy of the free trade idea comes in. I submit, that this question should be looked at, not from the merchants’ ledger point of view, but from the point of view of the national production of wealth. Is not the first thing that we should aim at the production of wealth? Here you have an industry which is producing £5,000,000 a year, and distributing employment all over the country in many different ways, and to argue that it is better to pension off these Europeans employed in the sugar industry and get rid of the whole wealth which they are producing, is, it seems to me, reducing the arguments of free trade to an absurdity. On the same argument, we had better do away with the £77,000,000 of manufactures which we are producing every year, because we are protecting these industries. I wonder, if we carried out their ideas, what wealth would remain for distribution. The hon. member talks about the number of Europeans, etc., employed by the sugar industry. One cannot judge the number of people employed by the sugar industry merely by counting up the number of men who are employed in the mills. The industry affords employment to numerous workers in Durban, in the engineering shops and in the ware-houses. Look at the large number of Europeans employed on the lines of railway, which derive their principal traffic from the sugar industry. The north coast line is one of the heaviest carrying lines in the Union so far as the volume of traffic is concerned. There are 50 Europeans engaged at Empangeni alone, only one small station on the line. The hon. member (Mr. Jagger) stated that when beet comes into its own, the price of sugar will go down further than it is at the present moment. In England they are subsidizing beet sugar to the extent of £19 10s. per ton, and they are still unable to carry on, and beet growers in Eng-land believe that it is a vanishing industry as soon as the subsidy is withdrawn. The truth is that the British subsidy pays for the beet, and the price obtained for sugar is used solely to cover the cost of manufacture. The cane industry has nothing to fear from beet grown on an equal footing. I want to say a word or two to the hon. member for Griqualand (Mr. Gilson). He spoke about the sugar industry in this country as being a “hothouse plant.” Perhaps the hon. gentleman does not know that the sugar industry all over the world is entirely unlike any other industry. If he reads the report of the Board of Trade, he will see that this industry in South Africa is carried on behind a lower tariff wall than in any other country. If our sugar industry is a “hothouse plant,” then what must the sugar industries in other countries be like? Let me say that a comparison between agricultural products and sugar is not a just one. All agricultural products have an infinitely more effective protection than you can put through the tariff, and that, is their perishable nature. Sugar, which can be carried in any cargo vessel, can never enjoy that protection. I want to say a word about the price of sugar as purchased in the shops retail. The average individual may go into a shop and purchase a pound of sugar and pay 3½d., and he may go to the same shop the next day and pay 4d. for it, and not tell the difference between the two kinds unless he compares them together, one being the refined sugar of 99.9 polarization, or practically pure, and the other of infer or quality. The basis upon which the prices are being fixed is not the basis of milled white, but of refined sugar, and the whole basis of the report is on refined sugar, so the House should not be misled on this. I hope that, despite all the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) has said against the sugar industry, that the industry will live to flourish and blossom, and to add to the wealth of the country and its population, and to the contentment of the people.

Item put and agreed to.

Item 50 (a) put and agreed to.

On Item 50 (c).

I have at a previous stage brought to the notice of the committee the fact that on two occasions the Minister has made statements that he (Joes not expect to get increased revenue by reason of this increased duty. He has not denied those statements. If so, I fail to understand why he insists on imposing this additional duty. I have, on other occasions, given information as to the effect of this increased duty producing less revenue and not achieving the effect which the Minister evidently aims at, namely, the increased consumption of our South African produce. Let me just give one or two comparisons. For instance, in 1915 when the duty was 23s. 6d., the Treasury received no less than £785,207, whereas in 1923 when the duty had been increased to 37s. 6d., at which it stands now, the Treasury only received £634,418, or in other words, a loss of £150,789 to the revenue of the country. Why persist in this policy? I cannot understand it. The Minister has shown great intelligence and knowledge of his department, and I think he has done remarkably well, but having done so why is he so foolish in this case as to increase the duty by an extra 7s. 6d. and so reduce the amount of revenue which he would otherwise receive? If by increasing the duty he is going to increase the consumption of local produce, then good luck to the local producers, but he does not do so. The Union produce consumed in 1916 amounted to 2,227,178 gallons, whereas in 1924, when the duty was 37s. 6d., the consumption fell by no less than 457,321 gallons. If the Minister is going to remain obdurate let him do so, but he is not helping the Union. I would ask him to consider very carefully the point with regard to the consumption of our produce in Great Britain. In 1924, in round figures, this country sent Great Britain something like £100,000 worth of wines, whereas in 1925 the amount sent was only about £60,000, a loss of £40,000. Are we or are we not doing our utmost to get the people in Great Britain to consume our produce? It they won’t have it, why is it that they won’t? Over and over it has been said that we must try and produce every year a better quality than in the past year, but is it that they won’t have it because our standard, instead of improving, is becoming worse? That is a very bad thing for South Africa.

I can assure the Minister of Finance that if he is safe on any point it is on this item, on the raising of the Customs duty on intoxicating liquor. As an inhabitant of a wine district I have already thanked the Minister for the raising of the import duty. I think it could safely be higher. The Minister is still feeling his way to see how far the increase of the duty will reduce or increase his revenue. I can assure him that it will not reduce the revenue but will increase it. My opinion is not the same as the hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Nathan). The fact is that we have imported that quantity for so many years, that the consumers of the imported article, the people with the delicate palate—of whom possibly the hon. member for Von Brandis is one—will see that the same quantity is still imported.

What do you drink?

In the first place this increase of the customs duty will obviate the difficulty about which the hon. member for Von Brandis has spoken. He stated that our product was not in high favour in England. We think that we ought to have a better market there. If there is any complaint with reference to quality, then it is due to our being swamped in the past by imported whisky, and not having the opportunity to properly develop our industries. To-day there is still lying in the warehouses of one of the big companies a few million gallons of the imported article. The import duty raised in the past did not enable us to produce a better article in the country for the South African and the foreign market. I will give a few figures to show how much drink was imported into the country in past years. I only give the figures for whisky and omit those for gin and rum. In 1921 440,000 gallons of whisky were imported at a cost of over £500,000. In 1922 the importation was 331,000 gallons, value £278,000. In 1923 334,000 gallons value £278,000, and in 1924 202,334 gallons were imported. South Africa is annually overrun with foreign liquor imported here. The large importation was not because the South African production was not sufficient but in this connection we can apply the argument of the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) with regard to sugar, because the producers who contribute to the riches of the country did not have the chance to properly develop their industry, and by reason of the fact that they did not receive enough protection. If there is one grievance that we felt in the past it was that there was very poor protection because the customs duty imposed in the South African harbours was less than the excise in the country of production. The argument has been raised that the Treasury will be worse off as a result of the increased duty. I can assure the Minister that that will not happen. Let me mention the amount that was got from the duty. In 1921 it was £814,000. In 1922 £792,000, and in 1923 £716,000. The revenue from this source is thus gradually becoming less. Whether the people with the delicate palate are drinking less I do not know. On the other hand, however, the amount of the excise in the country has gradually increased. In 1921 the revenue from excise was £40,000, in 1922 £680,000, and in 1923 £637,000. For the past years since 1923 the amount has still further increased. While the revenue from import duties has become less the revenue from excise has increased. If the Minister continues with his policy and if the producers here get protection he can be assured that the total revenue will not be reduced as a result of the increased customs duty on the imported article, but that the wine farmers will then contribute so much more to the Treasury that the revenue from that source will be raised.

I have already on a former occasion thought that the matter had better pass without my saying a word. I will not take the House long. I have expressed the appreciation felt by the wine farmers of the Minister’s having raised the duty, and I repeat what I said last time. I think the hon. member for Hope Town (Dr. Stals) made a suggestion that the import duty should be based and equal to the excise duty in the country of origin, and with this suggestion I do not agree. On the contrary I was pleased that the Minister did not follow the terms of the resolution proposed by the hon. member for Piquetberg (Mr. de Waal) in 1924, and supported by the Minister, to increase the duty, and to regulate the South African duty by the excise payable in countries of origin. We should always regulate our own affairs by our own standard. Regarding the export of wines from this country, the hon. member for van Brandis (Mr. Nathan) has drawn attention to some figures, but I do not draw the same conclusion as the hon. member—that there was a decrease in the export of our wines. There might be a decrease for any current twelve months, but there has really been no decrease. We have made a considerable advance. A few years ago we had, so to say, no export. Since the passing of the Wine Control Act of 1924 the Wine Growers’ Association has been placed in a very good position to deal with the matter. Before that we could not do so because, although we had a cooperative society, we found our men did not always work in harmony with the society. The society has taken matters in hand, and built cellars for the maturing of the types of wine specially required for the English market. We are also maturing brandies, and devoting a considerable amount of money to doing that. We have not asked the Government for one penny, and so far we have been paying for everything ourselves, and I think we will go on in this way, and that we will succeed in getting a fair export market for our wines. About six weeks ago one of the large English wine merchants, after visiting Australia, came here with the object of extending the exportation of South African wines to England. He was highly satisfied with the quality of our wines and gave us some fair sample orders. He was satisfied with what we were doing, and that we would be able to supply a good bit of his requirements. From what he has said, I feel sure that we will be able to build up a fair export trade within a few years.

I put my view of the case the other day. I think the tax is an unfair one, in the sense that it hits one section of the community. This country is full of Scotsmen, who will drink their whisky, however much the Minister may put a duty on them. I do not know whether this consumption leads to soundness of health, but to judge from the teetotallers here, they are a miserable lot of beggars. They do not get enthusiastic. I would like to point out to the Minister that whisky is a product of Scotland particularly. Good whisky is not produced by any other country in the world.

Ireland.

Yes, I do not think it can be produced here. It has been said that the policy of the Minister’s Government is to pinprick. There is no doubt about that. If you could produce an article fit for human consumption, there would be something to be said for the extra duty. The tax is unnecessary, unjust, and bears on one section of the people. You are wrong in putting up the cost of living against them, because whether it is right or wrong they will drink whisky. The tax should be reduced to the former amount of 37s. 6d. We want to introduce our wines into England and you know they will not retaliate. They are trying to help this country to produce good wine for consumption in England. This tax hits directly at a purely British product and you are wanting a bit in courtesy to the other side and wanting a bit in knowledge ; because it is going to reduce your revenue considerably and make people, who drink good whisky, drink bad stuff.

I just want to say a few words with reference to this increased customs duty on spirits which is now 45s. a gallon. We should have had that long ago, and I think the wine farmers should be grateful to the Minister. The hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Nathan) seems to be a bit dissatisfied, and I can understand it. In his constituency there are more bars than in any other part of the Union, and I presume that the people in his constituency drink much whisky. I read in the paper the other day that the price of whisky in Johannesburg had been increased by 3d. a tot. If that is so, then it is not justified by this duty. This duty is only an increase of 1s. on a bottle of whisky, and if we reckon 20 tots to the bottle then the increase is still less than 1d. a tot, and though the actual increase is only s. a bottle, the Johannesburg liquor sellers are asking 5s. or 6s. more. The hon. member for Parktown (Mr. Rockey) said that we would induce people, instead of drinking good wine, to drink bad inland spirits. I do not think so. If the hon. member drank a little more good brandy he would have found out that he could do without whisky. The Scotsmen do not only drink whisky. Some time ago I was on the Witwatersrand as a guest of a well-known body, and came into contact with quite a number of Scotsmen—Afrikanders get on very well with Scotsmen—with whom I drank brandy.

It is not matured ; that is the trouble.

Does the hon. member think that all the whisky imported here is old? The cure is not to drink so much.

What do you drink?

Wine and brandy. But the people who have such a particularly delicate palate must just pay a little more. Champagne is also highly taxed. I just want to say that the wine farmers are thankful to the Minister.

Item put and agreed to.

Item 50 (h) put and agreed to.

On item 65 (b),

As I understand it, the proposal is that the duty on ready-made clothing is to be increased from 15 to 20 per cent., and that there is to be a further reduction in the cost of materials to be imported for that trade. Last year, I understand that the duty on piece goods, which had up to then been 12 to 15 per cent., was reduced to 5 per cent., in the case of goods which contained not more than 50 per cent, of cotton. Now that is still further being extended so that practically all the material which this trade requires is to be admitted on a duty of 5 per cent., instead of the old duty of 12 to 15 per cent, and at the same time there is to be an increased customs duty of 15 to 20 per cent. I have read the Board of Trade report which advocates this increased duty, and I have never read a more bald and unconvincing document. It does not argue the case at all. It simply says that these people have asked for this protection, and that they recommend that it should be given. They mention one fact as regards the number of employees in that industry. In 1923-’24—I presume the latest figures available—the number of European and coloured employees in that industry was 1,848. They do not say how many European and how many coloured, but I have looked up the latest figures I could find for the whole tailoring trade, and find from the Census figures—the Department of Factories—that the tailoring trade, as a whole, employed 2,415. Europeans and 1,957 coloured. I turn to the figures given by the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger), in the budget debate, to see the direction in which we are moving, in employing more Europeans or more coloured in this trade, and find that in the Western Province in April of this year we employed 121 Europeans for every 100 we employed in July, 1925, but as regards Asiatics we employ now 130 for every 100 Asiatics we then employed ; so that the increase in Asiatics in the Cape Province employed in this trade is more in proportion than that in the Europeans. I find Port Elizabeth is better. There has been a greater increase in the number of Europeans than native or coloured employed and in East London, the figures are much worse. The percentage of Europeans now is 96 as against 100 before, and coloured has gone up to 136 as compared with 100 formerly. In Durban, for every 100 Europeans employed twelve months ago, only 94 find work to-day, but for every 100 Asiatics engaged a year ago there are now 125 at work. On the Rand the number of Europeans employed has remained unaltered, but for every 100 natives engaged a year ago, there are now 106, and for every 100 Asiatics employment is now found for 188. These figures show that the factories are moving in the direction of employing more coloured, native and Asiatic labour as against European, and that fact seems to be entirely ignored by the Board of Trade in its report. I commend these figures to the white labour advocates in this House. We are shutting out by a protective tariff goods made entirely by white labour in order to protect in this country an industry which employs half whites and half coloured. There is another aspect of this industry which never seems to have crossed the mind of the Board of Trade, and that is that this is an entirely artificial or bastard industry. It is neither a primary nor a secondary industry, but is probably a tertiary industry. The value of the materials produced in South Africa used by the industry for the financial year 1923-’24 was only £1,843, while the value of the imported materials it used was £869,344. This means that millions of people in this country, who wear ready-made clothing, are asked to pay more for that clothing, in order that there may be built up a small industry which does not utilize our primary products and gives work to only 2,000 people. That is the kind of protection I am against. It is absolutely unfair and unsound, and places burdens on the men who cannot bear them. The duty on readymade clothing will have to be paid by the average working man, the coloured man and the native. While I do not go to the length of the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) in his advocacy of free trade, I do say that we ought never to build up “tinpot” industries of this kind when it means increasing the burden on the whole mass of the people. It should be sufficient to give the industry the help it needs by remitting the duty on the material it imports, but the Minister’s proposals are unwise and unsound.

Business suspended at 6 p.m. and resumed at 8.6 p.m.

I understand that the Government’s high protection policy has for its object not only to provide opportunities for a few people in the country to make fortunes at the expense of the general public, but one of its objects is also to provide work for more white people. In the report which has been issued by the Board of Trade and Industries in connection with this duty on ready-made clothing, there is nothing whatever to show the necessity for this increase or to show how it is going to affect the general public, and I am afraid that the Board of Trade and the Minister of Finance are not so wideawake in connection with these matters as they ought to be. They are not carefully enquiring into how far their policy of high protection is providing work for more white people. It is a strange thing that, shortly after it was announced that the Government intended to impose this extra duty on ready-made clothing, an advertisement appeared in one of the Durban newspapers as follows :—

Applicants were to apply to a firm in Durban whose name I need not mention. The Minister knows the name of the firm, and I have asked him to look into the matter. It seems to me that that advertisement can only have one meaning. Why ask for “slightly coloured” girls? Are they likely to do the work better than any other coloured girls? It seems to me that the object was to get “slightly coloured” girls for the purpose of paying them coloured girls’ wages, but when it comes to a question of the number of Europeans and white people engaged in the work, the employer could pass them off as European girls. I hope the Board of Trade will go into the matter, and see that their intentions are not being evaded by means of this kind. I have seen, by recent investigations which have been reported in the newspapers, that a number of girls who are engaged in this class of work are getting very small wages, so small that in many respects one may be justified in saying they were being used as sweated labour. I know, from my own knowledge of some of these businesses, that they really do not need this increased duty. Some of them have been doing exceedingly well on the existing tariff duties, and I am certain that they do not require any additional duty in order to make their businesses pay. I think this increased duty is going to hit the poorer classes very sorely indeed. There is no doubt that it will raise the prices of these articles a little higher than they were, and that the poorer whites, the labouring men and the natives will have to pay more for this commodity than they have done in the past. One of the duties of the Board of Trade as laid down in the Acts is to show, when they are advocating increased duties, how these duties will affect the consumers as well as the manufacturers, and, so far as I know, they have been neglecting this duty in recent reports. I think the Minister, before he agrees to an increase of duty, ought to be satisfied as to how the consumers are going to be affected by it. Of all the duties embodied in the Minister’s tariff schedule, this is, I think, the least defensible, and I would strongly urge upon him either to drop it altogether or to allow it to stand over until further investigations are made. I hope the Minister will listen to reason, and do the right thing in connection with this matter.

I want to add my protest to what has been said about this extra duty, which, as far as I can learn and judge, is absolutely unnecessary. Certainly the board do not give any adequate reason for the increase. This additional impost is going to fall on the poorest classes of the community. Again, the industry concerned is purely a bastard industry. The biggest part of the materials used by it is imported. Then it is an industry which will tend, as it has tended already, to fall into the hands, so far as the work is concerned, of natives and Asiatics, especially Asiatics. That tendency is bound to increase, because they require cheap labour for this industry.

I have listened very carefully to the discussions on sugar and wheat, and I must say that I sympathize to a great extent with the attitude of the Government in trying to protect these industries, although I think they are going a bit too far in their protection policy. However, of all the items that we have on the schedule, this is, I consider, the most unjustified of all. We say that our policy is to build up industries in this country and provide work for the poor whites and the class of man who is not suited to the soil. Under this item we are protecting the ready-made clothing industry which the Government desire to establish. I ask the Minister who is going to pay for this protection? I think two classes will pay, and these are the farmer in the country and the native, the coloured man and the poor whites. At least twice a year we farmers have to clothe our servants. This additional duty means a tax on every farmer in this country, because he has to supply his servants with clothing. I want to look at the question from another aspect—the point of view of the native in this country. This industry, we must admit, can only be built up on the back of the native and the poor coloured man. Is it right for us to try to build up an industry in that way? We have already put additional burdens on the native. We have considerably increased the duty on cotton blankets. We have increased his poll tax. In the Eastern Province the farmer to-day is already saying—

Hon. members will be extremely surprised to find the number of sewing machines that are being imported into the native territories, and I am convinced that in a few years we shall see the natives themselves taking up this industry. The natives in their own areas will begin to make their own ready-made clothing. You cannot put a colour bar there ; you cannot prevent them. You will thus have two sections in competition, the white and the black. Which is going to survive? The Prime Minister has stated he wishes to build up an industrial policy among the natives. What is one of the first things he must encourage them to do? Is it not to make their own clothes? What is going to happen to this protected industry down here? It is going to die a natural death. My great objection to this tax is that you have already put heavy taxation on the native, directly and indirectly. As I said before, you have imposed extra taxation, and also put your cotton blanket tax upon him. Is that not sufficient for the time being? Of all the taxes imposed this is the least justified and the one calculated to do least good. We must admit that the manufacture at present, as far as clothing is concerned, is not carried on by the white man, but by the Asiatic and the coloured man. In justice to the farming community, because we have to pay it, and in justice to the natives, who cannot afford to pay it, I say this tax is not justified, and is not going to build up these industries which we, as protectionists, are trying to build up to-day. I protest emphatically against this tax ; I do not think it is in the general interests of the country, and I do not think that it will help to develop the country.

When the Minister is replying, I should like him to let us know whether he has considered an alternative method of giving help to this industry. I am not against the protection of these industries, but I naturally want to do it so that it inflicts the least hardship possible on the general consumer. I suggest to him that instead of putting on this extra duty, he might reduce the duties on piece goods.

I am reducing it on piece goods.

Yes, on cotton piece goods under 1s. 3d. a yard, but not over 1s. 3d. yard.

Woollens were reduced last year.

At present there is a duty of 5 per cent, on woollen piece goods, and there is going to be a duty on cotton piece goods over 1s. 3d. a yard of 12½ per cent. I suggest that instead of putting this extra duty on ready-made clothing, the Minister should consider letting in woollen piece goods and cotton piece goods free of duty, and then the cost of clothing would not be increased. It would not add to the cost of living. I do not support very heartily the idea that this is a bastard industry, or that any other form of manufacture is necessarily so. It would be as reasonable to apply that description to the cotton industry of Lancashire, because cotton is not grown in England. The real question is, what is the possibility of giving a considerable quantity of employment to people in our own country who perform certain portions of the manufacture of an article? What I would like the Minister to do this evening is to agree to delete this item altogether, and when we come to these reductions of which we have heard so much, he will be able to put both woollen and cotton piece goods on the free list. That would help this industry, and at the same time would not increase the cost of these goods to the consumers. I can assure the Minister that, at any rate in the early stages, it is going to hit the consumer, and it is going to hit the poorer class of consumer. It seems to me a very harsh burden to put on if there is another method by which you can obtain the end you are aiming at.

The object of the imposition of this duty is again because, according to the finding of the board, the prospects are that we are going to have an industry here which, although at present it only employs 2,000 people, will, if it develops, as we hope it will, probably employ about 6,000 people.

Where is the evidence?

This is a matter about which they can judge. There is absolutely no reason why clothing made overseas could not be made in this country ; I think that is common sense. The hon. member says the tendency is to employ Asiatic and coloured labour instead of white labour. Well, that is a matter which can be regulated by the machinery we possess ; the Wage Act will improve the position considerably, for instance. The hon. member showed me an advertisement where a Durban firm advertised for 20 slightly coloured girls. I understand this is a firm in a large way of business. This firm gives employment to a large number of white people, I am informed, and I understand the labour conditions of this particular firm are quite satisfactory. In one branch they employ coloured girls on second-hand clothing, because the white people will not do that kind of work. Hon. members say this will press on the poor people. I am surprised at the solicitude shown by hon. members opposite. We have other members, I suppose, who represent the poorer sections, and we have not heard much complaint from poor people there. The reason is that these poor people realize that this is a proposal which will mean providing work for them and their sons later on when the industry has developed. That is, after all, the most important problem in this country to-day—to provide work for the people. Hon. members have been saying that farming is an unpayable proposition, and that people are dropping out. That is so, and this is one of the ways that the Government has thought out for opening up new avenues of employment. The hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Payn) has again put up a plea for the native. I was very glad to hear from him that the native is importing sewing machines with which to make his own clothing. That is just what I said all along, and these proposals will help the native. If he makes his own clothing this will not press on him at all.

What about the colour bar?

That will not interfere with the native in the least. I let in the sewing machines free, and now I am letting in his piece-goods, and he will be much better off. The hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford) is not really a free trader, and now and then he wants to assist me a little. He has made a very nice suggestion that I should let in woollen and cotton-piece goods free of duty. I might have considered that, but, unfortunately, it will mean a surrender of revenue to the tune of £400,000. and I am afraid he would not be pleased if I put an additional sixpence on the income tax to recoup myself. The suggestion of my hon. friend is impracticable, for the simple reason it would mean sacrificing too much revenue, which I should have to make up in other and, perhaps, more objectionable ways. I do not think this duty will press too hard; after all, it is only an increase of 5 per cent., and we are giving relief in other directions, and on the whole, I think the chances of developing this industry are there, and if we achieve that, the people should be prepared to make this sacrifice.

I am sorry that the Minister is defending the increased import duty on ready-made clothes, I might almost say, in a frivolous way. I should like to know what the attitude of hon. members opposite would have been if they had been in opposition, and we had introduced this proposal. Then we should have heard the House ring with all their speeches on behalf of the poor man. My hon. friends sit on the Government benches for the most part through the vote of the poor man, and as a result of the promises made to the poor man. Now you see the way in which the poor man is rewarded for the political support he gave to my hon. friends opposite. I need not even speak about hon. members on the cross-benches, because it is their principle to support the poor man. This proposal is one of the fruits of the unholy pact between the Nationalist party and the Labour party. The Minister of the Interior also pointed out to the country in the past what an unholy thing a coalition was. The mouths of hon. members on the cross-benches are now gagged, and they dare not get up to-night to say a word for the poor man. What does this tax mean? We import ready-made clothes every year to the value of £2,000,000.

The money is paid to provide work abroad.

If the duty on ready-made clothes is increased by 5 per cent, ad valorem, it means that the poor man, white or coloured, will have to pay on an amount of £2,000,000 imported each year, the sum of £100,000 more as a result of this proposal. This also does not only mean the £100,000, because the merchant does not only calculate the tax to be paid, but also the turnover cost, the interest and other costs. For that one will have to add a large sum. It one can further say that the industry is not protected at all, then there will be something to be said for an increased import duty on ready-made clothes, but they are already liable to 15 per cent, ad valorem. I agree with what my friends on this side of the House have said, that this report is the weakest we have ever had from the Board of Trade and Industries about the protection policy. The Minister has acted wisely in rejecting many of the proposals of the board, and if he wishes to render a service to the poor man he will not increase the customs duty on ready-made clothes. The protection as a result of the import duty of 15 per cent, ad valorem is quite enough to enable the building of the industry here. I must protest against the increased tax, and I say it will press heavily on the poor part of the population, white and coloured. I think it is the right of my friends opposite, who have made promises to the poor man, to support such a proposal.

We want to give the poor people work.

Although I am in favour of a protection policy, I say that this kind of protection puts one against it. Protection of this kind stops development. The farmers have very often to make advances to their workpeople to buy clothes. The white man and the coloured man that is poor cannot go to a tailor to have a suit of clothes made. He must go and buy ready-made clothes in a shop, because they are much cheaper. Nor can the poor man go to a tailor for his children’s clothes. The mother goes to the shop and buys ready-made clothes for her children.

She can make the clothes herself.

I heard the Minister say a few times that the natives should make their the clothes, but he knows that that is impracticable. My hon. friend opposite, who has just made an interjection, said that the women could make the clothes themselves. To interfere with the woman in her daily work and to make family life more difficult for her is not the way to give work to the poor people. I think that the tax of 15 per cent, ad valorem, according to the existing law, is quite sufficient protection for that class of industry, and I personally protest against the increased customs duty.

I am sorry that the Minister took up a rather flippant attitude when he replied to the criticisms which have been raised. During the budget debate this particular question was raised and it was shown that a large number of coloured and Asiatic people were employed in this industry, but very few Europeans, and the reply from the other side was—

What will be the remedy to be applied in this case? Is it to be the Wage Bill or the colour bar Bill? If it is to be the Wage Bill, how is it to be applied? The Wage Bill does not allow any differentiation, I understand, between white, black or coloured ; therefore, white, black and coloured will all be placed on the same scale, and that means that in the Transkei you are going to pay the same standard of wages as for Europeans in the Province.

That is not so.

I say it is so. Why not? Is it the policy of the Government to differentiate between the European and the native in native territories in the application of the Wage Bill? It is a very difficult question, and the Minister will not reply. We have already had the Conciliation Board operating in the native territories, and in the printers’ trade there is a common wage for white, black or coloured fixed, or is the Colour Bar Bill to operate? I do not see how it can, because I do not see how anybody can argue that a sewing machine is a dangerous bit of machinery, and the Minister could not refuse to give a certificate of competency to a native who is using a sewing machine. Suppose I go to the Territories and start a ready-made clothes factory. What is going to happen? Suppose the rate of wages is lower than elsewhere ; would I be allowed to develop such an industry and export the clothing from the native territories to the European territories, in competition with European workmen? Of course not. The Government would soon put a stop to that. Undoubtedly a burden is being placed on the poorer section of the community, and We are building an industry on the backs of the natives and the poorer people, and such an industry will not be worthy of us.

One of the most extraordinary features of the discussion on this particular item has been the silence on the Labour benches. Even on the item of wheat and sugar some of them had sufficient sense of shame—may I put it that way?—to get up and deprecate, in a timid and hesitating sort of way, the imposition of these duties, and to protest against certain items ; but on this item not a single member on the Labour benches has had a word to say. If they represent the poorer classes in the towns, and they cannot deny that it is on these that a large impost falls, it seems that these members are entirely dead to a sense of duty to the persons who put them in power. The population on the Rand is watching them, and seeing what the so-called champions of the proletariat are doing. They will be told pretty often that they had the opportunity of voicing; protests against these imposts which all have the effect of raising the cost of living, and that not a voice was raised on the Labour benches;. I am as much a Labour man as any man sitting on the Labour benches. I do say, with all deference to the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford), that this is a bastard industry. This is a mining and an agricultural country, which is struggling to become an industrial one, and the right thing to do is to develop those industries which utilize the natural products of the country. There is no industry which uses such a small proportion of the natural products of South Africa, as this. This industry uses £1,843 of South African products and £869,344 imported. I want to tell the Minister of Finance the story of a similar industry which was attempted to be set up, and for which protection was sought some time ago. Protection was given to it, not by the present Government, but by the previous South African party Government, so, in no sense of the word, is it a criticism of the present Minister. A paper mill was started some 60 miles from Johannesburg, and £60,000 was spent on importing the latest machinery and setting it up. That industry had to import all its raw material—wood pulp from Sweden and Finland. They manufactured brown wrapping paper, and the Canadian industry started to dump The industry knocked at the door of Mr. Burton, and asked him to impose a dumping duty ; he referred them to the Board of Trade and Industry, which recommended a permanent duty on wrapping paper of, I think, ½d. to ¾d. per lb. weight. That duty was imposed, and is on the list to-day. Every shopkeeper and merchant who uses brown wrapping paper pays that to-day on the customs duty. The factory went into liquidation. The machinery realized £7,500, and the shareholders got nothing, but the burden that that industry caused to be put on the taxpayers remains to this day.

The customers pay it.

Yes, the merchants pass it on. That is one case in point. I appeal to the Minister. He has to force this duty through to-night ; but what I suggest is, that when similar suggestions are made next year, I hope he will listen sympathetically to the claims for an industry which can be said to be using the natural products of the country, and not an industry which imports practically all its raw material from other countries.

I think the Minister will not deny that I have always been a supporter of the policy of reasonable protection. I waited on the late Government and on the Board of Trade at various times on this question. I ask the Minister to hasten slowly in regard to protection on this particular item. I think the imposition of a higher duty on ready-made clothing should be preceded by a more thorough investigation of the conditions. There is no doubt that quite a number of the people who are manufacturing this clothing are manufacturing a very bad article, which is being foisted on the natives to a very wide-spread extent. It is within my own experience that a native in my employ the other day showed a most amazing pair of trousers which he had purchased. The first time he sat down body and soul parted, and he was left with the wretched things in his hand, and he had to have a day off to haggle with the man who sold them. Ill-considered high protection to those people who are turning out a bad article, as against a good imported article, is merely to put a premium on inefficiency. The Minister has spoken of a firm in Durban—the firm referred to by the hon. member for Durban (Berea) (Mr. Henderson)—and I understood him to speak favourably of that firm. My own impression is that that firm was brought before the board which dealt with undesirable conditions of employment of young, women, and although the law was defective, at that time it was clearly established that that firm was sailing very close to the wind. We have in addition a certain number of missionary institutions that are carrying on industrial work. I know of one which produces a large supply of ready-made clothing, and the labour is not paid for at all. The native there works for the love of the Lord, one might say, but certainly for no wages. The Minister shakes his head sorrowfully, but I think he will find that the natives employed in this occupation are having their religious feeling exploited, and a certain amount of ready-made clothing is being put on the market without standard wages or any wages having been paid therefor. All these matters should be investigated before the imposition of a higher duty. I am at one with the hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Payn) that the effect of putting on this duty now is going to be felt by every farmer and every native employed in the country. A bad time is before us, and with the present circumstances in which we are placed by the general strike in England I hope the Minister will reconsider the proposed duty. The Board of Trade is gaining the confidence of the public by degrees, and I feel sure there is a general wish to support it in establishing good and satisfactory and healthy conditions. But for heaven’s sake let us have investigation first and the imposition of a higher duty afterwards, if necessary.

Unfortunately we only have the figures up to the year ended 31st December, 1924. In that year we imported men’s clothing to the value of £2,293,217. The additional 5 per cent, which the Minister is putting on means roughly an additional burden of £110,000 per annum put on the poorer classes of this country. It does not affect the man who has his suit made, but the man who buys a ready-made suit. The industry in this country is going to get a maximum protection of £110,000. The Minister turned down my suggestion to reduce the duty on piece goods, because he said it would make a difference of £400,000 in the revenue. But I suggest that the maximum relief he need give this industry, on his own figures, is only a quarter of that amount, and I suggest to him that in view of the class of person on whom this burden is going to be put and the very considerable amount of the burden, he should consider my suggestion of deleting this item, and considering in his reductions certain reductions on piece goods.

I recently asked the Minister not to make the duty apply to a suit of ready-made clothes costing less than £2 10s. because that class of clothing is only bought by people who are almost unable to pay for it. I should like to protect the tailors, but the tailors charge too much for the poor man. If I am in order I should like to propose and I hope the Minister will accept that only such imported ready-made clothes as cost more than £2 10s. shall pay the increased duty of 5 per cent.

I would like the Minister to reconsider this matter. I think he has not given the question the full personal consideration which would have been advisable. I am pretty sure that at least 90 per cent, of the schoolboys of this country are clothed out of ready-made clothing shops, and that is another aspect that ought to be well considered. Hon. members opposite repeatedly say that the wives ought to make the clothes. The wives of South Africa already have their hands pretty well full in running their domestic duties and looking after their families, especially the farmers’ wives, who are the hardest worked women in the world, and to add a further burden to them is going a bit too far! I think the Minister should Jet this item stand over for further consideration. Though I am against this item, I am not going to call it a “bastard” industry and go into that aspect again, because few countries can produce all or even the greater portion of the raw material required for their industries. When it comes to protecting products of the soil, like wheat, barley and sugar, and industries which are germane to the country, its climate, geography and people, and employing numbers of white, coloured and black people, who all go to make up the population of the country, that is the sort of protection I want to see, and would support at any time, provided it is fairly applied. But when it comes to calling this an “industry,” because it employs a few people, though at the expense of the masses of the population—and the poorer members at that— and asking for this heavy protection, then I am against it. It is not only the natives and the very poorest working classes that will pay this tax ; it will go right through the body politic. Everybody who cannot afford to go to the tailor would have to pay this. It is just one of those constantly irritating things that will cause more trouble than if you clapped on with reason something worth bothering about. I do not think the amount the Minister is going to gain and the amount of protection to is going to give to this field of employment is worth the trouble it will cause. I would rather increase the fields of employment on the land and other legitimate industries by protective tariffs given to them, but not to this thing—I think it is a misnomer to call it an “industry” at all, though it is, of course, a limited “field of employment.”

Item put, and Mr. Blackwell called for a division.

Upon which the committee divided.

Ayes—S3

Allen, J.

Basson, P. N.

Bert h. P A

Boshoff, L. J.

Brins. G. F.

Brits, G. P.

Cilliers, A. A.

Conroy, E. A.

De Villiers, P. C.

De Villiers, W. B

De Wet, S. D.

Du Toit. F. J.

Fick. M. L.

Hattingh, B. R.

Havenga, N. C.

Hay, G. A.

Hertzog, J. B. M.

Heyns, J. D.

Hugo, D.

Le Roux, S. P.

Malan, C. W.

Malan, M. L.

McMenamin, J. J.

Moll, H. H.

Mostert, J. P.

Mullineux, J.

Munnik, J. H.

Naudé, A. S.

Naudé, J. F. (Tom).

Oost, H.

Pearce, C.

Pienaar, J. J.

Pretorius, J. S. F.

I. van W.

Raubenheimer,

Reyburn. G.

Rood, W. H.

Roos, T. J. de V.

Roux, J. W. J. W.

Stals, A. J.

Steyn, C. F.

Steytler, L. J.

Strachan, T. G.

Swart, C. R.

Van Broekhuizen,

H. D.

Van Heerden, I. P.

Van Hees, A. S.

Van Niekerk, P. W.

le R.

Van Rensburg, J. J.

Van Zyl. J. J. M.

Vosloo, L. J.

Wessels, J. B.

Tellers: Pienaar, B. J. ; Vermooten, O. S.

Noes—32.

Anderson, H. E. K. Ballantine, R.

Brown, G.

Buirski, E.

Close. R. W.

Coulter, C. W. A.

Duncan, P.

Geldenhuys, L.

Gilson, L. D.

Heatlie, C. B.

Jagger, J. W.

Krige, C. J.

Lennox, F. J.

Louw, J. P.

Marwick, J. S.

Miller, A. M Moffat, L.

Nieuwenlniize. J.

O’Brien, W. J.

Payn, A. O. B.

Pretorius, N. J.

Reitz, D.

Rider, W. W.

Sephton, C. A. A.

Smartt, T. W.

Snow, W. J.

Struben, R. H.

Stuttaford, R.

Van Heerden, G. C.

Van Zyl. G. B.

Tellers: Blackwell, L. ; de Jager, A. L.

Item accordingly agreed to.

On Item 69,

It would be interesting to know the reason the Board of Trade is taking up the question of ladies’ trimmed hats. I cannot find that any of the larger firms which make these hats even knew that any enquiry had been made into the subject. The general complaint against the board is that only the manufacturers are asked to give their opinions on tariff questions, but in this case not even the manufacturers were asked to express their views. The whole idea is ridiculous. The Government will bring about very little extra trade in the making of women’s trimmed hats by this tariff, but hon. members will find that they will have to pay more when they settle their wives’ millinery bills. The idea that we will be able to build up a big industry in the manufacture of ladies’ trimmed hats is more fit for “Punch” than for a practical assembly. In this case the Board of Trade has gone to a ridiculous extreme by suggesting that an industry worth having can be established in this country by the manufacture of an article which is very little worn to-day, for the bulk of women’s hats to-day are of the ready-to-wear style.

Item put and agreed to.

Item 76 put and agreed to.

On Item 89,

What is the reason for this suspended duty of 16 per cent, on buckets, skips, trucks, and tubs (wheeled or otherwise) for haulage or propulsion except by locomotives on rails or wire and metal shaft sets?

The Board of Trade recommended that protection be given to quite a number of engineering items, but a number of them the Government decided it would not be in the public interest to accept. I understand that the articles referred to in this item will be made within a very short time in this country and at a satisfactory price and quality, and when the Government is satisfied that this is done the Government will be able to put on the duty. There is no intention to impose the duty now, because we consider the industry has not developed sufficiently, but the industry will be watched.

Will wheeled pumps which are attached to spray pumps be included?

I do not quite know the kind of article the hon. member is referring to. We will protect articles which can be made here at a satisfactory price and quality.

It is quite possible that spraying pumps will be included?

Yes.

This is a fine “how d’you do” to put a heavy tax on the fruit-growing industry, as if it had not sufficiently heavy burdens already, and just for the sake of an industry which has not yet developed. Will dam scrapers be included? Hon. members opposite who are farmers do not know what they are going in for by agreeing to these proposals.

This is an example of a Board of Trade following out duties which the Prime Minister thought they should perform, but in which opinion he was quite wrong. The Prime Minister said the sole duty of the board was to see whether it could protect an industry or not ; as a matter of fact, the board’s duty is to investigate industries and see whether it is justified in protecting them. I want to warn the Minister and hon. members opposite that skips and tubs on aerial trams are constantly used in irrigation works. I imagine that every one of these things will be subject to this duty.

Not a single one of the articles mentioned in the item is used in agriculture. Sprays and sprinklers, to which the hon. member for Worcester (Mr. Heatlie) has referred, come in free under Item 191. The item under discussion consists entirely of mining requisites, and not a single one of them affects the farmers.

Why not wait until they are made here before putting a duty on?

They may be made during the year, and then the Government will be entitled to impose the duty.

May I point out how serious it is to schedule items in this manner? Even the Minister had to enquire whether the pumps to which the hon. member for Worcester referred are included in this item or not. I do not know now whether this will not refer to skips on trucks which are used in fruit packing sheds. This shows how dangerous it is to schedule articles without specifically stating what they are. The definition of the tariff will depend on the interpretation placed upon it by the Board of Trade or the customs department. I would like to know from my hon. friend if he is perfectly certain that wheeled dam scrapers will not come under this definition.

They are not on rails or wires.

There are many of these trucks used in the construction of dams which are run on small rails. They are often hauled by wire and run on rails. I am in favour of legitimate protection in this country, especially of the primary industries which show a chance of substantial development, but to protect everything simply because somebody asks for protection is inevitably going to lead to chaos.

The Board of Trade have made a very full and interesting report on the engineering question. With a good number of their proposals one may agree, but there is a considerable amount with which one could not agree. What wheels and what bearings are made in this country? There is one aspect of this question which I would like to put to the Minister and the House, and that is with reference to the suspended duty of 15 per cent. Most of these articles have got to be imported, in fact, almost all of them. Every man who tenders for these articles knows that he cannot get delivery for six months or more. Every single tenderer has got to include that 15 per cent, which is hanging over his head like a sword of Damocles all the time.

The suspended duty will not be put on without notice.

Any man who tenders for this stuff sot out here must take that 15 per cent, into consideration in framing his tender. A suspended duty is a two-edged sword ; it may smite in either direction. Considering that these things are not made in this country, I do not think there is any reason why this duty should be put on.

Notwithstanding what the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (South) (Mr. O’Brien) has just said, I think the Minister is well-advised to protect this first line of industry which is being turned out by the engineering shops on the Rand.

Not now. This is a suspended duty.

These articles are being turned out by the engineering shops now, and firms on the Rand have asked for protection because they are able to produce these articles. This is the first line of attack so far as our South African steel industry is concerned, and I think the Minister is wise in making provision by way of duty for these articles.

The Minister was under the impression that this proposal would not touch the farming interest in any way. I can give him two instances right away of how it will affect the farming interest. I do not know whether hon. members who come from up-country know much about our farming districts here, but in the district of the hon. member for Worcester (Mr. Heatlie) I have seen grapes coming in on trucks on rails. If the Minister can say that that item does not include those articles, I should like to know what English is. I will give the Minister another case. If he will go to any farm in the Western Province which is drying fruit, he will find them running their dried fruit on to the drying ground on trucks and on rails. That farmer is going to come under this duty. The more I listen to the Minister of Finance, the more certain I am that he does not really appreciate what this schedule of duties means. The Minister does not appreciate how very involved the whole thing is. You will have to have a department to give you the interpretations. Two or three items we have already passed will require special experts.

I am very sorry that hon. members are objecting to this item. They need only go to Johannesburg to see that all the articles mentioned here are manufactured there. Let us give the people a chance. There are hundreds of white people employed, and only recently seventy boys were employed there. We ought to grant this protection. As for viticulture. I have personally seen what plant is used, and which comes under this item. They are simply small things which the people can make themselves. They only have to buy a few steel wheels and can then build the appliance. If hon. members are not able to do it, I will show them the way. There is a place where the articles mentioned in this item are manufactured, and I do not think it is necessary to discuss this matter.

When the Minister laid his taxation proposals before us hon. members opposite said that farming machinery would escape. A commencement is being made here with the taxation of farming machinery. It is not actually the first, but the farmers will suffer much more through it than the hon. member for Witwatersberg (Lt.-Col. N. J. Pretorius) wants it to appear. You will find few farms to-day where the farmers go in for drying fruit and for vineyards on a large scale, who do not use trucks and trolleys. They will all fall under the schedule. I do not think the large appliances can be made in Johannesburg.

Yes.

And then, with the freight added, what shall we have to pay for them here? We must not be so reckless with regard to the suspended duty. It is a dangerous thing. Last year the Board of Trade and Industries recommended a suspended duty on wire netting and windmills. So it goes on, and still a duty on harrows.

I must say that it is very amusing when we are discussing farmers’ interests to hear the hon. members for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford) and Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) and others discussing them. The only member opposite who seems to me to understand farmers’ interests and to represent them is the hon. member for Witwatersberg (Lt.-Col. N. J. Pretorius), and he ridicules the hon. members opposite when they protest against the duty. If the things cannot be made well here then the duty will not be imposed. The hon. member for Newlands talks about the truck that he saw in the Worcester district. That is nothing compared to what we use on the countryside for building dams. We, however, are not worried about the matter. We know how the late Government was opposed to the farmers’ interests, and it is strange that hon. members opposite are now so worried about them.

I am surprised to hear the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Mr. I. P. van Heerden) talking contemptuously about the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford). That hon. member has two farms which the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet can go and see and, if he does so, then he will see that the hon. member for Newlands need not be ashamed of his farms, though he has only owned them for five or six years. There is more machinery on one of his farms than on any prackly pear farm in the district of Graaff-Reinet. I can say that I think we must be careful with the wording of this item because, as the hon. member for Worcester (Mr. Heatlie) has said, 10 per cent, will immediately be added to the price of trolleys if they are ordered from abroad.

I was really surprised at the speech made by the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Mr. I. P. van Heerden), because the hon. member comes from an irrigation district. In his district there are considerable works and developments. The hon. member knows perfectly well that, in the construction of dams in this country, the truck and rail has been very largely used. Does he acknowledge that?

Oh, yes.

In many suitable cases it has materially diminished the cost of construction of certain irrigation works. Not alone that, but in many places the truck and rail has been very successful, not only in helping the Railway Department to make embankments, but farmers are beginning to consider the advisability in this country, as in other countries, of running light rails into their agricultural lands and loading up their produce on to the trucks there so as to handle it economically. I do say that when you lightly come forward and schedule away a lot of articles before carefully considering what effect they will have, especially on the agricultural industry, then I say the committee or the Government are not doing the right thing. I do not want to stop the development of the engineering shops in Johannesburg, but I also do not want to see the farming population having to pay 15 per cent, without materially assisting the manufacture of these articles in this country, and also without assisting their own resources. Even with the 15 per cent, it will be impossible to get them down here from Johannesburg to compete with the imported article. That is why I say to the Minister that while we appreciate the care he gives to these things, he should not take for granted all that is told to him, but he should go very carefully into these matters and see how they affect industry.

There is no such intention. The article mentioned by the hon. member for Worcester (Mr. Heatlie) obviously does not come in under this. These are articles used by the mining industry, and that is what is intended. There is an item on the tariff, No. 118, wihch reads—

We can add here—

to make it perfectly clear that they shall remain if there is any doubt about it.

But that means apparatus especially meant for agricultural purposes, and these are used for other than agricultural purposes.

I am prepared to make it quite clear.

I am sure we are all very pleased to hear this concession that is now offered us by the Minister ; but how is he going to discriminate and differentiate? Let me give him an example. I do not know whether he has ever been in Zululand and seen the sugar growing industry. No industry, including the mining industry, uses more skips running on light rails than the sugar industry. I suppose the mileage must be hundreds. It would be impossible to carry on this industry without these skips and rails.

Is not the sugar industry an agricultural industry?

The Minister can take this from me, that the same type of skip is used for mining and for the sugar industry. What sort of legislation is this—that the mining industry have to pay fifteen odd per cent, extra for an article identical with that used in agriculture, and agriculture gets that in free? If the Minister says: “Such trucks or skips as can be used only for mining,” something may be said for it. I believe, from my personal observation, that there is a greater mileage of these light railways in the sugar industry than on the gold mines. I am reminded that, under item 138, cane trucks are also specially singled out for penalization. It is like the Irishman who cut off a bit from the bottom of his blanket and put it on the top. The same trucks are used for irrigation, drying fruit and so forth—how are you going to discriminate?

We have already done so, and say that all such implements used for farming come in free.

How are you going to work it, and on what principle? Surely it is making a laughing-stock of this tariff. If the Minister can tell me of a type of skip that can be used only by the mines, and you single out the mines for a sacrificial experiment. I would still oppose it, but there would be some method in it. Surely the Minister must see that there is something wrong about it. It is liable to fraud. Sugar people could get trucks in free, and sell them to the mines. My objection shows that there is a serious blemish in the practical application.

The hon. member forgets the existing basis of our present tariff. We have got it that the same article is imported free, and duty is paid if it is imported by other people. The Customs Department is to see and control it.

Mention a case.

There are more than a hundred of these articles that are admitted free—raw material—for an industry, but if they are imported for another purpose they pay duty. We have machinery, appliances and apparatus for agricultural purposes absolutely free, but for the mines it is not so.

What sort of machinery? Can you mention a case in point?

118 on the tariff. In the case of the mines, most of their machinery is not absolutely free as in the case of the farmers. That was altered last year.

To be quite certain that agricultural necessaries are excluded, I move as an amendment—

My difficulty is that where the same kind of truck is used in the mines and for farming, it will be impossible in practice to find out which are for the mines and which are meant for the sugar factories. What will prevent the sugar factories buying trucks free from customs duty and then sending them to the mines? There is nothing in the law which provides that the sugar plantations should not buy trucks one day and then sell them the following day to the mines. The Minister says that a clause of that nature is already contained in our law, but he could not mention a case where precisely the same object was used by the farmers and by the mines. I shall be glad if he will mention a case, not of more or less the same kind, but of precisely the same kind.

I spoke of the principle that the articles were allowed in free of duty for the industries.

I shall be glad if the Minister will give an instance of an article used by farmers and which is allowed in free for them, but on which the mines pay duty when it is meant for them. As trucks are today being used by hundreds and thousands, the door will be open for evasion of the law. As the Bill now stands, the sugar industry can buy 10,000 trucks and sell them the next day to the mines.

It seems quite clear from the Minister’s statement that this item is included as another imposition on the mining industry—the beast which bears the burden of the whole country. Wheels, axles and bearings are not made in this country, and I ask the Minister why they are included here? He should consider the desirability of excising these items.

The Minister is so keen to get this tariff established that he actually puts into the schedule things that are not yet made in this country, and in anticipation of their being made here puts on a suspended duty. Seeing Parliament meets every year, these could have been held over for twelve months, and by that time some experience might have been gained as to whether these things could be made here. The Minister wants a blank cheque to impose this duty of 15 per cent., and it is a monstrous state of affairs. Even if they were made here, the probability is that they would only be made in Johannesburg. Are we to pay the carriage of 1,000 miles?

Have we no engineering shops here?

Not shops of this kind. It would not pay to start shops of this kind. The suggestion has been made that this should apply to mining, and not to farming. We welcome concessions of that kind, but the difficulty is going to be in working this. A man may get in 500 trucks for stock. Some he may sell for mining purposes, and some for agricultural purposes. How is the Minister going to provide for a case of that kind? It is no use increasing the difficulties of the customs.

Clause 15 provides that the articles enumerated in that clause will be admitted free on importation if they are intended for use only in the manufacturing industry mentioned in each case. Then you have a number of industries, and we are from time to time adding to them. Take the mining industry. In that case it is free, but all the other people will have to pay for articles like eucalyptus and other oils, corduroy or battery cloth, etc. Other people have to pay, but the mines get these free. Then you get the paints and varnish manufacturing industries. They get in materials in bulk for manufacturing these things free, and other people have to pay. We have the necessary inspectors to control this and to see that the articles are imported for the purpose for which they are intended, and we are simply applying this principle here. It was never intended to extend to your farming industry. Under Clause 118 they would get these things in free. I am prepared to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Mr. I. P. van Heerden) to put in here that these articles shall not be subject to this duty when intended for the agricultural industry.

I do not think the Minister would lose much money by the concession he is giving. The articles enumerated here are not used very much on farms.

Go to the sugar industry and have a look.

The sugar industry is not typical of the whole of the farming industry, but even there the articles enumerated here are not bought every day. These things are used more on railway construction and irrigation works and that kind of enterprise. In regard to axles and wheels, it may be that there are not many of these things manufactured in this country at present, but they can he manufactured here quite easily.

Where?

There is one factory I know of at Benoni which can turn out castings—

Are they doing it?

They will, if they get the market.

They are not turning out one at the present moment.

They can and will do it. A great many members on the other side are not acquainted with the industries that are going on and developing in the country. It would be a revelation to these people to see the industries that are springing up on the Witwatersrand and taking on work which a year ago was not done in this country. If a five-or eight-inch shaft breaks anywhere, they can get the steel and turn it out, and surely they could do the wheels. The mining industry is the biggest purchaser. That industry could obtain these articles cheaper locally than they do to-day by importing, but they do not want to be dependent on the local industry. They foresee industrial trouble which might affect the workshop supply.

Entirely wrong.

That is not a feature of trade which should influence the Minister in putting on a tariff or taking it off. I am quite sure those people who are so solicitous for the mining industry are seeing ghosts where there are none.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (South) (Mr. O’Brien) says these articles are not being made in the country to-day. The very object of a suspended duty is to encourage industrialists to put down the necessary plant in order to make these things. It may be quite true that wheels and axles are not made here, but the duty will only be imposed as these things are manufactured satisfactorily. We may come along in a few months’ time and put a duty on the bodies of trucks which are already being made satisfactorily in this country.

The only machinery which is imported free for agricultural purposes is machinery not specially provided for. If you specially provide for any class of machinery, this exemption clause will not exempt agricultural machinery. It was not until we urged this most consistently that the Minister saw the point.

In view of the interjections of the hon. member for Maritzburg (South) (Mr. O’Brien), I would like to quote from the report of the Board of Trade showing what the actual position is. The board is convinced that local engineering workshops and foundries are in a position to manufacture iron and steel axles of sufficient quality and quantity. Foundries at Port Elizabeth which make windmill parts will have a good deal to say to the hon. member (Col. D. Reitz) for trying to prevent them getting a fair share of the work. The Board of Trade was informed that the most serious injury threatening the industry was the purchasing of articles overseas in large quantities which could be made here, the result being that the local engineering works are not able to produce them at the cheap rate they would be able to do if they received these large orders. The industries will not obtain these things cheaply until they are turned out here under mass production methods. Notwithstanding what the hon. member (Col. D. Reitz) said, the sugar plantations are using only a comparatively small quantity of skips and rails, most of them being, purchased second-hand from the coal mines round Natal. Most of the rails referred to by the right hon. the member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) were also purchased second-hand from the mines. I think the Minister is treating the report of the Board of Trade in a very equitable manner. It is perfectly certain that with this suspended duty it will not be very long before the engineering firms will be clamouring for increased duties on other articles which they can produce, and thus lead to the employment of a large number of additional men.

In the absence of the hon. member for Kimberley (Sir Ernest Oppenheimer), hon. members opposite seem to be strangely out of touch with the Chamber of Mines. The proudest boast of the gold mining industry of the Rand is the quantity of articles made in this country that it uses, thus showing what a valuable factor it is to the country in leading to the establishment of secondary industries. Shoes and dies are made on the Rand, and I am perfectly certain the Chamber of Mines will not thank the Opposition for opposing this particular item. I venture once again to warn hon. members opposite that unless they support industries, and thus broaden the basis of taxation, the burden of paying taxes must fall more and more heavily on the primary industry of mining. Hon. members opposite are indeed very ungrateful, seeing that the Minister of Finance has given the mining industry back £180,000 a year by abolishing the employers’ tax in the Transvaal.

We are doing nothing to oppose local industries, but we are certainly opposed to unscientific legislation of this sort and to anything that savours of exploiting the public. Apparently the Labour party are prepared to see the public exploited to an unlimited extent. The Minister of Finance, when I put it to him that it was an unusual principle to introduce into legislation a differentiation between the same article when used by different industries, told me that this principle was already embodied in our legislation, and he quotes in support eucalyptus and other oils used in connection with the extraction of gold. Surely the Minister does not think that that is an analogous case to the one I quoted of an identical truck being used by the mines and the sugar industry for an identically similar purpose. If the Minister cannot see the difference in principle between eucalyptus and oils used for extracting gold and a truck which is being used by two industries for exactly the Same purpose, I am sorry for his mentality.

Eucalyptus used by the mines and eucalyptus used for any other purpose is the same article.

There is a very great difference between the case the Minister mentioned and the case I mentioned. I would point out to him another anomaly. In item 89, if this amendment is accepted, on trucks used for mining purposes there will be a duty of 15 per cent., yet if he looks at item 138 he will find that the same trucks used for carting cane are to be subjected to a duty of 17 per cent. So that, although in the one case he is excluding agriculture, he is penalizing cane trucks under item 138. I do not know of any trucks which can be classed as purely cane trucks.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Item, as amended, put and agreed to.

Items 96 and 102 put and agreed to.

On item 103,

It says: “Superfluous” parts. That is surely wrong.

Yes, will the hon. member move an amendment?

I think we must alter “superfluous” into “reserve.” I move, accordingly.

I would like to know the reason of the Minister proposing to put a duty of 20 per cent, on spare parts of engines and motors for the fishing and whaling industry. Surely the men engaged in this industry are amongst the most hard-working men whom we have, and they are carrying on a very important industry, a food industry in this country, and yet for some reason or other we are going to mulct them in a duty of 20 per cent, on their instruments of work, on the tools they have to use. It seems to me a most disastrous suggestion to put this 20 per cent, duty on all spare parts for motors for the fishing and whaling industry, and I think the country would very much like to know why this industry is taken by the Minister for special persecution.

I would like to strongly support that. I think this is one of the worst items in the whole of the tariff. There is quite a large industry in Cape Town connected with fishing carried on by very poor people, chiefly Italians and coloured people, and here you are placing a duty of 20 per cent, on the instruments of their trade. Last time the Minister took something off, but now he puts something on. I think a thing of this kind is wholly unjust.

I want to give to the House the history of this taxation. Prior to 1924 a duty of 17 to 20 per cent, was levied on engines and motors and spare parts thereof for fishing and whaling boats, and as well on trawl and whaling winches. In 1924 one of the first acts of the new Government was to admit motors and engines, including spare parts for fishing boats at 3 per cent., but as regards whaling boats the position remained the same. Last year, under the revised tariff, they were admitted free. Consequently, even with this alteration the industry is still very much better off than it was prior to 1924. It was found that the motor engineering firms, both during the war and subsequently, did actually manufacture "these spare parts. The action which we took deprived the engineering workshops of the protection they formerly had. Consequently, I do not think we are creating a hardship at all. We are Imerely restoring to the engineering workshops the protection they bad formerly.

Have they asked for this protection?

Yes, and I am informed that the marine workshops in Cape Town did exceedingly good work. They have been supplying these articles right through the war, and after the war at satisfactory prices, and will do so to-day provided they can get the orders. We have shown we have sympathy with the fishing industry, because we have reduced the tax which they formerly paid, imposed by the previous Government, to a very considerable extent.

This shows the difficulty many of us are in. Here you have two conflicting industries. The fishing industry is one of our great potential industries, and if there is one that ought to have the utmost help it is that industry, because this is something which has to do with the great national treasures which we have in the sea all round here. I agree with the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) that it is unjust, but I also think it is very unwise, because you are doing more to damage the fishing industry by the difference you are making now, than you are doing to help the engineering industry by the change in its favour.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Item, as amended, put and agreed to.

Item 108 (e) put and agreed to.

On item 116.

I move, as an amendment—

I may explain the reasons for this. These articles were formerly admitted under this tariff 5 per cent, free, but then some doubt arose whether we were entitled to do this, and whether it was strictly correct, and then the idea was to bring them under the general ad valorem tariff. Representations were made showing that these articles were used to a considerable extent by municipalities and others, and we thought it wise to leave them where they formerly were.

In that event do they not come under 102?

Yes, they will come under that.

No, they will not. I do not know where they will come.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Item, as amended, put and agreed to.

On item 118,

What is the Minister going to do about rock-drill spares? Is he going to make any concession there? What is the meaning of this—

Is that going to be a burden on the sugar industry?

On the subject spare parts for rock drills, I should like to urge upon the Minister the desirability of differentiating in regard to some of these spares. It is perfectly true that there is a very encouraging development of the manufacture of rock drill spares in South Africa. The Government mining engineer’s figures show that whereas in 1920 the South African manufacturer did only £48,000 worth of trade, in 1924 he did £136,000 worth of trade, and the total trade now—that is, 1924— amounting to £416,000, is divided between the local manufacturer and the importer in the proportion of 33 per cent, local to 67 per cent, imported. But the position is that the local manufacturer is able to deal only with the non-essential sparts parts—such simple things as bolts, nuts, plungers, springs, water-tube rubbers and water connections, rotation parts, pistons, front-head parts and whereas the more elaborate spares, such as cylinders, valve-chests, cradles and so forth, are all dealt with by the rock drill manufacturer abroad. It is obvious, therefore, that the mere imposition of a higher duty is not going to make it possible for these spares to be manufactured in South Africa. A large number are of a specialized and patentable nature, and are not capable of being manufactured in this country at all. To deal with spares of this kind would acquire the installation of expensive machinery and the employment of the services of expert heat-treating specialists, with research and experimental departments to enable local manufacturers to make these parts successfully. The duty is not going to add to the local manufacture beyond the business that is at present done. As one who is not interested in the mining industry, but who some years ago worked on the East Rand, I was very much struck on a recent visit by the tremendously improve efficiency brought about by the extended use of jack-hammers and rock drills. Where in the past drilling was largely done by hand, now the increased use of jack hammers and rock drills has tended to a very satisfactory development in that these labour-saving devices have reduced the need for the employment underground of so large a number of hammer-boys, who are obliged to work underground, who in the past exposed themselves to phthisis. The extended use of improved rock drills has resulted in very much better conditions. The inventor of the better rock drill has been a benefactor in regard to the mines. I feel that the Minister may very easily differentiate between spares that can be made in South Africa and the more specialized invention that can be made only, and will be continued to be made, abroad. The rock drill manufacturers operate throughout the world, and most of their factories are abroad. The amount of trade done by them in South Africa does not justify their establishing factories to deal with the trade here. The increase in price of spares occasioned by the higher duty will not only affect the mining industry but the base metal mines, the collieries in Natal, tunnelling work, cement and irrigation works, and railway contractors, who use rock drills to a large extent. I hope the Minister will consider the question of differentiating between the spares that can be made here and those that are bound from the nature of things to continue to be made abroad.

The point of view put forward by the hon. member who has just spoken has been considered by the Board of Trade and myself. The position is not at all serious or difficult. It has been established that all these parts can and will be made there. It is very probable that this very company that has been supplying the mines in the past will have their own factory in this country before long, and the mining people do not view the position seriously at all so far as this alteration is concerned.

In regard to item 118, plates and frames for sugar, filter presses, is that not going to be a further tax on the sugar industry?

They can be made here and will be made here at satisfactory prices. It is not going to be a burden on the industry.

Where will they be made?

They will be made in the engineering shops in Durban.

Item put and agreed to.

On items 119 (a) and (b),

I want some explanation in regard to item 119 (a), machinery for the conversion and transformation of electric power. So far as I understand it, all industries using electric power will have to pay this duty. Then is item (b), batteries, etc., to provide for the American firm that is coming along?

As far as batteries are concerned, I explained before that there are about four different duties here ranging from 20 per cent, to 3 per cent, and of course it is very difficult for the department to control the purpose for which these batteries are used, and they have laid down a flat rate of duty, but that will incidentally have the result, probably, of getting the industry here for manufacturing these batteries. At present it is a tariff adjustment, but with the 20 per cent, flat rate, it is probable we will get an industry here.

Will this include all the batteries for motor-cars and lorries?

Yes.

A large number of batteries are made in this town even at present. My hon. friend must realize that you are going to put this heavy tariff on users of motor-cars.

The motor industry pays 20 per cent., and we are reducing it to 5 per cent.

The duty on batteries for motor vehicles is now 20 per cent. Will the additional duty of 5 per cent, be imposed on these batteries? The position is far from clear. The Minister should give us some explanation.

The present position is that motor-car batteries pay 20 per cent., wireless batteries 3 per cent., and batteries for general purposes 5 per cent. We propose to make the maximum duty 15 per cent, plus, of course, the suspended duty. I have an amendment which I shall be glad if some hon. member will move. To add at the end—

I move, as an amendment—

At the present time batteries for wireless purposes come in free, but under these proposals they will pay 10 per cent, plus a suspended duty of 15 per cent. In other words, it will be 25 per cent, without any free list whatever. Then I come to the next item, motor vehicles. At present they pay a duty of 20 per cent. There is no preference. Now they are going to pay 20 percent, plus a suspended duty of 10 per cent. That is if they are manufactured here, and my hon. friend thinks he is justified in putting on the suspended duty. The batteries for all motor vehicles in this country will have to pay a duty of 30 per cent. Can my hon. friend give the committee any idea as to what information he has in regard to the likelihood of a manufactory of that sort being established here? I am extremely afraid that this duty has been put on solely and entirely for the purpose of encouraging an American electrical manufacturing company to establish a factory here. We all know that if that is established and you get a monopoly, we shall very soon have to pay heavy rates for the batteries that we use for our motor-cars, motor-lorries and trucks. I have been told that representations have been made either to the Government or the Board of Trade by American firms, which is the reason why this duty has been introduced.

I have no information as to the probability, but I understand it is possible we may get a factory here. I do not know who the people are, whether they are Americans or anybody else, but I shall be only too glad if they come here.

Why not ask your advisers if they know whether that information is correct or not?

I do not see that it affects the question whether they are Americans or anybody else. Provision is made here for a minimum duty. If there is anything in the nature of a monopoly or the public are being fleeced, of course, the suspended duty, in the first place, need not be put on, or we may revert to the minimum duty.

An American manufacturing firm has approached the Board of Trade, judging from their report, with the idea of starting a factory here. All I can say is that if this country falls into the hands of a huge manufacturing firm we shall have a monopoly, and we shall have to pay.

I suppose other people will start the thing, too.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Item, as amended, put and agreed to.

On item 126,

This is what we call rectifying a customs omission. The base metals came in free, and we want to classify them where they should be under the general ad valorem rate.

It is not protection for the mining industry?

No.

Item put and agreed to.

On item 127,

What are these metal sheets, metal badges and number plates? These have to be paid for by municipalities for street lettering, I suppose. You simply increase the burden on local government. Are these going to be made in South Africa? Where?

In my division.

And what is going to be the cost of bringing them down here by rail? There is no consideration being given to the factor of carriage on these things as far as I can see. What are these metal sheets, anyhow?

It may interest the hon. member to know that these are made in my own division and supplied to all the municipalities in South Africa. The carriage is no greater from Durban to Johannesburg than from Cape Town to Johannesburg if they were imported.

Item put and agreed to.

On item 129,

I was hoping the Minister was going to move the deletion of—

The ways of the Board of Trade are extraordinary.

Devious and past finding out!

Can the Minister explain this: That a motor chassis is held to include lamps, windscreens, speedometers, oil and petrol gauges, self-starters, buffers, etc.? It is held that a speedometer is part of the chassis, but the wheels on which the chassis can move are excepted., I would like the Treasury to order a motor chassis and have it priced, and have it delivered without tyres. What would they say. Had the contract been carried out or not? Of course it would not have been carried out. If you order a chassis it has to be delivered with four tyres on it. The speedometer cannot work unless the tyres are on.

That was a concession.

I would like to suggest to the Minister that he allows me to move the deletion of these words.

No, no.

I understood when the Minister was making his budget speech that this was a sort of halfway house between the position arrived at last year, and the position he now wishes to arrive at. Last year, apparently, the duty was fixed at 20 per cent, to encourage body building in this country, but it was reduced to 10 per cent, in the case of a chassis. I understood him to say that a body building industry would arise if protection was given to this extent, and that a remission was given where the parts of the body were imported, and the body put together here. I do not know whether that is so, but even if it is so, one doubts very much what particular advantage would accrue to the country. It would be assembling body parts to put together here.

Ten per cent, still remains.

So that the body manufacturer, if he is prepared to make the body entirely in South Africa, gets a 10 per cent, preference, but if he makes it from parts imported, he gets 5 per cent.? It is very difficult to understand.

The original 10 per cent, will still remain if the body is made wholly from South African material. The other intermediate duty is put up when a part of the body is made from South African material and certain completed parts are imported. I am sorry I cannot explain exactly what parts, but I understand very extensive machinery would be necessary to do the stamping of the back steel part which would be imported ready stamped. There are a number of things manufactured here from South African materials in connection with the body. Quite a large part of it will be manufactured here.

Will they use South African leather for the cushions.

I cannot say, but they have satisfied the Board of Trade. Every possible part that can be made from raw material will be made; but it is these steel stampings used in connection with the body which require expensive machinery which we will allow them to import.

Business interrupted by the Chairman at 10.55 p.m.

House Resumed :

Progress reported ; House to resume in committee to-morrow.